As tensions increase between Russia and the United States, a chilling report suggests that a nuclear strike is not beyond the realm of possibility. According to the report, numerous sources have reported on the meeting of US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at the headquarters of the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, with two dozen other US military commanders and European diplomats in tow.

Nuclear option on the table

The purpose of this meeting is ostensibly to discuss how the economic and military campaign that is currently being waged against Russia will be further escalated. Carter is expected to lead a discussion that will assess the impact of current economic sanctions, as well as encompassing debate on the success of the NATO strategy in exploiting the crisis in eastern Ukraine.

Most serious of all, though, is a recent report published by the Associated Press which suggests that the head of the US military effort, the Pentagon, has been actively considering the use of nuclear missiles against military targets in Russia. This may seem like a dire prospect to anyone aware of the possible consequences of such an action, yet the United States administration apparently considers this a possible response to alleged violations of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

Reports suggest that three separate options are currently being considered by Pentagon top brass, which include a pre-emptive deployment of nuclear missiles against targets inside Russia. Although this would be a particularly extreme option, it is widely believed to be on the table alongside two other less drastic courses of action. Theplacement of anti-missile defenses in Europe aimed at shooting Russian missiles straight out of the sky, and pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes are also reportedly under consideration.

A Pentagon spokesman that spoke to the Associated Press did not explicitly confirm the reports, but did state that all military options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from the alleged violation. Meanwhile, Russia continues to deny the suggestion that it has violated the 1987 Treaty, stating that its actions have been entirely consistent with this legislation.

The consequences of a nuclear strike against Russia

It should be naturally underlined that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia could quite conceivably, and some might say inevitably, lead to a full-scale nuclear war. The consequences of this are almost incalculable and unimaginable, but the absolutely most optimistic scenario would be that hundreds of millions of lives would be lost. Considering that this option appears to be on the table, it has not unreasonably led some sources to describe the foreign policy of Washington and its NATO allies as staggeringly criminal and reckless.

While such an extreme suggestion as a pre-emptive nuclear strike is always likely to attract naysayers, it is important to assert that there is already significant precedent of such an act occurring. Generations of Americans grew up under the shadow of the Cold War, when the prospect of nuclear war seemed a distinct possibility on a daily basis. At that time, what can best be described as a maniacal nuclear war arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States was a source of concern all over the world, and although this obviously didn't ultimately result in full-scale nuclear war, it is a matter of the public record that this unsavoury prospect did indeed come extremely close to a horrifying realisation.

Arkhipov and the Cuban Missile Crisis

Following the failed attempt of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, then president John F. Kennedy authorized Operation Mongoose, a series of by now familiar covert CIA actions designed to undermine and overthrow Cuban supremo Fidel Castro, and ultimately to the Cuban Missile Crisis stand-off with the Soviets. During this tense time, Russian submarines that were under attack from US destroyers were carrying nuclear-tipped missiles. Two of the commanders authorized their use, and a third commander, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov, vetoed it. Had the missiles been fired, it almost certainly would have led to a full-scale nuclear war.

As the stand-off between Russia and China and United States continues to brew, it is important to remember that while one does not wish to engage in needless scaremongering, the last time two major nuclear powers had such a ‘disagreement’ in 1963, the world was one word away from nuclear war. We can be entirely thankful to Vasili Arkhipov that it didn’t happen, and it is pretty scandalous that this is being considered as a serious option now.

Vietnam, Hiroshima and Nagasaki

In addition to the Arkhipov incident, it also came out as a result of the Watergate tape leaks that then president Nixononce floated the idea of using nuclear weapons against Vietnam. This policy was discussed during a conversation with the infamous policy adviser Henry Kissinger, with the then president of the United States even contemplating and discussing with Kissinger the number of people that such an action would be likely to kill.

Without getting deeply into the historical context and consequences of this particular action, it is also important to recognize and remember that the United States is the only country in history to have utilized full-scale atomic weaponry. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, killed at least 129,000 people, and remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in history. While some historians and apologists for this particular act suggested that it was necessary in the context of the war, many people disagree from a moral and ethical standpoint, and there are also numerous historians who suggest that Japan was on the verge of surrender without such a drastic action being undertaken.

Regardless of the historical context of nuclear weapons, the fact remains that both Russia and the United States are known to be the largest possessors of such weaponry in the world. There is debate and disagreement over which of the United States or Russia has the most nuclear weapons, but what is unavoidable is that both have enough to cause an almost unfathomable loss of life should they be utilized. We can only hope that the hawkish elements of the United States government steer well clear from the disastrous path that is being contemplated.

(VALUEWALK)

BAGHDAD (AP) — Government forces and Shiite militiamen repelled two Islamic State group attacks in Anbar province on Saturday, officials said. In one attack, they used anti-tank missiles to stop four would-be suicide car bombers, officials said, as violence continues to roil the war-torn country.

Police and military officials said IS fighters attacked the government-held town of Husseiba with heavy mortar fire early Saturday. They say the attackers retreated after an hours-long battle, leaving behind three destroyed vehicles and five dead fighters. At least 10 troops and militiamen were wounded in the clash.

Iraqi forces took Husseiba, near the militant-held provincial capital of Ramadi, from the IS group last month.

The officials said that elsewhere in Anbar province, Iraqi troops using Russian anti-tank Kornet missiles destroyed four incoming suicide car bombs during an IS attack in the Tharthar area.

Iraqi forces, backed by Shiite militias, have been struggling to recapture areas lost to the IS group in the country's west and north. Last month the militant group scored a stunning victory, overrunning Ramadi and capturing large amounts of ammunition and armored vehicles from fleeing government troops.

In the aftermath of the Ramadi defeat, Iraqi officials have stepped up calls for more weapons and more direct support from the U.S. and the international community.

View gallery

In this Thursday, June 4, 2015 photo, Iraqi Federal Police and Shiite Hezbollah Brigade militiamen p …

During an international conference in Paris this week on the fight against the Islamic State group, a senior U.S. official pledged to make it easier to get weapons, including U.S. anti-tank rockets, to the Iraqi soldiers that need them.

Meanwhile, police and medical officials said a series of bombings around the country killed 24 people and wounded at least 65.

A car bomb attack near a busy market killed 14 people and wounded 37 others in the Shiite town of Balad Ruz, 70 kilometers (45 miles) northeast of Baghdad. Several shops and cars were damaged in the attack. Police sealed off the blast area.

Around the capital, police said a bomb exploded on a commercial street in the Taji area, just north of Baghdad, killing two people and wounding five. Another bomb blast near several shops killed three people and wounded eight in the capital's southern suburbs.

On Saturday night, a sticky bomb attached to a mini-bus went off in northeastern Baghdad, killing three passengers and wounding seven others. Also, a bomb explosion at a commercial street in Baghdad's Shaab district killed two people and wounded eight others, said police.

Medics in nearby hospitals confirmed the death toll. All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to journalists.

Nobody claimed responsibility but the Islamic State group, which controls large swaths of the country, frequently claims attacks targeting security forces and Shiite Muslims — who the IS group deems heretics.

___

Associated Press writer Murtada Faraj contributed to this report.

Two years after the revelation that the National Security Agency was spying on millions of innocent citizens, Edward Snowden has declared that the "balance of power is beginning to shift." Writing in The New York Times, Snowden claims that a "post-terror generation" is emerging that refuses to justify the practice of mass surveillance out of fear. "For the first time since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, we see the outline of a politics that turns away from reaction and fear in favor of resilience and reason," says Snowden.

He also points to recent victories such as the US government's decision to let the Patriot Act expire, and shifting opinion in the international community and technology sector. "The United Nations declared mass surveillance an unambiguous violation of human rights," he writes. "[And] beyond the frontiers of law, progress has come even more quickly." He points to the public's demand for 'basic technical safeguards such as encryption," which were once considered "esoteric and unnecessary" and are now "enabled by default."

WE'RE STILL RECORDING CITIZENS' DATA "ON A SCALE UNPRECEDENTED IN HISTORY."

Snowden also warns that the fight against mass surveillance is far from over. Governments around the world are still recording information like metadata — which can reveal as much about a person's interests and daily life as any direct surveillance — "on a scale unprecedented in history." He notes that political leaders such as the UK's prime minister David Cameron also continue to scare citizens by demanding new, more intrusive surveillance powers to combat terrorism. "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: As long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone," declared Cameron recently. Snowden may be hopeful that the "balance of power is beginning to shift," but he's right in saying there's work still to be done.

Source (The New York Times)

Adam Maida

MOSCOW — TWO years ago today, three journalists and I worked nervously in a Hong Kong hotel room, waiting to see how the world would react to the revelation that the National Security Agency had been making records of nearly every phone call in the United States. In the days that followed, those journalists and others published documents revealing that democratic governments had been monitoring the private activities of ordinary citizens who had done nothing wrong.

Within days, the United States government responded by bringing charges against me under World War I-era espionage laws. The journalists were advised by lawyers that they risked arrest or subpoena if they returned to the United States. Politicians raced to condemn our efforts as un-American, even treasonous.

Privately, there were moments when I worried that we might have put our privileged lives at risk for nothing — that the public would react with indifference, or practiced cynicism, to the revelations.

Never have I been so grateful to have been so wrong.

Two years on, the difference is profound. In a single month, the N.S.A.’s invasive call-tracking program was declared unlawful by the courts and disowned by Congress. After a White House-appointed oversight board investigation found that this program had not stopped a single terrorist attack, even the president who once defended its propriety and criticized its disclosure has now ordered it terminated.

This is the power of an informed public.

Ending the mass surveillance of private phone calls under the Patriot Act is a historic victory for the rights of every citizen, but it is only the latest product of a change in global awareness. Since 2013, institutions across Europe have ruled similar laws and operations illegal and imposed new restrictions on future activities. The United Nations declared mass surveillance an unambiguous violation of human rights. In Latin America, the efforts of citizens in Brazil led to the Marco Civil, an Internet Bill of Rights. Recognizing the critical role of informed citizens in correcting the excesses of government, the Council of Europe called for new laws to protect whistle-blowers.

Beyond the frontiers of law, progress has come even more quickly. Technologists have worked tirelessly to re-engineer the security of the devices that surround us, along with the language of the Internet itself. Secret flaws in critical infrastructure that had been exploited by governments to facilitate mass surveillance have been detected and corrected. Basic technical safeguards such as encryption — once considered esoteric and unnecessary — are now enabled by default in the products of pioneering companies like Apple, ensuring that even if your phone is stolen, your private life remains private. Such structural technological changes can ensure access to basic privacies beyond borders, insulating ordinary citizens from the arbitrary passage of anti-privacy laws, such as those now descending upon Russia.

Edward Snowden Frederick Florin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Though we have come a long way, the right to privacy — the foundation of the freedoms enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights — remains under threat. Some of the world’s most popular online services have been enlisted as partners in the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs, and technology companies are being pressured by governments around the world to work against their customers rather than for them. Billions of cellphone location records are still being intercepted without regard for the guilt or innocence of those affected. We have learned that our government intentionally weakens the fundamental security of the Internet with “back doors” that transform private lives into open books. Metadata revealing the personal associations and interests of ordinary Internet users is still being intercepted and monitored on a scale unprecedented in history: As you read this online, the United States government makes a note.

Spymasters in Australia, Canada and France have exploited recent tragedies to seek intrusive new powers despite evidence such programs would not have prevented attacks. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain recently mused, “Do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?” He soon found his answer, proclaiming that “for too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: As long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.”

At the turning of the millennium, few imagined that citizens of developed democracies would soon be required to defend the concept of an open society against their own leaders.

Yet the balance of power is beginning to shift. We are witnessing the emergence of a post-terror generation, one that rejects a worldview defined by a singular tragedy. For the first time since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we see the outline of a politics that turns away from reaction and fear in favor of resilience and reason. With each court victory, with every change in the law, we demonstrate facts are more convincing than fear. As a society, we rediscover that the value of a right is not in what it hides, but in what it protects.

(The New York Times)

Iran stands to gain hundreds of billions of dollars from a comprehensive nuclear deal with the West, a large portion of which could go to supporting its regional interventions and initiatives in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.

"The White House seems deeply convinced that the money Iran may get will go to help boost the Iranian economy instead of being used to support their regional interventions and initiatives," David Rothkopf wrote in a recent op-ed for Foreign Policy.

"Even if the Iranians got only $100 billion and used 90 percent to help the economy, the remaining $10 billion would have a potentially big impact in places like Syria, Iraq, and Yemen," Rothkopf continued. "Further, no one among the regional experts with whom I have recently spoken felt that the Iranians would use a fraction as low as 10 percent of the monies in support of their regional policies."

Tehran would have to invest some of that money to retain the momentum it has gained throughout the region over the past few years and keep one of its most important regional allies, Bashar Assad, in power.

The prospect of an economically empowered Iran using its newfound billions to bolster the Assad regime even further is particularly daunting given revelations that Assad's air strikes, largely funded by Iran as it is, have all but cleared the way for ISIS militants to march north.

Assad is willing to enable the advance if it means the jihadists will threaten rebel supply lines in the strategically important city of Aleppo, Christopher Kozak, a Syria Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, explained to Business Insider.

View gallery

.

The strongest of Iran's proxy fighters, the Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah, has been operating openly in Syria since at least the beginning of 2013, stepping up its recruitment in recent weeks and months by mobilizing minority groups to fight alongside pro-Assad militias, according to Phillip Smyth.

Tehran has "turned to entire new communities of foreign fighters to bolster the Assad regime," including Pakistanis and Afghans, Smyth notes.

"These Shiite fighters are not just more bodies for Iran to throw into the conflict," Smyth writes. "They also highlight Tehran’s growing geopolitical reach. Their presence indicates that Iran is trying to project its influence deep into communities in Central Asia."

View gallery

.

Burdened by international economic sanctions, Iran has been propping up a crumbling Syria with funds, material, and manpower as the rebels push on in a war of attrition.

An economically empowered Iran with billions more to spend would likely fight the Syrian rebels until the bitter end — which is what Iran says it will do.

"The Iranian nation and government will remain at the side of the Syrian nation and government until the end of the road," state news agency IRNA quoted President Hassan Rouhani as saying.

"Tehran has not forgotten its moral obligations to Syria and will continue to provide help and support on its own terms to the government and nation of Syria."

Significantly, the Obama administration has repeatedly said that the emerging nuclear deal is concerned exclusively with halting Iran's nuclear program — not its military aggression in the region.

Few can predict what will happen after the deal is signed and finalized at the end of this month. But if President Obama's consistently aloof attitude toward the Syrian civil war is any indication, it is unlikely that Iran will be punished with renewed sanctions for bolstering the Assad regime to a greater extent than ever before.