Nuclear Special Forces Only BRICS countries will survive

Foreword by the Saker: Today I am posting an article with great reluctance but with a sense that what this article conveys must be made public in the West. I will tell you immediately that I am sickened by the idea that Russia might simply completely destroy the entire USA, be it by “regular” nuclear strikes, by blowing up the Yellowstone caldera or triggering a tsunami. In my years as a student in the USA (in Washington DC), I did a lot of nuclear exchange modeling as part of a nuclear force planning course. And in the back of my mind, I always thought that if I was the General Secretary of the CPSU (it was still the Cold War), I would *not* retaliate in kind to a US strike. Russia would perish, but that would be Russia’s last gift to mankind: life. Russia would chose to sacrifice herself and let herself be destroyed like Saints Boris and Gelb had done at the begging of the (old) Russian history, the Russian New Martyrs did at its end, without striking back, just like Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. But I kept my mouth shut as expressing such ideas was not exactly the point in a course of nuclear force planning…

I shared my thoughts with Eugenia, who translated this article, and who replied “My thoughts exactly. But I guess the nuclear weapons no longer quite work as the deterrent, do they?” She is absolutely correct. Nuclear weapons apparently don’t scare enough. How crazy is that?! Still, apparently, the AngloZionists need to be scared some more, with some even more horrible consequences. Fair enough, I rather provide nightmares than let our civilization mindlessly slough into a nuclear war.

The article below serves one main purpose: it should show those in the USA who seriously believe that can “defeat” Russia that Russia can simply wipe the entire USA off the planet, literally. Keep in mind that the plans outlined here are old, nothing new here. They were considered by the Soviet General Staff during the war and, as far as I know, rejected on grounds of being simply too horrible.

What will Russia do in case of war? I don’t know. At heart, as you have already guessed it, I am a non-violent pacifist. It is the study of warfare which turned me into one. I don’t want Russia to ever retaliate in that manner. But since the goal of post today is to frighten you all, let me add this: I am not at all convinced that the folks in the Kremlin, General Staff and Strategic Rocket forces share my pacifism. In fact, they are not only selected because they don’t have that kind of ideas, they also practice them on a regular basis (the personnel is never told weather a nuclear alert is real of not, so they have already “turned the key” many times!).

And now, enjoy your nightmare!

The Saker
——-

Nuclear Special Forces Only BRICS countries will survive

Source http://vpk-news.ru/articles/24405

by Konstantin Sivkov, President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, D.Sci.

translation by Eugenia

Russia might have asymmetrical mega-weapon by 2010-2025. It will exclude any possibility of a large-scale war against Russia, even under conditions of absolute superiority of the adversary in traditional weapon systems.

A new Cold War is being initiated against Russia. More precisely, it never stopped. The West is consolidating the success of the previous stages of the Cold War and has started to prepare for its conclusion.

Asymmetrical solution

The West again today, as in the mid-20^th century, is building the “iron curtain” and conducting the same policy of military blocs by increasing the size of NATO forces and moving them closer to the Russian borders. However, for us the situation is much worse that half a century ago. The economic potential has been significantly reduced; dependence detrimental for the national safety has been developed on the main adversary as the source of high-end technologies; the moral compass in the form of the communist ideology has been lost; there is no longer a significant community of allies in Europe similar to the Warsaw pact; western-oriented oligarchs and connected with them liberal state officials are dominant in the industrial and financial sectors. Russia is simply in no position to compete with NATO and its allies in the sphere of the military technology.

Thus, under the circumstances it is imperative to seek novel approaches to ensure military safety, specifically in the area of strategic containment. The key task in this regard is to maintain the high potential of the nuclear forces. However, there are drawbacks. In spite of their relatively (as compared to other types of military forces) small size, nuclear weapons require significant resources. Due to mounting economic problems associated with sanctions and crushed oil market, the country may simply lack the necessary resources to maintain its nuclear forces at the required level of readiness. The strategic nuclear forces (strategic rocket forces, nuclear submarines, strategic and distant bomber aviation) comprising more than one hundred thousand people are vulnerable to partial neutralization by the information war methods. The system of the fast global attack by the US could in near future be able to neutralize all or the main part of the Russian nuclear forces via a combination of “beheading” (at the command sites controlling the use of the strategic nuclear arms) and “disarming” (directly at the carriers of the strategic nuclear weapons) strikes. Finding asymmetrical ways of strategic containment is critical for our country. That is what the President was talking about when he said that we would not engage in the arm’s race but will take asymmetrical measures. Obviously, this implies completely new weapons based on ideas quite different from existing ones.

Technical requirements for the mega-weapon

Based on the analysis of the situation with the strategic containment forces, these new weapons should fulfill certain requirements. First of all, they should guarantee the defeat of the enemy. The system should be able to hit the enemy with hundred percent reliability, and the force of the attack should be sufficient to achieve complete containment. Furthermore, the system should possess the attack capabilities that would prevent its neutralization by any means, not only existing today but also by the most sophisticated counter-weapons yet to be developed.

The most important feature is the assured ability to use the system when there is the will of the political leadership of the country to do so and when there are objective conditions requiring its use. This is particularly important considering that the positions of the pro-Western elements are still quite strong, particularly in the higher echelons of the governments including the military leadership. When massive informational and psychological pressure is applied, it becomes questionable whether they would follow the order to employ the strategic nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the number of people in the strategic nuclear forces is too high to be absolutely certain they will be deployed, particularly at times when the society is split.

The requirement for the minimal number of people for the service and operation of the asymmetrical system of containment comes from these considerations. This number should be small enough, so the absolute or near guarantee could be achieved of the loyalty to the political leadership of the country and of the readiness to carry out the order to employ the system regardless of the situation in the society and personal emotions. This means that the personnel of the asymmetrical system cannot exceed several thousand people.

Comparing the power that contemporary science is capable of delivering with the required damage we conclude that we cannot achieve the needed result without the use of the secondary destructive forces. First that come to mind are geophysical catastrophic events. Exceeding in power the mort powerful nuclear bombs by many orders of magnitude, geocatastrophes could be deliberately initiated via relatively weak forces. That is why the weapon of the asymmetric response is based on the use of the main destructive factors of the devastating geophysical processes.

One more requirement is the asymmetry of the threat. Such system should damage the side using it incomparably less than the enemy. This is achievable considering the geographical features of Russia and the USA.

Future without America

Importantly, Russia is located on the Eurasian continent, with the main part of its territory housing most of the country’s population distant from the oceans and seas. Besides, the average elevation above the sea level practically guarantees protection against flooding even in cases of massive catastrophic events involving powerful tsunami (megatsunami).

The picture in the USA is different. More than 80% of the population lives close to the ocean in areas with low elevations over the sea level. The main industry is also located in such territories. Even relatively weak tsunami with the height of several dozens meters could have catastrophic consequences for the US. The hurricane Kathrin in New-Orleans showed this quite clarely.

Caption:

New Orleans flooded as a result of the hurricane Kathrin feels the consequences of the cataclysm even today 10 years later.

Another feature of Russia is that the main part of its territory in Siberia lies on a thick (several kilometers) layer of basalt. It is believed that these basalt platforms were formed as a result of an eruption of a super-volcano that happened about a quarter of a billion years ago. That is why the hits, even the most powerful ones, will not have catastrophic geophysical consequences.

What about the US? First that draws our attention is the Yellowstone National park located in the caldera of the supervolcano of the same name. The supervolcano, according to the estimates of geologists, is approaching the period of activation, which happens every 600 thousand years. Its last eruption happened approximately that long ago. The power of this volcano is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of the Siberian one. That is why its eruption did not lead to the extinction of life on earth but it did, without doubts, have catastrophic consequences for the American continent. Geologists believe that Yellowstone volcano can erupt at any moment. There are clear signs of its increasing activity. Therefore, even a small push, for example, an explosion of a megaton-sized bomb, might be sufficient to initiate the eruption. The consequences for the US would be catastrophic – that country would simply cease to exist. The entire territory would be covered with a thick (several meters or even dozens of meters) layer of ash.

San-Andreas is another vulnerable zone in the US from the geographical point of view. San-Andreas is a fault of 1300 kilometers in length between the pacific and northern American plates. It is stretched along the seashore in California in places over the land but partially underwater. The faults San-Gabriel and San-Jacinto are running in parallel. This is the area of geophysical instability producing earthquakes up to magnitude 8.5 on the Richter scale. An explosion of a powerful nuclear bomb could initiate catastrophic events leading to the creation of large tsunamis that would destroy the infrastructure of the US Pacific coast.

Finally, we should not forget about the Atlantic and Pacific transform faults. Running parallel to the eastern and western US coast, respectively, they could be the source of large tsunamis that would cause massive damage at a significant distance from the shore.

Detonator for a catastrophe

Thus, the US is quite vulnerable a country from the geophysical standpoint. What remains to do is to determine how to initiate geophysical processes on such a scale. Let us take a look at the history. In 1961, the largest ever thermonuclear bomb was detonated at five thousand meters over the northern tip of New Land (Novaya Zemlya). According to known estimates, its power was 58 megatons. However, western experts came to the conclusion that the total energy was not utilized, since the bomb did not seem to have the coat of uranium-238, which is capable of increasing the power of the explosion at least 50 percent to two-fold, i.e. to more than 100 megatons. Ammunition was made in the shape and size of the 16-ton bomb and dropped from Tu-95 “Bear” airplane. Today ammunition of the same power, according to the opinions of scientists in the Russian nuclear center in Sarov and the authoritative Russian expert in the field doctor of science Igor Ostretsov, could be made within 5-7 ton. That is, it could be easily accommodated in terms of size and weight by heavy rockets (the weight that could be carried by “Satan” – about 8 tons). It is also could be carried by satellites sent to the orbit.

Existing agreements about the parity of the nuclear arsenals do not impose any limitations on the power of separate ammunition units. They only control the number of such units. However, the mega-weapon will not require too many bombs.

The day after tomorrow

The best option for a guaranteed initiation of catastrophic geophysical processes would be a hit on the Yellowstone supervolcano. Even a single surface explosion of a 5-7-ton ammunition would initiate a powerful eruption. As a result, the US will cease to exist, although the consequences would be catastrophic for the rest of the world as well. Russia would suffer the least – because of the distance from the site of the explosion, the size of the territory and its location. Also, the damage to the countries located on the opposite to the US sides of the earth would also be limited. Nevertheless, let us stress that the explosion would be a disaster for the entire civilization. But that is the reason for the existence of such a weapon. The very possibility of its use should put an end to any thought of aggression against Russia.

An alternative version of a megahit would be to initiate gigantic tsunamis. The idea belongs to Andrei Sakharov. Its essence is to detonate several bombs at defined points along the Atlantic and Pacific transform faults (approximately 3-4 for each) at the depth of 1.5-2 kilometers. This will, according to the calculations of Sakharov and other scientists, produce a waive that will reach 400-500 or more meters near the US shores. Crushing on the shores, the waive would wash away everything at the distance of more than 500 kilometers. If the explosions are made deeper closer to the bottom of the ocean where the earth crust near the plate joints is the thinnest, the crust could be destroyed, and the magma coming in contact with the ocean water would amplify manifold the intensity of the explosion. In such case, the height of the tsunami would exceed 1.5 kilometers, and the destruction zone would extend more than 1500 meters from the shore. This would be a very “clean” weapon – the nuclear winter would not come, since gigantic dust clouds would not form, and water vapors would pour over the land close to the point of their formation, i.e. on the US territory, as horrific radioactive rain showers. Such a hit would undoubtedly start tectonic activity in the entire region, including, very possibly, eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. The reverse waive would wash away Europe. In other words, the entire block NATO would be gone. The cataclysm would be horrendous. But this is the asymmetric threat of the last resort – some region of Russia will also be destroyed, but at the same time the entire Western civilization will be no more. Even detonation of a single powerful bomb near the faults of San-Andreas, San-Gabriel, or San-Jacinto would lead to devastating geophysical effects.

Apocalypses – simple and cheap

The scenarios discussed above demonstrate that the number of superbombs required for the asymmetrical weapon is quite limited – about ten. This creates advantageous conditions for their guaranteed use in accordance with the requirements for the asymmetrical weapon stated above.

The delivery of the bombs to the destination could be accomplished in several ways. First of all – using several monoblock heavy ballistic missiles that, launched together with the supporting rockets, could overcome all systems of counter-missile defense, even those to be developed in the distant future. A limited number of special launch systems in shafts could be reliably protected via a system based on both protection by force and the regime of secrecy. Such missile could be developed for the strategic submarines “Typhoon” (project 941). Their rocket shafts are designed for the 96-ton P39, which would easily accommodate contemporary heavy rocket with the required payload. One such submarine would be sufficient for the asymmetric containment.

Superbombs integrate with the promising hypersonic rockets launched form submarines of land-based launch sites. Also, the megabombs could be secretly positioned in advanced in the designated points at the required depth from the navy ships disguised as civil ships. At the appropriate moment, these bombs could be detonated on command transmitted to them via a complex connection system that would ensure guaranteed signal transmission. When the situation has stabilized the bombs are removed by special ships.

The time required to design and manufacture the bombs of the required size would take, according to the experts, from 5-6 to 10-12 years. About the same time would be needed to develop and manufacture the required number of carriers. This means that Russia could possess the asymmetric weapon within the next 10 years. The emergence of such weapon will exclude any threat of the large scale wars against our country even in the condition of the enemy’s overwhelming superiority in traditional weapon systems.

Konstantin Sivkov

Daniel Rich on April 29, 2015 · at 10:05 pm EST/EDT

@ Aristide,

Q; The amount of energy involved in causing a tsunami or an explosive volcanic eruption are orders of magnitude greater than even the Tsar Bomba could release.

R; History [science + facts] prove your thesis to be wrong

Prehistoric

The asteroid which created the Chicxulub crater in Yucatán approximately 66 million years ago would have generated megatsunamis as high as 5 kilometres (3.1 mi), enough to completely inundate even large islands such as Madagascar.[3]

A series of megatsunamis were generated by the bolide impact that created the Chesapeake Bay impact crater, about 35.5 million years ago.[4]

An asteroid impact in the southeast Pacific Ocean 2.5 million years ago caused a megatsunami that was over 200 m (660 ft) high in southern Chile and the Antarctic Peninsula; the wave swept across much of the Pacific Ocean.

The northern half of the East Molokai Volcano suffered a catastrophic collapse and likely megatsumami about 1.5 million years ago and now lies as a debris field scattered northward across the ocean bottom,[5] while what remains on the island are the highest sea cliffs in the world.[6]

A massive collapse of the western edge of the Lake Tahoe basin, which formed McKinney Bay around 50,000 years ago, is thought to have generated a tsunami/seiche wave with a height approaching 330 ft (100 m).[7]

At Seton Portage, British Columbia, Canada, a freshwater megatsunami may have occurred approximately 10,000 years ago.[8] A huge block of the Cayoosh Range suddenly slid northwards into what had been a large lake spanning the area from Lillooet, British Columbia to near Birken, in the Gates Valley or Pemberton Pass to the southwest.

Approximately 8,000 years ago, a massive volcanic landslide off of Mt. Etna, Sicily caused a megatsunami which devastated the eastern Mediterranean coastline on three continents.[9]

In the Norwegian Sea, the Storegga Slide caused a megatsunami approximately 8,000 years ago.[10]

Approximately 6,000 years ago, a landslide on Réunion island, to the east of Madagascar, may have caused a megatsunami.[11]

Modern

1792: Mount Unzen, Japan
Main article: 1792 Unzen earthquake and tsunami

In 1792, Mount Unzen in Japan erupted, causing part of the volcano to collapse into the sea. The landslide caused a megatsunami that reached 100 metres (330 ft) high and killed 15,000 people in the local fishing villages.[citation needed]

1958: Lituya Bay, Alaska, USA
Main articles: 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami and Lituya Bay
Damage from the 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami can be seen in this oblique aerial photograph of Lituya Bay, Alaska as the lighter areas at the shore where trees have been stripped away.

On 9 July 1958, a giant landslide at the head of Lituya Bay in Alaska, caused by an earthquake, generated a wave with an initial amplitude of up to 520 metres (1,710 ft). This is the highest wave ever recorded, and surged over the headland opposite, stripping trees and soil down to bedrock, and surged along the fjord which forms Lituya Bay, destroying a fishing boat anchored there and killing two people. Howard Ulrich and his son managed to ride the wave in their boat, and both survived.[1]

1963: Vajont Dam, Italy
Main article: Vajont Dam

On 9 October 1963, a landslide above Vajont Dam in Italy produced a 250 m (820 ft) surge that overtopped the dam and destroyed the villages of Longarone, Pirago, Rivalta, Villanova and Faè, killing nearly 2,000 people.[12]
1980: Spirit Lake, Washington, USA
Main articles: Spirit Lake (Washington), 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and Mount St. Helens

On May 18, 1980, the upper 460 meters (1,509 feet) of Mount St. Helens failed and detached in a massive landslide. This released the pressure on the magma trapped beneath the summit bulge which exploded as a lateral blast, which then released the over-pressure on the magma chamber and resulted in a plinian eruption.

One lobe of the avalanche surged onto Spirit Lake, causing a megatsunami which pushed the lake waters in a series of surges, which reached a maximum height of 260 meters (853 feet)[13] above the pre-eruption water level (~975 m asl/3,199 ft). Above the upper limit of the tsunami, trees lie where they were knocked down by the pyroclastic surge; below the limit, the fallen trees and the surge deposits were removed by the megatsunami and deposited in Spirit Lake.[14]

Source; wikipedia

156 Comments

Natoist for money on April 29, 2015 · at 1:09 pm EST/EDT

America will start a nuclear war….for the rest who cares.
If one American survives, America wins.
- Saibot on April 29, 2015 · at 2:04 pm EST/EDT
  
  Have you actually read the post?
- Tom Welsh on April 29, 2015 · at 2:34 pm EST/EDT
  
  “If one American survives, America wins”.
  
  Maybe, if he happens to be in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina… So you really think that would be a “win”? I do understand the human beings are not actually descended from chimps (parallel branch) but sometimes I really wonder.
- David Chu on April 29, 2015 · at 11:47 pm EST/EDT
  
  Spoken like a True Yankee Idiot!!!
  
  USA! USA! USA!
  
  We’re Number One!
  
  We’re Number One!
  
  We’re Number One!
- Erebus on April 30, 2015 · at 6:43 am EST/EDT
  
  Your pithy little comment has a dark origin:
  
  The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win.”
  General Thomas Power, 1960
  
  Gen. Power was Commander in Chief of the Strategic Air Command, and Director of the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff until 1960. Even Curtis Lemay, a rabid hawk, viewed him as “unstable”.
  That the system seems to facilitate the rise of madmen to the top of the power pyramid is what gives me the heebeejeebies. One day, there will be enough of them hovering near the top to do something catastrophically stupid.
  - Power or Powers on April 30, 2015 · at 8:26 pm EST/EDT
    
    This General Thomas Power,
    
    Any relation to that screaming banshee idiot Samantha Powers? ;-)
    
    Just wondering since in the General’s case and in her case stupidity, venality(being a willing lapdog for her team) and…… insanity seems to run in families.
  - Anonymous on May 01, 2015 · at 5:50 am EST/EDT
    
    Breedlove comes to mind
- Anonymous on May 04, 2015 · at 12:47 am EST/EDT
  
  I think some people here don’t understand your satire.
tc on April 29, 2015 · at 1:49 pm EST/EDT

We could even call it, say…project atlantis mabbe…
- no mercy on April 29, 2015 · at 2:27 pm EST/EDT
  
  Nice hint for Al-Qaeda indeed. 1 megaton bomb is almost a DIY project. Placing it in the Yellowstone park is also possible. World will be a better place. For the USA everything will end where it started with concentration camps for Indianas,
  yeah long before the British, Stalin or Hitler messed with camps.
  - Anonymous on April 29, 2015 · at 7:05 pm EST/EDT
    
    Native Americans would die too …
    - CalDre on April 30, 2015 · at 4:29 am EST/EDT
      
      You’re trying to reason with that dimwit that wrote that – not just calling for genocide of 400 million people but blatant historical falsification?
      
      There were no “concentration camps” for Native Americans. There were reservations but that’s hardly the same.
      
      The Polish historian Konopczyński claimed concentration camps originated in Poland during the Bar Confederation rebellion (1768–1772), when the Russian Empire established three camps for Polish rebel captives awaiting deportation to Siberia.
      
      But surely Mr. “no mercy” would not let facts, truth, logic or mercy stand in the way of his bloodlust.
      - no mercy on April 30, 2015 · at 6:56 am EST/EDT
        
        Well,
        reservations you probably consider too good for them? makes no difference as they were expelled, killed and robbed of their land. Import of slaves followed. What a beautiful tradition, the Hiroshima nuking was just a one of many highligts, must be continued and it is – blackmailing whole world.
        Are you really proud how the short bloody history of your country began?
        Some 200 wars in about 300 years…
        Read the widely known facts above,
        do not rely on Polish historian regarding their innocence.
        Read about Poles who have put returning Jews and other nationalities in the ex-Nazi camps just after liberation after WW2!
        You can play around with cancer and watch the slowly death,
        or just cut it out and regret every minute you are late.
        The same goes for the USA…if you can not do it by elections etc.,
        someone other would and the whole world would praise him. USA has no allies (yeah except the small dog Britain) and absolutely no friends. Useless country with no future.
        
        FLOR solitaria on April 30, 2015 · at 7:09 pm EST/EDT
        
        All countries have bloody histories.
        
        Pete on April 29, 2018 · at 5:12 pm EST/EDT
        
        To “no mercy”…..
        It is better to be considered a fool than to write something and dispel all doubts…. learn history, you will learn that, and perhaps first and foremost, Jews from the MBP/UB (communist security service, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Security_(Poland), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Morel ) put Poles, mainly from AK (Home Army) (not Jews), Silesians, Mazurs, Germans and others into former German concentration camps. MBP/UB was led mainly by Jews, including those who changed their names to Polish-sounding.
        Anti-Semitism in Poland is based not on genetics but on the behavior of Jews towards Poles and on their support of Russians (and other occupiers of Poland before WWI) in fighting for free Poland. Of course, not all Jews cooperated with the Polish occupiers, unfortunately the activities of some Jewish minority representatives had a tragic impact on the majority of the population.
      - Stein on April 30, 2015 · at 8:47 am EST/EDT
        
        There were reserves for the 1 or 2% they did not massacre.
        
        The British btw did the first Holocausts, most notably and best documented in Ireland, but also in India (Bengal where the population starved to death after the Brits outlawed their textile industry) and similar cases in other colonies.
L on April 29, 2015 · at 1:49 pm EST/EDT

I believe the problem is that USA is not run by the people and in the interests of the american people, meaning that USA might start a nuclear war with Russia anyway because the elites would have their bunkers and get aways and would survive no matter what.
- Uncle Bob 1 on April 29, 2015 · at 2:46 pm EST/EDT
  
  I’m not sure on that.The way it is described in the article there would be no “getting away” from that. While I don’t think the Empire is that stupid, to try something if they understood what their fate would be.I can’t be sure.I think that if Russia didn’t have her nuclear arsenal NATO would have attacked (or directly threatened to attack) a year ago.It is important to be able to assure her security that Russia be strong as a military power.That is just the bottom line in this World,the strong survive and the weak perish.I believe Putin want’s the multi-polar World to change that.I think he (and China as well) see co-operation and real International Laws as the way the World should be structured.The key is making the Empire understand they have no viable option against that.That the US will always continue as a great power.But not dominating the World in a “full spectrum domination” as they want.Several times in World history some have dreamed the dream of World domination.And they have always failed.The Empire must understand they will fail too,and to accept that fact.
  - ealgh on April 29, 2015 · at 6:10 pm EST/EDT
    
    Well said!
  - CalDre on April 29, 2015 · at 8:12 pm EST/EDT
    
    First of all there is no assurance the weapons would reach their targets, or second that they would have the.suggested consequences if they did If they want to be sure of retaliation they have to develop a system that would work from deep inside Russia (or possibly space using massive EMP pulses but even satellites are vulnerable) – perhaps sufficient partially underground detonations in Siberian to carry radioactive waste to US and create a nuclear winter that will decimate the entire planet. But even such a measure won’t stop the Empire once the rulers achieve their wet dream of 3-D printing and stem cell regeneration (immortality).
    
    Another option with its own set of risks is biological warfare. Biological agents could be pre-positioned (though this brings risks if detected) and released upon any attack on the home country. One can think of many delivery systems for bio-weapons which are far more difficult to combat than delivery of nuclear weapons.
    
    Another option is plutonium. Even a relatively small amount released into the jet stream over the Russian Federation could cause worldwide havoc. And of course such a dose could be delivered by a fleet of drones, which are vastly more difficult to stop than ballistic missiles.
    
    I am certain I am not adding any new ideas to the encyclopedia of destruction but I just want to point out that there are a vast number of “dead hand” solutions that do not require delivering nuclear warheads to the US, which is becoming a relatively vulnerable mechanism.
    
    Human race is destined to destroy most of itself b/c humans simply allow evil to rule. This is true for Russia (though more so in the past than the present) and US.
  - Anonymous on April 29, 2015 · at 10:33 pm EST/EDT
    
    How will the USA remain a major world power when it is doing everything in its power to reduce its brain trust – European Americans – to minority status in a sea of low iq 3rd world people. Can’t argue against this.
    - Penelope on April 29, 2015 · at 11:13 pm EST/EDT
      
      Anonymous “low IQ 3d world people”?? I think you are revealing your (deserved) inferiority complex.
  - zweistein on April 30, 2015 · at 12:26 pm EST/EDT
    
    “I believe Putin wants the multi-polar World [..] (and China as well) […The key is making the Empire understand they have no viable option against that.That the US will always continue as a great power.”
    
    I beg to differ. The crux of the matter is that the USA w i l l n o t continue as a great power. Why? Because they overdrew their credit card a 100 times over! They will have to pay the price for that. The US dollar will be devalued by 60-80%. Good bye, imports! Good bye, 800 US-Army bases! Good bye, 6 Millions of Americans working for intelligence agencies! The USA will go into a decade-long lasting reboot. Rebuilding industry, local infrastructure, etc.
    
    Only then will America reemerge like a phoenix. Hopefully not as vulture as last time around.
    - Joe Colangelo on May 08, 2015 · at 8:01 pm EST/EDT
      
      America will not rebuild itself or abandon it’s quest for global domination-it is also the only game in town for their elites who cannot bring it upon themselves to rebuild their nation from the bottom up and share the bounty that technology has made possible-they are going to survive the old fashioned way-through rape and plunder of the people’s resources and lives. The made their bet and doubled down on full spectrum dominance and are the social forces in the country-having lost the moral compass of Marxism as the article mentions is gone. The Zio-fascists are ruling the roost and waiting for their own version of Bonaparte or Hitler to appear on the horizon-hope and change having now been turned into complete despair and demoralization. If you live in the West get off the continent and as for the Russians-man the barricades war is coming regardless of BRICS win win or anything else.
  - TAA132146 on May 18, 2015 · at 12:49 am EST/EDT
    
    Well said Elagh.
- joaopft on April 29, 2015 · at 2:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  Bunkers would be worthless without military protection, a functional military organization requires a supply chain, and a supply chain can only be a product of an industrial civilization. As a consequence, with or without bunkers, after WWIII elites would not be able to secure themselves. Also, a conventional WWIII would be enough to collapse the whole industrial civilization, so the end result would be the same (without the horrific trashing of half of the planet).
  - Ngoyo on April 29, 2015 · at 4:09 pm EST/EDT
    
    It would wipe out “Western” industrial civilization. But there is more to the world than that. Much of the world would survive and the people in those areas that would be least damaged are the ones who are most expert in surviving in harsh conditions.
  - CalDre on April 29, 2015 · at 8:38 pm EST/EDT
    
    A supply chain is not necessary with 4 pieces of technology that can be implemented in a relatively small space (imagine: on a large spaceship, significantly larger than ISS, more like the “Enterprise”). First, a “3-D printer” which can “print” everything (in particular, the 4 pieces of technology one needs, including the 3-D printer itself). Second, a reliable source of energy (geothermal would be best for an underground city but nuclear fusion would also work, and would also scale to a spaceship, which, by the way, is a realistic option for survival). Third, intelligent machines/robots that can outthink most humans and mine the resources of the planet (as well as neighboring planets and even asteroids). Fourth, medical technology, principally the ability to stem aging and re-print/regenerate body parts.
    
    All of these technologies will be available in the next quarter century, maybe even are available now.
    
    Personally I think the elites will not use nuclear war to end the “supply chain” civilization you think is necessary, but bio-warfare. Bio-warfare leaves time to shut down all the nuclear reactors, etc., and does far less damage to the non-human ecosystem. Indeed I am quite sure they will use bio-warfare. It also has the “advantage”, according to the neo-cons, to be able to target – or have natural immunity for – chosen “races”.
    - Uncle Bob 1 on April 30, 2015 · at 1:07 am EST/EDT
      
      The difference is that at present the technology in the article is real and able to be done.While the things you are talking about are far in the future.Now don’t get me wrong.I think there is a day when that technology may be available on a realistic level.But that day isn’t today.
      - Ann on April 30, 2015 · at 4:49 am EST/EDT
        
        lots of people think that the 1% of the 1% have space ships and bunkers on Mars…I’m thinking these folks are right…see Secret Space Program…
    - Henon on April 30, 2015 · at 1:17 pm EST/EDT
      
      Ha, CalDre, you’re one of my favorite trolls !
      
      And I think you read a lot of Science Fiction, too, but from your comments we can deduce that you’re not a scientifically literate people (and not everyone has to be a scientist of engineer) .
      
      Aniway, beware because true life and true technique is different from what you read in SciFi books !
      
      These weapons of the last day are too horrific to even contemplate. Some facts to answer to yours dreams:
      
      – Organizing the departure from Earth to Space of so many people (the 0.1%) is far beyond current technological level and you need so many people to launch a carrier rocket that it’s impossible to do that stealthily.
      
      – One cannot live in space for too long : gamma rays from Sun could kill everyone or get sick in quite a short term (a few years, I think). Moreover, what powerful people like is to be above other people, not to be alone.
      
      – Warning a strong foe that if I die, it will also die – Mutual Assured Destruction – is the ultimate form of deterrence hence, the better guarantor of Peace.
      
      God bless Mankind, Russia, the USA and all the other people of Earth.
- Ibrahim on April 30, 2015 · at 5:30 am EST/EDT
  
  @L
  Sooner or later they would have to get out of their bunkers and what would they find once out of their rat holes ?
Ngoyo on April 29, 2015 · at 2:11 pm EST/EDT

Horrible indeed! Most nuclear war scenarios that I’ve seen deal with the issue as though, first, only NATO and Russia(Warsaw pact) exist on the planet and second that the only route to “potential victory” is to strike first. So my two questions for the experts are:

1. What would the rest of the world do? Say the US launched a nuclear first strike and successfully destroyed Russia and much of the world. Assume also that the US missile shield absorbed much of Russia’s retaliation so that the US suffered casualties in the, say 100 million range. What would the survivors in the rest of the world do? The US would be flat on its back while many countries in the world, India, China South Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Brazil etc would likely have suffered far less damage.

My guess is that the rest of the world would be so outraged at the country that started it that they would join together, go to that country and smash it to bits. Ensuring that it would never recover or exist again. They may even use the surviving population of that country as forced labor to clean up the nuclear damage in their own countries.

2. My second issue has to do with who “wins” in a nuclear exchange, the country that strikes first or the one retaliates? The country that strikes first would have to engage in a counterforce strike. It would have to attack the nuclear weapons and command systems of the other country. This would be a devastating attack of course. But since these weapons are typically located away from population and industrial centers, many such cities and towns would survive the initial attack.
The retaliating country would not have to carry out a counterforce strike since the attackers missiles and bombers would already have been used. So it would carry out a revenge attack against the attackers cities, population and industrial centers, probably destroying most of them.

So who “wins” if a such a win is even possible. I would say the retaliating country wins. This is because more of its industrial capacity and population centers would survive. This would make it more likely to recover quicker than the attacker and hence launch a conventional (or even nuclear) second round attack completely destroying the first striker.
- CalDre on April 30, 2015 · at 4:19 am EST/EDT
  
  You don’t fully understand the logic of the nuclear first strike doctrine. If a country pulls off a first strike, it has two options: to target the cities or not. You are assuming they do not. Very well. But they of course do not send all of their missiles. They send what they did to destroy retaliatory capacity and tell the other side, “You see we have destroyed your arsenal. You can surrender or we will strike your cities” or simply “if you attempt to retaliate we will strike your cities”. This threat is so much the greater if the “missile defense shield” is in place, since the shield would only need to defend against a much-reduced arsenal, rather than a full one.
  - Ngoyo on April 30, 2015 · at 9:20 am EST/EDT
    
    You are assuming a limited exchange. I’m assuming a full scale strike.
    I’m assuming that if you launch a first strike you want to be absolutely sure that you have destroyed the other side’s arsenal. You are not interested in the other side surrendering. You simply want to win by destroying them. Therefore you will use the maximum number of missiles necessary to achieve that goal. Not the minimum. In any case nobody would be available to surrender if your strike is successful since a first strike will always target command and control. Hence surrender is not possible. Regardless the first striker is launching a counterforce strike and the retaliator is attacking cities/industry.
    
    I’m also assuming a world where the first striker cannot be sure that they have eliminated the other side’s arsenal. Hence the need to use a maximal strike. This would be the case today.
Marco on April 29, 2015 · at 2:27 pm EST/EDT

Excuse me, dear Saker.

A Saint is someone who maybe sacrifices himself, maybe in view of a superior good. But who rules Russia has not the right to sacrifice the Russian people, and for what? To let the world be ruled by the most evil oligarchy ever seen?

Let me tell you that I live in Italy, alas an ally of the Anglozionists, and I would prefer Russia annihilate Italy too, with me inside, if this would allow all the rest of the world to live free for ever, even after some years of obvious hard problems.
- Sierra Charriba on April 29, 2015 · at 10:28 pm EST/EDT
  
  Completamente d’accordo
  totally agree
- Bianca on April 30, 2015 · at 12:55 am EST/EDT
  
  I agree. The last thing destroyed Russia can do for the rest of humankind is to destroy evil empire.
- Poppadop on April 30, 2015 · at 1:46 am EST/EDT
  
  “… allow all the rest of the world to live free for ever…”
  
  You do realize the Empire is not the countries carrying out its will, right? As Napoleon said, “Money has no motherland.” The banksters will simply pick up where they left off using whatever countries are remaining. This would be even easier than now given the greater anti-Russian sentiment that’s sure to spring up.
  
  For example, I’m sure Brazil and the rest of Latin America will be very upset at getting “stabbed in the back” by Russia; any geological disaster aimed at the US will affect the entire Americas.
  - Marco on April 30, 2015 · at 9:35 am EST/EDT
    
    The banksters actually have a motherland, and it is the one that has a military capability and ideological will to sustain them. That country can change, of course. But while the military balance could change relatively quickly, I do not think that the cultural and ideological background would necessarily follow.
    Especially if traditional values are strongly held by the people.
    This is why the banksters always try to eradicate any type of traditional culture: to have an alternate place where to fly if things were to go bad.
    - Poppadop on April 30, 2015 · at 10:39 pm EST/EDT
      
      That sounds fair. Admittedly, my understanding of “motherland” doesn’t lend itself to so much bouncing around: Khazaria, England, the US, Israel… the banksters’ “motherland” is all over the place.
      
      Industrialization is such that the necessary military and economic base to expand their criminal empire can come from any people, yet I agree that the right cultural and ideological setting is necessary. This is why those settings are destabilized through wars, civil unrest, drugs, mass immigration, poverty, and other tactics. That makes it easier to sweep away the traditional culture and erect their own – “ordo ab chao,” and all that.
      
      An apocalypse would be very destabilizing, so who’s to say the Empire won’t find another “motherland…”
Larchmonter445 on April 29, 2015 · at 2:35 pm EST/EDT

Putin says go with the plan. “We have fear of no one,” he tells his people and the world.

The American hegemonic strategists are ideologues, some in positions of power, some in think tanks or media.

The Greedy who run the global finance and banking do not want catastrophe and destruction of their assets. They have no ideology, other than demonic manipulation of humanity and acquisition of all things related to wealth.

The Uber Elites prefer small, manageable wars. They used to make money with those wars.

This Russian strategy for annihilation of the Hegemon would also destroy the engine of Greed that powers the Hegemon.

Ergo, the Greedy would come to Russia and negotiate terms of “engagement” that would assure ‘space’ for Russia. Whatever the Greedy thought was their Global dominance is coming to an end. This would be part of that process of accommodation to the new Eurasia.

I hope the Russians have this plan, this weapon of doom.

And for it to work it must be know widely. Not to inculcate fear and dread. But to force the Greedy to constrain and control and defang the delusional ideologues who believe they can strike and not be struck back.

America and Americans is still a land of optimism and opportunity for millions. However, it is flawed and its government is foreign and a tyranny, thoroughly corrupted and a progenitor of evil.

At every level of government in the U.S. (see Baltimore, e.g.) there is ideological incompetence that is stupefying. “The protesters should have space to destroy things,” says the imbecile mayor, a woman of college education who commanded her police to back off and stand down.

These ideologues are dangerous to world stability because they hold to flawed ideas no matter what the entire history of mankind and human nature clearly foretell will be a result.

It is these conditions of massive stupidity, entrenched ideologies, and greed that confront the good, confront the sacred, confront the human existence on the planet.

Any plan that backs away these loons and the greedy from their insane notions to destroy Russia or China or any people anywhere so that they can rule the entire world is a good plan.
- Daniel Rich on April 29, 2015 · at 10:34 pm EST/EDT
  
  @ Larchmonster445,
  
  Q; “The protesters should have space to destroy things,”
  
  R; That line is missing 1, very important piece of information.
  
  Let me help the idiot [mayor] in formulating her nonsensical gibberish correctly;
  
  “The protesters should have space to destroy other people’s things,”
  
  They’ll never trash their own stuff, that’s for sure
- Poppadop on April 30, 2015 · at 2:29 am EST/EDT
  
  The Uber Elites prefer small, manageable wars. They used to make money with those wars.
  
  It’s important to note that this is not about money; it’s about power and control. Fracking, for example, is being done at a financial loss thanks to relatively low oil prices, yet poisoning people is apparently worth every penny.
  
  “But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists. If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.
  So… I say, TO HELL WITH WAR!”
  ~ “War is a Racket,” Major General Smedley Butler, 1935
  http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf
  
  I do agree, however, that the banksters hate mutually assured destruction. It’s like a parasite at risk of losing all its hosts. However, if the world continues down this anti-Empire, anti-Orwellian path, the parasites will lose all their hosts anyway. Russia’s only real choices are to remove all the potential hosts [i.e. everyone, the greedy and gullible do not only exist in the West] or to remove all the parasites.
  
  “These individuals hide in the shadows. They’re constantly inventing new enemies; ensuring war is always raging somewhere. The merchants of death, the military-industrial complex: They’re known as LOGOS. They are the true enemies of anyone who loves peace!
  “From the bottom of my heart, I wish for a world that never again knows the scourge of war. Since LOGOS continues to block our efforts, I am taking this opportunity to announce a military campaign with the specific goal of eliminating it and its members!”
  ~ Chairman Gilbert Durandal, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, Episode 33
  http://www.veoh.com/watch/v86098241HpzmZG3W
- Anonymous on May 02, 2015 · at 10:14 am EST/EDT
  
  “strategists are ideologues”
  
  Perhaps an oxymoron?
SunLion on April 29, 2015 · at 2:41 pm EST/EDT

The problem with the Americans is that they will adjust their actions according to the degree of rationality of the adversary. A rationale enemy is likely to receive more punishment than someone considered irrational because his reactions are anticipated to be “reasonable”.

This is utterly vicious but it has worked so far…

It is clear that the world is splitting into two opposite camps. Fear is the beginning of wisdom some might say. Knowing the primitive American way of thinking, a solution like this might be a tempting way to stop a reasonable adversary but America has lost its sanity a long time ago…

Now that the fascist ideology is openly spreading all over the Western world, it is difficult to anticipate how to clean the World body of this metastasis. In an amputation possible?
tc on April 29, 2015 · at 2:43 pm EST/EDT

I would respectfully suggest an other avenue of approach to the staff: preemptive strikes on the tel aviv-jerusalem-dimona axis.
Who noze, mabbe even some goyish generals would start thinkin’ now what kinna krazy Ivan would pull sumptin’ likes datt & mainly: why???
- The Wend on April 29, 2015 · at 3:40 pm EST/EDT
  
  Good suggestion. Jerusalem first.
  - Uncle Bob 1 on April 30, 2015 · at 1:20 am EST/EDT
    
    I strongly doubt that these cities will be bombed Jerusalem,Mecca/Medina,Rome,Constantinople/Istanbul. Though the last two are debatable.They have a Worldwide religious component that would set off a firestorm around the World.Muslims would be so outraged over Mecca and Medina it would be Worldwide total war.And all three major faiths consider Jerusalem a Holy City that trumps its being Israels capital.I think that is one of the main reasons that Iran (or other Muslim states) have never considered bombing Jerusalem (suicide bombers don’t count).In reply to Stalin’s famous question on “how many division’s does the Pope have”.Bombing Mecca and Medina would answer that question for the Muslim World.The mass attacks and slaughters on those deemed responsible would know no bounds.It could be the worst massacre in human history.
michael/tucson on April 29, 2015 · at 3:19 pm EST/EDT

a simple mathematical equation carried to it’s final and inherent conclusion…..zero!!!!!
Aristides on April 29, 2015 · at 3:26 pm EST/EDT

Good grief.

Before anyone gets carried away by the doomsday scenarios outlined above, allow me to categorically state that they are completely bogus. The amount of energy involved in causing a tsunami or an explosive volcanic eruption are orders of magnitude greater than even the Tsar Bomba could release.

A surface nuke on Yellowstone would produce no secondary effects beyond those (un)natural for a hydrogen bomb. Even drilling down a kilometre or two wouldn’t trigger an eruption. Why? Because the lava chamber underlying Yellowstone is currently not yet full of magma. The lava is still 10km down and nowhere near the surface. Atop that, the Yellowstone caldera is immense: so even if a localised magma bubble is bursts in one location it will not trigger a ‘supervolcano’ event as last seen 640,000 years ago. Geologically speaking it would be a small burp.

As for the 400m high tsunami concept proposed by Andrei Sakharov, I can barely keep my jaw from hitting the floor – not at the imagery, but at its sheer ludicrousness. I have no idea which scientists he’s been working with, but they are certainly not geologists, physicists or nuclear weapon specialists. Taking the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake which produced a modest 10m high tsunami at the closest distance from its epicentre, was the equivalent energy release of 9.5 _gigatons_ of TNT (more than 600 million Hiroshima bombs).

Just think about that. That is more energy than the total global nuclear arsenal, which currently stands at ‘only’ 7 gigatons of TNT. Our bombs are nothing compared with natural planetary disasters.

Exploding a nuclear weapon on or in a geological fault-line will have absolutely no effect, unless the planet has already stored up that energy in advance. And even if it was ‘primed’ for a big earthquake a handful of 5-7 Megaton bombs won’t even tickle it. We’re talking about faults hundreds of kms long and tens of kms deep, its a vast slip surface.

So please, ignore what Konstantin Sivkov has written here. No matter what he might wish to believe, its complete fantasy, well beyond the realms of human engineering.
- Ngoyo on April 29, 2015 · at 4:06 pm EST/EDT
  
  Your argument sounds very reasonable. In fact I’m inclined to believe you. However, I do have a problem with aspects of your logic. Never say never. The energy required to trigger destruction on a geologic scale clearly does not have to be commensurate with the geologic energy released. Just as the energy required to detonate a thermonuclear explosion does not have to be commensurate with that released by the explosion itself.
  
  Also the words never and impossible are generally famous last words for scientists.
  - Aristides on April 29, 2015 · at 5:06 pm EST/EDT
    
    Very true Ngoyo, the trigger event doesn’t necessarily have to match the geologic energy release – just as the initial radiation implosion in a hydrogen bomb is tiny compared to the second stage explosion. But crushing a small amount of tritium is a completely different matter to artificially manipulating a pressurised subduction zone with a slip surface area of several hundred thousand square kilometres, and their associated pressure relief faults.
    
    Whilst human generated earthquakes are occurring due to fracking, these are very shallow events and hardly noticeable when compared to a 9.1 earthquake. Now you could argue that we can drill nuke bores all along these faults… but Great Subduction Zone earthquakes occur at a depth of around 40km – that’s the place you need the slip to be triggered. As it stands the deepest hole we’ve ever achieved is only about 12km deep, and that was without the technical difficulties of drilling under 2.5km of very rough ocean.
    
    So although I don’t specifically use the words ‘never’ or ‘impossible’, I admit I did imply them. How about I revise my closing statement to ‘well beyond the realms of _current_ human economics and engineering’? :)
    - Anonymous on April 29, 2015 · at 6:16 pm EST/EDT
      
      Haiti.
    - CalDre on April 30, 2015 · at 4:46 am EST/EDT
      
      There is a much easier devastating tsunami scenario – finding a way to cause one of the Canary Islands to drop into the ocean and create a mega-tsunami.
      
      But as a general matter, you are right, it’s not possible to set off a supervolcano simply by detonating a nuclear weapon above ground or on the ground. It’s sort of like sending a nuclear bomb into the sun to extinguish t ;).
    - Ngoyo on April 30, 2015 · at 9:29 am EST/EDT
      
      Still I do not think this is as far fetched as it sounds at first. Building a few hundred gigaton devices is not beyond current tech/industry/economics. They could be delivered by a drone submarine and targeted at specific predetermined points along an undersea fault. Would that be sufficient? How about teraton devices? This would not be beyond the resources of many states. Its an outlandish idea. But remember that the reason the tsar bomba is the biggest todate is because the soviets had no use for a bigger device. Not that they could not build one (or many) then, or the Russians today.
- Paul II on April 29, 2015 · at 4:44 pm EST/EDT
  
  So you need to be hired as a consultant to ensure that the nukes go off where the tsunamis do maximum damage. In fact, the main idea is using natural forces to maximize the military value. The US did tsunami bomb research off NZ and is said to have been ready to go live with it against Japan, but had nukes and didn’t do it, or so some researchers say. I don’t know, but maybe you do. But comparing the energy of a non-targeted natural event with an act of war is unreasonable.
  
  Some talk about the massive undersea landslide potential off the Canary Islands. A relatively small bomb is said to be capable of causing a fairly significant tsunami for the US. Or what would happen with a few nukes causing a large part of the Greenland ice sheath to go into the ocean?
  - Aristides on April 29, 2015 · at 5:45 pm EST/EDT
    
    Not being in favour of apocalypses I think I’ll give the consultancy job a miss. ;)
    
    Yes, comparing the energy of a non-targeted natural event with an act of war is indeed unreasonable. However, it does show the absurdity of such plans for augmented mega-disaster. Russia already has a surfeit of warheads to destroy the US and Europe. Even if limited to just their submarine launched missiles (which are specifically designed for the event of Russia suffering a decapitating first strike) they are more than capable of completely collapsing the US socially and economically.
    
    So why invest trillions in covert engineering, scavenging existing warheads, and a massive length of time, to do what they already have the weapons and capability to do? It is nonsensical scaremongering.
    - Anonymous on April 30, 2015 · at 4:29 am EST/EDT
      
      In the first place, this article is fear porn and some of it seems based on suspect math, as you’ve pointed out. There seems to be confusion between orders of magnitude, but:
      – if the maths can be made to work, and
      – if one allows that nuclear weapons are already on the playing field, then some of this sort of thinking should be welcomed.
      
      The point of using high yield weapons to trigger natural catastrophes on enemy territory is precisely to avoid most of the extinction implications outside of the target zone that a direct nuclear “decapitating first strike” or “retaliation” imply. The radiation would be (relatively speaking) contained, while the destruction would be large enough to remove the enemy from the field.
      
      What the author left out is that the cataclysm does not address the possibility of retaliation. remains unaddressed, and that’s the Achilles’ Heel of this sort
      - Erebus on April 30, 2015 · at 5:07 am EST/EDT
        
        The above was my post, prematurely posted.
        The last part should read:
        The possibility/probability of retaliation remains the Achilles’ Heel of this sort of thinking. Russia does not present a geophysically rich target, so any retaliation would be focused on civilian, military and state structures. IOW, it doesn’t really prevent an extinction event.
    - Erebus on April 30, 2015 · at 4:33 am EST/EDT
      
      Hmm.. I got half way into a reply to this when the page suddenly re-booted. I have no idea whether I “posted” anything, or if I did, what coherence it has.
      Perhaps the Moderator can make a judgement whether it should be posted.
- They say...what say they? ...let them say! on April 29, 2015 · at 5:09 pm EST/EDT
  
  I agree completely.
  
  The release of energy in natural events such as movements of tectonic plates,far outdoes anything destructive humans can achieve.
  
  As I am sure you are aware, In 1815 Mount Tamboura erupted, pushing billions of tons of volcanic ash into the sky, resulting in no sunshine for farmers and stock,and life forms in general..
  
  In the US it was called “1800 and froze to death”.
  
  For two years nothing grew in vast areas of the gulf of Mexico and beyond,what at that time was sparsely populated,would now be an unmitigated disaster.
  
  The leadership in the US is so poor, that the worst droughts in their history is unfolding without them even noticing.
  
  “Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad”
  
  In most ‘western’ countries the food supply chain is 7 days long…..
  
  that is 5 working days.
  
  This is something that survivalists may find of interest,people like Ann? and any others who live free of the corporate food chain.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM_gtZb8qyk
  
  …Paul Gautschi…Return to Eden.
  
  Recently the ‘star’ of Star Trek suggested a pipeline to take water from the great lakes…?? what would happen to the water table of the midwest? and East?.
  
  These people have no understanding of the balance of nature.
  
  There are some religious types on this blog.
  
  The US will destroy itself before long…from hubris…..none will weep!
  
  “Ye have made a covenant with death and with hell are in agreement”
- Prayer on April 29, 2015 · at 8:11 pm EST/EDT
  
  Let them dream on, it’s a convenient escape from the realization that they are powerless to destroy American hegemony. It must be quite unnerving and paralyzing to see your enemy coming to crush you, and knowing there’s nothing you can do to stop him. Any state under such psychological stress has earned the right to dream and at least pray for nature’s intervention in my book. They’re cracking under the strain much sooner than I expected though, I thought they would at least bloody the noses of the Americans before the superstitious prayers begun in earnest. This new tactic ought to really scare the Americans.
- Wittmont on April 29, 2015 · at 9:58 pm EST/EDT
  
  From my understanding it is not the bombs themselves that would trigger the tsunami, it is the resulting landslides on the continental shelfs outside of the US east coast. Such landslides in the North Sea have produced tsunamis at least 40-50 meters in height that have hit Norway in the past.
  - Rita Lama on May 01, 2015 · at 3:51 pm EST/EDT
    
    If what you say is true, then the whole idea of a mega-tsunami over the US territory is indeed possible and VERY scary…
- Daniel Rich on April 29, 2015 · at 10:05 pm EST/EDT
  
  @ Aristide,
  
  Q; The amount of energy involved in causing a tsunami or an explosive volcanic eruption are orders of magnitude greater than even the Tsar Bomba could release.
  
  R; History [science + facts] prove your thesis to be wrong
  
  Prehistoric
  
  The asteroid which created the Chicxulub crater in Yucatán approximately 66 million years ago would have generated megatsunamis as high as 5 kilometres (3.1 mi), enough to completely inundate even large islands such as Madagascar.[3]
  
  A series of megatsunamis were generated by the bolide impact that created the Chesapeake Bay impact crater, about 35.5 million years ago.[4]
  
  An asteroid impact in the southeast Pacific Ocean 2.5 million years ago caused a megatsunami that was over 200 m (660 ft) high in southern Chile and the Antarctic Peninsula; the wave swept across much of the Pacific Ocean.
  
  The northern half of the East Molokai Volcano suffered a catastrophic collapse and likely megatsumami about 1.5 million years ago and now lies as a debris field scattered northward across the ocean bottom,[5] while what remains on the island are the highest sea cliffs in the world.[6]
  
  A massive collapse of the western edge of the Lake Tahoe basin, which formed McKinney Bay around 50,000 years ago, is thought to have generated a tsunami/seiche wave with a height approaching 330 ft (100 m).[7]
  
  At Seton Portage, British Columbia, Canada, a freshwater megatsunami may have occurred approximately 10,000 years ago.[8] A huge block of the Cayoosh Range suddenly slid northwards into what had been a large lake spanning the area from Lillooet, British Columbia to near Birken, in the Gates Valley or Pemberton Pass to the southwest.
  
  Approximately 8,000 years ago, a massive volcanic landslide off of Mt. Etna, Sicily caused a megatsunami which devastated the eastern Mediterranean coastline on three continents.[9]
  
  In the Norwegian Sea, the Storegga Slide caused a megatsunami approximately 8,000 years ago.[10]
  
  Approximately 6,000 years ago, a landslide on Réunion island, to the east of Madagascar, may have caused a megatsunami.[11]
  
  Modern
  
  1792: Mount Unzen, Japan
  Main article: 1792 Unzen earthquake and tsunami
  
  In 1792, Mount Unzen in Japan erupted, causing part of the volcano to collapse into the sea. The landslide caused a megatsunami that reached 100 metres (330 ft) high and killed 15,000 people in the local fishing villages.[citation needed]
  
  1958: Lituya Bay, Alaska, USA
  Main articles: 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami and Lituya Bay
  Damage from the 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami can be seen in this oblique aerial photograph of Lituya Bay, Alaska as the lighter areas at the shore where trees have been stripped away.
  
  On 9 July 1958, a giant landslide at the head of Lituya Bay in Alaska, caused by an earthquake, generated a wave with an initial amplitude of up to 520 metres (1,710 ft). This is the highest wave ever recorded, and surged over the headland opposite, stripping trees and soil down to bedrock, and surged along the fjord which forms Lituya Bay, destroying a fishing boat anchored there and killing two people. Howard Ulrich and his son managed to ride the wave in their boat, and both survived.[1]
  
  1963: Vajont Dam, Italy
  Main article: Vajont Dam
  
  On 9 October 1963, a landslide above Vajont Dam in Italy produced a 250 m (820 ft) surge that overtopped the dam and destroyed the villages of Longarone, Pirago, Rivalta, Villanova and Faè, killing nearly 2,000 people.[12]
  1980: Spirit Lake, Washington, USA
  Main articles: Spirit Lake (Washington), 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and Mount St. Helens
  
  On May 18, 1980, the upper 460 meters (1,509 feet) of Mount St. Helens failed and detached in a massive landslide. This released the pressure on the magma trapped beneath the summit bulge which exploded as a lateral blast, which then released the over-pressure on the magma chamber and resulted in a plinian eruption.
  
  One lobe of the avalanche surged onto Spirit Lake, causing a megatsunami which pushed the lake waters in a series of surges, which reached a maximum height of 260 meters (853 feet)[13] above the pre-eruption water level (~975 m asl/3,199 ft). Above the upper limit of the tsunami, trees lie where they were knocked down by the pyroclastic surge; below the limit, the fallen trees and the surge deposits were removed by the megatsunami and deposited in Spirit Lake.[14]
  
  Source; wikipedia
  - Anonymous on April 29, 2015 · at 10:27 pm EST/EDT
    
    And, as has been pointed out by others already, this is how nature bounces back. Footage from before and after Mount St. Helens’ devastating eruption [1980] – time lapse 1979 – 2009.
  - Wittmont on April 29, 2015 · at 10:50 pm EST/EDT
    
    Also, for the Yellowstone option. When a drop of water hits a puddle we all know how the surface water is displaced by the raindrop and water then plops back up into the air once the energy of the rain drop is spent. Even if a nuke didn’t break the lid of the Yellowstone caldera directly, the suppression of the lid and resulting counter reaction might well do the job. I’m no mathematician or physicist but if some world class physicists have done the math and say it is possible I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.
  - Anonymous on April 30, 2015 · at 12:08 am EST/EDT
    
    @ Daniel Rich & @ Aristide :
    
    Q; The amount of energy involved in causing a tsunami or an explosive volcanic eruption are orders of magnitude greater than even the Tsar Bomba could release.
    
    R; History [science + facts] prove your thesis to be wrong
    
    Sorry, but I do not see any supporting scientific evidence for either side of this argument! Tsar Bomba had equivalent to a little over 50 megatons of TNT (could have been 100 megatons, but the scientists dissuaded Hruschov not to try, because of potential catastrophic consequences). That particular explosion apparently had less consequences for the mankind than the Krakatoa eruption in 1883. The Tsar Bomb explosion tremors were felt by seismographs around the Earth, but there were no damages. However, Krakatoa had horrible consequences – besides the gigantic tsunamis, the ashes darkened the skies around the globe for years to come, affecting the entire Earth climate, etc., etc., etc…
    
    Myself not knowing the actual energy equivalent of the Krakatoa event (probably it is somewhere in Google universe, haven’t checked), I cannot compare the two. My naïve conjecture is on the side of nature as the potentially far, far stronger. Perhaps you can dissuade me by presenting scientific facts that it is otherwise?
    - Daniel Rich on April 30, 2015 · at 2:11 am EST/EDT
      
      @ Anonymous,
      
      If nature and the universe can produce it, one day we will too. Every chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Find that link and get the job done.
      
      I live right next door to a very active volcano. This small volcano and the bay surrounding it, are the remnants of a much larger volcano that exploded ~25,000 years ago. If nature can create the energy to do it, so can we. Start a chain effect and watch a tragedy unfold.
    - Peter on April 30, 2015 · at 5:49 am EST/EDT
      
      According to wikipedia? the main blast of Krakatoa was the equivalent of a 200 megaton explosion.
      The Tsar bomb 50 mega ton, detonated 4km above the earth still created a magnitude 5 seismic shock wave.
      Makes me wonder what would happen if a very large bomb was placed on the sea floor with say 1.5km of water overhead to direct more energy into the ground.
- Divby0 on April 30, 2015 · at 12:10 am EST/EDT
  
  Oh, the pinnacle of contemporary education system. I thought that engineering is immune to cognitive restrictions caused by specialization phenomenon, but alas.
  When dealing with a system, one can’t infer it’s output by analyzing only few parameters of its subsystems.
  I don’t know enough about Earth tectonics and geotechnics to comment on Yellowstone, or triggering earthquakes and tsunamis, although detection of Caesium isotope (Cs137?), which isn’t met in nature, at the epicenter of the first quake that resulted in Fukushima disaster, doesn’t make me very optimistic.
  As far as Sakharov’s scenario is concerned, the operative word here is “directed” explosion. The idea is old and well researched. There are computer/mathematical models suggesting that directed explosion of couple of megatons could drive a tsunami wave of over one kilometer high. Here is a simple thought experiment: if a small pile of gun powder is burned anywhere near a person no harm will be done, if the same amount of powder (with the same amount of energy released) is ignited inside a gun cartridge, the bullet of this cartridge could kill the same person, if it’s a cumulative bullet it could kill a person behind a tank armor.
  Now my 2 cents on probability of this scenario in relation to the US and not the NATO members in northern Europe as initially proposed by Sakharov. IMHO it’s unlikely Russia will do it. After the current set of crises has run it’s course and weaken the US substantially, it’s very likely that any, and I mean ANY, country could implement it for one or another reason. The bomb may have an inscription in Japanese “what goes around comes around”, or it could be a response from any developed/developing country which economy is depressed due to energy deficit as a result of US control over the fuels market, or it could be an obscure African state that would want to become new David giving the final blow to the dying empire. My bet is on Burkina Faso.
  - To Uncle Sam, Special Delivery - “何が来” on April 30, 2015 · at 2:15 am EST/EDT
    
    Well said. I fully agree, and I second your bet.
  - Rita on May 01, 2015 · at 4:15 pm EST/EDT
    
    Interesting thought….
Veritas on April 29, 2015 · at 3:29 pm EST/EDT

Dear The Saker,

Thank you for posting this. Everyone should be made aware.

Russia may be left with no choice – that is the stark truth and we all know it :(

Rgds,

Veritas
- Rita on May 01, 2015 · at 4:17 pm EST/EDT
  
  Indeed…
Arthur Brina on April 29, 2015 · at 3:44 pm EST/EDT

Very sobering and rational assessment.

Mutually-Assured-Destruction worked for almost 40 years. I don’t see why it shouldn’t work indefinitely.

It must be impressed upon the American NeoCons, who are presently deluded into believing that they could use ABMs to defeat the Russian Nuclear Forces, that this is not the case.

However, this will just encourage the NeoCons to emphasize a strategy that amounts to war by other means, in order to undermine Russian nationalism and independence. Apart from sanctions, they will use the prospect of greater financial returns to the Russian oligarchs, derived from the “benefits” of globalization, to get them to advocate the subordination of Russia’s culture as well as its economy to the Anglo-Zionist Empire.

Frustrated and outraged by the “attack from within as well as from without”, Russia’s nationalists may embark on its own aggression against the “Atlanticists” within and against foreign-based entities without.

I expect “proxy warfare” to be waged among us for a very long time to come.
Anonymous on April 29, 2015 · at 3:46 pm EST/EDT

Yellowstone might not be about to erupt after all, even if assisted by nukes:

“[A 2013 study makes] scientists believe that the proportion of melt in the chamber is much too low to allow another supereruption.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
- Mats on April 29, 2015 · at 4:07 pm EST/EDT
  
  Name me a scientist in the West who has been correct about anything of late.
  
  Most are on grants or employed to deliver “opinions” on demand, like the media.
  
  They can’t explain a friggin thing about anything any more.
  
  It’s all ideological drivel.
  
  They can’t get the weather forecast right if you limit it to five hours from now.
  - Anonymous on May 01, 2015 · at 4:20 pm EST/EDT
    
    Ha! Ha! Ha! Yes, I agree.
Paul II on April 29, 2015 · at 3:53 pm EST/EDT

But this scenario misses the brains of the operation: the City of London. If they can keep the military of other countries, such as Australia, then they could dominate what is left of the world. Depending upon what weapons systems are not in the mainland of the US.
Sanjin on April 29, 2015 · at 4:32 pm EST/EDT

as i see americans, from first day they step on american continent until today, they do things only if they get some profit. that is basis of US patriotism, culture and behavior. to “defeat” US it is needed only to remove cause for profit. no need for nukes. americans are pragmatic people. i am shure if russians in some case have to bomb US mainland, they can bomb Federal reserve only, Columbia district only. i don’t think americans will be upset too much, except some 1% of them.
- Poppadop on April 30, 2015 · at 2:49 am EST/EDT
  
  … they can bomb Federal reserve only, Columbia district only. i don’t think americans will be upset too much, except some 1% of them.
  
  Because bombings with high collateral damage are working so well for the US’s image?
  - Sanjin on April 30, 2015 · at 1:55 pm EST/EDT
    
    last part was rude joke. i apologize. whole story about destruction is just training gray muscle. now, when i am thinking, it is a bit improper to participate in talks about mass murder.
    - Poppadop on May 02, 2015 · at 6:58 pm EST/EDT
      
      That’s cool, Sanjin. I live near Washington DC, so I probably took the joke too seriously. :P
- Ann on April 30, 2015 · at 5:03 am EST/EDT
  
  Hi Sanjay…again I think you are very wise in the first part of the comment…its true..the US is based on material gain…and always has been, right from the start…
blue on April 29, 2015 · at 5:12 pm EST/EDT

Does one expect that a football will work after putting just a teeny hole in one little part of it?

Hear about the man who died from having a little ball with ricin pushed into his foot? Is ricin thought to be the deadliest poison? Nope — that place is held by plutonium.

How about the damage, over time and great distance, from the BP oil spill in the gulf? Chernobyl? Trivial compared to massive nuclear attack.

Even if the US destroyed Russia with nukes with no retaliation it could not survive very long — and neither could most of the rest of the life on the planet as the radiation, toxins, and dust spread through water and atmosphere, and interconnected species died off, and ecological imbalance raged, and the destruction of the industrial and cultural environment.

If one looks into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov and other times when we missed nuclear annihilation by a hair, is it reasonable to expect that retaliation would not occur if one side launched a nuclear attack? Is it reasonable to expect you will win the power ball lottery or find an ancient diamond mine in your back yard?

Only idiots, who know nothing of system thinking, expect they can use a football with tiny hole in it, or survive any nuclear war.
- Ngoyo on April 29, 2015 · at 6:29 pm EST/EDT
  
  Before calling people idiots who don’t understand systems thinking at least acknowledge that nobody knows what will happen after full scale global nuclear exchange. Not even the geniuses who understand systems thinking. We can only talk about whats likely probabilities etc.
  
  I think humanity would survive. In fact human civilization would survive. Why? Even if a nuclear war destroyed half of humanity right away (a large number given weapons targeting city population in target zones etc), three billion people would survive. Such a war would be fought principally between nuclear states in the northern hemisphere. A huge amount of population and industrial capacity would survive in the southern hemisphere. Even if half of the 3 billion survivors were to die off due to secondary and long term effects that would still leave 1.5 billion people. A respectable amount of humanity.
  
  At the same time most of those people would probably be in rural communities distant from any explosions effects. As to systems, such communities already survive via subsistence fishing, farming and herding with a resource base that extends only to a few district or county sized areas. Many such areas would likely survive unscathed around the world. Coupled with high skilled survivors who would make their way to such areas from the cities, industrial civilization would be repaired or rebuilt.
  
  All this is speculation. But I think we can safely say that the earth is not a football. It is immensely more complex and is very unlikely to respond to a hole in its side as a football would.
Erika on April 29, 2015 · at 5:25 pm EST/EDT

Okay, the reason the west is not taking nuclear threats seriously is because the west is the US.

Americans believe that in a nuclear war, the battle will take place across the Atlantic in Europe or across the Pacific. This assumption that they will be untouched by the war, false assumption is what makes them dangerous.

In a nuclear war, I do believe if pushed Putin will use the nuclear weapons, not because he is an evil man, or a weak man. Putin has shown that he puts Russia above everything. Russia must survive and the only way to guarantee her survival is to destroy her enemy, so that even if Russia has been weakened she will survive. Russia can rebuild but not if she is enslaved.

I suggest you move.
Vtran on April 29, 2015 · at 5:31 pm EST/EDT

I have read the article; read the comments and decided that one aspect has been totally missed !
–
Humans do not own Planet Earth – We are merely the current caretakers and as a species we are making a pi55ed poor job of conducting that Task !
–
Planet Earth has survived 6 Extinction events where 80% of all life has died and each time Planet Earth has Recovered; the Permian Extinction 251m years ago too nearly 10 million years to recover.
–
So if We as a species decide to initiate Nuclear WW3, it is quite likely though some humans may survive, some countries survive with little or no damage, We as a species may not survive in the long term as We are at the top of the Food Chain !
–
It takes a lot of Animals, plants, insects, micro life to keep us alive … however a Rat can survive on much less !
–
Not all dinosaurs died at the Cretaceous Mass Extinction Event .. Dinosaurs staggered on for a Million years (detailed in the fossil record), so Humans could last another 1000, 10000 years with an ever dwindling food chain, smaller gene pool to the point that another smaller event wipes us out totally !
–
Whether we as a Species are here or not, Planet Earth will survive, adapt with or without our help – so IF we scr3w UP, in 5 or 10 Million years time there will be another dominant Species Planet Earth and all signs of our civilization would probably of disappeared except a few bones in the fossil records !
- Grieved on April 30, 2015 · at 5:22 am EST/EDT
  
  I agree with what you’re saying here. The logic is compelling in terms of, emotional intelligence, shall we call it?
  
  If we as humans allow our race to engender the hubris to destroy ourselves, then surely the last thing we need to despair of is the end of human race. How much less should we mourn the loss of a hubris-filled “civilization”? Some life will endure. All life, including ours, proceeds out of the sacred nature of the universe, which we do not understand but which we can understand is indestructible.
  
  The gentle and very wise Buddhist monk, Thich Nat Hanh, had a lovely point to make about this in a talk he had with David Suzuki about trying to “save” the world, and the despair that arises as we contemplate its many faults.
  
  He makes the very Buddhist point that first and foremost we have to accept whatever reality is. It’s from this acceptance that strength and uplift come, with which we can carry on and try to change reality.
  
  Readers may enjoy this short clip of a wise and encouraging perspective. The link is set a couple minutes in where he speaks:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWqB4-em308&t=129
Patient Observer on April 29, 2015 · at 5:35 pm EST/EDT

His analysis of Russia’s current and future military potential and the effects of the sanctions were entirely incorrect. Moreover, as the Western econoies teeter on collapse, the relative power of Russia/China will only incresae.

The intent of his misleading assessment seemed to be a pretext to his geo-nuclear rambling. While the concept of using a trigger to unleash a much larger release of energy on the surface looks plausible, the execution is much more problematic. Resorting to such strategies makes little military sense as its certainty is speculative which means both sides can not rely on presumed effects thus would be greatly discounted.

Things like optimally using a nuclear bomb to create a massive electromagnetic pulse would be far more predictable and effective asymmetrical deterrent. In any event, Russia military weapons and the scale of expenditures are meant to win wars. In other words, the article appears to be mostly BS.
- Lumi on April 30, 2015 · at 7:33 am EST/EDT
  
  “geo-nuclear rambling” – This sums it up.
Murdoch on April 29, 2015 · at 5:55 pm EST/EDT

I’ve read such scenarios before. They’re possible. But Putin is rational — surely he’d make the minimum response to achieve his purpose. I understand that a high-altitude nuclear blast could fry the electric grid. Imagine the country without electricity or communications. Then hits on missile launching sites to reduce response (though many US missiles are submarine-based). What more would be needed to neutralize US aggression? Even this scenario would mean many deaths and hardship (food distribution would fail), but destruction of cities need not be part of it.
David Chu on April 29, 2015 · at 6:17 pm EST/EDT

To the Saker and many others reading and commenting here:

You guys and gals are still living in the Yankee Myth, meaning you really don’t know or understand the EVIL that is the United States of Death, Disease and Destruction. It all began in 1776 and even much earlier: bit.ly/1zKPDSd

The Complete Destruction of the USA and most of its people is an almost assured event given the magnitude of EVIL that this Genocidal Empire has inflicted upon this planet.

Call it Karma, Sin, Whatever. It is DUE.

The Russians, as you are well aware, have something called by the Yankees “The Dead Hand” (an automated full-scale nuclear retaliatory system) which will ensure the complete and utter destruction of the USA, even if the Russia leadership is somehow decapitated (highly unlikely).

Russia will survive WW3 simply due to its geographic size and probably because of its nuclear-tipped ABMs defending Moscow and the other major cities. The S-400s and soon-to-be S-500s.

China is not in such a great shape as Russia. Too many of her citizens are concentrated on her east coast. They will be wiped out by direct nuclear hits or by the tsunamis off the coast effected by nuclear bombs. If China gets the S-400 in time and if they are nuclear-tipped, maybe Beijing, Shanghai, and the other major cities (if they are defended by these nuclear-tipped ABMs) might have a chance. Especially Beijing as it has a massive nuclear fallout bomb shelter beneath the city. This huge bomb shelter complex will only be effective in saving millions of Chinese if Beijing is defended by nuclear-tipped S-400s: giving people time to evacuate.

South America is going to be one of the few safe places on planet Earth. Relatively.

Argentina, especially the Patagonia region is going to be one of the most prized places to survive and live what’s coming: bit.ly/1nhfbgl

WW3 is coming! bit.ly/1wWx13A (very explicit depiction of WW3) bit.ly/1EzopCx (a more tamer version of WW3)

Remember: When those ICBMs are launched, that is the END of WW3, not the beginning.
Red Ryder on April 29, 2015 · at 6:31 pm EST/EDT

“The idea belongs to Andrei Sakharov. ”

All counter argument fall to that man’s knowledge, in my opinion.

What we are dealing with is mathematics, the sort the Russians are the best at. Entirely, mathematical analysis and computation.

Does anyone think this is a long shot bet made my Russian scientists?

It is for the ultimate protection of the Motherland and their families.
Brian on April 29, 2015 · at 7:20 pm EST/EDT

Bizzare thinking described in this article (although quite possibly indicative of how these nutters think).

1. Supervolcano eruptions can easily be and have been extinction level events – that’s extinction as in all the human race as well as many more than the 200 species that are currently being driven to extinction at the present time by mankind’s actions

2. A nuclear exchange as envisaged here would also be an extinction level event. Have a look at the nuclear winter projections at: http://www.nucleardarkness.org/web/whatisnucleardarkness/

Combine 1 & 2 and we’re all dead within a year or so.

Make no mistake the psychopaths have control east, west and everywhere else. Extinction of humans is baked in the cake from one direction or another and in the not too distant future IMHO.

Enjoy every day of this lovely planet while you can.
Drums of War on April 29, 2015 · at 7:30 pm EST/EDT

Russia’s last gift to mankind: life

Saker keep that gift for yourself !
Me and my friends are after eventual Russian payback in case of war.
Regardless of consequences, should US start the nuclear war, they must be nuked to the dust !
Even If I have to die, fine with me as long as the perpetrator is dead.
Saker you are worry too much about your own skin, it is not a Slavic way.
- mind and soul on April 29, 2015 · at 8:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  I don’t want to quibble with the nihilists, fatalists, exceptionalists, survivalists, extinctionalists here at all. “Let a thousand mushrooms sprout.” Or better yet, avoid the Great Leap off the Edge and don’t let them sprout.
  
  What’s needed is that the evil ones make their calculations as precise as possible.
  
  In that regard, I believe a correction is needed in the section titled, “The Day After Tomorrow”
  
  For if a tsunami wave 400-500 meters high would travel 500 kilometers inland, then the one described after that (1500 meters…. a mile high, basically) would not travel “1500 meters” inland (as probably mistranslated) but rather 1500 KILOmeters inland. This would reach all of the continental USA if 3 such mega-waves were to originate near the Altantic, Pacific, and Gulf (of Mexico) Coasts, perhaps colliding around Wichita, Kansas if the gulf Tsunami were delayed a bit.
  
  Now I would rather deter the Empire faction (“You have to understand, we’re a moral piece of shit now (i.e. Empire) and WE determine what reality is, now!” with somewhat lower threshold countermeasures than towering waves from sea to shining sea.
  
  For if that kind of surf were to come up all at once, I just couldn’t bear the thought of David Chu singing “Everybody’s Gone Surfin’, Surfin USA!!”
  - David Chu on April 29, 2015 · at 11:46 pm EST/EDT
    
    20-30 meters high tsunamis on both coasts would probably take care of the United States, well at least the important cities and the intelligentsia!
    
    Never liked the Beach Boys. Or Elvis.
    
    I’d probably be singing “New Year’s Day” by U2 or “Sweet Dreams Are Made of This” by the Eurythmics!
    - mind and soul on April 30, 2015 · at 3:03 am EST/EDT
      
      I don’t know. I searched those songs and saw no water theme therein.Nor could I relate in any other way, shape or form.
      
      As for the Beach Boys and Elvis, they didn’t write “Surfin USA”. Chuck Berry wrote it.
      
      I guess I’m from before your time.
Richard Steven Hack on April 29, 2015 · at 7:58 pm EST/EDT

I agree with Aristides. The probability of success in such plans is too low, the cost too high and only a suicidal Hitler would consider such plans seriously.

We have lunatic generals here in the US who might consider such plans, so it’s no surprise that Russia has lunatic generals as well. Generals are “in general” (pun intended) lunatics.

I’m not worried about “extinction level events” because by definition I wouldn’t survive one. That’s what makes then “extinction level”. The likelihood of these plans working is on a par with being hit by an asteroid, i.e., estimated at 500,000 to 1. I and you take those odds every day, by definition.

This article is just an example of how stupid and megalomaniacal the military mind is.

In any event, in some country ever actually attempted to build such a device, it would be detected by intelligence operations by other countries who would sabotage the plans on a continuous basis and probably assassinate any rulers who would attempt them.

Forget about it. You’re far more likely to die in a fire or by dog bite than a supervolcano or tsunami.
LB on April 29, 2015 · at 7:58 pm EST/EDT

“I always thought that if a there was a Nuclear Explosion and I was the General Secretary of the CPSU (it was still the Cold War), I would *not* retaliate in kind to a US strike. Russia would perish, but that would be Russia’s last gift to mankind: life”

Mr Saker.

There is a phrase I reserve only for the Mandela’s, Kennedy’s, Gandhi’s, MLK’s (and many others) of this world and it is: “one of the finest runners in the race”.

Your statement above, IMHO, makes you the finest runner in the race.

I am deeply moved. Thank you for being, existing. Please don’t die anytime soon.

L.
- anonym on April 30, 2015 · at 3:28 pm EST/EDT
  
  that would be the most defeatist way for any body to self destroy.
  in 90s i always wondered as to why the Russians did not kill as many americans and british spies who are roaming around inside kremlin during yeltsin attack on the Russian parliament. it would be better tot kill even by world war those enemis than to bear the humiliation of her wealth to the tune of 2 trillions dollars being carted away to london and have her women used as prize bride or even prostitute by ugly anglo men and have old pensioners allowed to die of cold and hunger .
  much better would have been for russia to kill anglo race rather than self destruct uselessly.
  then i realized -Russia did not lose cold war-Russia was betrayed b y anglophile traitors inside Russia.
  - FLOR solitaria on April 30, 2015 · at 7:07 pm EST/EDT
    
    They were not killed. They were exchanged.
mataj on April 29, 2015 · at 8:17 pm EST/EDT

> Russia would perish, but that would be Russia’s last gift to mankind: life. Russia would chose to sacrifice

That sacrifice would be in vain, just like everything else once the Button has been pushed.

Fallout from the nuclear war between India & Pakistan would destroy civilization.

Fallout from the nuclear war between US & Russia would exterminate all higher life forms on Earth a couple of times over, even if it remains one sided.
- David Chu on April 29, 2015 · at 11:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  Spoken like another well-informed Sheeple! Not!
  
  Nuclear War as in WW3 is survivable: http://www.armageddononline.org/PDF/Misc%20Books/survivedoomsday.pdf
Joy on April 29, 2015 · at 8:49 pm EST/EDT

In brief:

1) The Yellowstone option: A) as others have noted, it probably would not work. Too many unknowns B) If it did work, the ensuing nuclear winter would also depopulate the entire northern hemisphere due to YEARS of crop failures. Russia especially would not survive, China would also be devastated. Southern India would be decimated but survive. Brazil and South Africa could muddle through.

2) The tsunami option: A) If Sakharov ran the numbers and said it would work, I believe it. B) Guys, if you do this, please don’t forget the Denver airport.
Daniel Rich on April 29, 2015 · at 9:24 pm EST/EDT

Q; Even relatively weak tsunami with the height of several dozens meters could have catastrophic consequences for the US.

R; This is what a wave of about 12 meters does, when it crashes onto the shores of mainland Japan.

Or this, from a static pov.

You’d almost forget people are dying, right before your very eyes…
Anonymous on April 29, 2015 · at 11:13 pm EST/EDT

The US empire would destroy itself even if Russia would not retaliate because of the nuclear winter.

“including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate[i] and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer[ii]. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death. [iii]”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/30/lethality-nuclear-weapons/

@”I would *not* retaliate in kind to a US strike.”

Using the EMP effect would be a “clean way” to retaliate and destroy the US empire. A small number of bombs in the atmosphere would be enough to achieve this.
Rootman on April 29, 2015 · at 11:40 pm EST/EDT

Strangely enough the easiest location to trigger a megatsunami event is omitted: La Palma, A volcanic Island in which the western part is almost sliding in the ocean as we speak. The Canary islands are basically cones built up from layers of soft ash and brittle lava. The ocean has eroded the base, and it is assumed that a major eruption or quake would trigger the event. These events are common on a Yellowstone timescale, and depth maps can show similar mega landslides from the geological past: draw a circle around Tenerife, and notice the large bays: at those places segments of the cone has slid into the sea (slightly simplified, because Tenerifes´ central cone , the Teide, has incorporated 3 older islands (Tena, Anaga and Conde) )

That said, it is a lovely island, with friendly people and many beautiful endemic species. All volcanic islands have violent geological histories though.
metamars on April 29, 2015 · at 11:55 pm EST/EDT

“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”

To that end, perhaps the Russian military leadership could build low earth orbit satellites with very BIG, very LOUD speakers, and position them in geosynchronous orbit around the US. Then, when the US gets too uppity, just flip the ON switch, and play Chinese Opera music. (Kind of sounds like cats being strangled; I assume you need a pitch sensitive Chinese ear to hear it as it was aesthetically intended. Most Americans don’t have such aural faculties.).

There are three main obstacles with this plan.
1) the satellites are vulnerable to interception
2) speakers would have to be the size of Mount Everest (which makes launching them into space quite pricey, ya know)
3) Russia’s Chinese allies might get upset at the cultural insensitivity
- Grieved on April 30, 2015 · at 5:41 am EST/EDT
  
  Dude, you’re shooting down your own brilliant plan with too much pessimism. You don’t LAUNCH such monster speakers, you mine a meteorite and BUILD them in space. Problem solved!
anonym on April 30, 2015 · at 12:41 am EST/EDT

Instead of killing so many and destroying so many nations Russia would be well advised to send only tens of topol m nukes to england and sort out the evil plotters once and for all.
In fact it was not America but england which asked for ABM againstt Russia
NATO was created by the english for the english and now it is the english who are managing the whole war behind americns and European patsies.
without taking out the english the whole world war would be futile for any country. the center of 5 evil eyes must be taken out just like you cut the head of snake.
- Shane Connor on April 30, 2015 · at 7:33 am EST/EDT
  
  Most all the nukes deployed by the USA, Russia and China today are in the 100kt to 500kt range, few are over even 1 megaton (1,000kt).
  
  Our greatest vulnerability is the general public’s ignorance of how easily they could minimize unnecessarily becoming a victim. 90% of the casualties, amongst the affected populations, are 100% avoidable when people know & employ the basics of Civil Defense blast & fallout protection.
  
  Sound preposterous!?! See for yourself the ‘Good News About Nuclear Destruction’ at
  http://www.GoodNewsNuke.com
  - Poppadop on May 02, 2015 · at 7:01 pm EST/EDT
    
    Thanks for the heads up, Shane.
BRF on April 30, 2015 · at 2:26 am EST/EDT

Yes, a real live night mare to be sure of geological proportions and one that I believe has already been used as some say the signature of the earth quake that triggered the tsunami that took out much of the western Japanese seaboard and the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was not that of natural geological phenomena but rather that of a nuclear explosive device. Perhaps to convince the straying vassal Japan to get back in line and to quit making overtures with China?
Edward on April 30, 2015 · at 2:33 am EST/EDT

Several times during the cold war a nuclear war was only averted thanks to the intervention of a Soviet officer– a KGB officer on a submarine during the Cuban missile crisis, a KGB officer in Britain in 1985, and another officer when some faulty equipment mistakenly displayed a missile attack, However, what is being described in this article sounds like it would exclude such officers.
вот так on April 30, 2015 · at 3:01 am EST/EDT

And in the back of my mind, I always thought that Nuclear Explosion smallif I was the General Secretary of the CPSU (it was still the Cold War), I would *not* retaliate in kind to a US strike. Russia would perish, but that would be Russia’s last gift to mankind: life. Russia would chose to sacrifice herself and let herself be destroyed like Saints Boris and Gelb had done at the begging of the (old) Russian history, the Russian New Martyrs did at its end, without striking back, just like Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.

I would prefer it was the USA/[G]ATO making that sacrifice for the survival of life on the planet, rather than Russia (IE: Russia taking them out instead of being the one taken out). But I’ll admit, I’m prejudiced…

But more realistically, unless one side is able to neutralise the nuclear forces of the other in a non-nuclear manner, the amount of nuclear fallout produced in WW3 would up end radiating the planet beyond tolerable levels. Which along with the nuclear winter and those of worldwide conventional war, would result in the “winners” getting to be king of a planet about as appealing as Mars.
- TerraHertz on April 30, 2015 · at 6:17 am EST/EDT
  
  “the amount of nuclear fallout produced in WW3 would up end radiating the planet beyond tolerable levels.”
  
  Something few seem to think about, is that it doesn’t even require a nuclear war to make Earth radiologically uninhabitable.
  
  Any kind of global collapse of technological civilization will end up producing that same result. Because of all the nuclear power plants and high level radioactive waste repositories, where containment would fail eventually with no one able to maintain them.
  
  It might take a few hundred years for enough long life high level radioactives to leech from such sites into the environment, to reach background radiation levels incompatible with all higher forms of life (mammals, etc), but it would happen. Absolutely definitely.
  
  When/if we humans drop the civilization balls THIS TIME, it’s the end of meaningful life on Earth for a very long time. And there’s nothing we can do to avoid that as things are now. Shutting down ALL nuclear sites, and burying all the materials in deep geologically stable formations might do it. Be we won’t do that now, and once a collapse starts (which it may already be now), it’s too late since the physical, technical and energy capability will be gone.
  
  So, it’s kind of important we *don’t* drop the ball. No nuclear wars, no triggering Yellowstone, no giant tidal waves… there’s no survival for the human species or Earth itself if anything like those events happen, while the world still has thousands of tons of long half-life radioactives sitting around with nothing between them and the environment but some building walls and maintenance guys.
  
  This is why I say it’s essential for Humankind to rid itself of the psychotic Elite parasites and their lunatic dominance games. There are important things we as a species should be urgently directing all our abilities towards. One of which is removing the nuclear contamination tripwired suicide bomb currently strapped to Planet Earth’s chest. The Elites are apparently intellectually incapable of recognizing the true threats to life on Earth, and so will never act on them.
  
  We *have* to get rid of the insane parasites that got us into this position, before we can fix it.
  Seriously, in my analysis we have to kill those few thousand self-styled Elites, or we are all going to die, and Earth’s biosphere too, for many millions of years. It’s a matter of life and death, and urgent.
  - anonym on April 30, 2015 · at 3:48 pm EST/EDT
    
    quote “Seriously, in my analysis we have to kill those few thousand self-styled Elites, or we are all going to die, ”
    exactly.
    that is why Russia should start killing those evil in the western lands.
    that is exactly what west does most of the time-assassination of political opponents and other heads of states.
TerraHertz on April 30, 2015 · at 5:53 am EST/EDT

The best asymmetrical warfare option, would involve much smaller weapons and produce no ecological harm at all. It begins with correctly identifying your true enemy. And that is never an entire nation of ordinary people.

Identify the individuals who own all the top corporations. Those behind the fiat currency and fractional reserve banking scams. Those involved in rigging the precious metals and stock markets. Those pushing to abolish physical cash. Those pushing DRM treaties and trying to control the availability of knowledge. Those attempting to subvert the Internet. Those trying to mutate personal computers into closed-architecture spying and marketing tools. Those turning vaccines into weapons of immunological mass self destruction. Those behind poisons in food and water, like aspartame, fluoride, etc. The organizational core of the Global Warming liars. The entire top tier of global bankers. And so on.

People like the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers at the top, but make a list of maybe 100,000 of these bastards and their helpers. All the Cttee of 300, the Bilderbergers, CFR, neocons, etc.

Then just kill them all, suddenly one day with no warning or negotiation. How hard could that be, for a state armed with cruise missiles, small nukes, and any number of RPGs, etc? Or just publish the list of names and address, make a start on killing the ones you can find, and ask the people of the world to help give the rest of them what they deserve.

Because, these people are clearly working towards killing all of us, who oppose their supreme rule. Turnaround is fair.

Figuring out a workable, equitable social and economic order would be much easier without these scum constantly perverting everything they touch into mechanisms of theft and control. Also the entire concept of US global dominance is very much their creation.

No more Elite, no problems, to misquote Stalin.

Oh, and two nukes, one for Tel Aviv, the other for Jerusalem.
Possibly everyone who thinks they are ‘God’s chosen anything’ should be on that list too.
- Anonymous on April 30, 2015 · at 10:44 am EST/EDT
  
  “It begins with correctly identifying your true enemy.”
  
  The opponents have been trying to do that for some time – one of the results of which is creating new enemies.
  
  The straegy is self-defeating although the exceptionalists “think” they know better.
  
  Regards to Billy Kristol – always enjoyed his stand-ups.
- anonym on April 30, 2015 · at 3:59 pm EST/EDT
  
  don’t forget the centre of evil [MOD: please stop calling for the death of millions of innocent ordinary people just because you hate their Government…. they hate it too but they have no choice. [
Peter on April 30, 2015 · at 5:59 am EST/EDT

NASA redirecting asteroids?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/initiative/index.html

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

Plausible deniability I guess if they mess up and one hits earth.

This article opens up a whole new can of worms.
Ben on April 30, 2015 · at 6:40 am EST/EDT

“… This means that Russia could possess the asymmetric weapon within the next 10 years.”

That explains why US “hawks” are in such a hurry to neutralise Russia asap by taking over the central government in Moscow.
Anonymous on April 30, 2015 · at 9:50 am EST/EDT

Perhaps context will lessen the recourse to and the effects of techniques of emotional oscillation, aka strategy of tension.

http://orientalreview.org/2015/04/30/how-to-really-avert-a-nuclear-war/

When in proximity to striptease the wise often look at the audience rather than the stripper.
- Anonymous on April 30, 2015 · at 12:15 pm EST/EDT
  
  Amongst the many
  
  http://russia-insider.com/en/media-watch/russian-state-truth-mass-independent-media/6206
  - Anonymous on May 01, 2015 · at 6:00 am EST/EDT
    
    More boys crying wolf.
    
    http://rt.com/uk/254581-hsbc-leaving-city-ploy/
Miroslav on April 30, 2015 · at 12:27 pm EST/EDT

Doomsday concept is interesting but it relies heavily on sanity of both sides. Over-aged people like McCain, Soros, Kissinger, Brzezinsky give f**k about some Russian retaliation. Nuclear war means only end of their troubles with cancers, ulcers, impotence and coming senility for them. And some fun, of course.
Vierotchka on April 30, 2015 · at 12:39 pm EST/EDT

My first cousin once removed, Saint (and count) Alexander Georg Ludwig Julius von Medem, is one of the Russian New Martyrs you referred to in your introduction, Saker.

With regard to nuclear retaliation, the famous Mertvaya Ruka (aka Система «Периметр», known also as Perimeter) or (Dead Hand) established during Soviet times is still in place and regularly maintained and upgraded.
Anonymous on April 30, 2015 · at 4:34 pm EST/EDT

https://markosun.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/pentagon-planners-come-up-with-the-most-dastardly-schemes/
FLOR solitaria on April 30, 2015 · at 5:07 pm EST/EDT

…the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle…
Alpha Centauri on April 30, 2015 · at 10:18 pm EST/EDT

Eventually, Russia will have to counter Western superiority by putting weapons into space. The US may do the same but that would not matter as long as mutually assured destruction is maintained. The late Soviet Union was well on its way towards weaponizing space when it launched a prototype of a large, laser-carrying anti-satellite platform called the Polyus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_%28spacecraft%29

The Soviet effort was meant as an asymmetrical response to the Star Wars program initiated by Ronald Reagan. If the Soviet Union concluded that weaponizing space was the answer, then Russia wil draw the same conclusion.

The again, the question always is why China is not doing more in the way of cooperating with Russia. After all, China faces the same threat. These two countries together could certainly do a lot more than anyone of them on its own.
Rootman on May 01, 2015 · at 12:05 am EST/EDT

The very weak point of this story is that it can never be tested. So there can be no warning, like Hiroshima.

So there will always be unbelievers, including in high places. History is full of stories about superweapons.
Anonymous on May 01, 2015 · at 3:48 am EST/EDT

The AngloZionists don’t care about America much more than they care about Russia. They’ve already relocated to the Southern Hemisphere ( with Patagonia and New Zealand being the favorite areas) in anticipation of the global extermination of the population using nukes and biopathogens ( the genetically engineered unknown ones and the known natural , like the Spanish Flu etc.) to mass-murder 90% of the homo sapience, the remainder allowed to survive are to be enslaved .
- Vierotchka on May 01, 2015 · at 4:25 pm EST/EDT
  
  Source?
  - FLOR solitaria on May 01, 2015 · at 8:23 pm EST/EDT
    
    Why would you need a source for that ? Isn’t this blog continuously alerting everybody about the Evil Empire ?
- Poppadop on May 02, 2015 · at 3:40 am EST/EDT
  
  They’ve already relocated to the Southern Hemisphere ( with Patagonia and New Zealand being the favorite areas) in anticipation of the global extermination…
  
  If that’s the plan, then what’s the hold-up?
Veritas on May 01, 2015 · at 1:36 pm EST/EDT

Dear The Saker,

Interesting piece by Pepe:

http://rt.com/op-edge/254213-nato-eu-russia-economy-swift/

Why NATO is terrified of Russia.

Rgds,

Veritas
Steve Edward on May 01, 2015 · at 9:25 pm EST/EDT

Has Russia tested such weapons on a limited basis to see if they could
cause an earthquake, or a volcano to erupt, or a tsunami to be generated?

Based on Russia’s plans to build such weapons over the next number of years,
does that mean these prospective weapons may not actually
generate the expected earthquake, or volcano, or tsunami?

Is it possible these weapons may not perform as expected,
much like chem-trail technology of America is actually
producing more problems than solving.

In any event, even if such weapons may not work as planed, the West may fear they might work. In itself, such fear might be enough to discourage Western threats against Russia.

So? I guess we might all be going back to a new kind of MAD.

Mutually Assured Destruction, but with Russia coming out of it somewhat better than the West
if such a war was ever contemplated ?
Wayoutwest on May 02, 2015 · at 2:17 am EST/EDT

Does this Sivkov character write for the Russian version of the Onion? His pseudoscience based harebrained theories on Russian alternatives to real deterrence might make a passable B Movie but any sane defense expert would have him locked in a padded room.
Leo on May 02, 2015 · at 5:57 am EST/EDT

Who or how would Russia help by not retaliating?? Sorry but thats childish.
- Anonymous on May 03, 2015 · at 12:23 am EST/EDT
  
  If there was a first strike attack by the US the Russian response would be initiated before the US rockets started reentry or cruise missiles reached their targets. This is why we have deterrence between the US and Russia and why there will be no Nuke war, MAD.
  
  This fruitcake Sivkov is promoting fantasies that only rubes would take seriously.
telaberry on May 03, 2015 · at 4:06 am EST/EDT

the idea of triggering a nuclear volcanoe with a nuclear bomb, even tsar bomba whose initial 100megaton blast was scaled to 50—

is stupid and absurd.

anyone who has done a f**ks worth of study on underground nuclear testing knows that when you put a nuke above ground, almost all the energy goes into the atmosphere not the earth, and to boot, the larger the bomb, the more of it goes directly upwards towards the stratosphere and above.

you are NOT going to set off a nuclear bomb by diggiing substantially below the surface, a few hundred meters down without already controlling yellowstone. arguably you could use a deep penetrating icbm , but i’m not so sure it woudl penetrate deep enough into the eartth.

furthermore, and most importantly, it has never been proven a deep well of magma can be ‘released’ by any practical motion of the earth, or excavation of the earth, that could be induced with mankinds current technology. evne a surface volcanoe is not easy to instigate into active states, so how do you think a huge deeply subterranean magma chamber will be ‘awakened’.

this is beyond stupid.
sadly.
José Carlos Vieira Filho on May 03, 2015 · at 3:07 pm EST/EDT

There is no need for a nuclear atack in Yellowstone. Fracking industry is closing there.
epi on May 03, 2015 · at 4:45 pm EST/EDT

“The emergence of such weapon will exclude any threat of the large scale wars against our country even in the condition of the enemy’s overwhelming superiority in traditional weapon systems.”

That will require a rational enemy.
Or that the US isn’t in fact a remote controlled zombie power. Consider the follwing strategy: Let all nuclear powers on the northern hemisphere destroy each other, who is the next number one?
A: The one sufficiently small and mobile to quickly relocate south, watch for a build up of events in the Falklands.
James Wood on May 05, 2015 · at 3:04 am EST/EDT

Impressive. Yet the question must be asked, “Are nuclear weapons obsolete?” In 1896 Antoine Henri Becquerel discovered that uranium ore would fog a photographic plate. Soon thereafter the famous Curies discovered Polonium and Radium. The first atomic bomb was detonated apparently in 1945. A period of 49 years. From 1945 to 2015 is a period of 70 years. Has scientific discovery proceeded so slowly that nothing fundamentally new has been discovered during these last 70 years?

One cannot help but wonder about the current era if the atomic bombs had not been used against Japan. Would the U.S. have hidden the existence of these weapons as a state secret? Can you imagine a 2015 possessing only what would now be called conventional arms? However more powerful these weapons might be compared to the 1930’s versions they would, even as now, be swamped by the sudden release in war of the long hidden nuclear devices. The difference would be that they would create an immense surprise.

Since 1945 governments have become acutely worried about the political power of advancing technology and have made greater efforts to hide developments in technology from the public; especially military technology. Can we really consider the proposals made in the article above as serious proposals even if perfectly feasible? One must consider the possibility that nuclear weapons are the final weapons of the last great war. Speaking of them constantly is only a smokescreen to hide later developments.

With respect to Russia there is the claim of scalar electromagnetic weapons, a consequence of an extension of electromagnetic theory beyond Maxwell, with characteristics far more devastating and far more controllable. These weapons it is claimed can suppress nuclear reactions from a distance ending the nuclear threat. They can also burn off a continent in their own right or possibly just kill the people living there leaving the infrastructure untouched. Moreover, the implied scale of their implementation suggests that they can be maintained and used by a few thousand people satisfying the criterion of unimpeded state control.

Since development of these weapons by the Soviet Union it is argued began in Stalin’s time, a response to the West’s demonstration of nuclear bombs, operational weapons must be presumed to have been in the soviet arsenal for several decades. the Russian Federation as inheritor should now possess them. They are all that is claimed for super bombs and more.

More about these weapons can be found at http://www.cheniere.org/. The individual, Mr. Bearden, may or may not be credible to you. Nevertheless, the basic premise that science and technology by now must have moved on to incredible new developments cannot be denied. The idea is deeply embedded in the history of technology. It drives the much more popularly recognized concept of the Singularity–the idea that science and technology must in all dimensions of life drive human experience beyond anything that can currently be conceived.

Given the above, the kind of weapons that can smash the earth like a large wooden mallet taken to a rotten apple may already have existed for some time and Russia is a prime candidate for their possession. For this reason I am inclined to see the horrors of the above article as something of a smokescreen over a much more terrifying current reality, or possibly with a little fatalism a calming one. A reality with the future promise that eventually almost anyone can destroy the earth.

Really! Why shouldn’t nuclear weapons already be obsolete? Could it be that Russia is already invulnerable to direct military action despite the posturing? What are the political consequences? Could the current color revolutions, etc. just be a recognition of complete and utter stalemate on the battlefield, nukes or not? How would complete and utter crazies proceed if even they had to admit to themselves major war is obsolete but would not or could not admit it publicly? Could it be the world we enjoy today?
- Wayoutwest on May 06, 2015 · at 3:35 am EST/EDT
  
  I didn’t think Sivkov’s fantasies could be outdone but your whimsies leave him in the dust.
  
  BTW the Bomb was known about long before it was first detonated even by the USSR.
Christoph on May 06, 2015 · at 9:48 pm EST/EDT

Let’s step back a second and consider the following:
We have been scared of a superpower confrontation for 60 years now.
What has happened?
Nothing that was expected.
Instead, literacy, culture, and independent thought have been the real victims so far.
This is scheduled to continue until the white man has regressed to pre-Egyptian levels.
From one phony scare to the next.
If you disagree, just give me the reason why Communism was abolished or why Anwar al Sadat always called the SU “the imaginary foe of the West”.
Hint 1: Russia’s freewheeling intellectual life of the 1980s needed containment through a wave of Americanism.
Hint 2: thinking men are hot stuff and the best way to handle them is by throwing them from one hand to the other once in a while.
Kenneth Graham on October 19, 2016 · at 11:32 am EST/EDT

As a former SR-71 RSO, our biggest tool in preventing nuclear war was our surveillance capabilities and a series of checks and balances. We are in a new era and perhaps the most unstable yet. I have studied both American and Russian war strategies and in this next era, it is obvious to me that Russia will protect itself if needed. The current Obama Administration has no understanding of how to deal with Mr. Putin and the corollary, Mr. Putin has no respect for Obama and his antics. At this time, Russia has continued to increase its nuclear arsenal and we seemed to favor limitation but weapons are being repurposed in the American arsenal. Bottom line is: new weapons beyond nuclear now exist and weather is one of them. In the future war, the spoils will go to the one who can seemingly wield god like forces at the enemy and leave the country intact but make it appear as if a huge natural disaster has taken place. There will be no need for nuclear weapons in this strategy.
- Jonathan on October 19, 2016 · at 2:04 pm EST/EDT
  
  Very interesting. I would suggest though, that this type of strategy would not seem to favor the US. Here large coastal populations would be much more vulnerable to weather disruptions than Russia with its limited coastline and continental geography.
  
  In general, the US seems already highly at risk due to overpopulation and high utilization of water and arable farmland resources. Particularly over-utilization of the Colorado river in the West, depletion of aquifers in several regions and loss of topsoil in the farming states such as Iowa.
  
  A small variation in rainfall patterns could cause severe droughts, crop loss and famine.
Bryan Combs on November 21, 2016 · at 7:24 pm EST/EDT

I wish our two countries would spend as much time trying to work together instead of figuring out ways to destroy each other. Russia and the USA might be the only thing standing in China’s way of global domination. Better yet, why can’t all three work together? Stupid human pride and ego, that’s why.