“Nuclear risks are on the rise. The chance of nuclear weapons use [is] higher than at any time in my—and many others in this room’s—lifetime,” said Naomi Zoka at a meeting this week of the Preparatory Committee for the Eleventh Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference.
“The path to a world without nuclear weapons lies through the TPNW [Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons],” said Zoka delivering to diplomats from around the world the statement of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
“Nuclear-armed states are launching threats faster than they are test-launching delivery systems, resulting in a less stable, less secure and more dangerous world,” said Zoka at the meeting June 23rd in Geneva, Switzerland. She is a member of Belgium’s Pax Christi Flanders.
“With Russia’s stationing of weapons in Belarus, and the continued U.S. deployment of [nuclear] weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Türkiye, the NPT [Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Treaty] is failing to meet its first principles,” the ICAN statement continued.
The TPNW was adopted in 2017 by the UN General Assembly with 122 nations in favor. It bans the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Some 163 nations have now either formally signed or ratified the TPNW.
“Let’s eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us,” Secretary-General Guterres has said of the TPNW, a treaty “toward our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”
In 2017, ICAN received the Nobel Peace Prize with cited its major work leading to the passage of the TPNW.
ICAN declares on its website: “Nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They violate international law, cause severe environmental damage, undermine national and global security, and divert vast public resources away from meeting human needs. They must be eliminated urgently.”
The so-called nuclear-armed states, which include the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, have, however, not signed on to the TPNW.
“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opened for signature in 1968….A total of 191 states have joined the treaty, including the five [then acknowledged] nuclear-weapon states,” notes the website of the UN’s Office for Disarmament Affairs. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the treaty’s significance.”
The NPT declares: “Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples, Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war, In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons.”
The ICAN statement delivered by Zoka at NPT review meeting continued: “Despite their commitments under NPT’s Article VI, the nuclear-armed states in the NPT spent $86 billion dollars on their [nuclear] arsenals in 2023. U.S. spending accounts for 54% of the global total, at $51.5 billion, while China and Russia also spent exorbitant amounts at $11.8 billion and $8.3 billion respectively. The UK increased spending by 17% from the previous year. Across the board, every nuclear-armed state increased the amount spent on their arsenals. Meanwhile the profit-seeking private industry hires powerful lobbyists to secure billion dollar contracts to develop these weapons of mass destruction.”
It went on: “Runaway nuclear spending is increasing the risks of nuclear weapons use—as are the applications of emerging technologies to nuclear weapons command, control, communications and delivery systems. We are entering an era of AI assisted information gathering to facilitate decision making.”
“That is not the world in which we want to live. We cannot abide by policies in which one—or nine [now the number of acknowledged nuclear-armed states]…are allowed to hold the rest of the world hostage through weapons of mass destruction, because the use of those weapons knows no borders. A conflict involving nuclear weapons thousands of miles from this conference room will still cause chaos and catastrophe to all of us, our families, and our future.”
“Yet, the nuclear-armed countries are recklessly embarking on a new nuclear arms race. Every year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, exposes the unacceptable nuclear weapons.”
What needs to be done? Indeed, as the ICAN statement said, the “the path to a world without nuclear weapons lies through the TPNW,” and added to that was: “we invite all states to join us as we move closer to it without delay.”………………………………………… more https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/07/26/nuclear-risks-on-the-rise/
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday delivered an address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday and spent a good portion of his speech attacking Americans who have been protesting Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza.
Netanyahu accused the pro-Palestine protesters, which include many Jewish Americans, of being pro-Hamas and “standing with evil” and said they should be “ashamed of themselves.” The majority of the lawmakers in the chamber responded with a standing ovation.
He also repeated unsubstantiated claims that Iran was funding the protests in the US. “They want to disrupt America,” Netanyahu said, referring to Iran. “For all we know, Iran is funding the anti-Israel protests that are going on right now outside this building … well, I have a message for these protesters. When the tyrants of Tehran, who hang gays from cranes and murder women for not covering their hair, are praising, promoting, and funding you, you have officially become Iran’s useful idiots.”…………………………
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) didn’t attend and slammed Netanyahu after the address, calling his speech “the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honored with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States.”………………….
Overall, however, Netanyahu received strong support, and Congress gave him a big public relations victory by frequently standing up and applauding him. The address and its reception also demonstrated the strong US support for Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.
In the address, Netanyahu asked for the US to provide even more military aid than it has and called for a new anti-Iran alliance in the Middle East. “I have a name for this new alliance. I think we should call it the Abraham Alliance,” he said.
The Israeli prime minister has proposed an alliance aimed against Iran
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proposed the creation of a new military bloc modeled after NATO and called the “Abraham Alliance,” aimed against Iran.
Netanyahu spoke before the joint session of the US Congress on Wednesday. It was his fourth address to American lawmakers, beating Winston Churchill’s record, although about 70 House and Senate members declined to attend for one reason or another.
“America forged a security alliance in Europe to counter the growing Soviet threat,” Netanyahu said at one point. “Likewise, America and Israel today can forge a security alliance in the Middle East to counter the growing Iranian threat.”
He said a “glimpse” of that alliance could be seen on April 14, when Iran launched a missile and drone attack against Israel and the US and the UK helped shoot some of them down.
Netanyahu thanked US President Joe Biden “for bringing that alliance together,” as well as his predecessor Donald Trump for brokering the ‘Abraham Accords’ between Israel and several Arab countries during his term.
“I think we should call it the Abraham Alliance,” he said of the proposed NATO-like bloc.
According to the Israeli prime minister, countries at peace with West Jerusalem or that intend to do so ought to join the bloc, as Iran is a threat to them all.
“When we fight Iran, we are fighting the most radical and murderous enemy of the United States,” Netanyahu said. When Israel fights and works to prevent a nuclear Iran, “we are not only protecting ourselves, we are protecting you,” he argued.
“Our enemies are your enemies, our fight is your fight, our victories will be your victories,” Netanyahu told US lawmakers. “I know that America has our back.”
The US has given military aid to Israel throughout the nine-month war with Hamas that Netanyahu declared following the Palestinian armed group’s raid out of Gaza. Pressed by Palestinian and Arab Americans in Biden’s party, his government has proposed a three-stage ceasefire plan for the enclave, but West Jerusalem has been reluctant to accept it.
Israel will not stop until it has destroyed the military capabilities of Hamas, ended its rule in Gaza, and recovered all the captives taken in the October 7 attack, Netanyahu said, adding, “That’s what total victory means. And we will settle for nothing less.”
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (“Nano Nuclear” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: NNE) on behalf of Nano Nuclear stockholders. Our investigation concerns whether Nano Nuclear has violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged in other unlawful business practices.
I wonder how many others are experiencing this censorship from Facebook and Google?
I’ve noticed this for a long time now, but it is getting beyond a joke. On nuclear issues, when I go to post a news link to Facebook, – bingo! – up comes the message: “Content Removed – Spam”. If I spend time following this up, I am informed that my post “breached community standards”. ( You can complain to Facebook /META – but what a useless time-waster that is)
This morning it was news items about Aboriginal Australians’ success in stopping uranium mining in the beautiful Kakadu National Park – a campaign long led by the beautiful Yvonne Margarula . Nah – Facebook didn’t like that.
I could give numerous more examples – of the way in which Meta/Facebook has deemed that I “breach the (nuclear lobby) community standards.” And I’m not alone. Australia’s prestigious energy journalist Giles Parkinson is having the same experience.
As for Google – well, Google warns you about links that are likely to be malicious. So, when I send out newsletters on gmail, Google magically marks these in bright red “suspicious website”. It’s getting so that this is mark of excellence – websites that give genuine information, as opposed to the usual handouts regurgitated from the nuclear industry,
Fix the News (this one not even about nuclear – just environment and health)
Google also warns about websites that reveal Israeli atrocities against Palestinians, and international law about this.Human Rights Watch found that the censorship of content related to Palestine on Instagram and Facebook is systemic and global. Meta’s inconsistent enforcement of its own policies led to the erroneous removal of content about Palestine.
When the World Wide Web, enabled by the internet, got going in 1991 as “universal linked information system” , there were high hopes – for a real democracy in information provision. At last, anyone could have their public say – rather than just a privileged minority.
Now this has been reversed, and we are back to a privileged minority running the information show. It is probably worse. Now there are the billionaire technocrats controlling the digital media outlets. With the increasing popularity of social media, real journalism has declined. Those few journalists who still hang on to a paid job in the “mainstream media” are well aware that they’d better toe the line of the corporate owners of that media.
Independent journalism is happening, but even in the “alternative media”, writers are being monitored. So, if you step out of line – say by condemning the actions of Israel, or of the nuclear lobby, well, the moguls of social media can, and do, prevent the spread of your message.
Marshall McLuhan in pointing out that “the medium is the message” , also showed that while it seems that minority voices are free to have their say, this seeming democracy actually allows, or ensures, that those voices will be lost in the deluge of “mainstream” media.
The activities of the social media platforms – take Google’s listings for an example – ensure that the corporate voices prevail.
What is to be done about this? I don’t know. But – something – soon – I hope.
U.S. support for Israel’s genocide against Palestine is rooted not only in campaign financing but other factors, including a rigid ideology stuck in the shadow of World War II, writes Joe Lauria.
America as ‘Savior,’ Israel as ‘Victim’
Updated to include quote from Jared Kushner and mention of U.S. defense contractors.
The world-historical crisis in Gaza might in the long-term bring about radical change in both the U.S. and Israel, but in the interim the greatest crimes the two nations have jointly taken part in has stiffened their defenses against unprecedented criticism.
The fear of blasting Israel has been breached. The taboo broken. Tel Aviv and Washington have never faced this before. As both are settler nations, having wiped out natives across the land, they are circling their wagons on a new frontier. They can only respond with the most profound denial and viciousness.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who addressed a joint-session of Congress on Wednesday as the subject of a requested arrest warrant at the International Criminal Court, has demanded the United States shield Israel from criticism while continuing to arm and support its genocide — and the U.S. has answered his call.
When the Biden administration withheld a symbolic shipment of weapons to Israel, Netanyahu counted on Congress to draft a law that would withhold funding for the State Dept. and the Pentagon if President Joe Biden did not give Netanyahu the weapons he needs to “finish the job” in Gaza.
Biden’s withholding of the shipment was designed to fool U.S. voters critical of his Gaza policy. But the assault on Rafah — despite Biden’s supposed red line — continues, and so will unconditional U.S. support for Israel. The question is why.
Why will U.S. politicians risk losing elections to continue supporting the most unimaginable crimes? The answer lies beyond elections and individual politicians.
Continued support for Israel in the midst of genocide threatens the very legitimacy of U.S. post-war rule as the world turns increasingly against the U.S. and Israel.
Despite this, what makes U.S. leaders so enthralled to a foreign nation and leader who has angered several U.S. presidents?
For instance, why did U.S. leaders, essentially on the say-so of that foreign leader, turn against their own university students on U.S. soil peacefully protesting both Israel’s genocide and Washington’s complicity in it?
In a video address to America delivered April 24 in his American-accented English, Netanyahu ordered that anti-genocide protests on U.S. campuses be stopped. And they have been. It is worth quoting his entire remarks. He said:
“What’s happening on American college campuses is horrific. Anti-semitic mobs have taken over leading universities. They call for the annihilation of Israel. They attack Jewish students. They attack Jewish faculty.
This is reminiscent of what happened in German universities in the 1930s. It is unconscionable. It has to be stopped. It has to be condemned and condemned unequivocally.
But that’s not what happened. The response of several university presidents was shameful. Now fortunately, state, local, federal officials, many of them have responded differently but there has to be more. More has to be done.
It has to be done not only because they attack Israel, that’s bad enough. Not only because they want to kill Jews wherever they are. That’s bad enough. It’s also, when you listen to them, it’s also because they say, not only death to Israel, death to the Jews, but death to America.
And this tells us that there is an anti-semitic surge here that has terrible consequences. We see this exponential rise of anti-semitism throughout America and throughout Western societies as Israel tries to defend itself against genocidal terrorists who hide behind civilians.
Yet it is Israel that is falsely accused of genocide. Israel that is falsely accused of starvation and all sundry war crimes. It’s all one big libel. But that’s not new.
We have seen in history that anti-Semitic attacks were always preceded by vilification and slander. Lies that were cast against the Jewish people that are unbelievable, yet people believe them.
And what is important now, is for all of us, all of us who are interested and cherish our values and our civilization to stand up together and to say: enough is enough.
We have to stop anti-Semitism because anti-Semitism is the canary in the coal mine. It always precedes larger conflagrations that engulf the entire world.
So I ask all of you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who concerned with our common future and our common values, to do one thing: Stand up, speak up, be counted. Stop anti-Semitism now.”
Brazen
Netanyahu uttered a dozen lies in that 339-word message, which got 18.4 million views on X. There are five lies in the first five sentences alone:
1). the students are not “anti-semitic mobs” but protestors, many Jews, against genocide; 2.) they are calling for a free and independent Palestine, not the “annihilation” of Israel; 3.) they are not attacking Jewish students, but Israel’s war; 4). they are not attacking Jewish faculty, unless calling out Israel’s crimes is considered an attack on Jews; and 5). Jews were banned from German universities in the 1930s, making such a comparison to the U.S. today a ludicrous lie.
And what exactly does Netanyahu mean by the “annihilation” of Israel, a phrase he repeatedly utters?
If Israel granted full citizenship rights to Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, would that mean the “annihilation” of Israel, or the annihilation of apartheid in Israel? The real annihilation going on is that of Gaza by Israel.
More outrageous was Netanyahu’s lie that American student protestors “want to kill Jews wherever they are” and want “death” to Israel and America. He lies about a “surge” of anti-Semitism. In a clinical case of projection, Netanyahu said Israel is “falsely accused of genocide” of “starvation” and of “all sundry war crimes.”
In Lock-Step
Instead of outrage at this litany of obvious falsehoods, U.S. officials and media echoed Netanyahu’s words. The White House, Congress, newspapers, universities and police responded in lock-step, criminalizing students in their own their country for opposing an active genocide.
At the Capitol for Holocaust Remembrance Day on May 7, Biden framed the Oct. 7 attack as purely motivated by hatred of Jews, whitewashing the entire 80-year history of ethnic cleansing and occupation of Palestinians by Israel. ………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………….Obedient Media
The U.S. media has long told the story almost exclusively from Israel’s point of view. That has conditioned the U.S. public, and its political leaders, to give unconditional support for Israel and expect ostracization for criticizing it.
CNN’s chief political correspondent, Dana Bash, for instance, editorialized on a news show a week after Netanyahu spoke about U.S. campus protests that the students had “lost the plot.” …………………………………………………..
as Chicago University professor John Mearsheimer asks, was there an anti-Semitism problem on American campuses before Israel’s attack on Gaza?
Could Have Stopped It
Biden could have stopped the genocide immediately by withholding all weapons, military aid and diplomatic cover — which any decent man with such power would have done. Instead Biden engaged in public relations while the Gazan public was decimated, pretending to oppose Netanyahu and caring for Palestinian civilians.
Likewise Biden’s State Department tried to play it both ways: feinting to the American public that it was ready to criticize Israel for its mistreatment of civilians, while taking no action. The State Department even said it had evidence Israel may have broken international humanitarian law, but not enough to cut off arms shipments.
“The Biden administration believes that Israel has most likely violated international standards in failing to protect civilians in Gaza but has not found specific instances that would justify the withholding of military aid, the State Department told Congress … the report — which seemed at odds with itself in places — said the U.S. had no hard proof of Israeli violations.”
For Netanyahu’s and members of his cabinet who have expressed genocidal intent, this is the chance they have been waiting for, to fulfill Israeli Founding Father David Ben Gurion’s promise of a Greater Israel. The war to wipe out Hamas is a cover for wiping out the Palestinians from Gaza.
Whatever Biden or the State Department says, Israel will continue with its genocidal urban renewal plan in Gaza by bombing buildings with people still living in them with a view to replacing them with Israeli and Western-owned beachfront property (with an Israeli gas pipeline through it). It is evidently a plan Biden and Blinken, and presumably Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, agree with. (Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, whose family are close Netanyahu friends, said, ““Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable … It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.”)
According to the Jewish News Syndicate:
“Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir declared at the event [on May 14] that the government should encourage voluntary emigration of Palestinians from the Strip.
‘Two things must be done: One, return to Gaza now, return home, return to our holy land. And two: encouraging emigration. To encourage the voluntary departure of the residents of Gaza. It’s moral, it’s rational, it’s right, it’s the truth. This is the Torah and this is the only way—yes, it is also humanitarian,’ the minister told attendees.”
In response to Biden’s “pause” in shipments, Netanyahu said Israel would fight with its “fingernails” if it needed to in Rafah.
Angered US Presidents
Several American presidents have in rare instances stood up to Israel. President Dwight D. Eisenhower threatened sanctions against Israel over the 1956 Suez Crisis to get Tel Aviv, Paris and London to end its military operation against Egypt and for Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula.
Ronald Reagan in 1983 withheld F16s to Israel until it withdrew from Lebanon. “While these forces are in the position of occupying another country that now has asked them to leave, we are forbidden by law to release those planes,’ he said.
And in 1992, George H.W. Bush threatened to withhold a $10 billion loan guarantee if Israel continued building settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, according to The Washington Post. And yet Israel always seems to get its way.
In his review of Netanyahu’s memoir Bibi: My Story, As’ad AbuKhalil wrote last year in Consortium News:
“Netanyahu’s analysis of U.S.-Israeli relations is simple: no matter what Israel does, and no matter how many wars and invasions it launches, the ‘alliance with the U.S. will take care of itself.’ He correctly believes that U.S. presidents will stand by Israel no matter what … ” (p. 84).
Despite this, we learn from the book that a succession of U.S. presidents disliked Netanyahu but would not stand up to him as previous presidents had to earlier prime ministers………………………………………………………….
‘America Can Be Easily Moved’
Ultimate obedience to Netanyahu in the U.S. brings to mind a video of him speaking to an Israeli settler family in Hebrew in 2001 about how easy it is to manipulate the Americans.
He says, “With the U.S., I know how they are. America is a thing you can easily maneuver and move in the right direction. Even if they say something, so what? Eighty percent of Americans support us.”
About the Palestinians, Netanyahu says: “The main thing is, first of all, to strike them, not once but several times, so painfully, that the price they pay will be unbearable. So far the price-tag is not unbearable.”……………………………..
Why?
Why then do American politicians, universities and media slavishly follow whatever Israel demands? There is more than one answer:
1. Money: AIPAC’s campaign financing and defense contracts;
2. Lingering guilt over the holocaust and fear of being labeled an anti-semite;
3. A natural, historical connection between settler, colonial nations founded on ethnic cleansing and genocide;
4. Power-sharing in the Middle East with overlapping regional and international empires;
5. Israeli intelligence possessing kompromat on U.S. politicians.
6. Keeping a World War II ideology alive to justify global and local supremacy.
Money
The answer most often given to the question is campaign contributions for politicians, who want to avoid being “primaried” by Israel Lobby money. The American–Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) raises more than $100 million a year, which it spends on lobbying and campaign contributions to U.S. political candidates.
Universities are also dependent on wealthy donors, many who demand total loyalty to Israel, which goes a long way to explaining why U.S. universities asked police to break up peaceful, anti-genocide protests on their campus.
And of course American defense contractors stand to gain mightily by continued Israeli bombardment of Gaza.
But it isn’t only about money.
Holocaust
Western governments retain inherited guilt for their deplorable behavior during the Second World War regarding the Holocaust. Germany, naturally, is at the top of the list of the still guilty parties, and is the second largest arms supplier to Israel after the United States.
This residual guilt has created a condition in which the descendants of the victims are still immune to criticism 80 years later in an almost inexhaustible supply of sympathy that Israeli leaders clearly exploit. ……………………………………………………………………..
There is deep ignorance in America about the foundation of Israel, exploded by some Israeli historians, especially by Ilan Pappé, whose book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, documented the intent of Israel’s founders to drive more than 700,000 of the indigenous population off their land into neighboring countries, and killing hundreds of thousands more in an unbroken process now playing out in Gaza. ………………………………………..
“As early as 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote that the ‘boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.’
Ben-Gurion also hoped for the expansion of ‘Zionist aspirations’ to Israel’s ‘biblical borders’ (which stretch all the way to Iraq). There is no mention of or reference to the Indigenous population in this vision.”………………………………………….
The launch of Israel and the Greater Israel project coincided with the beginning of the post-war U.S. global empire, which overlapped in the Middle East with Israel’s burgeoning regional empire. Israel and its regional ambitions became a natural footprint for U.S. dominance in the region: namely the subjugation of Arab peoples and rulers.
Thus for the continuance of U.S. empire and all the benefits it accrues to U.S. rulers in the face of growing worldwide opposition, it is natural for Washington to continue supporting Israeli expansionism — no matter the horrendous human cost.
Blackmail
One cannot easily dismiss talk of Israeli intelligence gathering blackmail dirt on American politicians to keep them in line beyond campaign bribes. According to Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli military intelligence official, such blackmail is a part of Israeli tactics. For instance, he told Consortium News‘ CN Live! in 2020 that the child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was collecting such kompromat on powerful Americans.
Part of the ideology driving the America-Israel dominance regionally and globally is mired in the shadow of the Second World War: the delusion that the U.S. is still the world’s savior and that Jews are still active victims of history. It’s as if 80 years have not passed.
Jews were certainly among the war’s greatest victims, but America was not the sole or even the chief savior, given the outsized role of the Soviet Union in destroying the Nazis.
After the war, the United States was left with troops around the globe, in areas of great natural resources in a devastated world, whose devastation didn’t touch the American mainland.
A worldwide empire was the result. U.S. leaders have been dedicated to expanding and maintaining it ever since by installing and propping up governments that serve U.S. economic and strategic interests and removing those that don’t. This is done through electoral interference, coups and invasions that have killed millions of innocent lives in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere.
To maintain a kind of moral veneer to justify America’s global marauding as “spreading democracy” a connection to the moral war against fascism needs to be maintained. So World War II is invoked constantly by American leaders when embarking on new overseas adventures. ……………………………………………
How cynical is it for descendants of survivors of the Second World War genocide to invoke the Holocaust to perpetrate a genocide of their own?
This confusion still clearly pervades Germany today. In their guilt over their genocide of the Jews and their determination never to let it happen again they are stuck in the World War II past and cannot accept that Israel can possibly be the perpetrators of genocide 80 years later.
So protests against Israeli actions in Germany are seen as protests against Jews and have to be stopped, as the police did in May at Humboldt University in Berlin in the very plaza where Josef Goebbels led the Nazi burning of books.
German police shut down an academic conference about Gaza that month in Berlin. In their misguided fervor to stop another genocide the Germans are supporting one, sending more arms to perpetrate the massacres in Gaza than any nation but the United States. …………………………………….. more https://consortiumnews.com/2024/07/24/netanyahu-commands-us-obeys/
As the moribund nuclear industry is frantically marketing itself as a clean alternative to fossil fuels and making an aggressive grab for the subsidies being allocated to renewable energy, it is urgent that we remind Congress and the public that the problem of nuclear waste disposal has never been solved. Even as old nuclear power stations are decommissioned, their highly radioactive spent fuel remains, and must be monitored and contained in perpetuity. This webinar examines the current status of nuclear waste disposal in the United States, with a focus on Massachusetts in the Northeast and New Mexico in the Southwest. Nuclear power is not clean, green, renewable, or safe. Stop Forever Waste!
Nuclear weapons were invented here in my Archdiocese. Therefore, I feel a special responsibility to address humanity’s most urgent threat.
“Nuclear disarmament is a right to life issue. No other issue can cause the immediate collapse of civilization. In January 2022 I wrote a pastoral letter in which I traced the Vatican’s evolution from its uneasy conditional acceptance of so-called deterrence to Pope Francis’ declaration that the very possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.
“Therefore, what does this say about expanded plutonium pit production at the Los Alamos Lab? And what does it say about the obscene amounts of money that are being thrown at pit production, often excused as job creation?
“What does this say about the fact that the [NNSA] is pursuing expanded pit production without providing the public the opportunity to review and comment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act? I specifically call upon NNSA to complete a new LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.
“In two weeks, I travel to Japan for the 79th atomic bombing anniversaries. The bishops of Santa Fe, Seattle, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a simple message for world leaders. You utterly failed to begin serious negotiations as required by the 1970 NonProliferation Treaty. In this era, you must demonstrate concrete steps toward multilateral, verifiable nuclear disarmament by the 80th bombing anniversaries a year from now. http://nuclearactive.org/four-archbishops-urge-g7-leaders-to-undertake-concrete-steps-toward-nuclear-disarmament/
“I have a simple message for NNSA and the nuclear weapons labs. You’re very good at creating them. Now show us how smart you are by demonstrating how to get rid of nuclear weapons. Stop this new arms race that threatens all of civilization. Let’s preserve humanity’s potential to manifest God’s divine love toward all beings.
Former Israeli intelligence and security official Yuval Malka told Hebrew media on 25 July that Washington has greenlit a wider war on Lebanon.
“According to the information I received from the delegation and what I know, Netanyahu has received full legitimacy in the United States to wage a war in Lebanon,” Malka told Israel’s Channel 14.
“When he arrives in the country, he is expected to head to the ‘Al-Bur’ in Al-Kiryah, and from there he will start the war in Lebanon,” he added, referring to a military complex that houses the headquarters of the Israeli army’s different corps.
Netanyahu visited Washington this week for a speech in Congress and talks with officials.
The Israeli army has reportedly signaled to the government that the time is ripe for an expanded war against Lebanon, according to a defense analyst for Hebrew media. …………………………………………….. more https://thecradle.co/articles-id/26109
Bangor University is continuing its relationship with Rolls-Royce in the field of space nuclear power technology. Rolls-Royce has secured funding from the UK Space Agency under the National Space Innovation Programme (NSIP), which adds more support for the development of its space nuclear power technology. The new £4.8m award from NSIP Major Projects will help to significantly advance the development and demonstration of key technologies in the space nuclear Micro-Reactor. The Rolls-Royce National Space Innovation Programme will have a total project cost of £9.1m and aims to progress the Micro-Reactor’s overall technology readiness level, which will bring the reactor closer to a full system space flight demonstration.
We know it will be based in Scotland, we know it’s going to invest in green energy projects, and aim to leverage private investment into the same. But Thursday’s announcement has thrown up more questions about the specifics which the Government are yet to answer – especially on what the project means for Scotland.
There remains no clarity on when people might expect to see energy bill pressures easing up on their household finances. The Government has only gone as far as to say that bill reductions can be expected within the next five years, as a result of their actions. Crown Estate Scotland is a devolved body and the revenue raised through rents north of the Border is sent back to the Scottish Government. Its reserved counterpart can invest directly in Scotland, however, and the two bodies already work closely together on some projects.
Whether the Crown Estate Scotland will get the same new borrowing powers as its rest-of-UK counterpart remains to be seen. GB Energy will seek to work alongside GB Nuclear, a vehicle which came about under the previous government.
This could raise red flags for the Scottish Government, which remains opposed to nuclear power. It is understood the UK Government views nuclear policy as a matter for the Scottish Government. And while the Scottish Government said on Thursday that it believed the “UK Government’s intended investment in nuclear should instead be used to bolster further renewables” a spokesperson added there was otherwise a “great deal of agreement between the two Governments on many of the priorities that have been identified”.
Caroline Robinson, 25 July 24, BBCNews, Ben Chapple, BBC News, Guernsey
Channel Island authorities will advise people to seek shelter in the unlikely event of a nuclear incident affecting the islands.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) looked at nuclear risks to the islands as part of “routine risk and business continuity planning”.
It said the risk of a nuclear incident occurring was extremely low and its review considered the worst-case scenarios.
The UKHSA recommended shelter-in-place and stockpiling iodine be considered, but the pan-island Radiation Advisory Group decided shelter was the most appropriate choice for the islands.
‘Shelter-in-place’
Nearby nuclear sites in France, radioactive waste dumped in the Hurd Deep trench off Alderney in the 1950s and 1960s and the transport of nuclear materials by ship in the seas around the Channel Islands were the risks considered.
The sites in France looked at were the Orano La Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing site, the Flamanville nuclear power station and Cherbourg’s naval dockyard, where nuclear submarines are dismantled.
The UKHSA said if an incident happened at one of these sites wind direction and weather were important – wind could blow the radioactive material towards the islands and rain would cause more of it to land on the islands.
Based on five years of weather data it said with the prevailing wind being from the west and south west it was unlikely a plume would be blown towards the islands.
The UKSHA said if any material was due to arrive in the island the “best option” for people was to “shelter-in-place”.
When considering the potentially catastrophic impacts of military applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a few deadly scenarios come to mind: autonomous killer robots, AI-assisted chemical or biological weapons development, and the 1983 movie WarGames.
The the 1983 movie WarGames, features a self-aware AI-enabled supercomputer that simulates a Soviet nuclear launch and convinces US nuclear forces to prepare for a retaliatory strike. The crisis is only partly averted because the main (human) characters persuade US forces to wait for the Soviet strike to hit before retaliating. It turns out that the strike was intentionally falsified by the fully autonomous AI program. The computer then attempts to launch a nuclear strike on the Soviets without human approval until it is hastily taught about the concept of mutually assured destruction, after which the program ultimately determines that nuclear war is a no-win scenario: “Winner: none.”
US officials have stated that an AI system would never be given US nuclear launch codes or the ability to take control over US nuclear forces. However, AI-enabled technology will likely become increasingly integrated into nuclear targeting and command and control systems to support decision-making in the United States and other nuclear-armed countries. Because US policymakers and nuclear planners may use AI models in conducting analyses and anticipating scenarios that may ultimately influence the president’s decision to use nuclear weapons, the assumptions under which these AI-enabled systems operate require closer scrutiny.
Pathways for AI integration. The US Defense Department and Energy Department already employ machine learning and AI models to make calculation processes more efficient, including for analyzing and sorting satellite imagery from reconnaissance satellites and improving nuclear warhead design and maintenance processes. The military is increasingly forward-leaning on AI-enabled systems. For instance, it initiated a program in 2023 called Stormbreaker that strives to create an AI-enabled system called “Joint Operational Planning Toolkit” that will incorporate “advanced data optimization capabilities, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to support planning, war gaming, mission analysis, and execution of all-domain, operational level course of action development.” While AI-enabled technology presents many benefits for security, it also brings significant risks and vulnerabilities.
One concern is that the systemic use of AI-enabled technology and an acceptance of AI-supported analysis could become a crutch for nuclear planners, eroding human skills and critical thinking over time. This is particularly relevant when considering applications for artificial intelligence in systems and processes such as wargames that influence analysis and decision-making. For example, NATO is already testing and preparing to launch an AI system designed to assist with operational military command and control and decision-making by combining an AI wargaming tool and machine learning algorithms. Even though it is still unclear how this system will impact decision-making led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group concerning US nuclear weapons stationed in Europe, this type of AI-powered analytical tool would need to consider escalation factors inherent to nuclear weapons and could be used to inform targeting and force structure analysis or to justify politically motivated strategies.
The role given to AI technology in nuclear strategy, threat prediction, and force planning can reveal more about how nuclear-armed countries view nuclear weapons and nuclear use. Any AI model is programmed under certain assumptions and trained on selected data sets. This is also true of AI-enabled wargames and decision-support systems tasked with recommending courses of action for nuclear employment in any given scenario. Based on these assumptions and data sets alone, the AI system would have to assist human decision-makers and nuclear targeters in estimating whether the benefits of nuclear employment outweigh the cost and whether a nuclear war is winnable.
Do the benefits of nuclear use outweigh the costs? Baked into the law of armed conflict is a fundamental tension between any particular military action’s gains and costs. Though fiercely debated by historians, the common understanding of the US decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 demonstrates this tension: an expedited victory in East Asia in exchange for hundreds of thousands of Japanese casualties.
Understanding how an AI algorithm might weigh the benefits and costs of escalation depends on how it integrates the country’s nuclear policy and strategy. Several factors contribute to one’s nuclear doctrine and targeting strategy—ranging from fear of consequences of breaking the tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons to concern of radioactive contamination of a coveted territory and to sheer deterrence because of possible nuclear retaliation by an adversary. While strategy itself is derived from political priorities, military capabilities, and perceived adversarial threats, nuclear targeting incorporates these factors as well as many others, including the physical vulnerability of targets, overfly routes, and accuracy of delivery vehicles—all aspects to further consider when making decisions about force posture and nuclear use.
In the case of the United States, much remains classified about its nuclear decision-making and cost analysis. It is understood that, under guidance from the president, US nuclear war plans target the offensive nuclear capabilities of certain adversaries (both nuclear and non-nuclear armed) as well as the infrastructure, military resources, and political leadership critical to post-attack recovery. But while longstanding US policy has maintained to “not purposely threaten civilian populations or objects” and “not intentionally target civilian populations or targets in violation of [the law of armed conflict],” the United States has previously acknowledged that “substantial damage to residential structures and populations may nevertheless result from targeting that meets the above objectives.” This is in addition to the fact that the United States is the only country to have used its nuclear weapons against civilians in war.
There is limited public information with which to infer how an AI-enabled system would be trained to consider the costs of nuclear detonation. Certainly, any plans for nuclear employment are determined by a combination of mathematical targeting calculations and subjective analysis of social, economic, and military costs and benefits. An AI-enabled system could improve some of these analyses in weighing certain military costs and benefits, but it could also be used to justify existing structures and policies or further ingrain biases and risk acceptance into the system. These factors, along with the speed of operation and innate challenges in distinguishing between data sets and origins, could also increase the risks of escalation—either deliberate or inadvertent.
Is a nuclear war “winnable”? Whether a nuclear war is winnable depends on what “winning” means. Policymakers and planners may define winning as merely the benefits of nuclear use outweighing the cost when all is said and done. When balancing costs and benefits, the benefits need only be one “point” higher for an AI-enabled system to deem the scenario a “win.”
In this case, “winning” may be defined in terms of national interest without consideration of other threats. A pyrrhic victory could jeopardize national survival immediately following nuclear use and still be considered a win by the AI algorithm. Once a nuclear weapon has been used, it could either incentivize an AI system to not recommend nuclear use or, on the contrary, recommend the use of nuclear weapons on a broader scale to eliminate remaining threats or to preempt further nuclear strikes.
“Winning” a nuclear war could also be defined in much broader terms. The effects of nuclear weapons go beyond the immediate destruction within their blast radius; there would be significant societal implications from such a traumatic experience, including potential mass migration and economic catastrophe, in addition to dramatic climatic damage that could result in mass global starvation. Depending on how damage is calculated and how much weight is placed on long-term effects, an AI system may determine that a nuclear war itself is “unwinnable” or even “unbearable.
Uncovering biases and assumptions. The question of costs and benefits is relatively uncontroversial in that all decision-making involves weighing the pros and cons of any military option. However, it is still unknown how an AI system will weigh these costs and benefits, especially given the difficulty of comprehensively modeling all the effects of nuclear weapon detonations. At the same time, the question of winning a nuclear war has long been a thorn in the side of nuclear strategists and scholars. All five nuclear-weapon states confirmed in 2022 that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” For them, planning to win a nuclear war would be considered inane and, therefore, would not require any AI assistance. However, deterrence messaging and discussion of AI applications for nuclear planning and decision-making illuminate the belief that the United States must be prepared to fight—and win—a nuclear war.
The Finance Ministry is considering introducing a system that would allow construction costs of new nuclear power plants to be added to electricity rates, which could be passed onto consumers.
By doing so, the ministry aims to promote the construction of new nuclear plants.
Electric power companies are reluctant to invest in nuclear plants because the cost of safety measures is ballooning due to the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, and they no longer have the means to ensure recouping construction costs.
The central government has said that it will increase decarbonized power sources to prepare for future increases in demand, but that could lead to a major increase in the burden on the public.
According to sources, the “RAB model,” a nuclear plant support measure devised in Britain, will be used as a reference.
When construction of a nuclear plant is approved by the government, the construction and maintenance costs are borne by the retail electricity company once construction has begun. The cost will be recovered through a hike in electricity rates.
Under the model, any increase in construction costs can be included in the fee if the cost is deemed necessary. If the project is suspended, the government will compensate by providing funds.
If the system is introduced directly to Japan, it will be up to retail companies, including new power companies, to decide whether to pass the charge directly to customers.
However, even those who opt for a 100 percent renewable electricity supply may pay for the construction of a nuclear power plant.
In the past, there was a mechanism to ensure that the construction costs of power plants and transmission and distribution networks could be recovered by factoring them into electricity prices.
But with the deregulation of the electric power industry that began in 2000, this system was gradually eliminated, and power plants that were not cost-effective were closed and investment in new power plants was suppressed.
The Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the Eleventh Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference is taking place in Geneva from July 22 to August 2nd. On the second day of the meeting, Naomi Zoka from Pax Christi Flanders (Belgium) delivered ICAN’s statement to the states parties. Please find the full statement below.
Distinguished Delegates,
Nuclear risks are on the rise. The chance of nuclear weapons use are higher than at any other time in my- and many others in this room’s- lifetime. Nuclear-armed States are launching threats faster than they are test-launching delivery systems, resulting in a less stable, less secure and more dangerous world.
That is not the world in which we want to live. We cannot abide by policies in which one -or nine – countries are allowed to hold the rest of the world hostage through weapons of mass destruction, because the use of those weapons knows no borders. A conflict involving nuclear weapons thousands of miles from this conference room will still cause chaos and catastrophe to all of us, our families, and our future.
We do not need to see nuclear weapons used in war again to know their impact. As W.J. Hennigan wrote in the New York Times, recently:
The United States and the Soviet Union might have narrowly avoided mutual destruction, but there was a nuclear war: The blitz of testing left a wake of illness, displacement and destruction, often in remote locations where marginalized communities had no say over what happened on their own land.
The over 2000 nuclear tests – conducted primarily by the nuclear weapons states in this room- forever altered the lives of these thousands of women, men and children, and of little girls in particular, as girls exposed to nuclear weapons use and testing got cancer at twice the rate as the boys. Even before their creation, nuclear weapons have facilitated suffering amongst the oppressed. From the Shinkolobwe mines in Eastern DRC where locals were forced into Uranium mines by their colonial rulers, to the multiple generations still battling life threatening diseases. Nuclear weapons have and always will be a tool for oppression regardless of which state possesses them.
Today, many survivors are demanding justice and accountability, and that nuclear weapons be eliminated once and for all, so that what happens to them, may never happen again.
Yet the nuclear-armed countries are recklessly embarking on a new nuclear arms race.
Every year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons, ICAN, exposes the unacceptable nuclear weapons. Despite their commitments under NPT’s Article VI, the nuclear-armed states in the NPT spent $86 billion dollars on their arsenals in 2023.
US spending accounts for 54% of the global total, at $51.5 billion, while China and Russia also spent exorbitant amounts at $11.8 billion and $8.3 billion respectively. The UK increased spending by 17% from the previous year. Across the board, every nuclear-armed state increased the amount spent on their arsenals. Meanwhile the profit-seeking private industry hires powerful lobbyists to secure billion dollar contracts to develop these weapons of mass destruction.
Runaway nuclear spending is increasing the risks of nuclear weapons use- as are the applications of emerging technologies to nuclear weapons command, control, communications and delivery systems. We are entering an era of AI assisted information gathering to facilitate decision making.
But reducing the time needed to reach the only conclusion in the interest of humanity puts catastrophe seconds, instead of minutes away, as Annie Jacobsen’s “Nuclear War: A Scenario” recently reminded us. The decision whether or not to use nuclear weapons doesn’t need artificial intelligence – common sense says that it must always be no.
Another growing concern is the proliferation of nuclear weapons deployed on foreign territories. With Russia’s stationing of weapons in Belarus, and the continued US deployment of weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Türkiye, the NPT is failing to meet its first principles.
Nuclear weapons deployed in Europe are designed to be used in Europe. But the consequences will not stay on this continent- and this continued deployment is decreasing security for others.
The weapons in Europe illustrate another problem with nuclear weapons, one that is often raised in these rooms- and that is the lack of transparency. As citizens in the countries hosting nuclear weapons, we have repeatedly called for the bombs to be removed, but our governments claim they cannot discuss the issue- that it is not something they can confirm or deny.
It seems that governments who support the use of nuclear weapons on their behalf believe in just enough transparency to make nuclear threats credible, but not enough transparency to enable effective democracy.
The practice of nuclear sharing has been allowed to continue for far too long, and now it is spreading. How will the governments currently defending the practice feel when weapons start to appear in countries outside of Europe? There are proposals out there that would spread nuclear weapons around the world- the very antithesis of the treaty we’re here to discuss. Nuclear sharing is unacceptable.
That is why the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is so clear on the matter. Under the TPNW, a state cannot put the population of another state in jeopardy by deploying nuclear bombs in their country. It is clear, and clarity provides safety, security and reassurance.
The TPNW is also where progress is happening on disarmament. The robust intersessional process, the dynamic and highly engaging Meetings of States Parties, and the commitment to the same tenets that underpin the NPT and form its preamble, are sincere.
It is in the TPNW that the girls harmed by nuclear weapons use and testing are finding a pathway to justice. It is in the TPNW that the security concerns of all states, not just a few, are taken seriously and given due consideration.
The path to a world without nuclear weapons lies through the TPNW, and we invite all states to join us as we move closer to it without delay.
nuclear-news 
