Why An American And A Russian General Are Suddenly Very Worried About Nuclear War

Tyler Durden's picture

Over the past several years, there has been an alarming escalation of two very disturbing trends: an increasing preponderance of cyberattacks on complex infrastructure (whether domestic or abroad and whether instigated by external sources or internally, in a false falg attempt to evolve the issue to the benefit of various military-industrial complex benficiaries) as well as around the globe, and a largely unexpected return to a Cold War footing, one catalyzed by the violent US-sponsored overthrow of the former Kiev government and the eagerness to escalate the resultant conflict exhibited by the Kremlin.

If one extends said trends, one would arrive at a very unpleasant conclusion: due to the porous nature of modern technology and the increasing prevalence of cyberattacks, coupled with Cold War-era nuclear doctrines and rising tensions between the two superpowers who are now back to a Cold War regime, a nuclear war has suddenly emerged yet again as a very real threat.

At least such is the opinion of two high-ranking military commanders, American James E. Cartwright, a former Marine Corps general, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and commander of the United States Strategic Command, and Russian Vladimir Dvorkin, a retired major general who headed the research institute of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces. Both are members of the Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction, and both are very concerned about the future of the world if the current nuclear status quo between the US and Russia is left unchanged.

The two express their joint concern in a NYT Op-Ed, in which they warns of the dangers of old nuclear strike doctrines at a time when relations between the two superpowers are at such a low point. As a result, they call on Moscow and Washington to prevent possible provocations.

In the Op-Ed, the authors state that there are three Cold War legacy strategic options at the two countries' disposal: i) a first strike; ii) retaliation after an attack and iii) launch on warning. The generals opine that the latter is the riskiest scenario, "since provocations or malfunctions can trigger a global catastrophe. Since computer-based information systems have been in place, the likelihood of such errors has been minimized. But the emergence of cyberwarfare threats has increased the potential for false alerts in early-warning systems. The possibility of an error cannot be ruled out."

And while one can be skeptical that in the current environment of renewed animosity between East and West the two countries will sit down and amicably discuss nuclear disarmament, the reality of a nuclear strike threat should a "hacker" find their way into either the US or Russian launch system and bypass the launch codes, is indeed all too real, as is the assured response by the adversary, giving way to a global nuclear holocaust.

Which, in this day and age when a new war seemingly starts every month in a desperate neo-con boost to stimulate this (military industrial complex) economy or that, does not sound too far fetched at all...

Finally, those cynical enough can say that what the two generals have done is simply lay out the blueprint for the next steps in what with every passing day appears to be a increasingly truncated global future.

From the NYT:

* * *

How to Avert a Nuclear War

We find ourselves in an increasingly risky strategic environment. The Ukrainian crisis has threatened the stability of relations between Russia and the West, including the nuclear dimension — as became apparent last month when it was reported that Russian defense officials had advised President Vladimir V. Putin to consider placing Russia’s nuclear arsenal on alert during last year’s crisis in Crimea.

Diplomatic efforts have done little to ease the new nuclear tension. This makes it all the more critical for Russia and the United States to talk, to relieve the pressures to “use or lose” nuclear forces during a crisis and minimize the risk of a mistaken launch.

The fact is that we are still living with the nuclear-strike doctrine of the Cold War, which dictated three strategic options: first strike, launch on warning and post-attack retaliation. There is no reason to believe that Russia and the United States have discarded these options, as long as the architecture of “mutually assured destruction” remains intact.

For either side, the decision to launch on warning — in an attempt to fire one’s nuclear missiles before they are destroyed — would be made on the basis of information from early-warning satellites and ground radar. Given the 15- to 30-minute flight times of strategic missiles, a decision to launch after an alert of an apparent attack must be made in minutes.

This is therefore the riskiest scenario, since provocations or malfunctions can trigger a global catastrophe. Since computer-based information systems have been in place, the likelihood of such errors has been minimized. But the emergence of cyberwarfare threats has increased the potential for false alerts in early-warning systems. The possibility of an error cannot be ruled out.

American officials have usually played down the launch-on-warning option. They have argued instead for the advantages of post-attack retaliation, which would allow more time to analyze the situation and make an intelligent decision. Neither the Soviet Union nor Russia ever stated explicitly that it would pursue a similar strategy, but an emphasis on mobile missile launchers and strategic submarines continues to imply a similar reliance on an ability to absorb an attack and carry out retaliatory strikes.

Today, however, Russia’s early warning system is compromised. The last of the satellites that would have detected missile launches from American territory and submarines in the past stopped functioning last fall. This has raised questions about Russia’s very ability to carry out launch-on-warning attacks.

Partly to compensate for the loss of its space-based system, Russia has deployed prefabricated radar units that can be set up quickly along its borders. Some of these are already operational; some are still being tested. Unlike satellite networks, radar can provide accurate information about the scale and targeting of a missile attack — but only once a missile has entered its vicinity, which would most likely be 10 to 15 minutes after launch.

The upside of radar reporting is more information. The downside of having to wait is that it cuts the time for deciding whether to launch on warning. That in turn increases the likelihood of mistaken retaliation. For a submarine missile fired from the Norwegian Sea, Russia’s radar network would give its nuclear decision makers just 10 minutes to respond. America’s early warning systems can be expected to provide about twice as much time.

Clearly, for either side, these timelines are very compressed and the opportunities for ill-considered decisions very real. Launch-on-warning puts enormous strain on the nuclear chains of command in both countries.

In theory, no sensible head of state would authorize a launch-on-warning strike after receiving information that just one missile, or a small number of missiles, were inbound, on the assumption that this was not an intentional, full-scale attack. But the launch-on-warning doctrine still rules in both Russia and the United States — in which case the risk, however small, of cataclysmic error remains.

This risk should motivate the presidents of Russia and the United States to decide in tandem to eliminate the launch-on-warning concept from their nuclear strategies. They should reinstitute military-to-military talks, which were suspended over the Ukraine crisis, to pursue this stand-down as an urgent priority. (A joint decision on this would not destabilize nuclear deterrence: Both countries still have nuclear forces designed to withstand a first-strike attack, guaranteeing retaliatory strikes.)

To reinforce this accord, both countries should refrain from conducting military exercises that involve practicing missile launches based on information from early warning systems. Even if this restraint cannot yet be fully verified, it would be a valuable contribution to strategic stability — and, of course, to preventing an inadvertent nuclear war. This would be a positive step ahead of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference that the United Nations will host later this month.

Detailed verification measures can come later, once better Russian-American relations are restored. The technical implementation of a decision to abandon the launch-on-warning concept would fall within the framework of the New Start treaty. A phased reduction of the combat readiness of the strategic nuclear forces would provide a safer time buffer for nuclear decision making.

In periods of heightened tensions and reduced decision times, the likelihood of human and technical error in control systems increases. Launch-on-warning is a relic of Cold War strategy whose risk today far exceeds its value. Our leaders urgently need to talk and, we hope, agree to scrap this obsolete protocol before a devastating error occurs.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Truther's picture

If it were a game of CHESS... Guess who would win?

freewolf7's picture

I can't invest in this fear porn.

edotabin's picture

missile porn !! Nuclear Alert !!

TruthInSunshine's picture

The 666th Nuland-Kagan-ZIO-PNAC Brigade has an overwhelming compulsion to keep poking Russia.

One would think that these dual-citizen motherfuckers would have been hung and split open by now for the "5 billion dollar, maximum" Iraq War that's cost U.S. taxpayers TRILLIONS, and led to the least stable, most volatile
MENA in...well, forever (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Egypt all in various stages and forms of civil wars, not to mention strains on Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia, etc.).

TahoeBilly2012's picture

Well said TIS, were are fucked when failure equals success somehow and the sheeple gobble it up and accept more. Dark times.

Bay of Pigs's picture

Yet according to people like McShitstain and Hitlary, we're still not "doing enough".

These people are fuckan whacked...

NihilistZero's picture

Like the psychopath who watches children at play and thinks only the darkest of thoughts. McCain, Clinton and their I'll can't enjoy the beauty of the world, they'd rather see it destroyed as long as they world the sword. Drunk on power isn't even the word. More like high on PCP. McCain especially. He travels to the warzones, he sees the results of the chaos we've created in the Middle East. Any rational man would be taken aback. A rational man would rethink what it all was for. McCain instead demands more war.

I do not believe in the Judeo-Christian dogmas. But there is a devil. Whatever cosmic karma and energy directs us through space-time has an evil component. It manifests in those who seek power over others. For every person who ever died in the chains of confinement or on a battlefield against one of his human brothers, one of these evil power seekers was responsible.

We have such a beautiful blue planet to enjoy. I wish we could evolve past the devils holding our species back.

TruthInSunshine's picture

What the good people of the world need, for their & their childrens' best interests, is a full-blown, bloody revolution.

The Financial/Fractional Banking-Military-Intelligence/Spying-Oligarch Complex needs to be broken permanently and with devastating force.

Macchendra's picture

Who here has nuclear war nightmares?  How many?  When did they start?  For me it was at the age of 9 in 1979, and they were using a new propulsion system.  But I've had ones where the dwelling I was at was directly directly in the fireball.  Some where I am just hit by the shockwave in buildings that fall over.

cossack55's picture

Just finished an in-depth study of the cold war thru 2012 history of CBR weapons and their development.  The Dead Hand. Reads like a horror story. 

Note: I am not the author

Icelandicsaga...............................................'s picture

My recurring war nightmare ... lost in an inner city warehouse area trying to find a way out without running into the zombies.. aka angry inner city folk .. no escape .. except to hideout with others trying to find a way out . .wonder what Freud would make of that. Other dream .. standing in a glass tower as a plane goes over . then a bright flash .. then I wake up.

farflungstar's picture

In 1983 when I was ten years old, after watching The Day After.

In my dreams, which I still remember to this day was mushroom clouds and the faces of my family melting and turning into skeletons.

FMOTL's picture

Well said Nihilist and TIS , this devil that you speak of has been named , Arcontic infection . Some interviews on RedIce with John Lash speak of this . Not sure how deep to believe this but its worth a listen and consideration .

ultramaroon's picture

Nice post, Nihilist. I read a book by M. Scott Peck many years ago in which he describes patients so compelling and consistent in their psychopathic reasoning that even their psychiatrists can be overwhelmed. He can't think of anything else to call this but "Radical Evil". I imagine sometimes that I sense that evil in some.

My wife and I sometimes marvel at some of the gruesome events of murder and mayhem that are carried out so methodically and efficiently and against so many people. We ourselves wouldn't harm a frog or a snake, much less a human being, so we're baffled at the images of facile violence that are shoved in our faces every time we turn on a TV (that's one reason I have little patience with TV programming these days, and seldom watch it).

I read about the research of a historian of WWII who stated that most soldiers would refuse to shoot the enemy unless they were under the direct orders of field commanders who were physically present and barking in the soldiers' ears.

Though humans do have a history of warfare, most men most of the time have a distaste for murdering their brothers. It seems that "a few good psychopaths" are needed to provoke common farmers and auto mechanics and school-teachers to murder.

ThanksChump's picture

While I agree completely, I don't share your implied aversion to the Russia-prodding.


The feeb voters will keep the neo-whatever feebs in power. But nukes will eliminate ALL the problems and their causes. It's not like humanity is some noble species deserving of preservation. Cite: look at what our species does. LOOK AT IT. I say, take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. McCain-Clinton 2016!

Taint Boil's picture



All these “eyes in the sky” but not a peep, word, data, info, picture, etc., etc. on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Sounds like one could just catapult one of those suckers over … oh wait the iron dome like in israel can knock out the homemade missiles so….. wait still doesn’t explain not a peep, word, data, info, picture, etc., etc……….

TahoeBilly2012's picture

Which leads one to ask,. did the Ukraine goofballs shoot down a plane they thought was Putin's?

Parrotile's picture

Officially "impossible", hence all the hand-wringing in the Western MSM over "The (Russian-Backed) Rebels Did It!"

Un-official (i.e. non-MSM) sources seem to have a different view on this matter - something to do with both planes following the same initial course. For example -

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e8c_1405625840, http://www.inquisitr.com/1358339/report-vladimir-putins-plane-lapped-mh17-may-have-been-target/,

whereas RT seems to be of the opinion that Board One (Putin's plane) never entered Ukraine airspace - http://rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/, but they also mention that (from a distance) both Putin's Ilyushin 96 and  Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 would have appeared "almost identical", in terms of overall size, shape and markings.

I believe we're still waiting to hear the testimony from the Spanish ATC operator who handled MH17. Must be taking a while to obtain the "correct" translation . . . . .

Latina Lover's picture

Quoting Parrotile

"I believe we're still waiting to hear the testimony from the Spanish ATC operator who handled MH17. Must be taking a while to obtain the "correct" translation . . . . ."

...... assuming, of course, that the  translator speaks "deadspeak" and is capable of channeling the deceased Spanish ATC operator.

Counterpunch's picture
Counterpunch (not verified) Taint Boil Apr 22, 2015 3:14 AM

Both planes Malaysian not long after that tribunal found that Israel was guilty of systematic war crimes in Palestine.


Just a coincidence, maybe.  but maybe not.


The Hebdo thing, in any event, reeks of an Israeli ff under Bibi and Barak.


Barak on BBC on 9/11...  he could not hide his joy, his feeling of... success.


Study body language and microexpressions for just a couple hours.  try to watch it slowed down.


Its absolutely clear he was integral to that op.










TheGreatRecovery's picture

If it were a game of Chess, Captain Kirk would win.

Joe Camel's picture

No way, in the game of chess Captain Kirk and all other Star Trek characters are Lt. Data's bitches. Lt. Data is a chess grand master.

MontgomeryScott's picture

I only up-arrowed you because one of my good friends has the nickname 'Joe Camel'.

Data has a brother, named 'Lore' (as well as a cat, named 'Spot').

Gene Roddenberry always had this idea of putting the story of the puppet Pinnochio and the puppet-master Gepetto to a more 'palatble' set of terms.

Spock used to twist Data's nipples and make him cry like a little girl (since the activation of the 'Emotion Chip').



TheGreatRecovery's picture

Perhaps, but... I mean "ALL-dimensional Chess." Because Kirk is the best at dealing with the previously-unknown and just-now-discovered dimensions.

TheGreatRecovery's picture

Again, I mean "ALL-dimensional Chess."  Because Kirk is the best at dealing with the previously-unknown and just-now-discovered dimensions.

TrumpXVI's picture

Nope, Kirk wins, Data loses.

Because Kirk would step outside the rules.

He'd kick the chess board over and order Data to be recycled for parts.

HolyfieldsOtherEar's picture

What if you think it's chess and your opponent thinks it's a MMA cage match?

BullyBearish's picture

Meanwhile, in the Middle East:


Russia confirms that the nuclear weapons they secretly gave Iran last summer are now installed and operational.  President Putin confirms that "This should quiet things down a bit in the region!"  Saudis are seen to be pulling back, as are their proxies, ISIS.  Early conjecture is Vladamir Putin now in the running for TIME Magazine's Man of the Year and there are whispers of even the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.


BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

Problem is giving nuclear weapons to a fanatical religious state like Iran and the problem with other fanatical religious states like the US having nuclear weapons is these people are obsessed with bible prophecy despite the fact that bible prophecy is nothing more than the rambling of ancient bronze aged superstitious nutters. Don't underestimate this, these people want destruction because in their minds this will prove their irrational belief.

Only humans can want death and destruction to prove themselves right ! ! ! ! ! !  

I believe we are being rapidly selected out of the universes list of viable species.

Ironic thing is I'd trust the Russians with nuclear weapons infinitely more than the US, sorry Israel.

Parrotile's picture

> I believe we are being rapidly selected out of the universes list of viable species.

Maybe just one reason why any reasonably - advanced "alien visitors" might actually want to avoid contact with us - you too would tend to want to avoid "the local crazies" if at all possible.

It would be quite THE irony if it turned out that "we" (who we regard as "advanced") are regarded as decidedly "Short Bus" material by other broadly comparable civilisations. Ironic, but hardly impossible.

Winston Churchill's picture

We are the laundromat at the end of the universe.

sleigher's picture

I was thinking more that crazy family at the end of that dirt road no one ever drives down.  But yeah...

Morbid's picture

humans been captured by one of the entities for at least 6500 years now. or 1/4 of a cycle.

Rusty Shorts's picture

Iran is not a bunch of fanatics, otherwise, great post!

MontgomeryScott's picture

En Toto, the PEOPLE of Iran (and the United States, and Russia, and Serbia, and Afghanistan, and Lybia, and the rest of the nations in the entire frikking world) are not FANATIC anythings (religious, patriotic, or anything else).

It's NOT the (massive majority of the) PEOPLE who hold the buttons and the power and the money and the control, though (throughout the world).

A few thousand sociopathic personalities (with a core group of a few hundred) who don't care who lives and who dies are now ensconsed in the places of power in ALL nations.

WHY would an American General and a Russian General come together and write an article such as this? BECAUSE they are still HUMAN; and are in fear of the future of not only THEIR lives, but the lives of loved ones, strangers, people with whom they have emnity; and, in fact, the future of the WHOLE race of HUMANS.


Once you identify the issue CORRECTLY (the very real possibility of the eradication of Mankind), it is time to identify CORRECTLY the cause of the PROBLEM (or the SOURCES of the PROBLEM); in order to correctly REMIDIATE the issue.

WHO or WHAT stands to benefit from the THREAT of death of all Mankind (or at least, the majority of us)?

I could start at home, with the '3-letter agencies', and continue to include all the other ones in all the nations across the world, I guess (that rely on private-banking fiat currencies and the promises of continued funding to satisfy the greed and avarice of each individual employee)... but the issue is quite deeper than this. It transends the 3-dimensional 'reality' that you might think is 'all there is'.

There ARE DEVILS, you know. Actually, the word 'devil' refers colloquially to either a spiritual OR corporeal being (OR BOTH; such as a member of the HUMAN RACE, for example) who has sold his/her soul to the TRUE master of the 'power of the AIR' (for the time being; for this so-called 'master'). The GOAL here is to murder ALL Mankind (because of a long-standing feud between him, and the Son of the Creator).

YOU are a 'WHISKEY STILL', and you stand between a Hatfield and a McCoy... That's REALLY oversimplified (and perhaps not understood), I suppose.




I just so happens that those who are NOW in places of power and decisions regarding life are worshipping DEATH and DEGRADATION and ENSLAVEMENT. It's really quite simple, once you realize this FACT.


Anusocracy's picture

My best guess is that psychopathy exists as a bell-curve distribution in H. sapiens. If it were different, the "bad guys" would have been eliminated from the species a long time ago by the "good guys".

The "few thousand sociopathic personalities (with a core group of a few hundred)" at the top are very well supported by a few billion at the bottom.

Winston Churchill's picture

Let me introduce you to American mass sociopathy, or jingoism as it used to be called..

ultramaroon's picture

James Fallon is a neuro-scientist who is a genuine psychopath. He wrote a book called "The Psychopath Inside". He tells us that some scientists posit that in psychopathy there is survival value for the individual, such as that they can lie successfully, they have no anxiety or remorse and they maintain lower serum cortisol levels and higher immune system function than normal people. About 2% of any population are psychopaths, Fallon states, across continents, ethnic peoples, and races.

How do psychopaths benefit society? Fallons says they can be strong leaders, they are cool under fire, and their inherent narcissism is needed because leaders have to be full of themselves (a CEO or president needs egotism, glibness, and bullshit to thrive). He points out that Robert Hare (of the "Psychopath Test") sees many psychopaths in finance, banking, and investment and Fallon argues that normal people seem to need to use psychopathic swindlers as hired guns to make money for them. Fallon also states that psychopaths make good warriors, and all societies need soldiers who can kill methodically without fear or pleasure or prejudices that could wax their missions. He even says that psychopathic warriors are less susceptible to PTSD.

So perhaps the 98% of us who are emotional sheep do need to 2% tincture of psychopathy to maintain functional societies.

ZerOhead's picture
. Biblical Prophesy and the Iraq War Bush, God, Iraq and Gog by CLIVE HAMILTON

The revelation this month in GQ magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President Bush by that means?

The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush’s Christian millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light.

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France’s President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.

In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle … and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/22/bush-god-iraq-and-gog/................................................................................................................................... . Us who have read the New Testament, or at least John's Revelation, know that it states in a verse that 144,000 Jews will be 'taken up' or saved or something to that interpretation, an equal amount from each of the 12 Tribes of Israel during the End of Times. Infact, it does not give the number 144,000 outright, but when you do the math with the numbers provided, which is simple addition, you will come to the total 144,000 even. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread234318/pg1 . The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release August 02, 2010 Facts and Figures on Drawdown in Iraq

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

- President Barack Obama, Camp Lejeune, February 27, 2009

Troops and Change of Mission

When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/facts-and-figures-drawdown-i...

Seek_Truth's picture

Yes indeed- there are plenty of zionist "christians" who haven't read their Bible. If they had, they would first of all know, based on Galatians chapter 3- that true Christians are the "Israel" spoken of in that Scripture, and no one else. Certainly not the Rothschild creation of modern day "israel."

Secondly- those who actually pay attention to the Bible would have read that Scripture that you quoted in context:

“And when the thousand years are expired"

The context:

Revelation Chapter 20 speaks of a time when Christ rules for 1,000 years. "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Revelation 20:4

It (the thousand years) also is a time when Satan shall be abyssed, and so there will be no evil influence: "And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time." - Revelation 20:1-3

It just goes to show how easily people are decieved.

The days we live in CAN NOT by definition be:

(1) the thousand years when Christ rules.

(1) The same thousand years when Satan is abyssed and there is no deceit in the world.

Rather, Bush, Rumsfield and their ilk fall into the following category:

"No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds." - 2 Corinthians 11:14-15

Seek_Truth's picture

If duh yootoob sez soe, it muz bee duh trufe.


Rusty Shorts's picture

I love it when"duh bible" debunks itself...

Rusty Shorts's picture

Revelations 22:16 - "I Lucifer (aka - Hey Zeus, Bright Morning Star, Jebus, Julius Caesar "JC", Jesus Christ, etc., etc.), have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Seek_Truth's picture

Revelation 22:16:

The word "I?sous" is correctly translated "Jesus" (and only Jesus) in the English language- not any of the other words you suggested as variants. See the interlinear here: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/22-16.htm


"Lucifer" in the Old Testament is due to a mistranslation in the old King James version ONLY- no other Bible uses that LATIN word "Lucifer" because it did not exist in the HEBREW text of the Old Testament. Subsequent versions of the King James version, including the New King James version corrected that mistake.



Rusty Shorts's picture

Therefore, Jesus is Satan, and a Witch, Hebrews know this.

Seek_Truth's picture

You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

And "hebrew" is a language, not a race.

PS- Or were you making a subtle reference to the Holy Grail movie? You know the one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onkbubwAqRQ

Rusty Shorts's picture

Maybe so, yet obviously ewe knoweth not of Hebrewland