World War III: Russian Nuclear Doctrine Revised

Have you wondered what the candidates for President think about Vladimir Putin’s statement to the UN Security Council?

“President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Wednesday that Russia could use nuclear weapons if it was struck with conventional missiles, and that Moscow would consider any assault on it supported by a nuclear power to be a joint attack,” according to a press release by Vladimir Soldatkin and Guy Faulconbridge.

This occurs in the context of Ukrainian demands for permission to use U.S. or NATO-supplied long-range missiles to strike targets deep within Russian territory.

“This will mean that NATO countries, the U.S. and European countries are at war with Russia,” Putin said. “And if this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.” Putin added that the Ukrainian army does not have the ability to program long-range missiles or the satellite data necessary for their targeting, relying on NATO military personnel for those tasks.

In his debate with Kamala Harris, Donald Trump said he wanted the Ukraine-Russia war to stop. In her address to the Democratic Party convention in August, Harris said that she “will stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies.”

 According to the TCN Morning Note of Sep 26, this is “our most dangerous moment since the Cuban missile crisis.” Tucker Carlson references a report about a House Oversight Committee investigation on whether the recent trip by Ukraine president Zelensky misused government funds to support the Harris campaign.

There is no mention of the nuclear war threat on Google News, which covers Hurricane Helene, the indictment of New York Mayor Eric Adams, Covid vaccine, and Diddy, continuing the policy of do-it-yourself nuclear war preparedness.

Additional information:

Physicians for Civil Defense

Climate Watch: Is CO2 Reaching a Crisis Level?

Are you worried about your carbon footprint?

“My Carbon” apps are under development. The World Economic Forum states: “Finally, it is significant that all stakeholders across the value chain come together and contribute towards achieving a net-zero future by leaving no one behind.”

Major medical journals urge physicians to consider the climate, as in choosing what kind of anesthesia to give you.

As shown in the graph, atmospheric CO2 is indeed approaching a red line.

In his film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore acknowledged that CO2 levels have been much higher—ice cores provide indisputable evidence. He did not say where it came from before there were humans burning coal, oil, and natural gas, or why the extremely high levels did not cause the oceans to boil.

Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore explains where it went: into ocean sediments in the calcium carbonate shells of marine organisms that sank when the organism died: natural sequestration.

Detailed analysis of recent papers on atmospheric CO2 and temperature by Willis Eschenbach and others concludes: “For the past 66 million years, atmospheric CO2 can be understood as a neutral spectator molecule, right up through the present.”

Why then would we want, at great expense, to remove CO2 and get closer to the red line of death?

Additional Information:

Saving the World from CO2 Starvation, Civil Defense Perspectives, July 2019

Climate Watch: Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating?

Even if you live inland yourself, a rise in sea level flooding New York or Florida would affect you. So how much should you worry?

NOAA makes some scary predictions in its U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. Certainly, sea level has increased about 400 ft in the past 20,000 years as glaciers melted after the last Ice Age, as the graph shows, but the slow current rate is not accelerating. Since about 6,000 years ago, sea-level has risen at a consistently slow rate of 0.15 to 0.2 millimeters per year totaling around 1 meter of rise for the entire period.

Al Gore and Barack Obama, with their expensive beachfront property, do not seem to be worried.

Models predict an acceleration in sea-level rise, but so far measurements from tide gauges do not show it. In some local areas, the level is higher because of land subsidence, which has nothing to do with CO2 or climate change.

Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems constantly refer to satellite data or tide-gauge data that has been modified by satellite data in their efforts to prove human-caused acceleration even when you ask specifically about tide gauge data alone. In a lengthy conversation with Gemini, Jonathan Cohler eventually got the system to admit: “There is no acceleration apparent in any tide-gauge data.” Further, he asked: “Now, why did it take you so long to admit the simple fact?” Gemini responded: “I initially prioritized providing information aligned with scientific consensus rather than focusing on raw tide-gauge data.” Gemini also admitted that it had been programmed to lie and that it had been trained using heavily biased training data.

        Those who are using AI to do their research need to understand that the public-facing interface is pre-programmed to heavily favor the conclusions the developers want people to reach, especially on Covid, climate change, and other controversial subjects.  Here is some nonprogrammable evidence pertaining to sea-level rise:

Additional information:

Five or More Failed Experiments in Measuring Global Sea Level Change. Willie Soon, Ph.D.

Climate Watch: Are Temperatures Constantly Increasing?

I hope you are able to stay cool, without resorting to the limited “cooling centers” some towns like Tucson make available. It has been hot, but is it a record and an ominous trend?

We might dismiss the high temperatures in the 1930s as mere anomalous “weather,” but are we now in a climate warming trend?            

According to this graph from the 1975 National Academy of Sciences, the 1930s were at the peak of a warming trend that began around 1890, before the great increase in burning fuels like coal, and began to decrease as fuel use increased.

Alternating this graph with one prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration             (NOAA) by manipulating the data, one can see the effect of erasing the Northern Hemispheric warmth from 1890 to the mid-1950s and reducing the warmth of 1938 by nearly half a degree Celsius. Climategate emails show that erasure of the prior warmth was a coordinated effort to “hide the decline.”

 Politicians’ proposals to “address” the climate threat are based on this data.

Additional information:

Climate Watch: Is There Any Climate Good News

As the election campaigns shift into high gear, we expect to hear a lot about climate change. Last year, at the United Nations global climate summit in Dubai, Kamala Harris told world leaders that the climate clock “is no longer just ticking, it is banging. And we must make up for lost time.”

One of the predicted horrors of climate change is drought, although flooding is also a possibility. At the time of the top graph, 80% of the U.S. was experiencing severe or extreme drought.  At the time of the lower graph, only 5% of the U.S. is experiencing severe or extreme drought.

The top graph is from August 1934; the lower one is from July 2024—when the atmospheric CO2 has increased. And the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has also increased.

Raising the CO2 level and driving SUVs did not cure drought. But it obviously didn’t cause it either. Many complex natural factors interact to cause climate or weather events, including the amount of precipitation.             Politicians should be challenged to explain how the Green New Deal will improve the climate.

Additional information:

Climate Watch: Unprecedented High Temperatures?

I hope you are able to find a respite from the heat. We’ve had “excessive heat” warnings in Tucson for several days straight.

But as the graph shows, it is not unprecedented. U.S. maximum temperatures in June 1933 were higher. Of course, one can argue that it was just “weather” then, owing to Dust Bowl conditions, but it is “climate change” now. (Note that connecting two points, as in the graph, does not make a trend. The direction of a trend depends on the starting and stopping points. If we started in 1776, near the end of the Little Ice Age, it is definitely warmer now.)

The mean of maximum U.S. temperatures as guesstimated by NOAA has been fluctuating between about 78 and 86 degrees F. Many factors contribute to these differences of about 8 degrees. The gradual small rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with them.

Heat waves are a serious problem for people who live in cities. The urban heat island (UHI) effect can raise temperatures 10 or more degrees above what they would be in the countryside. Increasing urbanization likely accounts for 40 percent of reported warming. The ways to mitigate it do not involve reducing “carbon footprints.” Increasing green spaces, rooftop gardens, reflective roofing materials, and permeable pavements are helpful measures.

Looking at global rather than U.S. temperatures in the graph below, we see that there is a big spike in 2024. This is explained by the 2022 eruption of the underwater volcano Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai, which injected an unprecedented amount of water vapor, from 146 trillion grams (40 billion gallons) of water, into the stratosphere. This is equal to about 10 percent of the water vapor normally present there. Water vapor is by far the most important “greenhouse gas.”

Local factors and natural phenomena affect the weather and the climate—while the mainstream media only reports  about carbon dioxide, which is at most a minor contributor.

Additional information:

WW III: Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) Doctrine Being Tested

Over the noise about the Trump guilty verdict, have you seen any reports about developments in the Russia/Ukraine war?

As Russia continues to make slow progress on the ground, longer-range weapons are being supplied to Ukraine, along with proposals to strike targets within Russia. The defense minister of the Netherlands said that Ukraine could use the F-16s it sends in any way it likes.

The top map shows the location of Russian early warning system (EWS) radars and the area over which they can detect an incoming ballistic missile. The lower one shows the area covered by two installations that were reportedly attacked. At least one is said to be out of action awaiting repairs.

A degraded EWS leaves a country subject to a decapitating strike. Cold War doctrine calls for a devastating response, which has so far not materialized. But against what? NATO is maintaining plausible deniability.

Ascending the escalatory ladder without dire consequences so far “has led to a situation where many western decision-makers sincerely believe they can act with impunity, totally disregarding Russian warnings, while considering the likelihood of nuclear war an impossibility.”

The U.S. has no system to destroy nuclear warheads about to impact an American city. The batteries of Nike missiles that used to ring cities in the 1950s (the Nike-Hercules was nuclear-tipped) were all decommissioned.

The Soviet Union did not abandon anti-ballistic missile defense using nuclear warheads. In 2001, Russia was said to have a de facto missile-defense network with at least 8,000 modern interceptors, tipped with small nuclear warheads that do not require bullet-hitting-bullet accuracy. As of 2020, there were plans to double the firepower capabilities of the system defending Moscow.

There are many unknowns about Russian and U.S. capabilities, and the long-lasting MAD doctrine credited with keeping the peace for decades is being challenged.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump said that nuclear annihilation is the real threat, in commenting on President Joe Biden’s recent speech, in which he said global warming posed the “greatest existential threat to our country.” Neither candidate is talking about strategic or civil defense. The Biden Administration has authorized Ukraine to use U.S. weapons for “limited” strikes within Russia.

Additional Information: D.I.Y. Civil Defense

WW III: Is Nuclear Escalation Imminent?

I hope you are having a nice Memorial Day, celebrating the beginning of summer.  But do not forget that Memorial Day is about those who fell in war.

Americans tend to think that war is “Over There.” And that nuclear war is unthinkable, but if it happened, they erroneously think that it would inevitably wipe us out so there is nothing to do.

Some current events to consider:

On another front, there is grave concern that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon “in a few years.” What if it already has a few? It has nuclear friends—and no one knows for sure what happened to all of the Soviet stockpile. It’s possible that the threat of exploding a nuke hidden in a world capital is a deterrent strategy.

Some use of a nuclear weapon, by accident or design, appears likely. No matter where it happens, worldwide radiation panic could ensue. Inform yourself about radiation effects. It’s best to have your own radiation monitor. The safe/not safe radiation detector card—retail price $45—will  be unobtainable once the panic starts. The best use for limited supplies is to equip first responders NOW. Ten can be obtained free for first responders who request them on organization letterhead (http://www.ki4u.com/products1.php).

Additional information:

WW III: Ground Zero. Population: 5

Are you more worried about climate change than nuclear war? In a Washington Post op-ed, George Will observes that negligible public anxiety accompanies the intensifying danger of global incineration from nuclear war.

Like most commentators, Will assumes that the only possible outcome after the first salvo is global extinction. He refers to journalist Annie Jacobsen’s March 2024 book Nuclear War: a Scenario. This revives the 1980s climate catastrophe theory of nuclear winter.

Continue reading “WW III: Ground Zero. Population: 5”

War vs. Peace: Historical Pointers

DDP Newsletter Vol. XXXIX, No. 4

In these days of forever wars, we face rising threats to our way of life. Will we live under a system of freedom and prosperity, or will we be ruled over and our liberties treated as “privilege” that can be given or taken based on the judgment of a ruling class?

In trying to identify good guys and bad guys, friends and foes, some little-known historical events, and facts on some important persons, may provide helpful insight.

Key issues include slavery and control of the levers of power.

Continue reading “War vs. Peace: Historical Pointers”