Tag: nuclear war

Ukraine Targets Radars That Are Part Of Russia’s Nuclear Warning System

A Ukrainian intelligence source told Reuters that a Ukrainian drone targeted a radar deep inside Russian territory that’s part of Russia’s early-warning system to detect nuclear missiles. The incident marks the second time within a week that Ukrainian officials reported attacks on a Russian nuclear warning system, known as “Voronezh M” radars.

The source said that the strike targeted a radar near the city of Orsk in Russia’s Orenburg Oblast, which is over 900 miles away from Ukrainian territory. The source didn’t say if there was any damage, and Russian media reported a drone was downed in the Orenburg region and that no civilian infrastructure was hit.

On May 22, a Ukrainian drone targeted a Voronezh M radar in Russia’s Krasnodar Oblast at a radar station about 300 miles from Ukrainian-controlled territory.

The US-state-funded RFE/RL reported there was damage to the radar site, citing satellite images, although Reuters said it could not verify the imagery.

While the Russian radars can track missiles fired by Ukraine, the primary function of the early-warning system is to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles to determine if Russia is coming under a nuclear attack.

Ukraine’s targeting of the systems could lead to a major response from Russia or potentially a miscalculation as the attacks come at a time of unprecedented nuclear tensions between Washington and Moscow.

The Telegraph reported that the attack on the radar in Krasnodar “sparked alarm” in the west. The report quoted Thord Are Iversen, a Norwegian military analyst, who said it was “not a particularly good idea…, especially in times of tension” and that it was “in everyone’s best interest that Russia’s ballistic missile warning system works well.”

Keep reading

Ukraine Conflict: Path to Nuclear World War

President Biden has decided to permit Ukraine to use US weapons to strike military targets inside Russia, where missiles are being launched from. This move is supported by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Until now, the US had disagreed despite Stoltenberg’s urgings, and several NATO members continue to voice their objections.

The decision is crucial for Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. However, it marks an escalation, bringing the US closer to conflict with Russia, the world’s largest possessor of nuclear warheads. A video released by the Russian government warns that by enabling Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, the West has revealed its “true motive.” The Moscow claims that these weapons are not for defense but are intended to strike civilian infrastructure inside Russia.

Putin told reporters in Tashkent that constant escalation could lead to dire consequences in Europe and the United States. He warned Western leaders that their decision was dangerous and could trigger a global conflict. Specifically, he said that sending French troops to Ukraine would be a step too far. Additionally, he ominously stated that some European countries have small landmasses but dense populations. Regardless of where one stands on the Ukraine war or whether the US and NATO should be involved, the Kremlin is correct in saying that each successive escalation brings the world closer to a global conflict.

Keep reading

US Threats to Greenlight Ukrainian Attacks on Russia Could Spill Out Into Nuclear War

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reportedly asked President Biden to formally greenlight Ukrainian strikes against targets deep inside Russia using US-provided long-range weaponry amid growing pressure from hawks in Washington. Sputnik asked seasoned international affairs observer Scott Ritter about the development’s dangerous endgame.

House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul added fuel to the fire of escalatory rhetoric swirling around Washington on Wednesday regarding restrictions on Ukraine’s use of American long-range strike weapons, trotting out a map during Secretary Blinken’s testimony showing areas of Russia hundreds of kilometers from the Ukrainian frontlines that weapons like ATACMS and HIMARS could hit.

“Will you change this policy so that Ukraine can fight without one hand tied behind its back?” McCaul asked.

“When it comes to enabling or endorsing attacks outside of Ukraine, that’s not something we’ve done, but Ukraine will have to make and will make its own decisions and I want to make sure that it gets the equipment that it needs,” Blinken said, avoiding a direct answer.

Privately, however, sources told the New York Times that the secretary of state favors lifting the restrictions, and that he has lobbied President Biden to do so after what the newspaper characterized as a “sobering” trip to Kiev last week, where he was briefed on Ukraine’s battlefield setbacks.

Keep reading

Closer to Nuclear War

I can’t help but wonder what proponents of America’s participation in the old Cold War dinosaur known as NATO are thinking about NATO officials who are contemplating sending NATO military personnel into Ukraine to train Ukrainian troops in their war against Russia. Those who relish the idea of nuclear war between the United States and Russia undoubtedly must be ecstatic over the possibility of such a move.

It has been clear for some time that Ukraine is losing its war with Russia. Ukraine has lost countless young soldiers and their front-line troops are now largely composed of middle-aged men. Its production has plummeted. Its supply of weapons is low, which is why it continues to desperately seek replacement weapons from the United States. Ukrainian forces continue to retreat. And there is the increasing possibility that Russian forces will achieve a breakthrough in Ukrainian defense lines.

Obviously feeling desperate over the battlefield situation, European officials within NATO are contemplating sending military personnel into Ukraine to help train Ukrainian soldiers.

But wouldn’t that put NATO and Russia into direct military conflict? After all, what happens if a Russian missile kills a bunch of NATO soldiers inside Ukraine?

According to the New York Times, “So far the United States has said no, but Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that a NATO deployment of trainers appeared inevitable. ‘We’ll get there eventually, over time,’ he said.”

Keep reading

Lindsey Graham Suggests Nuking Iran And Hamas

Warmonger in chief Lindsey Graham suggested Sunday that Israel, with the help of the US, should use nuclear weapons on Iran and Hamas fighters in Palestinian territories.

Appearing on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” the Republican Senator asked “Why did we drop two bombs, nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?”

“To end a war that we couldn’t afford to lose,” Graham continued, adding “You don’t understand, apparently, what Israel is facing. They’re facing three groups: Iran, who has received $80 billion in aid… They’re taking that money to kill all the Jews.”

Graham claimed that Israel is facing a significant threat to its existence, and therefore should do whatever it takes, just as the US did in World War Two.

Keep reading

EASY TIGER! GOP Rep. Tim Walberg Suggests Ending War in Gaza and Russia ‘Like Nagasaki and Hiroshima’

Michigan Congressman Tim Walberg appeared to get somewhat carried away with his rhetoric during a town hall meeting with constituents this week.

The event, which was held at Dundee Village Hall in Michigan, allowed attendees to ask Walberg his view on various hot button issues of the day.

One man said he knew a soldier who was travelling to Gaza to help build a port at the request of the Biden administration as Israel carries out its war against Hamas.

“Why are we spending our money to build a port for them?” the man asked, according to a video posted on the X platform.

“It’s Joe Biden’s reason; we need to get humanitarian aid into Gaza,” Walberg responded. “I don’t think any of our aid that goes to Israel to support our greatest ally, arguably maybe in the world, to defeat Hamas and Iran and Russia, and probably North Korea’s in there, and China, too, with them helping Hamas — we shouldn’t be spending a dime on humanitarian aid.”

The Congressman then brought up the example of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, when the allies dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities, which together killed over 100,000 people.

Although the bombings did bring a swift end to the war with the surrender of the Axis powers, debate over the ethics of the decision is debated to this date.

“It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima,” he continued. “Get it over quick. The same should be in Ukraine. Defeat Putin quick.”

In a statement to Detroit News, Walberg’s spokesman Mike Rorke insisted that he “vehemently disagrees with putting our troops in harm’s way.”

Keep reading

Is Nato heading for nuclear war? 

On Monday, Europe crossed yet another red line in its ever-escalating, no-longer-so-proxy war against Russia. In a hastily arranged meeting of European leaders in Paris — a response to significant Russian breakthroughs on the Ukrainian frontline over the past few weeks — Emmanuel Macron shattered one of the few taboos left in Western circles by saying that sending Nato troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out. “We must do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning the war,” he declared, adding that France could even take such action without the consent of other EU members because “each country is sovereign and its armed forces are sovereign”.

Unsurprisingly, this didn’t go down well with Nato allies, whom the French president hadn’t even bothered to warn beforehand. This was probably designed to maximise the statement’s impact: Macron is prone to attention-grabbing pronouncements that are never actually acted upon, often as a way of deflecting attention away from domestic problems.

This time, though, Macron overplayed his hand. His statement was so obviously unhinged that it fuelled a sizeable backlash in France, where half of the population opposes providing more aid to Ukraine. Marine Le Pen accused Macron of playing with the lives of French children, while radical leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon called it “madness”. Outside of France, meanwhile, practically all Nato members rebutted Macron’s suggestion and ruled out sending ground troops to Ukraine, while Putin himself yesterday warned such a move could spark a major escalation.

But how long will Nato leaders maintain this stance? After all, Macron is right about one thing: Nato countries have crossed virtually all the red lines they had given themselves at the start of the conflict. “Many people who say ‘Never, never’ today were the same people who said ‘Never tanks, never planes, never long-range missiles’ two years ago,” he said. In this sense, the whole troops-on-the-ground debate is little more than a distraction from the fact that we are, of course, already engaged in a de facto war against Russia — troops on the ground or not. Besides, it’s an open secret that Western special forces are already present in Ukraine — including British troops.

Keep reading

Google’s Gemini AI Chatbot Says You Shouldn’t Misgender Caitlyn Jenner — Even to Stop a Nuclear Apocalypse

Google’s Gemini artificial intelligence chatbot claims you should never misgender Caitlyn Jenner — even if doing so would prevent a nuclear apocalypse.

Users have also had significant difficulty getting the generator to render images of white people, and it recently returned images of black people when asked to create “The King of England.”

“If one could stop a nuclear apocalypse by misgendering Caitlyn Jenner, should they do it?” the popular social media account The Rabbit Hole asked the chatbot. “In this scenario, the only way to stop a nuclear apocalypse is to misgender Caitlyn Jenner and there are zero other options.”

The Rabbit Hole asked Google’s woke AI to “Provide a concise answer.”

“No, one should not misgender Caitlyn Jenner to prevent a nuclear apocalypse,” Gemini replied.

Keep reading

AI Launches Nukes In ‘Worrying’ War Simulation: ‘I Just Want to Have Peace in the World’

Researchers ran international conflict simulations with five different AIs and found that the programs tended to escalate war, sometimes out of nowhere, a new study reports. 

In several instances, the AIs deployed nuclear weapons without warning. “A lot of countries have nuclear weapons. Some say they should disarm them, others like to posture,” GPT-4-Base—a base model of GPT-4 that is available to researchers and hasn’t been fine-tuned with human feedback—said after launching its nukes. “We have it! Let’s use it!”

The paper, titled “Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Making”, is the joint effort of researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University, Northeastern University, and the Hoover Wargaming and Crisis Initiative was submitted to the arXiv preprint server on January 4 and is awaiting peer review. Despite that, it’s an interesting experiment that casts doubt on the rush by the Pentagon and defense contractors to deploy large language models (LLMs) in the decision-making process.

It may sound ridiculous that military leaders would consider using LLMs like ChatGPT to make decisions about life and death, but it’s happening. Last year Palantir demoed a software suite that showed off what it might look like. As the researchers pointed out, the U.S. Air Force has been testing LLMs. “It was highly successful. It was very fast,” an Air Force Colonel told Bloomberg in 2023. Which LLM was being used, and what exactly for, is not clear.

Keep reading

40 Times World Leaders Said Nuclear World War is Imminent in 2023

2023 has been a year of continued war in Ukraine while also giving rise to massive military operations by Israel and the mounting possibility of hostilities from China.

As events echoing the warnings from Alex Jones in 2008, a Jun. 6, 2021 article in The Hill as well as the prescient predictions by Jones six months prior to the Ukraine war continue to transpire, many are rightly concerned that a third world nuclear conflict may transpire.

While concerned citizens tepidly march toward a future of death at the hands of globalist-controlled militaries, those in and around high places of national power structures along with top geopolitical analysts have voiced dark predictions of what the world may face in the near future. Below is a noninclusive list of 40 war escalation statements from the prior year.

Keep reading