WHAT A US-RUSSIA NUCLEAR WAR WOULD LOOK LIKE.

 WHAT A US-RUSSIA NUCLEAR WAR WOULD LOOK LIKE

PROOF HALF ON EARTH DIE DURING THE 7 YR TRIBULATION PERIOD (8 BILLION ON EARTH)

REVELATION 6:7-8 (8 BILLION- 2 BILLION = 6 BILLION)
7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse:(CHLORES GREEN) and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth,(2 BILLION) to kill with sword,(WEAPONS) and with hunger,(FAMINE) and with death,(INCURABLE DISEASES) and with the beasts of the earth.(ANIMAL TO HUMAN DISEASE).

REVELATION 9:15,18 (6 BILLION - 2 BILLION = 4 BILLION)
15 And the four(DEMONIC WAR) angels were loosed,
18 By these three was the third part of men killed,(2 BILLION) by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.(NUCLEAR ATOMIC BOMBS)

HALF OF EARTHS POPULATION DIE DURING THE 7 YR TRIBULATION.(THESE VERSES ARE JUDGEMENT SCRIPTURES NOT RAPTURE SCRIPTURES)

LUKE 17:34-37 (8 TOTAL BILLION - 4 BILLION DEAD IN TRIB = 4 BILLION TO JESUS KINGDOM) (HALF DIE DURING THE 7 YR TRIBULATION PERIOD JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS)(GOD DOES NOT LIE)(AND NOTICE MOST DIE IN WAR AND DISEASES-NOT COMETS-ASTEROIDS-QUAKES OR TSUNAMIS)
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other shall be left.(half earths population 4 billion die in the 7 yr trib)
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.(Christians have new bodies,this is the people against Jerusalem during the 7 yr treaty)(Christians bodies are not being eaten by the birds).THESE ARE JUDGEMENT SCRIPTURES-NOT RAPTURE SCRIPTURES.BECAUSE NOT HALF OF PEOPLE ON EARTH ARE CHRISTIANS.AND THE CONTEXT IN LUKE 17 IS THE 7 YEAR TRIBULATION OR 7 YR TREATY PERIOD.WHICH IS JUDGEMENT ON THE EARTH.NOT 50% RAPTURED TO HEAVEN.

MATTHEW 24:37-42 (THESE ARE JUDGEMENT SCRIPTURES-SURE NOT RAPTURE SCRIPTURES)
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other left.41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other left.
42 Watch therefore:(FOR THE LAST DAYS SIGNS HAPPENING) for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

AMERICA (POLITICAL BABYLON)(NUKED BY SNEAK ATTACK FROM RUSSIA)

IN REVELATION 17 & 18 IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL BABYLONS.IF YOU CAN NOT DECERN BETWEEN THE 2 BABYLONS IN REV 17 & 18.YOU WILL JUST THINK THEIR BOTH THE SAME.BUT NO-THERES A RELIGIOUS BABYLON (THE VATICAN IN REV 17)(AND THE POLITICAL BABYLON IN REV 18 (AMERICA OR NEW YORK TO BE EXACT)

ISAIAH 34:10
10  It (AMERICA-POLITICAL BABYLON) shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

JEREMIAH 51:29-32 (CYBER ATTACK 1ST)
29  And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for every purpose of the LORD shall be performed against Babylon,(AMERICA-NEW YORK) to make the land of Babylon (AMERICA) a desolation without an inhabitant.
30  The mighty men of Babylon (AMERICA) have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.
031  One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon (NEW YORK) that his city is taken at one end,
32  And that the passages are stopped,(THE WAR COMPUTERS HACKED OR EMP'D) and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted.(DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO)

COMPLETE SILENCE AFTER AN EMP GOES OFF
REVELATION 8:1
1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

JEREMIAH 50:3,24
3 For out of the north (RUSSIA) there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.
24 I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon,(AMERICA) and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast striven against the LORD. (RUSSIA A SNEAK CYBER,EMP ATTACK,THEN NUKE ATTACK ON AM

EZEKIEL 39:11-22
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog (RUSSIA/ARAB/MUSLIMS) a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers (EAST OF THE DEAD SEA IN JORDAN VALLEY) on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog (RUSSIAN) and all his multitude:(ARAB/MUSLIM HORDE) and they shall call it The valley of Hamongog.(BURIEL SITE OF THE 300 MILLION,RUSSIAN/ARAB/MUSLIMS)
12 And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.(OF ISRAEL)
13 Yea, all the people of the land (OF ISRAEL) shall bury them; and it shall be to them a renown the day that I (GOD-JESUS) shall be glorified, saith the Lord GOD.
14 And they shall sever out men of continual employment,(NUCLEAR ATOMIC BOMB EXPERTS) passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search.
15 And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man’s bone, then shall he set up a sign by it,(WON'T TOUCH IT) till the buriers have buried it (PROPERLY) in the valley of Hamongog.(RUSSIA/ARAB/MUSLIMS NEW BURIEL SITE)(EAST OF THE DEAD SEA IN THE JORDAN VALLEY)
16 And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land.(OF THE ISRAEL-GOD HATERS)
17 And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl,(500 MILLION MIGRATING BIRDS THREW ISRAEL EVERY SPRING,FALL) and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood.(OF THE RUSSIAN/ARAB/MUSLIM ARMIES)
18  Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan.
19  And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.
20  Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.
21  And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

Nuclear bombs trigger a strange effect that can fry your electronics — here's how it works-Dave Mosher-Jun 7, 2017, 10:05 AM-electromagnetic pulse emp nuclear bomb blast electricity.

Nuclear blasts trigger an effect called electromagnetic pulse, or EMP. EMP can disrupt or even destroy electronics from miles away.Blasts miles above a country like the US might severely damage its electric and telecommunications infrastructure.A nuclear detonation creates plenty of terrifying effects, including a blinding (and burning) flash of light, a building-toppling blast wave, an incendiary fireball, and radioactive fallout that can drift for hundreds of miles.But there's a lesser-known consequence of a nuclear explosion that can drastically expand its damage zone: an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.EMPs are rapid, invisible bursts of electromagnetic energy. They occur in nature, most frequently during lightning strikes, and can disrupt or destroy nearby electronics.However, nuclear EMPs — if a detonation is large enough and high enough — can cover an entire continent and cripple tiny circuits inside modern electronics on a massive scale, according to US government reports. The power grid, phone and internet lines, and other infrastructure that uses metal may also be prone to the effects, which resemble those of a devastating geomagnetic storm.Savvy readers called this to our attention after we published expert advice on why you should never get in a car after a nuclear bomb is detonated. Brooke Buddemeier, a radiation expert at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, suggested sheltering deep within a building instead, and tuning in to a radio for instructions. In response, a reader pointed out that "radios, computers, anything that use[s] electrical transmission to power itself will be effectively neutralized" by the bomb's EMP.This may be correct — but fortunately only in very specific and rare situations.How electromagnetic pulse worksNuclear explosions don't make EMPs directly; the effect requires a couple of key ingredients.The first is a nuke's invisible burst of gamma rays, a form of light typically emitted by the "hottest and most energetic objects in the universe," according to NASA. A small fraction of a bomb's energetic yield — between 0.1% and 0.5% — is emitted as gamma rays. These slam into air molecules, knock off electrons, and accelerate the negatively charged particles to about 90% of the speed of light.Earth's magnetic field then shuttles many of these high-speed electrons toward the planet's poles in a corkscrew-like pattern. The electrons respond to this movement by letting off their newly acquired energy as a powerful soup of electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves.This is a nuclear electromagnetic pulse. It happens within a fraction of a microsecond, and the surge of energy can overload or "shock" sensitive electronic devices — especially the kinds we heavily rely on today.nuclear bomb-A nuclear test blast."[T]he radiation can be collected by metallic and other conductors at a distance, just as radio waves are picked up by antennas," according to an unclassified 1977 report from the Department of Defense and Department of Energy."The energy from the EMP is received in such a very short time, however, that it produces a strong electric current which could damage the equipment," it said. "An equal amount of energy spread over a long period of time, as in conventional radio reception, would have no harmful effect."When EMP passes through metal objects like a phone, computer, or radio, they can "catch" this incredibly powerful pulse. This can generate a rogue current of electricity that moves through a modern device's tiny circuits and can disrupt or even destroy them. Power transmission or telecommunications equipment, meanwhile, can overload from the excess current, spark, and fail for miles around.If you've ever turned on a microwave oven and noticed your phone's Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connection momentarily drop out, you've experienced disruptive electromagnetic waves — and had a very small taste of what could happen with an EMP.The intensity of a nuclear detonation's EMP is about 30,000 to 50,000 volts per meter — thousands of times greater than the one your microwave bleeds off.Fortunately, not all nuclear blasts are created equal when it comes to EMP. Why altitude is everything-Nuclear detonations that occur dozens or hundreds of miles above Earth could have devastating consequences compared to those that happen on the ground.At a high elevation, gamma rays can more easily spread out, hitting many upper-atmosphere air molecules over a large area at once. The low density of air allows electrons to move more freely and maximize the intensity of an EMP.A 2008 report by the EMP Commission suggests that the right nuclear device detonated at the right altitude could bathe the entire continental US in EMP, disrupting telecommunications and power grid infrastructure to "catastrophic" effect. This report is viewed with skepticism by some physicists and weapons experts, and the EMP threat by some countries, such as North Korea, is considered "ridiculous and laughable."Still, nuclear EMP is real. With an explosion close to the ground, however, many of the gamma rays would slam into the earth. Those rays would have a harder time creating a large electric field that could generate widespread EMP. And the greater density of air wouldn't help, either.The US government actively plans for 15 disaster scenarios, one of which is a terrorist-caused nuclear detonation that occurs close to the ground with a yield of about 10 kilotons — roughly 66% as powerful as the Hiroshima blast.This setup is the one we discussed with Buddemeier, and in that case he says the nuclear blast itself would give you a lot more to worry about than bricked electronics or power loss."[T]here would be some localized EMP effects," he told Business Insider in an email, "but if you were close enough for you equipment to be damaged by EMP (within a couple miles), then you are also close enough to be significantly impacted by the blast wave."nuclear blast zone damage 10 kiloton ground blast llnl-Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Put another way, you may not survive inside this zone, which can stretch a couple of miles in diameter. And if you did, you'd have to worry about climbing out of radioactive rubble before checking to see whether your radio still worked.It's more likely, Buddemeier says, that within about 5 miles of the blast "you may have a disruptive impact, which doesn’t 'fry' your equipment, but can cause 'latch-up' (e.g., like the endless spinning hourglass on your phone) until restarted."There are hundreds of variables that determine whether or not an EMP affects electronics, Buddemeier says, including "the size and orientation of your device, the structure of the building you are in, plug-in or battery, if it is behind a surge protector," and so on.Because many radios have simpler, less sensitive circuitry than a phone, they're likely to be a first line of information after a ground blast."There is a good chance that there will be plenty of functioning radios even within a few miles of the event and that radio transmission towers outside of the impacted area will still be able to send information on the safest strategy to keep you and your family safe," Buddemeier says.

January 15, 2022 -Here's the American Gameplan for Nuclear War with Russia-Submarines are intended to ensure a massive “second strike” capability to ensure the destruction of anyone launching a nuclear attack upon the US.by Warrior Maven

Here's What You Need to Know: Former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein mapped out what he would do if Russia attacked the US with a nuclear weapon.Red lights start flashing in rapid succession, space-based infrared sensors detect a heat signature, somebody calls the President...and in what may seem like a matter of seconds, the US launches an immediate, massive counterattack. F-35s, B-2 bombers, nuclear-armed Navy submarines, missile-armed destroyers, Ground Based Interceptors and satellites -- are all instantly thrust into action. Why? An enemy has launched a nuclear attack on the US homeland, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile packed with destructive power...is heading toward North Ameri-Just what would the US do? Are there a series of steps, protocols and instant counterattack plans to put in motion instantly? According to US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein, the answer is “yes.”Speaking recently at a Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies Nuclear Deterrence event, Goldfein mapped out what he would do if Russia attacked the US with a nuclear weapon. He cited a series of rapid, successive steps.Step 1 - call NATO.-- "Should war with a nuclear power happen - and I’m gonna primarily use Russia as my example today as the most dangerous nuclear threat we face - I fully expect three lights to light up on my red switch phone in the office. The first call will be the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe - General Tod Wolters - who will tell me what he needs to join NATO forces to halt enemy activity and blunt their objectives. By virtue of the speed with which air and space component deploys and employs, he expects us (US Air Force) to be the first to arrive as his (halt) and his blunt force. Because NATO is first and foremost a nuclear alliance "-- Gen. Goldfein.Goldfein extended this thinking to specify that, in an instant, US and NATO forces would launch a massive counterattack including, as he put it, “fighters, bombers, tankers, space, command and control, ISR, cyber, special operations and aeromedical teams trained and ready for high-end warfare.”This kind of integrated response raises an interesting and relevant question for analysis...what would the respective missions be? Time is, of course, of the essence as millions of lives hang in the balance. An enemy ICBM, after a fast boost-phase launch, will take about 20minutes to travel through space during the mid-course phase -- not much time. However, given the training, forward positioned weapons and range of US assets, there is time to destroy the enemy ICBM and likely … the attackers themselves. While specifics regarding which assets might be part of the plan may not, of course, be available for security reasons...here are a few thoughts for consideration.Should the attack be several years from now, forward-positioned nuclear-armed F-35As (F-35s will have nuclear weapons by then) would enter enemy airspace to instantly attack enemy air assets, but perhaps of even greater significance, destroy enemy nuclear-launch sites. Should F-35s be close to the attacking country and informed of a potential launch by virtue of US-gathered intelligence information, there may be time for an F-35 to attack the ICBM itself during the boost phase with missiles, guns or even lasers. Pentagon officials say these tactics are now in development. F-22s, often cited as a “first strike, first kill” platform, would likely use supercruise speed to immediately attack enemy targets. An F-22 would likely be launched to quickly engage any potential enemy aircraft, given that it is regarded as the best air-to-air combat platform in the world. Sensors, air-to-air missiles and even dogfighting ability would help ensure air supremacy during any possible counterattack. Also, its speed and stealth configuration might enable it to hit enemy targets faster than other attack options.F-22s-Bombers, such as the B-2, would likely use stealth and altitude to go after enemy air-defenses while themselves eluding enemy radar. Also, like F-35s, B-2s are of course nuclear-armed with weapons such as the B61-12. Given the speed, and potential proximity of these air assets, it seems entirely possible that fighters and bombers might be able to destroy enemy air defenses, nuclear-weapons launch sites or even, if ordered by the President, wipe out entire cities. These air platforms could, potentially, attack enemy targets before a US-launched ICBM could reach its target. With this in mind, it is not by accident that Goldfein mentioned NATO because the US and its allies currently have missile defense assets in places such as Romania, Poland and other strategically-positioned areas. F-35s are also forward positioned in strategically significant places throughout Europe to enable rapid deployment if necessary.While some European defenses, such as land-based Aegis-fired SM-3s, might primarily function as a way to knock out long-range ballistic missiles traveling within the earth’s atmosphere -- coming from a rogue state such as Iran -- the US and NATO are increasingly strengthening European-based ICBM defense as well. A Congressional Research Report from June 19 called “Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress,” talks about how the new SM-2 Block IIA is enabling faster development of using Aegis BMD for ICBM defense -- both Terminal phase and the end of space flight or Midcourse phase. Destroyers and cruisers could be better positioned for response by operating in a maritime environment closer to enemy territory or launching enemy missiles. The Congressional report also cites how emerging weapons such as lasers will increasingly contribute to missile defense.“The potential for ship-based lasers, electromagnetic railguns, and hypervelocity projectiles to contribute in coming years to Navy terminalphase BMD operations and the impact this might eventually have on required numbers of ship-based BMD interceptor missiles,” the report writes.The Chief’s mention of tankers seems crucial as well; fighters and bombers will likely need extended dwell time over targets and therefore need to be refueled. Goldfein also mentioned Special Operations Forces (SOF), which calls to mind a number of possibilities. First of all, SOF forces regularly operate within the borders of countries considered high-threat areas; in many instances, this presence is specifically designed to deploy highly-trained, mobile ground-units to attack enemy launch points or command and control assets from the ground. Details of this kind of mission would of course - understandably - not be available, but the Pentagon talks often about forward-operating SOF pursuing missions in high-threat areas.Goldfein’s emphasis upon Russia seems based on a number of factors, not the least of which is the countries’ commitment to an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear posture and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Looking more than a decade into the future, an essay from Air University called “Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Their Role in Future Nuclear Forces,” aligns with Goldfein's thinking.“No other nation (other than Russia) is likely to have a force with the number and accuracy of nuclear weapons needed to threaten US silo-based ICBMs in 2030, although China has the resources and technology to pose a threat by perhaps 2035 if Chinese leaders choose to expand their arsenal,” the essay states. (by Dr. Dennis Evans Dr. Jonathan Schwalbe).Following his first comment, Goldfein described “Step 2.” Call NORAD-- "As soon as I hang up with him (NATO Commander) there will be two other lights blinking. And I’ll talk to the NORTHCOM NORAD commander General Terrence O’Shaughnessy and he’ll team - tell me what he needs to support his increased footprint for homeland defense"…- Goldfein. (according to a Mitchell Institute transcript of Goldfein’s remarks)-Homeland defense, it goes without saying, would include the use of Ground-Based Interceptors. These GBIs would be launched into space to find and intercept attacking ICBMs. The Pentagon is fast at work with GBIs, working on new command and control technology, sensors and targeting. Among other things, this primarily involves increasing the technical ability to discern actual warheads from surrounding decoys, debris or other structures. ICBMs not only break up in flight as its warheads and re-entry bodies separate, but they also, by design, travel with decoys to confuse GBI sensors and increase the prospect that a missile will get through. In recent years, the Missile Defense Agency successfully destroyed an ICBM with a GBI, and there is much work going on to not only improve sensors, but integrate multiple interceptors onto a single missile.Earlier this year, two Raytheon-built Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles simultaneously destroyed a mock-ICBM in a March test. “One EKV intercepted the target and the other gathered test data in what is known as a ‘two-shot’ salvo engagement,” a Raytheon statement said. In what could be described as a significant step forward when it comes to the aforementioned goal of distinguishing decoys from ICBMs, the Raytheon statement added the “EKV identified the threat, discriminated between the target and countermeasures, maneuvered into the target's path and destroyed it using "hit-to-kill" technology." The EKV was cued by Sea-Based X-band radar and AN/TPY-2 radar.This development, considered both highly significant and a “first-of-its-kind” technological step forward, does seem to advance the technical infrastructure needed to fire multiple interceptors and integrated systems to increase the probability of an ICBM “kill.” Raytheon is currently working with the Pentagon on this particular task, through the development of an emerging system called Multi-Object Kill Vehilce (MOKV). The new system, to emerge in the early 2020s, leverages advanced sensor technology and engineering to integrate multipe kill vehicles into a single GBI. As sensor and weapons technologies continue to mature, many senior leaders expect increased coordination between GBIs, satellites and new weapons such as space-based lasers or small drone-like systems able to operate beyond the earth’s atmosphere. Furthermore, there is already ongoing work to extend the range of SM-3s further into space to intercept as well as efforts to develop ship-fired lasers able to operate as advanced sensors to detect enemy weapons.Step 3 - Nuclear Armed Submarines-Goldfein then cited an often-cited and crucial element of the nuclear triad - nuclear armed ballistic submarines quietly patrolling the undersea. These weapons are, among other things, intended to ensure a massive “second strike” capability to ensure destruction of anyone launching a nuclear attack upon the US. The concept for this is, as one Navy official once put it to me, to tell potential enemies contemplating a nuclear attack on the US….”don’t even think about it.”-- "But there’ll be one more blinking light on the phone waiting for me and that’ll be the STRATCOM Commander General John Hyten. And he’ll tell me what he needs to generate the nuclear forces required for a safe, secure, effective deterrent against a nuclear armed adversary "-- Goldfein.Overall, while Goldfein did indicate these steps in a particular order, he emphasized that they would need to happen simultaneously.-- "Every one of these missions is no-fail. And every one of these missions needs to be accomplished simultaneously" -- Goldfein-This article by Kris Osborn originally appeared in DefenseMaven in 2019.Kris Osborn is a Senior Fellow at The Lexington Institute. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has a Masters in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet-As geopolitical tensions rise in nuclear-armed states, scientists are modelling the global impact of nuclear war.BY Alexandra Witze

India test fired a long range nuclear capable Agni-5 missile, able to carry a 1000 kg nuclear warhead.India tests its Agni-5 rocket in 2013, which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads.Credit: Pallava Bagla/Corbis via GettyIt all starts in 2025, as tensions between India and Pakistan escalate over the contested region of Kashmir. When a terrorist attacks a site in India, that country sends tanks rolling across the border with Pakistan. As a show of force against the invading army, Pakistan decides to detonate several small nuclear bombs.The next day, India sets off its own atomic explosions and within days, the nations begin bombing dozens of military targets and then hundreds of cities. Tens of millions of people die in the blasts.That horrifying scenario is just the beginning. Smoke from the incinerated cities rises high into the atmosphere, wrapping the planet in a blanket of soot that blocks the Sun’s rays. The planet plunges into a deep chill. For years, crops wither from California to China. Famine sets in around the globe.This grim vision of a possible future comes from the latest studies about how nuclear war could alter world climate. They build on long-standing work about a ‘nuclear winter’ — severe global cooling that researchers predict would follow a major nuclear war, such as thousands of bombs flying between the United States and Russia. But much smaller nuclear conflicts, which are more likely to occur, could also have devastating effects around the world.This week, researchers report that an India–Pakistan nuclear war could lead to crops failing in dozens of countries — devastating food supplies for more than one billion people1. Other research reveals that a nuclear winter would dramatically alter the chemistry of the oceans, and probably decimate coral reefs and other marine ecosystems2. These results spring from the most comprehensive effort yet to understand how a nuclear conflict would affect the entire Earth system, from the oceans to the atmosphere, to creatures on land and in the sea.Scientists want to understand these matters because the nuclear menace is growing. From North Korea to Iran, nations are building up their nuclear capabilities. And some, including the United States, are withdrawing from arms-control efforts. Knowing the possible environmental consequences of a nuclear conflict can help policymakers to assess the threat, says Seth Baum, executive director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute in New York City, who has studied the risks of triggering a nuclear winter. “Fleshing out the details of ways in which it can be bad is valuable for helping inform decisions,” he says.old-war forecasts-Nuclear-winter studies arose during the cold war, as the United States and the Soviet Union stockpiled tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in preparation for all-out assaults. Alarmed by leaders’ bellicose rhetoric, scientists in the 1980s began running simulations on how nuclear war might change the planet after the initial horrific deaths from the blasts3,4. Researchers including the US planetary scientist and communicator Carl Sagan described how smoke from incinerated cities would block sunlight and plunge much of the planet into a deep freeze lasting for months, even in summer4. Later studies tempered the forecasts somewhat, finding slightly less-dramatic cooling5. Still, Soviet leader Mikail Gorbachev cited nuclear winter as one factor that prompted him to work towards drawing down the country’s nuclear arsenals.After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the world’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons continued to drop. But with many thousands of warheads still in existence, and with more nations becoming nuclear powers, some researchers have argued that nuclear war — and a nuclear winter — remain a threat. They have shifted to studying the consequences of nuclear wars that would be smaller than an all-out US–Soviet annihilation.Presidents Bush and Gorbachev shake hands at the end of a press conference about the peace summit in Moscow on 31 July 1991-US President George Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev celebrate the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on 31 July 1991. Credit: Peter Turnley/Corbis/VCG via Getty-That includes the possibility of an India–Pakistan war, says Brian Toon, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Colorado Boulder who has worked on nuclear-winter studies since he was a student of Sagan’s. Both countries have around 150 nuclear warheads, and both are heavily invested in the disputed Kashmir border region, where a suicide bomber last year killed dozens of Indian troops. “It’s a precarious situation,” says Toon.Both India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998, highlighting growing geopolitical tensions. By the mid-2000s, Toon was exploring a scenario in which the countries set off 100 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs, killing around 21 million people. He also connected with Alan Robock, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, who studies how volcanic eruptions cool the climate in much the same way that a nuclear winter would. Using an advanced NASA climate model, the scientists calculated how soot rising from the incinerated cities would circle the planet. All around the dark, cold globe, agricultural crops would dwindle.But after a burst of publications on the topic, Robock, Toon and their colleagues struggled to find funding to continue their research. Finally, in 2017, they landed a grant worth nearly US$3-million from the Open Philanthropy Project, a privately funded group in San Francisco that supports research into global catastrophic risks.The goal was to analyse every step of nuclear winter — from the initial firestorm and the spread of its smoke, to agricultural and economic impacts. “We put all those pieces together for the first time,” says Robock.The group looked at several scenarios. Those range from a US–Russia war involving much of the world’s nuclear arsenal, which would loft 150 million tonnes of soot into the atmosphere, down to the 100-warhead India–Pakistan conflict, which would generate 5 million tonnes of soot6. The soot turns out to be a key factor in how bad a nuclear winter would get; three years after the bombs explode, global temperatures would have plummeted by more than 10 °C in the first scenario — more than the cooling during the last ice age — but by a little more than 1 °C in the second.Toon, Robock and their colleagues have used observations from major wildfires in British Columbia, Canada, in 2017 to estimate how high smoke from burning cities would rise into the atmosphere7. During the wildfires, sunlight heated the smoke and caused it to soar higher, and persist in the atmosphere longer, than scientists might otherwise expect. The same phenomenon might happen after a nuclear war, Robock says.Raymond Jeanloz, a geophysicist and nuclear-weapons policy expert at the University of California, Berkeley, says that incorporating such estimates is a crucial step to understanding what would happen during a nuclear winter. “This is a great way of cross-checking the models,” he says.Comparisons with giant wildfires could also help in resolving a controversy about the scale of the potential impacts. A team at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico argues that Robock’s group has overestimated how much soot burning cities would produce and how high the smoke would go8.The Los Alamos group used its own models to simulate the climate impact of India and Pakistan setting off 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs. The scientists found that much less smoke would get into the upper atmosphere than Toon and Robock reported. With less soot to darken the skies, the Los Alamos team calculated a much milder change to the climate — and no nuclear winter.Pakistani spectators watch the Shaheen II long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead on its launcher at a parade.At a 2005 parade in Islamabad, Pakistan, a truck carries a Shaheen II long-range missile that can be armed with a nuclear warhead.Credit: Farooq Naeem/AFP via GettyThe difference between the groups boils down to how they simulate the amount of fuel a firestorm consumes and how that fuel is converted into smoke. “After a nuclear weapon goes off, things are extremely complex,” says Jon Reisner, a physicist who leads the Los Alamos team. “We have the ability to model the source and we also understand the combustion process. I think we have a better feel about how much soot can potentially get produced.” Reisner is now also studying the Canadian wildfires, to see how well his models reproduce how much smoke gets into the atmosphere from an incinerating forest.Robock and his colleagues have fired back in tit-for-tat journal responses9. Among other things, they say the Los Alamos team simulated burning of greener spaces rather than a densely populated city.-Dark seas-While that debate rages, Robock’s group has published results showing a wide variety of impacts from nuclear blasts.That includes looking at ocean impacts, the first time this has been done, says team member Nicole Lovenduski, an oceanographer at the University of Colorado Boulder. When Toon first approached her to work on the project, she says, “I thought, ‘this sure seems like a bleak topic’.” But she was intrigued by how the research might unfold. She usually studies how oceans change in a gradually warming world, not the rapid cooling in a nuclear winter.Lovenduski and her colleagues used a leading climate model to test the US–Russia war scenario. “It’s the hammer case, in which you hammer the entire Earth system,” she says. In one to two years after the nuclear war, she found, global cooling would affect the oceans’ ability to absorb carbon, causing their pH to skyrocket. That’s the opposite to what is happening today, as the oceans soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide and waters become more acidic.She also studied what would happen to aragonite, a mineral in seawater that marine organisms need to build shells around themselves. In two to five years after the nuclear conflict, the cold dark oceans would start to contain less aragonite, putting the organisms at risk, the team has reported2.In the simulations, some of the biggest changes in aragonite happened in regions that are home to coral reefs, such as the southwestern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. That suggests that coral-reef ecosystems, which are already under stress from warming and acidifying waters, could be particularly hard-hit during a nuclear winter. “These are changes in the ocean system that nobody really considered before,” says Lovenduski.And those aren’t the only ocean effects. Within a few years of a nuclear war, a “Nuclear Niño” would roil the Pacific Ocean, says Joshua Coupe, a graduate student at Rutgers. This is a turbo-charged version of the phenomenon known as El Niño. In the case of a US–Russia nuclear war, the dark skies would cause the trade winds to reverse direction and water to pool in the eastern Pacific Ocean. As during an El Niño, droughts and heavy rains could plague many parts of the world for as long as seven years, Coupe reported last December at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.Beyond the oceans, the research team has found big impacts on land crops and food supplies. Jonas Jägermeyr, a food-security researcher at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, used six leading crop models to assess how agriculture would respond to nuclear winter. Even the relatively small India–Pakistan war would have catastrophic effects on the rest of the world, he and his colleagues report this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1. Over the course of five years, maize (corn) production would drop by 13%, wheat production by 11% and soya-bean production by 17% .The worst impact would come in the mid-latitudes, including breadbasket areas such as the US Midwest and Ukraine. Grain reserves would be gone in a year or two. Most countries would be unable to import food from other regions because they, too, would be experiencing crop failures, Jägermeyr says. It is the most detailed look ever at how the aftermath of a nuclear war would affect food supplies, he says. The researchers did not explicitly calculate how many people would starve, but say that the ensuing famine would be worse than any in documented history.Farmers might respond by planting maize, wheat and soya beans in parts of the globe likely to be less affected by a nuclear winter, says Deepak Ray, a food-security researcher at the University of Minnesota in St Paul. Such changes might help to buffer the food shock — but only partly. The bottom line remains that a war involving less than 1% of the world’s nuclear arsenal could shatter the planet’s food supplies.“The surprising finding”, says Jägermeyr, “is that even a small-war scenario has devastating global repercussions”.Nature 579, 485-487 (2020) doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00794-y-References-   1 Jägermeyr, J. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919049117 (2020). Article-Google Scholar 2. Lovenduski, N. S. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, 3 (2020)  Article-Google Scholar 3 Crutzen, P. J. & Birks, J. W. Ambio 11, 114–125 (1982).Article- Google Scholar- 4.Turco, R. P., Toon, O. B., Ackerman, T. P., Pollack, J. B. & Sagan, C. Science 222, 1283–1292 (1983). PubMed-Article-Google Scholar.  5. Schneider, S. H. & Thompson, S. L. Nature 333, 221–227 (1988). Article- Google Scholar-6 Toon, O. B. et al. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay5478 (2019). PubMed-Article-Google Scholar.  7. Yu, P. et al. Science 365, 587–590 (2019). PubMed-Article-Google Scholar 8. Reisner, J. et al. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 2752–2772 (2018). Article-Google Scholar 9.Robock, A., Toon, O. B. & Bardeen, C. G. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 12953–12958 (2019). Article-Google Scholar Download references.

Russian politicians mock Boris and threaten nuclear attack on London-Faye Brown-5 days ago

The politicians tore into Boris Johnson while discussing international relations (Picture: Pa / East2west news) © Provided by Metro The politicians tore into Boris Johnson while discussing international relations (Picture: Pa / East2west news)-Russian politicians threatened nuclear war and demanded the destruction of London while mocking Boris Johnson on state TV.In a chilling ramping up of rhetoric amid fears of a new European conflict, ultranationalist figures in Moscow taunted the West with obliteration if it continues to interfere with its actions on the Ukraine border.Britain is providing ‘self-defence’ weapons to Ukraine as the world holds its breath over a looming Russian invasion – though it has ruled out sending in troops if the two countries do go to war.Firebrand far-right politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky warned that war was inevitable if the West doesn’t cave into President Putin’s security demands, leading to the destruction of New York and several major cities in Europe.Speaking on official state channel Rossiya 1 he said: ‘They’re partying for the last time… champagne, whisky…there is a big tragedy ahead for humanity, for Europe.‘There can only be a solution by force, no other…After the start of an armed conflict in Europe the count [of victims] would be in millions. There would be no time to count.’Zhirinovsky, 75, talked about obliterating London but sparing Scotland, Wales and Ireland as he continued with his tirade.He said: ‘Stop flying to New York – this city will soon no longer exist.‘It’s time for events that no-one expects, that seemed a fantasy….‘The great America, the rich Europe – it all can stop….‘With some part of Europe disappearing… Kyiv, Warsaw, Riga, Tallinn and London.‘Not all Europe should be destroyed – but London (yes).‘Let the Scots, Irish, Welsh live.‘But (not) London, always the core of anti-Russian propaganda.’Pro-Kremlin TV host Vladimir Solovyov then tore into the British prime minister, asking: ‘How can one live without London and its famous dancer Boris Johnson? ‘Do you suggest depriving world culture of famous dancer Boris Johnson?’He then played footage of Mr Johnson dancing with a lightsabre-wielding London Assembly member when he was mayor.The video is believed to have been filmed at a  Christmas party for London Assembly staff in 2013, but has recently gone viral in light of the ‘partygate’ scandal engulfing No 10.Solovyov went on: ‘Did you see him dance…? Let’s show how he dances…‘These are the people threatening us…telling us who we should be…‘Great country – she is with a sword.‘And Boris Johnson, I’m afraid to imagine what he has….‘This woman is a member of the London assembly.’But the pair didn’t joke around for too long before quickly returning to the subject of war. Zhirinovsky declared: ‘We demand that [the West’s] weapons be moved away from the border with Russia.‘[In my opinion] all nuclear weapons including French and British should be taken out of Europe entirely….‘And if all of these requirements are not met, and they will not be met, […] then there will be just one “sanction” left.‘We will make them, not voluntarily but by force, fulfil our requirements.‘And for a long time, forever, to exclude the threat for Russia from the West. This is why there should be no West.’Zhirinovsky, 75, is leader of the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party and a six times candidate in Russian presidential elections.He was born under the rule of Joseph Stalin and spent most of life living in Communist Russia.While the veteran MP has no power over the Russian government, the fact his anti-Western threats were aired so prominently on a state TV channel highlights the alarming nature of the debate over the worsening east-west tensions.He was not the only one to express such views.Solovyov warned that ‘the only way to solve problems is by force of arms’ and that a nuclear war was possible.On the same TV show, Professor Dmitry Yevstafyev, of the Moscow Higher School of Economics, advocated the ‘denuclearisation of the degrading British monarchy’ which, with its atomic weapons, resembles ‘a monkey with a hand grenade prepared to pull the pin’.Another MP – Yevgeny Fyodorov, 58, a member of the main pro-Putin United Russia party – also threatened the West with nuclear and biological war.In a video on Youtube he warned that Putin could decide on using atomic weapons.He said that the ultimate option ‘is a preventive strike with nuclear weapons’ or ‘even just with strategic missiles at a training ground in Nevada’.He said: ‘This is a US military training ground, there are no civilians there.‘If we (give) a two, or three day, warning, this is quite a good option.‘And a demonstration of the seriousness of our intentions.’Fyodorov, founder of the National Liberation Movement, said another option for Putin, if the West viewed him as bluffing, was to destroy alleged US biological laboratories built in recent years in ex-Soviet states such as Kazakhstan and Georgia.Such labs have been linked in fake news reports to Covid-19’s spread.‘If he sees the Americans don’t understand and thought it was a bluff, then let’s then bomb their labs with biological weapons,’ he said, adding that because the labs were in former Soviet territories ‘we have the right to bomb’.Intelligence services have suggested an invasion of Ukraine could happen some time in early 2022, after Russian forces amassed thousands of troops on the border.Conflict between Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainian military has been since 2014, although a shaky ceasefire is in place.Despite the rhetoric of many Russian politicians – and the massive build-up of troops – Russia denies that it’s planning a military invasion. President Vladmir Putin has accused Nato countries of ‘pumping’ Ukraine with weapons and said the US is stoking tensions in the region.He has issued Nato with a list of security demands – mainly to stop any expansion of the organisation to the east.He says Ukraine’s alliance with the West is ;undermining regional security’ and insists, among other things, that Nato bans Ukraine and other former Soviet states from ever becoming members of the organisation.