Mount Zion Has Been Ovetaken

Can US, Turkey keep up appearances in Syria?

Russia’s next move       A terrorist group linked to the Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility for suicide bombings in Tartus and Jableh in Syria on May 23 that killed more than 150 civilians and wounded more than 200 others.Maxim Suchkov points out that the attack in Tartus occurred deep inside government-controlled territory. Russia maintains a naval base in Tartus and an air base and reconnaissance center in Khmeimim in the Latakia region. The suicide attacks, Suchkov suggests, could be a catalyst for a Russian “first strike” strategy against terrorist and aligned Salafi groups. Moscow had already signaled the prospect of escalation against Jabhat al-Nusra and allied groups prior to the May 23 attacks. The Russian Ministry of Defense has announced a pause in its air campaign to allow armed groups allied with Jabhat-al Nusra to distance themselves from the al-Qaeda affiliate. On May 26, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and allied groups seized the town of Dirkhabiyah near Damascus. Ahrar al-Sham has coordinated more closely with Jabhat al-Nusra in response to increased US and Russian targeting of the al-Qaeda affiliate over the past few months. This column last week suggested that the United States take up a Russian offer to coordinate attacks on Jabhat al-Nusra, which is not a party to the cessation of hostilities. For the record, we have no tolerance or empathy for groups or individuals who stand with al-Qaeda. We hope that this is at least part of the message the United States is conveying to its regional partners who have backed these groups. With the Geneva talks suspended for several weeks, the prospect of a Russian campaign to deliver heavy and potentially fatal blows to Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies, especially in and around Aleppo and Idlib, could signal yet another turning point in the Syria conflict.   Turkey’s failed proxy war The United States and Turkey are struggling to keep up appearances in Syria, despite even further signs of division and discord. Gen. Joseph Votel, US CENTCOM commander, met last week with Syrian Kurdish forces during a “secret” visit to northern Syria as part of a regional diplomatic tour that also included a stop in Ankara. Votel told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that he is seeking to “balance” Turkey’s role as a “fabulous” partner in the battle against IS with that of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the backbone of the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF), which is a “very good partner on the ground.”  In contrast to the YPG, Turkey’s proxy forces, including a worrying mix of Salafists who are willing to run operations with Jabhat al-Nusra, have been a flop. Last week, IS seized at least seven villages in the northern Aleppo region. Fehim Tastekin reports that SDF-led military operations to liberate Jarablus, which is an essential gateway along with al-Rai to the outside world via Turkey, were postponed “because of Turkey's red line against the Kurds.” The offensive against Raqqa has also been slowed, writes Tastekin, because “the SDF's operational capacity still leaves much to be desired. It is not an option for the Kurdish YPG-YPJ to control Raqqa, because they will encounter local resistance. They also worry that scattering their forces in Arab regions could weaken the defensive lines of Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan). Therefore, Arab forces would have to get in shape to control the situation in the post-IS period.” Laura Rozen reports from Washington that the United States is seeking to boost the numbers of Arab Sunni forces among the SDF in anticipation of an advance on Raqqa.  Meanwhile, the Pentagon found itself in a public relations fiasco after Turkey complained that US special forces in Syria were wearing badges with the logo of the YPG, which Turkey considers the Syrian partner of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and therefore also a terrorist organization. This might be compared with what in the sports world is known as an unforced error, and made Votel’s already daunting diplomacy that much more complicated.  Air Force Col. Sean McCarthy also told Ignatius that US air operations against IS out of Incirlik Air Base were mostly "autonomous" of Turkish missions, saying that "we don't discuss with them where we're going.” Adding it all up, the US-Turkish "partnership" against IS may be more fable than fabulous. The open secret is that Turkey is preoccupied first with thwarting advances by Syria’s Kurds, and second with shutting down the remaining lifelines for IS in northern Syria. These priorities are of a piece. No doubt Turkey is taking up the fight against IS, but first things first. Tastekin, who previously broke the back story on Turkey’s disastrous proxy efforts to retake al-Rai from IS in April, now concludes that “there is no room for optimism that Ankara will erase its red lines vis-a-vis the Kurds. Instead, Turkey is now trying to put together an even more formidable force with Jabhat al-Nusra, which it is trying to steer away from al-Qaeda.” The catch might just be that many of the Syrian armed groups backed by Washington’s regional partners are proxies for a sectarian agenda that is mostly about toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, however unlikely that now appears, and, by extension, keeping the heat on Iran. The when and where of taking the fight to IS or Jabhat al-Nusra is more or less negotiable, depending on trade-offs and pressure. We do not feel we are out on a limb in suggesting that efforts by Ankara or others to wean Jabhat al-Nusra from al-Qaeda will come to no good. This column has repeatedly documented the fluidity of foreign-backed Salafi groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam shifting in and out of tactical alliances with Jabhat al-Nusra, all the while preaching an ideology almost indistinguishable from al-Qaeda and IS.  The losers, of course, are the people of Syria, including those who suffer under IS’ tyranny that much longer because of Turkey’s concerns about the Kurds, and as Washington’s policymakers and pundits begin another maddening deep dive into how to rejigger ethnic and sectarian fault lines. Syrians fleeing IS terror in Aleppo, meanwhile, told Mohammed al-Khatieb that living under IS is “like hell … unbearable.” While we acknowledge the complexities and challenges of the raw ethnic and sectarian politics of Syria, as well as the potential for vendettas and mass killings, there is, in our score, an urgency and priority to focus on the destruction of IS and al-Qaeda above all else.  Sur’s aftermath Diyarbakir’s historic district of Sur has witnessed some of the most brutal fighting between Turkish military and PKK forces over the past year. Mahmut Bozarslan reports from Diyarbakir that “historical landmarks in Sur, which was last year added to UNESCO’s World Heritage List, also suffered their share of destruction. The walls of the Armenian Catholic church are partially destroyed, while the nearby Haci Hamit Mosque is missing its minaret, with a dome riddled with bullets. Another Armenian church, Surp Giragos, had its windows shattered and interior damaged.” “Still, those ancient monuments were lucky compared with more ordinary structures in the area,” writes Bozarslan. "A building with an intact door was almost impossible to find. The warring parties had used some buildings as fighting bases, others as places to rest. Stairways were littered with empty tins; one was also stained with blood. At the bloodied spot, a piece of paper reading “body #1” was left behind, suggesting that the security forces had been there for a crime scene report. A couple seemed relieved that they had escaped with relatively little damage, but grumbled that their apartment had been broken into, with the bedroom and closets rummaged. They claimed it was the security forces who had entered, while their neighbor showed Al-Monitor binoculars that had been left behind."

Are We Saved by Doing Good Works?

by Charles Stanley

The Christian life is just that—a life, not a lifestyle. Sadly, a lot of churches preach Christianity as a list of dos and don'ts. Then faith looks like a formula: Jesus' saving grace plus doing good things minus doing bad things = righteousness. Most of us have enough problems without worrying about whether we're following the extra-biblical rules of one church. A man-made formula for righteousness runs counter to scriptural teaching. In fact, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for such heavy-handed religion (Matt. 23:1-4). He, on the other hand, offered liberty through grace. Neither keeping God's Law by self-effort nor adhering to extra rules makes a person free. Legalistic believers are in bondage and growing ever weaker. When a person accepts the saving grace of Jesus, he or she receives a new life (Rom. 6:4). This is not an uptight lifestyle of doing good works. A believer is a changed person—same body but a transformed mind and heart. Christ lives through you. His Holy Spirit flows into your spirit as sap runs in a grapevine. It's like getting a spiritual blood transfusion! Strength pumps into places where weakness once prevailed. Why rely upon your frail self when the courage and power to follow God's will is available through Christ? I know what it feels like to burn out from trying to do good in my own strength. My desire for you is that you'll surrender to the Lord. Depend upon Him to change you from the inside out, and trust that He will. Jesus is your life. He will never get tired of transforming you. Taken from "The Source of Our Strength" by In Touch Ministries (used by permission).

CHRISTIANS AND ABORTION SHOW THEM LOVE AND CARING!!!!

As we look at this with the a mind of the world we see abortion as a women's right to choose between life and death of the unborn fetish. We as followers and Christians look at the fact this is plain and simple murder of an unborn child, so whether you are pro-life or pro-choice there are different feelings to be addressed of each side. The Lord Jesus the Christ came to earth to show us love and understanding to sinners and also give his life for the sins of this world. Jesus went to the sick and lost first he said they are the sick and they need me more than the healthy, He ate with tax collectors he forgave prostitutes and murders he hated the hypocrites who judged yet they have the most sin of all. When we look at abortion and what is stands for we need to take a step back and think what would our Lord Jesus do? What would he say to this person who needs his help? So how do we react to this person and how do we show them we are true followers of Jesus. I think what these women need is love and understanding whether pro-choice or pro-life it boils down to one thing we show LOVE and do not judge these sisters because they all came from our Father in Heaven and need to hear that he loves us at a time like this and let Jesus in their hearts.

SOME STATISTICS.

Accurate statistics on births, miscarriages, stillbirths and abortions are hard to obtain. Many miscarriages are unnoticed or unreported, and not all terminations are reported either. But on top of this, the various sources give inconsistent, poorly defined and often confusing statistics. The figures I’ve used are therefore very approximate, based on recent estimates, and are provided simply to give the general idea.

In the western world, it appears that about 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages and stillbirths, and a further 25% in termination, so that just over half known pregnancies lead to a live birth. In addition, it is estimated that up to half of all fertilised eggs are miscarried, but often the mother is not aware of it, or doesn’t report it.

The table below shows how these percentages work out in Australia, UK and USA (round figures only).

STATISTIC	AUSTRALIA	UK	USA
Total population	23.9 million	64 million	319 million
Live births	300,000	750,000	4,000,000
Known miscarriages & stillbirths	95,000	240,000	1,300,000
Abortions	81,000	200,000	1,100,000
Unknown miscarriages	up to 220,000	up to 560,000	up to 3,000,000

It can be seen that abortions occur approximately as frequently as known miscarriages. Some studies suggest that evangelical christians have about 200,000 of the US abortions, a rate lower than average, but still significant. Catholics have abortions at the same rate as average.

A SHORT HISTORY OF ABORTION ETHICS.

Most cultures in ancient times were reasonably accepting of abortion in general, and often even infanticide, but abortion was often punishable if the father wished to keep the child. Most cultures were patriarchal, with both women and children subservient to men.

Jewish culture tended to see the child as fully human when its head appeared at birth or when it took its first breath and its spirit entered it. Nevertheless, abortion was condemned because of the loss of a potential child, and some rabbis considered abortion to be murder. Modern Judaism generally allows abortion when the mother’s life is threatened, but officially opposes it gently otherwise.

The early church most often treated abortion as murder and thus opposed it, as they opposed infanticide. Christians in the Roman Empire were known for their more humane treatment of children and women, to the extent of rescuing babies left out to die by others. In later centuries,some christians believed abortion before “quickening” (which generally occurs sometime after 12 weeks) was acceptable.

The debate about abortion really heated up and became polarised in modern times when medical science made it much safer and women’s rights became an important issue. Almost all christians oppose abortion except in special circumstances, whereas non-religious people generally believe it should be allowed, at least up until 20 weeks.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

I have looked up several christian sites that list Bible verses on abortion, and found that the main subjects the passages address are these:

GOD KNEW US BEFORE WE WERE BORN

It is true that God knew us before we were born (e.g. Jeremiah 1:5, Galatians 1:15), but these passages say he knew us before he formed us in our mother’s womb. In fact, he knew us before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4)! These passages are about God’s omniscience and foreknowledge, not about abortion.

THE WONDER OF GOD’S CREATION OF US

God created us in our mother’s womb (e.g. Psalm 139:13-16). But these passages don’t discuss abortion or define when life begins, only the amazing process by which life begins.

THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE

Many passages point out the value of human life and the punishment for taking life (e.g. Exodus 20:13). Most of these passages have nothing to say about the unborn, but two may be relevant:

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 21:22-25

In context, it seems clear to me that this passage (1) is not necessarily about taking human life, which is the question we are examining (it also talks about kidnapping and wounding) and (2) the concern here seems to be injury done to the mother by an enemy, not the loss of the baby, and certainly not the choice of the mother to abort.

For he did not kill me in the womb

Jeremiah 20:17

This is a strange verse. It comes in the middle of a lament by Jeremiah that he was ever born. In this verse, he is actually complaining that the man who brought his father the news of Jeremiah’s birth should have killed him before he was born. This is hardly a verse that speaks against abortion – it actually speaks in its favour, in this one case at least.

On the other hand, it does use the word “kill”, which suggests that an unborn baby should be considered to be “human”. But overall, I can’t see how this passage, a lament by Jeremiah, can be taken as a source of a clear teaching.

SO WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

I really don’t feel it says much at all about abortion. The Old Testament does indicate that human life is valuable, and the unborn worthy of some protection, but the New Testament says nothing that is directly relevant. I’m not sure this gives us very much clear guidance.

REASONS TO QUESTION THE “PRO CHOICE” VIEW

UNCERTAINTIES

The uncertainties about when life begins work both ways. If we cannot be certain that life begins at conception, we cannot be certain that it doesn’t. If we have to choose a definite point, conception is probably the easiest to justify.

DON’T TAKE RISKS WITH HUMAN LIFE

In most situations in life, we try to reduce the risk to human life. For example, new drugs are supposed to pass stringent tests about their side effects before they can be released for general use.

Risk is defined as consequence x likelihood. For a new drug, the consequence may be the loss or severe impairment of human life, so the likelihood must be significantly reduced to make the risk acceptable.

With abortion, the risk is of a different nature. The likelihood of the termination ending the opportunity for the fetus to live is almost certain, so to keep the risk at an acceptable level, we should be fairly certain that this consequence is not the end of a human life. But we don’t have that near-certainty.

FUNERALS AFTER A MISCARRIAGE

When a natural miscarriage occurs, the parents are often grief-stricken. They had plans, or at least hopes, for this baby, perhaps they had a name picked out. The loss can be devastating. Some parents still name their miscarried baby and have a funeral for them.

All this suggests that intuitively we know this is a human life, and something of great value has been lost. Perhaps these responses are just ways of coping, and mean nothing, but perhaps they reveal a deep truth.

Sometimes a woman can choose to have an abortion and at another time grieve a miscarriage. Can the value of an unborn child vary so much with the mother’s circumstances and feelings? Perhaps it can, but perhaps not.

WHAT IS HUMAN?

Christians hold a high view of human life – we are made in the image of God, however we may understand that. But for naturalists or materialists, who don’t believe in the supernatural, while humans are “our species”, objectively, we are no more that clever animals, in the end reducible to mere atoms.

Some naturalists take that to the logical extreme of believing there is no morality and no purpose, but most do not. For them, ethics are based more in avoiding causing pain and maximising happiness. Therefore, they may think it is quite moral to abort an early stage fetus that has no self consciousness (it is presumed), or even a late term baby, if they won’t experience significant pain or apprehension of pain.

However much we might disagree with this philosophy, many people hold something like it. So for them abortion may be quite acceptable. But if christians also support easy availability of abortion, we are (it is argued) supporting a godless philosophy.

WHAT IS MORALITY?

It can be argued that, in many cases at least, justifying abortion is a victory of self interest over ethics.

PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS WITH THE LOVE JESUS SHOWED US.

1. WE LACK CERTAINTY

I think there are good arguments on either side, and I don’t feel anyone can speak with certainty on this matter. While I don’t think it is simply a matter of a woman’s control of her own body, I feel a man needs to be careful in what he says. This means I must be sensitive in presenting any view.

2. I THINK IT IS BETTER TO AVOID RISK

Because the ethics of termination are uncertain, I think it is better to be cautious. And that means avoiding abortion if at all possible. As a christian, I think I would be extremely reluctant to support termination except in rare circumstances (not that I’m likely to be in any position to have a say in such a matter!).

3. GOD CAN COPE

The high natural miscarriage rate suggests that God can cope with abortion. We cannot know how he does this nor why he allows this, but it suggests that for him it isn’t the supremely desperate issue that many pro-lifers feel it is. I feel that we should avoid too strong an anti-abortion emphasis in the christian community, because it distorts our message of good news and can lead to condemnation and anger rather than grace. However christian convictions should be shared gently, and doubtless some people are specifically called to minister and advocate in this area.

4. IT’S UNLIKELY TO GO AWAY SOON

In western societies, christianity has been in slow decline as a cultural force, and materialism or a less well-defined spirituality are gaining cultural adherence. Without a definite belief in a creator God, there is less reason to believe that pre-birth life (at least before 20 weeks) is “sacred”. It is therefore less likely that non-believers will hold a “pro life” viewpoint.

Christians need to understand that the issue is often comes down to a philosophical or spiritual difference, and respond in an appropriate way.

5. OPPONENTS OF ABORTION MUST BE LOVING

Those who feel they should oppose abortion, must do it lovingly and sensitively. Women have abortions for many reasons, and we cannot presume to know how reasonable and ethical they are, nor how inescapable the decision may have seemed.

It is unlikely that the law will be changed in any country any time soon, and attempts to strongly influence legislators may antagonise and be counter-productive. Gentle persuasion and gradual cultural change may be the only way forward, and christians would do well to develop a better understanding of all the facts and issues so they can present a more nuanced response. Men have to be particularly sensitive.

6. LET’S ALL BE TRULY PRO-LIFE

Christians and churches can be truly pro-life by providing tangible, “no-strings” and non-judgmental support for girls and women who may be at risk – counselling, contraception (yes I know this may facilitate promiscuity, but we need to decide which battle we want to win, and freely available contraception reduces abortions), pathways out of poverty, marriage and relationship support, and, ultimately, spiritual renewal – in our home countries and globally.

We can also offer non-judgmental support for pregnant women who would be willing to carry their baby to term if they have financial, housing and emotional support.

7. FORGIVENESS IS AT THE CORE OF CHRISTIANITY

If abortion is a sin, it is certainly not the ultimate sin, any more than murder or other killing is. It is not an unforgivable sin. Women who feel guilty because they have had an abortion need comfort and reassurance, they need to hear Jesus say“neither do I condemn you, go in peace” (John 8:11, Luke 7:48-50), they need to receive forgiveness and restoration in exchange for guilt.

Let us be christians who love extraordinarily rather than condemn.

LET’S TALK

I am still exploring this issue. I would be interested in hearing your views, and your response to the issues I have raised here. But please be sensitive and loving.

REFERENCES

• Some birth, abortion & miscarriage statistics from Australia (ABS on births,miscarriage and abortion rates), UK (miscarriage and abortion), USA (abortion, miscarriage risks) and worldwide (fetal mortality by WHO, abortion, and this up-to-the-minute count).
• Explanations of the statistics on miscarriage, and on abortion in Australia.
• The Jewish view on abortion – AISH.com, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputiesand Jewish Virtual Library.
• The history of attitudes to abortion by BBC and christian views in Wikipedia.
• Bible passages on abortion: God Vine, Bible Study Tools, and Christian Answers
• Pro-life views: You Don’t Have To Be Afraid To Be A Pro-Life Progressive(Benjamin Corey), Why the Anti-Abortion Movement Must Start by Changing the Culture (On Faith), How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes (On Faith), It’s time to rethink our attitude to abortion (Telegraph) and a strong pro-lifer criticises Francis Collins’ moderate views (BeliefNet).
• Pro-choice views: a christian doctor who performs abortions to help people in need (Esquire), a writer who believes life begins at conception but is still pro-choice (Salon) and Reproductive Choice Australia
• Healing for those feeling guilt over abortion: The Secret Shame of Abortion in the Church (Christianity Today), secular counselling by Women on the Weband Children by Choice, and christian counselling by Silent no More and Got Questions.

Live MSNBC - President Obama at G7 Summit

Published on May 27, 2016

President Obama calls for continued Russian sanctions at G7 summit

Barack Obama calls for a 'nuclear-free world' at G7 summit during Hiroshima visit

t was more than seven decades ago that the United States dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on Japan, obliterating the city of Hiroshima, killing 140,000 people and ushering in a new era of nuclear conflict.

Today, another world precedent was set, as Barack Obama became the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima, side by side with his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe, the prime minister.

The historic visit was masterminded with military precision by Washington and Tokyo, in a bid to showcase the high-profile alliance between the two former enemy nations and reignite stalled efforts to abolish nuclear arms.

Mr Obama landed late afternoon at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, just outside Hiroshima, where he addressed staff gathered there, before making his way to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in the heart of the city.

Mr Obama told service personnel at the base, located around 25 miles from Hiroshima: “This is an opportunity to honour the memory of all who were lost during World War Two.

“It's a chance to reaffirm our commitment to pursuing the peace and security of a [world] where nuclear weapons would no longer be necessary.”

Upon arrival in the city, Mr Obama first visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, where he observed harrowing displays relating to the atomic bomb blast, including photographs of badly burned victims and remnants of stained clothes.

“We have know the agony of war,” he wrote in the guest book. “Let us now find the courage, together, to spread peace, and pursue a world without nuclear weapons.”

Accompanied by Mr Abe, the president then walked to Hiroshima Peace Park, where one by one, they laid a wreath in front of the curved concrete memorial cenotaph, with its eternal flame.

“We come to ponder the terrible force unleashed in the not so distant past,” said Mr Obama, in a 20-minute address.

“We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans and a dozen Americans held prisoner. Their souls speak to us.”

The president went on to meet with a number of survivors of the 1945 bombing, among them Sunao Tsuboi, 91, and Shigeaki Mori, 79, who shed tears as they embraced.

Mr Obama’s Hiroshima visit took place seven years after he made a rousing plea for the elimination of atomic weapons during a landmark speech in Prague which helped him to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

The run-up to the visit was not without controversy, with critics highlighting so-called selective memory on both sides in relation to wartime events, as well as paradoxes in policies relying on nuclear deterrence while calling for an end to atomic arms.

Mr Obama has proposed a trillion-dollar overhaul of America’s nuclear weapons programme over the next three decades, upgrading its arsenal of ballistic missile submarines, land-based missiles and nuclear-armed bombers.

There has also been extensive debate surrounding whether Mr Obama should apologise for the Hiroshima bombing, or the attack on Nagasaki, where a second atomic bomb was dropped three days later.

Mr Obama announced before his visit that while he was in Hiroshima, he would honour all those who died in World war Two, but he would not apologise for the atomic bombings.

The majority of Americans have long viewed the two atomic bombings as necessary in bringing the war to an end and therefore saving even more lives, although this argument has been widely queried by historians. Most Japanese believe they were unjustified.

China and South Korea also expressed concerns that Mr Obama’s visit would reopen painful wounds, with both nations still regularly clashing with Japan over their respective interpretations of wartime events.

“It is worth focusing on Hiroshima, but it is even more important that we should not forget Nanjing,” Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister, reportedly told media.

He was referring to the controversially disputed incident in 1937 during which China claims Japanese troops killed 300,000 people in its then capital Nanjing.

A postwar Allied tribunal concluded the death toll was around 142,000, however some conservative Japanese politicians deny the massacre took place at all, a claim that regularly enrages China.

He added: “The victims deserve sympathy, but the perpetrators can never escape their responsibility.”

Meanwhile, North Korea voiced its disapproval by issuing a statement containing angry rhetoric condemning the visit as the “childish” ploy of a “nuclear war fanatic”.

An opinion article by the Korea Central News Agency accused Mr Obama of being "seized with the wild ambition to dominate the world by dint of the US nuclear edge".

Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) Russia newer and more powerful than the US.

Russian-US relations (as well as Russia's relations with NATO) over the past two years, hit a record low point. As a result, the issue of nuclear weapons again came to the fore. It has repeatedly said in the most serious declarations that parties are preparing to deliver a nuclear strike against each other.

For example, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has recently published its annual report, which states that the Russian Air Force in 2013 had a training flight, during which simulated an "nuclear strikes against Sweden." The report noted that to carry out this task were involved in long-range supersonic bomber Tu-22M3, acting under the cover of Su-27 fighters. Meanwhile, a member of NATO, Turkey is just a few steps from a major war with Russia, which does not simplify the situation.

In such circumstances, you might need to evaluate the state of the US and Russian nuclear forces . How does this situation affect the strategic balance, urging the parties to the unreasonableness of the beginning of the conflict ? And what are the prospects for the development of nuclear power in the two superpowers?

Russia and the United States perform START-3

Agreement on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms , signed on 8 April 2010 Presidents Obama and Medvedev, it commits the parties to reduce the number of their nuclear warheads to 1 550. The number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and heavy strategic bombers is limited to 700 units. According to data released by the US State Department on April 1, the parties have already reached or are close to achieving these numbers. The United States has 741 deployed platform to start with 1481 nuclear warheads, while Russia means the carrier 521 to 1735 nuclear warheads.The difference is negligible, and it does not affect the strategic balance. In Russia at the moment is less than the launchers, but this disparity is due to the fact that ICBMs with multiple warheads independently targetable have a wider field of application - one intercontinental ballistic missile can carry up to ten nuclear warheads.

American ICBMs are stuck in the 1970s

Armed with the US has intercontinental ballistic missiles land-based is only one type - LGM-30G «Minuteman-3". Each missile carries one nuclear warhead W87 capacity of up to 300 kilotons (but can carry up to three warheads). The latter type of missile was made in 1978 year. This means that the "youngest" of them - 38 years.These missiles repeatedly modernized, and their life span is scheduled for completion in 2030.

The new system of intercontinental ballistic missile called GBSD (means of strategic deterrence land-based) seem stuck at the stage of discussion. US Air Force asked for 62.3 billion dollars in the development and production of new missiles, and hope in 2017 to receive 113.9 million dollars. However, the White House does not support this application. In fact, many there are against this idea. The development was postponed for a year, and now GBSD prospects will depend on the outcome of the presidential election in 2016.

It is worth noting that the US government intends to spend on nuclear weapons colossal amount: about 348 billion dollars by 2024, and 26 billion will go to the intercontinental ballistic missiles. But $ 26 billion is not enough to GBSD. Actual costs may be higher, given the fact that the United States had long been producing new intercontinental land-based missiles. The last such rocket called LGM-118A «Peacekeeper" was launched in 1986. But by 2005, the US unilaterally withdrew all 50 missiles of this type of combat duty, although it is no exaggeration to say that the LGM-118A «Peacekeeper" was better in comparison with the LGM-30G «Minuteman-3", because it could carry up 10 warheads. Despite the failure of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty START-2, which prohibits the use of multiple warheads with individual guidance, the United States voluntarily renounced their MIRV. Trust in him has been lost because of the high cost, but also because of the scandal, during which it became clear that these missiles for almost four years (1984-88 gg.) Was not AIRS guidance system (an improved inertial reference sphere). In addition, the manufacturer tried to hide missiles delivery delay - at the time when the Cold War came to an end.

Russian intercontinental ballistic land-based missiles, new technologies against missile defense

Russia currently has a wide range of intercontinental ballistic missiles, ground-based, including on mobile launchers. In 2015, the Strategic Missile Forces Russian got 24 new units of the RS-24 "yars" missiles in the silo, and a mobile version. This missile can carry a warhead 3-4 independently targetable nuclear weapons that are able to overcome the missile defense system. It is fairly safe to assume that the delivery of these missiles in 2016 will not give the level of 2015. Russia will be able by 2020 to replace a missile "Topol" (in fact, this is the equivalent of "Minuteman-3) at the latest designs that are able to overcome the enemy's missile defense system.

Russia also has a heavy liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic land-based missiles. Well known missile R-36M2 "Voivod", located in service since 1988. It can carry 10 nuclear warheads capacity of up to 750 kilotons each. This year will test the RS-28, "Sarmat" modern missiles, which in 2020 should replace the "Voevode", and will have the capacity to overcome missile defense. First of all, it is expected that this rocket will output a nuclear warhead on a suborbital trajectory (it is somewhat shorter than the circular orbit, which is banned by international agreements). Beat this missile can be applied anywhere, even from the South Pole. This forces a potential enemy to create an integrated missile defense system, which is extremely expensive, even for the US. Moreover, nuclear warheads enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and move in a more extended path for maneuvering 7-7.5 km per second. prelaunch rocket time will be kept to a minimum, accounting for less than a minute from the moment of receiving the order.

Russia also has a mysterious missile RS-26 "Boundary". Information about it a little, but most likely, this complex is a further development of the "yars" project, having the ability to strike at the intercontinental and intermediate-range. Minimum launch range of the missiles is 2000 kilometers, and it is enough to break the US missile defense system in Europe. The United States objected to the deployment of this system on the grounds that this would be a violation of the INF Treaty. But such statements do not hold water: maximum RS-26 launch range exceeding 6,000 kilometers, which means that it is an intercontinental ballistic missile, but not medium-range ballistic missile.

With this in mind it becomes clear that the US significantly behind Russia in the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, land-based. In the United States alone, and quite old ICBM "Minuteman-3", which can carry only one warhead. And the prospects for the development of a new model to replace it rather vague. In Russia the situation is quite different. Land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles are updated regularly - in fact, the development of new missiles is at a standstill.Each new intercontinental ballistic missile is being developed with consideration of the penetration of the enemy missile, which is why the project of the European missile defense and ground missile defense system at cruising area (set of US missile defense system designed to intercept the approaching combat units) in the foreseeable future will not be effective against Russian missiles.

Leonid Nersisyan - military commentator REGNUM news agency, Moscow, Russia