Tag: nuclear war

Another Nuclear Warning From Medvedev, This Time Over Tomahawks

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has issued a nuclear warning in the face of reports that Washington may authorize transferring US long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

President Trump’s latest remarks weighing in on the issue saw him veil his intentions in usually cryptic wording. Aboard Air Force One while traveling to the Middle East earlier Monday he had said Tomahawks are a “very offensive weapon,” noting, “honestly, Russia does not need that.”

Headlines throughout the say said he ‘might’ approve of sending them. These are missiles capable of hitting Moscow. This is also as last month Trump surprised observers by claiming that Ukraine could still ‘win’ the war and actually regain territory.

Medvedev’s chilling response on Monday spelled out that this “could end badly for everyone … most of all, for Trump himself,” according to a translation of his Telegram post.

“It’s been said a hundred times, in a manner understandable even to the star-spangled man, that it’s impossible to distinguish a nuclear Tomahawk missile from a conventional one in flight,” Medvedev, who serves as the Russian Security Council Deputy Chair, further noted.

Medvedev here is alluding to Russian strategic doctrine. In a scenario where Moscow leaders believed or suspected a nuclear payload had been launched at Russia, its military would have the right to respond in kind, with nukes.

The past couple months have seen Trump and Medvedev direct threatening messages at each other, particularly related to Trump proclaiming that he had deployed a pair of nuclear submarines somewhere near Russia.

Thankfully it has all so far been confined to social media barbs, and not any clear instance of either side’s strategic forces being placed on emergency alert.

But Medvedev’s latest message is meant as a clear ‘red line’ warning to Washington – that things could rapidly and uncontrollably escalate in Ukraine if the US sends Tomahawk missiles to use against Russia.

Keep reading

The Missiles of October

The last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia — New START — is set to expire on Feb. 5, 2026.

This treaty, which caps the nuclear arsenals of both nations at 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons each, was signed back in 2010, during the administrations of U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. At that time, the two nations were engaged in what proved to be an abortive “reset” of relations.

But the underlying problems which prompted the need for a reset —  NATO expansion, continued U.S. pursuit of hegemony disguised as a “rules based international order” and a general U.S. disregard for arms control as a necessary mechanism of global stability — were never fully addressed, and new problems emerged (such as the reemergence of Vladimir Putin as the president of Russian, Russian intervention in Syria and the conflict in Ukraine) which made a reset impossible.

Instead, relations between the two nuclear-armed world powers worsened, and today the U.S. finds itself in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that threatens to go nuclear at any moment should either side make a mistake or miscalculation. Both nations find themselves on the cusp of a new nuclear arms race, and the only thing that holds them back is a treaty set to expire and no new treaty on the horizon.

On Sept. 22, Russian President Vladmir Putin, speaking to his Security Council, declared that “to avoid provoking a further strategic arms race and to ensure an acceptable level of predictability and restraint, we believe it is justified to try to maintain the status quo established by the New START Treaty during the current, rather turbulent period.” Putin said Russia is prepared to stick by the treaty’s limits for one more year after it expires.

As of the end of September, the Trump administration had yet to formally respond to Putin’s offer regarding New START. The closest thing to a response was a comment made by President Donald Trump to the press when asked about Putin’s offer. “Sounds like a good idea to me,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House.

The lack of an official response from the Trump administration regarding a moratorium on retaining the New START caps on deployed nuclear weapons is disconcerting, since the purpose of the moratorium isn’t to simply prevent an arms race in the short term, but also buy time for negotiations that would result in a new treaty framework that takes into account the complexities surrounding the issue of nuclear weapons and arms control today.

Keep reading

Humanity’s Doomsday Clock: Experts Bet on 1-in-6 Odds of Total Wipeout

Experts estimate varying probabilities for human extinction or severe societal collapse within the coming decades.

Toby Ord, in his book “The Precipice,” assesses a one-in-six chance of existential catastrophe this century, encompassing risks from artificial intelligence and other factors.

Nick Bostrom’s work highlights a median expert estimate of 19 percent for human extinction from global catastrophic risks.

Jared Diamond predicts a 50-50 chance of survival beyond 2050, based on patterns of past civilizations.

Historical research shows civilizations often collapse due to recurring factors. Luke Kemp’s analysis of over 400 societies across 5,000 years indicates that inequality and elite overreach frequently lead to self-termination.

Diamond identifies environmental damage, climate shifts, and poor societal responses as key contributors to downfall.

These patterns suggest modern global interconnectedness could amplify impacts, leaving no recovery options.

Nuclear weapons remain a primary threat, with around 10,000 warheads held by nations including the United States, Russia, China, and others.

Recent assessments place nuclear risk alongside climate change and AI in pushing the Doomsday Clock to its closest point to midnight.

Engineered pandemics and biological threats add to the list, potentially spreading rapidly via global travel.

Kemp suggests that climate change now proceeds at a rate ten times faster than historical extinctions, risking agricultural declines and mass migrations. By 2070, up to two billion people may face extreme heat, halving viable land for key crops.

Developing regions could suffer most from these shifts, though subsistence farming might mitigate some food shortages in Africa.

Artificial intelligence poses risks of misalignment or unintended consequences, with experts warning of potential catastrophe.

Keep reading

Trump Deploys 2 Nuclear Subs After Medvedev’s “Foolish, Inflammatory” Statement

On Tuesday, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued the Kremlin’s response to President Trump’s Monday announcement from Scotland that he’s reducing a deadline for Russia to agree a peace settlement from 50 days to 10 or 12 days, citing ‘disappointment’ in Putin not ending or at least winding down the war.

Medvedev warned: “Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran” and thus that “Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with (Trump’s) own country.”

That followed comments by Medvedev that Trump ‘steamrolled, humiliated’ Europe with his trade deal.

Then Thursday, Trump told Medvedev to “watch his words”

And now, Friday morning, President Trump took to his Truth Social account and escalated from words to actions moving two nuclear submarines to be positioned “in the appropriate regions” based on “highly provocative” statements from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

“Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances,” Trump says

Keep reading

Trump Escalates Nuclear Threat to Russia… Taking the World to the Brink of Nuclear War

Donald Trump is behaving like some drugged-out teenage girl with his social media posts. Trump— the wannabe “Art of the Deal” emperor — is panic‑posting the world to the threshold of nuclear war and taking other actions that Russia can only view as the US preparing to attack the motherland.

The latest escalation started with this tantrum by Trump…

Medvedev, who is an Olympic-class troller, punched back with this warning:

About Trump’s threats against me on his personal network Truth, which he banned from operating in our country

If some words of the former president of Russia cause such a nervous reaction from such a formidable US president, it means Russia is right in everything and will continue on its own path.

And about the “dead economy” of India and Russia and the “entering dangerous territory” – well, let him remember his favorite movies about “the walking dead,” as well as how dangerous the non-existent in nature “dead hand” can be.

Trump, in a continuing display of ignorance, apparently took this as a Russian threat to launch a preemptive attack on the United States. The Russian “Dead Hand,” also known as the “Perimeter” system, is an automatic or semi-automatic nuclear command and control system developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War and is reportedly still operational today. Its purpose is to guarantee a retaliatory nuclear strike against an enemy even if Russia’s leadership and command structure are destroyed in a decapitating attack. Medvedev was simply warning Trump that a decapitation strike on Moscow would still produce a retaliatory strike on the United States.

Instead of keeping his mouth shut, Trump bombastically huffed and puffed, like an impotent Big Bad Wolf, and announced that two nuclear submarines were heading toward Russia, just because Dmitry Medvedev roasted him online.

Keep reading

The Atomic Nightmare, Then and Now

No kid is under a desk anymore — and isn’t that strange when you think about it? After all, when I “ducked and covered” like Bert the Turtle at school in the 1950s by huddling under my desk as sirens howled outside the classroom window, “only” (and yes, I do need to put that in quotation marks, since it was distinctly two too many even then) two countries, mine and the Soviet Union, had nuclear weapons; and only two atomic bombs, all too charmingly dubbed “Little Boy” and “Fat Man,” had ever been used (with devastating effect) on August 6th and 9th, 1945, against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, slaughtering somewhere between 110,000 and 210,000 people. Imagine that, and imagine as well that the atomic weaponry of today is wildly more powerful and destructive than those two bombs, that nine countries now possess such weaponry, and that my own country is planning to continue to “modernize” its nuclear arsenal to the tune of an estimated $1.7 trillion (no, that is not a misprint) or more in the coming decades.

And my country, along with Israel, also a nuclear power, just launched a series of devastating (non-nuclear) attacks on Iran, supposedly to prevent it from becoming the 10th country to possess nuclear weapons (though it seems distinctly unlikely that the Iranian regime was even trying to produce such weaponry).

All in all, consider it the post-modern equivalent of a miracle that, 80 years after those atomic bombs were dropped on Japanese cities, such weaponry has never again been used, even as it has continued to grow ever more powerful and spread around the planet.  After all, since the 1980s, it’s been known that a nuclear war between two powers (like India and Pakistan) could cause a global “nuclear winter” that might all too quickly result in the equivalent of the long-term major extinctions of this planet’s past history.

Keep reading

The Effects of Nuclear War According to FEMA

No one wants to think about a nuclear crisis – and hopefully it will never happen – but we all must accept the fact nuclear tensions are rising globally with Russia and China (and others are seeking nukes) so we should prepare ourselves and our loved ones in the event the unthinkable strikes our soil.

For decades, movies and some in the media have portrayed a nuclear attack as a “doomsday” event implying most people would be killed on impact … and survivors would want to die once they come out of their shelters.

In reality, unless you are actually at ground zero or within a several mile radius of the blast zone (depending on the size of the nuke, of course), there is a very high probability you’ll survive as long as you…

  • limit your exposure to radiation and fallout,
  • take shelter with proper shielding,
  • wait for the most dangerous radioactive materials to decay.

In other words, you CAN survive a nuke attack … but you MUST make an effort to learn what to do! By learning about potential threats, we are all better prepared to know how to react if something happens.

Please realize this is being written with small nuke devices in mind (like a 1-kiloton to 1-megaton device). A larger device, ICBM or a nuclear war would cause more wide-spread damage but some of this data could still be helpful. These are some very basic tips on sheltering for any type of nuclear (or radiological) incident.

What happens when a nuke explodes?

A nuclear blast produces a blinding light, intense heat (called thermal radiation), initial nuclear radiation, 2 explosive shock waves (blasts), mass fires, and radioactive fallout (residual nuclear radiation).

The below graphic shows the destruction of a test home by an atomic blast on March 17, 1953 at the Nevada Proving Ground. The structure was located 3,500 feet from ground zero, and the time from the first to last picture was 2.3 seconds.  It shows the force of the blast wave then the radiating energy set it on fire.

Also, if a nuke is launched over our continent and explodes miles above the earth, it could create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). An EMP is a split-second silent energy burst (like a stroke of lightning) that can fry electronics connected to wires or antennas like cell phones, cars, computers, TVs, etc. Unless electronics are grounded or hardened, an area or nation could experience anything from minor interference to crippled power, transportation, banking and communications systems.

An EMP from a high-altitude nuke (where a nation or group succeeds in detonating a nuclear device carried miles into the atmosphere) could affect electronics within 1,000 miles or more as shown below. (Evidence suggests some countries and groups are working on enhanced and non-nuclear EMP weapons or e-bombs.)

Keep reading

ULTIMATE ESCALATION: United Kingdom and France To Work Together on ‘Nuclear Deterrence’ to ‘Protect Europe’

If France and the UK can’t even tackle illegal migration on the channel, how will they manage to ‘defend Europe’?

When it comes to France and the United Kingdom, we feel tempted almost to describe them as ‘the former European powers’, because while they’re still the two nuclear-armed nations in the continent, generations of Liberalism/Globalism have turned both countries into pale imitations of the ones that emerged victorious in WW2.

Their current political leaders, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have many things in common: complete adherence to Globalist failed policies, a constant push for military escalation in the continent, an obsession with Ukraine, frayed societies on the brink of collapse – and very, very bad popularity numbers.

They also have proved that they can’t work well together – they haven’t been able to accomplish the relatively minor task of tackling the small boat invasion of illegals to the UK from French beaches.

But now, during Macron’s state visit to London, they have announced plans to do something much harder: to coordinate their use of nuclear weapons for the first time to defend Europe from ‘extreme’ threats.

Keep reading

Report: Pentagon Agency Believes US Needs To Drop A Nuke To Destroy Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Plant

The Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has told US officials that in order to destroy Iran’s Fordow nuclear plant, which is buried deep underground, the US may need to drop a nuclear weapon, The Guardian has reported.

According to the report, Pentagon officials who received the briefing were told that dropping GBU-57s, conventional 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs, would not penetrate deep enough underground and that it would only do enough damage to collapse tunnels and bury the facility under rubble.

The officials were told that in order to destroy Fordow completely, the US would likely need to first soften the ground with conventional bombs and then ultimately drop a tactical nuclear weapon from a B2 bomber.

The report said that President Trump is not considering using a nuclear weapon and that the option was not presented to him by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. According to a report from Axios, Trump is casting doubt on the idea that the GBU-57s could do enough damage to destroy the facility.

Israel wants the US to drop the bunker-busting bombs on Fordow since it lacks the capability, but so far, Trump has not given the order for US airstrikes on Iran. The president said on Thursday that he would decide within two weeks, although there are indications that attacks could begin this weekend.

Keep reading

DNI Gabbard Warns World ‘Closer to Brink of Nuclear Annihilation Than Ever Before’

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently warned that a doomsday nuclear armageddon could be inevitable if more isn’t done to stop the escalating wars pushing the world toward mutually assured destruction.

In a sobering video posted to X Tuesday, Gabbard reflected on a recent trip to Hiroshima, Japan – the site where the U.S. first dropped an atomic bomb.

“This attack obliterated the city, killed over 300,000 people, many dying instantly while others died from severe burns, injuries, radiation sickness, and cancer that set in in the following months and years,” Gabbard noted, adding, “Nagasaki suffered the same fate, homes, schools, families, all gone in a flash. The survivors, the Hibokusha, they carried the pain of extreme burns, radiation sickness, and loss for decades.”

The DNI went on to note the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago pale in comparison to today’s nuclear weapons, which could vaporize millions in seconds.

“Just one of these nuclear bombs would vaporize everything at its core, people, buildings, life itself,” the former Democrat-turned Republican congresswoman noted, with graphics illustrating the devastating nuclear fallout. “The shockwave would crush structures miles away, killing and maiming countless people, and then comes the fallout, radioactive poison spreading through the air, water, and soil, condemning survivors to agonizing deaths or lifelong suffering.”

“A nuclear winter could follow with smoke and ash completely blocking the sun, plunging the world into darkness and cold, killing crops and starving billions,” the Trump DNI said. “Acid rain would scar the earth, wiping out entire ecosystems.”

Keep reading