#anti-nuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes The prospective Green Party candidate for the new Waveney Valley constituency has pledged to challenge the Government over the new Sizewell C nuclear power station if he is elected to the seat.
Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said the twin reactor, which is set to cost £25 billion, was “not yet a done deal” and said the Government was already reviewing “other expensive projects”. He said: “Although the consent has been given, Sizewell C is not yet a done deal. It is an extremely expensive project and we have seen the Government thinking twice about other expensive projects so there is an economic environment about where the money’s best spent.”
MOSCOW, Oct 4 (Reuters) – Russia said on Wednesday that Japan had failed to provide full information on the radioactive water being discharged from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant, despite repeated requests from both Moscow and Beijing.
Japan started releasing treated radioactive water from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean in August, and was heavily criticised by China, which immediately banned all seafood imports from Japan.
“We and China have repeatedly urged the Japanese side to show transparency and provide all interested states with full access to all information about the discharge of water from the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.
#anti-nuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes The electric utility for Japan’s southwest Kyushu region announced here on Sept. 28 that electricity will effectively be free for some households on October and November afternoons thanks to high solar power generation.
Power output at solar plants frequently needs to be lowered on sunny autumn days in Kyushu as oversupply could damage equipment. Accordingly, sales offered by Kyushu Electric Power Co. (Kyuden) over certain time slots on fair-weather days aim to both expand and level out energy demand. The deal will be available to customers signed with the company’s energy plan for homes running only on electricity who have smart meters installed.
Users also need to register with the company’s energy-saving “Kyuden Eco” app once a flash sale is announced the day prior. During the sale’s designated hours, users will accumulate points on the PayPay e-payment app matching their energy usage. Sun-drenched Kyushu, which is blessed with ideal weather for solar energy generation, also generates electricity through nuclear power. Solar energy producers are thus frequently asked to halt their operation because power transmission equipment could be damaged if supply and demand are not in balance.
French power giant EDF’s future investments could exceed €20 billion per year, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, the country’s energy transition minister, said on Thursday (28 September), adding that the exact level was the subject of discussion.
The state-owned utility is facing a mountain of investment needs to maintain its nuclear fleet as well as build new reactors and renewable power production. EDF CEO Luc Rémont had previously put the investments at €25 billion. “What we are talking about … for EDF is investments which could reach … more than €20 billion per year,” Pannier-Runacher said at a nuclear conference organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
“There is a discussion about whether it is 20 (billion) or whether it is more,” she added. The French government has previously announced a plan to build at least six new model nuclear reactors, which Pannier-Runacher said would cost about €3 billion per year in investments.
New research to be presented at this year’s Annual Meeting of The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), Hamburg (2-6 Oct), suggests that exposure to low doses of radiation may contribute to an increased risk of diabetes.
The study by Dr Huan Hu and Dr Toshiteru Ohkubo from the Japanese National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health involved more than 6,000 out of around 20,000 emergency workers who responded to the radiation accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which was hit by a huge tsunami in March 2011.
Substantial amounts of radioactive materials were released into the environment following explosions at the nuclear plant.
In 2014, the Epidemiological Study of Health Effects in Fukushima Emergency Workers (NEWS) was established to clarify the long-term health effects of radiation among emergency workers.
Few human studies have examined the impact of radiation exposure on diabetes development, particularly at low doses. To find out more, researchers examined the association between low-dose radiation exposure and risk of diabetes in 5,326 male emergency workers (average age 46 years) taking part in the NEWS study.
Between March and December 2011, individual emergency worker’s radiation exposure was measured using a pocket alarm dosemeter for external exposure and a whole-body counter for internal exposure.
Study participants underwent regular health examinations involving more than 70 components, including blood sugar, lipids, urine tests, inflammation biomarkers, thyroid function tests, and eye examinations.
Between 2012 and 2021, 392 participants developed diabetes—defined as a fast plasma glucose level of at least 126 mg/dL, an HbA1c level of at least 6.5%, or self-reported diagnosis of diabetes.
The researchers assessed the association between incident diabetes and cumulative radiation exposure after adjusting for a wide range of potential confounders including age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, leisure-time physical activity, employment at the nuclear power plant, dyslipidaemia (abnormally high levels of fats in the blood), and high blood pressure.
The analysis found that compared with the lowest cumulative low-dose radiation exposure (0-4 millisieverts [mSv]), the risk of developing diabetes was 6% higher for workers exposed to 5-9 mSv, and 47% and 33% greater for those exposed to 10-19 mSv and 20-49 mSv, respectively.
However, no elevated risk was detected in those exposed to radiation doses of 50 mSv or higher, likely due to the small sample size in this group.
“Our findings suggest an increased risk of diabetes among nuclear emergency workers from low levels of radiation. While the potential mechanisms remain somewhat unclear, reports suggest that radiation can adversely affect pancreatic cells responsible for insulin production, potentially contributing to diabetes. Additionally, there is an association between radiation exposure and heightened inflammation, a well-known factor in insulin resistance and the development of diabetes”, explains lead author Dr Hu.
He adds, “Ongoing follow-up of NEWS participants will provide an even clearer picture of diabetes risk at low radiation doses. As more diabetes cases emerge within our study group, our expanded dataset will enable more robust analyses, allowing researchers to better assess the link between radiation exposure and diabetes risk.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.miragenews.com/fukushima-study-links-low-dose-radiation-to-1095852/
Recent statements by a French diplomat to “the Australian” newspaper criticizing Australia’s decision to observe the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) reveal the panicked efforts by nuclear-armed states to undermine the treaty as support for the ban continues to grow. It also shows a European state with a dark colonial legacy continuing to exert pressure on the Pacific – an area heavily impacted by French nuclear testing – instead of respecting national sovereignty.
On 2 October an article in “the Australian” newspaper cited an unnamed French diplomat claiming that Australia’s support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons “undermines the primacy of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)” and “is contradictory with Australia’s ambition to reinforce its partnership with NATO.”
Both of these statements are not only hamfisted attempts at pressuring the Australian government away from the TPNW, they are also factually incorrect: The TPNW was carefully crafted to reinforce, complement, and build on the NPT, which obligates its parties – including France – to negotiate further legal measures to achieve nuclear disarmament under Article VI, and NATO members face no legal barrier to joining the treaty, so long as they commit not to engage in or support any nuclear-weapon-related activities. Moreover, several NATO partners are already TPNW parties (Austria, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Malta, Mongolia, New Zealand) or signatories (Algeria, Colombia).
These declarations show France’s mounting concern over the growing support for the TPNW. The statements themselves are no surprise, as France has stridently protested the TPNW ever since it was adopted at the UN in 2017 with the backing of 122 states. France insists it has a legitimate right under the NPT to possess nuclear weapons, while ignoring its commitments to pursue negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament under the same treaty. What is new is the fact that this pressure is being exerted publicly, and on a state that is largely seen as an ally on security issues. Previously, France has limited this kind of pressure for formerly colonised states, particularly in Africa.
Australia’s growing support for the TPNW
The Australian Labor Party, which has been in power since May 2022, adopted a resolution in 2018 committing it to sign and ratify the TPNW in government. This was moved by Anthony Albanese, who now serves as prime minister and has been a vocal supporter of the TPNW. He said at the time: “Our commitment to sign and ratify the nuclear weapon ban treaty in government is Labor at its best.” Labor reaffirmed this position in 2021 and most recently on 18 August 2023. The government also has confirmed its intention to observe the treaty’s upcoming meeting of states parties in New York (2MSP) and is evaluating whether to sign and ratify the treaty.
This is an encouraging step, but ICAN’s Executive Director, former Labor MP Melissa Parke, has criticised the government’s delay in ratifying the treaty: “It’s not enough to keep promising to sign the treaty without acting. We want to see the Prime Minister put pen to paper, without delay. Labor’s commitment on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation will be hollow if Australia fails to do so.”
Speaking to the revelation that French diplomats are exerting pressure on Australia to consider, she said: “Our two countries have never seen eye to eye on nuclear weapons. France shouldn’t be lecturing Australia on nuclear policy. We can make our own decisions, in our own interests – and for the global common good.”
France’s unresolved nuclear legacy in the Pacific
From 1966 to 1996, France tested 193 nuclear weapons in Maohi Nui/French Polynesia, a Self Governing Territory of France in the Pacific. In 1974, Australia famously took France to the International Court of Justice in a bid to force an end to its atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific, as the impacts of nuclear weapons are not contained by national borders. Yet France only ended its Pacific nuclear test explosions once it was confident it had developed non-explosive testing methods sufficiently for new weapons development, and it refuses to acknowledge and address the catastrophic legacy of its nuclear tests to this day.This legacy is also a subject of hot debate at the national level in France. On 28 September, only days before France’s criticisms of Australia, the assembly of French Polynesia unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the TPNW, highlighting the region’s history as the site of numerous French nuclear tests. The resolution underscores the TPNW as a humanitarian disarmament treaty and emphasises the deep concerns of the French Polynesian population regarding this issue. While French Polynesia cannot currently access the assistance and rehabilitation outlined in Articles 6 and 7 of the TPNW due to France’s non-ratification, it sends a resounding message in favour of the treaty to Paris.
As countries including France, the UK and Sweden look to pivot back to nuclear power to help them meet net-zero targets, questions remain over safety, radioactive waste and where they’ll find the vast amounts of money and expertise needed to build and manage new reactors.
CITY,AM NICHOLAS EARL 3 Oct 23 #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
Bill Gates’ nuclear reactor design company Terrapower has not been shortlisted for the next round of the government’s competition for scaled-down power plants.
Industry vehicle GB Nuclear has selected six companies to advance to the latest stage, including rumoured front-runner Rolls-Royce which has already secured over £200m in government funding.
The remaining contenders also include EDF, GE-Hitachi, Holtec Britain, Nuscale and Westinghouse Electric.
These companies will be invited to bid for government contracts later this year, with successful companies announced next spring and contracts awarded in the summer.
Gates, the world’s fifth richest man and the co-creator of Microsoft, founded Terrapower in 2006.
He is currently the company’s chairman and is still their biggest investor, leading a £588.3m funding round last year.
The company has been pitching bespoke ‘Natrium’ reactors powered by high-assay low-enriched uranium and announced its intentions earlier this year to enter the UK race for projects.
However, Whitehall officials have reportedly been concerned over insufficient supplies to import at scale to meet demand for Terrapower reactors, as most of the uranium it needs is produced in Russia – which is under sanctions following the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
City A.M. understands GB Nuclear wanted to prioritise the most ready-made technologies which could guarantee a final investment decision by the end of the decade.
Instead, Terrapower could feature in an upcoming consultation on advanced technology.
Small modular reactors are a cornerstone of the government’s plan to revive domestic nuclear energy and replace the country’s ageing fleet – with 85 per cent of the country’s current capacity set to go offline over the next 12 years.
……………………..Downing Street is targeting operational SMRs in the UK by the mid-2030s, with a £20bn cap being placed on the competitive process.
Can Australia rebuild a strategic military partnership with France at the same time as independence movements claim Pacific support?
On 28 September, the Assembly of French Polynesia unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the nuclear ban treaty that entered into force in 2021. Even though France refuses to sign the treaty, and still controls the defence and foreign policy of French Polynesia, the local legislature in Tahiti with its new pro-independence government sees TPNW as setting a new norm in international law. The resolution encourages “the participation of France as an observer state at the next TPNW Meeting of the States Parties”, to be held in New York in late November. It also calls on the French government to “work towards France’s adherence to this new international norm.”
A key reason for this pointed message to Paris are the TPNW provisions that call for assistance to nuclear survivors and clean-up of contaminated nuclear test sites. The Ma’ohi people are still seeking compensation for the health and environmental effects of 193 French nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa.
Beyond this, French Polynesia’s critique of nuclear weapons echoes the views of the majority of members of the Pacific Islands Forum. Unlike Australia, nine independent Pacific Island countries and Aotearoa-New Zealand have already signed and ratified the TPNW.
At the recent Australian Labor Party (ALP) National Conference in Brisbane, the party re-confirmed its support for signing the TPNW – under restrictive conditions – and agreed to send an observer to the next Meeting of State Parties. However key ALP leaders are opposed to signing, and nuclear weapons states such as the United States and France, having long derided the treaty, are now ramping up their opposition to it.
A front-page story in The Australian on 2 October cited an unnamed French diplomat who criticised Australia over its tentative moves towards signing TPNW, though the story fails to mention last week’s resolution from the Assembly of French Polynesia…………………………………………….
the Australian government has held a series of meetings with key French ministers to rebuild relations disrupted by AUKUS, including a summit between Defence Minister Richard Marles and French counterpart Sebastien Lecornu in September 2022, and a 2+2 meeting of defence and foreign ministers in January. Marles and Lecornu are organising the South Pacific Defence Ministers meeting in Noumea in December, to the dismay of the FLNKS independence movement, which is in the midst of talks with the French state over a new political status for New Caledonia.
Last year, Marles congratulated Emmanuel Macron on his re-election to the French presidency, proclaiming “France is our neighbour. France is a Pacific country. And as such, France deeply matters to Australia.”
But France is a European colonial power, not a Pacific country. It is recognised by the United Nations as the administering power of non-self-governing territories. It has responsibilities for decolonisation under international law. Australian governments may be reluctant to talk publicly about this, but the issue of self-determination is firmly on the regional agenda, posing difficult choices for all Forum member countries (as shown by recent debates over West Papua, Bougainville, Guam, etc).
Another problem is that, in both Australia and France, the perspectives of leaders from Francophone island communities are usually missing from the public debate about France’s role in Indo-Pacific security. It’s rare to see the media or think tanks cite President Louis Mapou of New Caledonia or newly elected President Moetai Brotherson of French Polynesia. Both will be attending the next Pacific Islands Forum summit in Rarotonga as it discusses regional security – for the first time, leaders from both French territories in the Forum are supporters of independence and sharp anti-nuclear critics.
So, can Australia rebuild a strategic military partnership with France at the same time as its Pacific neighbours are seeking an independent and sovereign state?
As Penny Wong travelled to Noumea last April, becoming the first Australian Foreign Minister to address the Congress of New Caledonia, Mapou was eager to strengthen ties with Canberra around trade, investment and people-to-people engagement. He also diplomatically highlighted key differences around Australia’s close alignment with the United States under the AUKUS partnership:
The independence movement of New Caledonia – of which I’m a member – is in favour of non-alignment. We regularly attend the summits of the Non-Aligned Movement. From the earliest days, we have supported a nuclear free Pacific – that’s even set out in the preamble of the draft Constitution of Kanaky that we submitted to the United Nations in 1986. When Australia decides to align itself with the United States in the framework of AUKUS to acquire nuclear submarines, it raises the question: if it starts here, where will it end? How does this impact the Treaty of Rarotonga and the Boe Declaration on security?
The Albanese government has proclaimed its support for a world without nuclear weapons. But talk is easy. It’s getting harder for the ALP government to balance tensions between its role as an AUKUS partner, a strategic partner with France and the “security partner of choice” for the island nations of the Pacific, which are deeply opposed to nuclear weapons. Why should Australia side with a European colonial power against its closest neighbours? https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/french-criticism-nuclear-ban-treaty-highlights-canberra-s-dilemma
There is considerable anti-war sentiment among voters worldwide — which explains why candidates run on peace promises (Obama, Zelensky, Trump). There is also considerable pro-war sentiment among corporations who build weapons of mass destruction, and the think-tanks they fundto support them.
This push-pull has nudged warmakers into branding wars as “D for Democrat” or “R for Republican” in order to whip up support and manage dissent. Thus Democrats support President Biden’s proxy war on Russia via Ukraine while Republicans and third parties (Greens, Libertarians, Communists) don’t.
But based on the congressional circus this week, maybe that is not such a good strategy?
Those of us opposed to ALL wars our government wages have experienced the partisan split in who will stand with us. When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats come out in droves. Then when an Obama or a Biden is elected, they go home.
Then, the parties wage information wars to support their team. These have ramped up considerably to insist that Putin = Hitler (just silly), that there are no Nazis in Ukraine (maybe they all went to Canada?), and that funding Ukraine’s government is a higher priority than funding our own. Even though as far back as July a CNN poll found a majority in the U.S. opposed sending any more money to Ukraine.
In order to avert a federal government shutdown over what to fund, we heard from Democrats that it was the bad Republicans’ fault.
The US president said on Sunday he was “sick and tired” of the political brinkmanship, and that US support for Ukraine could not be interrupted “under any circumstances”.
Even though Democrats never move left and always move right — or maybe because of that? — the Punch and Judy show where the two corporate parties bash each other constantly is having a long run.
Then we heard that the bad Republicans would only vote for averting a shutdown if it stripped out “aid” to Ukraine (currently at $180 billion and counting). And it worked! Worked, that is, after a fire drill shut Congress down when Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman pulled a fire alarm and delayed the vote a bit.
He swears this was an honest mistake. But I suspect the delay was so that some more back room deals on terms of the funding could be hammered out.
Received wisdom has it that Democrats want WW3 with Russia while Republicans want WW3 with China. But Greens like me see the corporate parties supporting all the wars and I think they’re all nuts.
I can see where the U.S. once believed it could beat Russia as it used the NATO alliance and CIA color revolutions to foment trouble like civil war for Ukraine. Looking at the situation today, it’s clear that few aside from delusional thinkers allied with the Biden administration believes this is still the case. Russia has objectively kicked Ukraine/NATO’s butt while the response in the West is best epitomized by the Canadian Parliament’s standing ovation for a literal Nazi “who fought the Russians in WW2.”
“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognize Yaroslav Hunka, who fought with the First Ukrainian Division in World War II, in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Sept. 22, 2023.” | Patrick Doyle/The Canadian Press
(If you’re unclear on WW2’s major players and alliances, the late Howard Zinn’s overview can be found here.)
Next up, preparations are already well underway for using Taiwan to create a situation where China feels it must respond to safeguard its own borders and sovereignty. What would lead to the delusion that AUKUS or NATO or U.S.-Japan-South Korea could defeat China in a hot war? Hot warriors falsely claim China is authoritarian, has lost the support of its people, and committed genocide against the Uyghurs.
Word to the U.S.: your government is increasingly authoritarian, has lost the confidence of its people, and has committed genocide in so many places it’s hard to list them all. Maybe just note the ongoing attempted genocide of the indigenous people of North America and leave it at that.
#antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes Britain has signed contracts worth GBP4 billion to finance a new phase ofthe SSN-Aukus next-generation attack submarine project, according togovernment officials. The deals, which involve British companies BAE Systems PLC, Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC and Babcock International Group PLC, are part of the Aukus military alliance between the US, Australia and the UK to counter China in the Asia-Pacific region.
BBC News By Peter Hoskins, Business reporter 2 October Britain’s biggest defence firm, BAE Systemshas won a £3.95bn ($4.82bn) contract to build a new generation of submarines as the security pact between the US, UK and Australia moves ahead.
In March, the three countries announced details of the so-called Aukus pact to provide Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines by the late 2030s.
The pact aims to counter China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region.
Beijing has strongly criticised the three countries over the deal.
……………………..”This multi-billion-pound investment in the Aukus submarine programme will help deliver the long-term hunter-killer submarine capabilities the UK needs to maintain our strategic advantage and secure our leading place in a contested global order,” UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said as the Conservative party conference got under way in Manchester.
………………….Other major UK defence contractors are also getting a boost from the Aukus deal.
On Sept. 19, at this year’s World Petroleum Congress, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Rebecca Schulz announced that the Government of Alberta would invest $7 million into a study by Cenovus Energy on the potential usage of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) to power future oilsands operations.
Over the past year, the government has singlehandedly picked the winners and losers in the energy transition race. Hydrogen, carbon capture and nuclear are winners. With the recent moratorium on project approvals, solar and wind are set to be the losers. But don’t we, as Albertans, deserve a say?
The government’s new interest and investment in SMR feasibility should be a call to Albertans to start asking questions about what role (if any) nuclear should play in our energy future. Most of our current conversations are tied to the future of fossil fuels. Nuclear is not even on most people’s radar. We need to get ready to ask tough questions about nuclear energy that other jurisdictions are already debating.
Here are three questions that Albertans need to ask:
Who will regulate the use of SMRs?
Currently, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is the single regulator of energy development in our province, overseeing the process from exploration to reclamation. AER’s recent silence after a known tailings leak at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oilsands mine has prompted questioning of not only AER’s transparency but also its ability to communicate risk and generate trust with communities that house energy projects. AER’s failure to notify residents in Wood Buffalo for nearly nine months about the estimated 5.3 million litres of leaked industrial wastewater has also raised serious questions about AER’s ability to ensure public safety. We need to ask: is AER, in its current form, the best regulator to oversee the development of nuclear energy?
What will happen to SMRs after they are decommissioned and where will we store our nuclear waste?
There are serious technological challenges to managing nuclear waste. Currently, Canada’s used nuclear fuel is managed at facilities at nuclear reactor sites in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, along with limited sites in Manitoba. These are all temporary sites. The federal government is hoping to finalize a permanent nuclear repository after 15 years of planning, engagement and scientific and engineering studies. Residents of communities where nuclear storage has been proposed are worried. There are currently no nuclear waste repositories in western Canada. If SMRs are used in Alberta, how much waste will they generate? And where will it be stored? Alberta’s unimpressive track record with decommissioning and reclaiming former energy sites (such as orphan wells) means that we need to ask tough questions about the afterlife of SMRs now.
How will Albertans be consulted in the creation of the Government of Alberta’s nuclear energy strategy?
While it is commendable that the GoA is investing in studies that explore clean energy, there is currently no indication that Albertans will be consulted about nuclear energy. While SMRs would clearly have an impact on oilsands operations and aid the industry in meeting aggressive net-zero targets set by the federal government, the regulation of the nuclear energy industry will impact all Albertans. We should all have a say in determining our path forward in energy transitions. And we should be doing this through broad consultation led by an independent third party, who does not stand to benefit financially or regulatorily from the introduction of SMRs.
Albertans are supportive of energy transitions. We must begin a serious public discussion of how and if nuclear energy should be a part of it. We have an orphan well problem. Do we want an orphan reactor problem as well?
Sabrina Perić is an energy anthropologist, associate professor at the University of Calgary, and the co-director of the Energy Stories Lab.
End of the American Dream. Life As You Have Known It Will Never Be The Same Again… by Michael
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the Military Industrial Complex to our society. It employs millions of people, and it brings in hundreds of billions of dollars each year. The Military Industrial Complex has always been one of the central pillars of our economy, and these days business is booming thanks to the war in Ukraine and the possibility of a war with China. Needless to say, those that run the Military Industrial Complex want the gravy train to continue, and so politicians that are pro-war are showered with campaign contributions. In both major parties, politicians that are pro-war greatly outnumber those that are anti-war, and that is not likely to change any time soon.
Smedley D. Butler fought in four major conflicts, and in 1935 he astutely observed that “war is a racket”…
“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”
If the Military Industrial Complex suddenly disappeared, it would leave a giant, gaping hole in our economy that would be extremely difficult to fill. In an excellent piece that he posted earlier this week, Richard C. Cook shared some numbers about the Military Industrial Complex that are absolutely astounding…
Today about 2.1 million people are employed by the defense industry. According to Acara Solutions, a major MIC recruiting firm, their average annual salary is $106,700, 40 percent higher than the national average. The companies they work for produced revenues in 2022 of $741 billion. How much of their production is high-priced junk, no one knows. The performance of U.S.-produced armaments in the Ukraine conflict does not seem impressive. No modern U.S. weapons have ever been tested in an industrial-type war against an equal adversary.
The MIC also includes active-duty uniformed personnel of 1.37 million and reserves of 849,000. There are 750 U.S. military bases in more than 80 countries outside of the U.S. More than 100,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed in Europe. Annual salary and benefits of the military are currently $146 billion per year, escalating with COLAs compounded at two to three percent annually, sometimes more. Some former U.S. military personnel are assumed to be fighting in Ukraine as mercenaries or helping direct the fighting from safe locations like Kiev or Lvov.
Then there are the civilian employees. According to the DoD, it employs more than 700,000 civilians “in an array of critical positions worldwide,” with compensation totaling about $70 billion. According to the Government Accountability Office, we may also add 560,000 contractor employees, whose compensation is typically higher than the career workforce.
We can also add hundreds of thousands of executives, managers, employees and contractors of the three-letter Deep State agencies, such as the CIA, NSA, DEA, FBI, and now DHS, etc., who interface with the MIC day in and day out and are part of the same fabric of state-sanctioned force and enemy identification and interdiction.
In the entire history of the world, we have never seen anything quite like this.
And the Military Industrial Complex absolutely loves Joe Biden, because he has promised to keep the war in Ukraine going “for as long as it takes”…
It is likely that billions of people around the world view the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy war being waged by the U.S. against Russia. US President Joe Biden has pledged to aid Ukraine’s pursuit of victory “for as long as it takes,” without defining what the end state might be. Russian President Vladimir Putin has interpreted U.S. intentions to mean a fight “to the last Ukrainian.”
Unfortunately, there is a problem.
The Ukrainians are running out of warm bodies.
They have literally been grabbing men off the streets and throwing them into vans, but we didn’t care because it wasn’t our sons that were being forced to go to war.
Many Americans cheered when the Ukrainians began their ill-fated “counter-offensive”, but it turned out to be a disaster.
A senior U.S. intel official recently admitted to journalist Seymour Hersh that Ukraine has suffered approximately 75,000 casualties during this counter-offensive…
“There is no discussion in his headquarters or in the Biden White House of a ceasefire and no interest in talks that could lead to an end to the slaughter,” Hersh said.
Speaking of the Ukrainian claims of slow progress in an offensive that has lost an estimated 75,000 casualties, the official told Hersh: “It’s all lies.”
On many battlefields in Ukraine, there are unburied dead bodies just laying around all over the place.
As the anniversary of the purported Biden Regime sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline approaches Sept. 26, veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh blamed a ”secret disinformation operation“ by CIA and MI-6 for misleading the public about the disastrous state of the US-led war effort.
“The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going,“ a senior US intel official told Hersh. “The truth is if the Ukrainian army is ordered to continue the offensive, the army would mutiny. The soldiers aren’t willing to die any more, but this doesn’t fit the B.S. that is being authored by the Biden White House.”
Where do we go from here?
The Military Industrial Complex certainly does not want this conflict to end, and Joe Biden has no intention of backing down.
So more warm bodies will be needed.
That is one of the reasons why there has been so much chatter about bringing back the draft here in the United States.
Recruitment has been way down in recent years, but our leaders desperately want to win this war with Russia and they also want to be ready to fight a war with China over Taiwan.
And so the stage is being set to draft young American boys and young American girls into military service…
The most recent edition of the US Army War College’s academic journal includes a highly disturbing essay on what lessons the US military should take away from the continuing war in Ukraine. By far the most concerning and most relevant section for the average American citizen is a subsection entitled “Casualties, Replacements, and Reconstitutions” which, to cut right to the chase, directly states, “Large-scale combat operations troop requirements may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription.”
The context for this supposed need to reinstate conscription is the estimate that were the US to enter into a large-scale conflict, every day it would likely suffer thirty-six hundred casualties and require eight hundred replacements, again per day. The report notes that over the course of twenty years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US suffered fifty thousand casualties, a number which would likely be reached in merely two weeks of large-scale intensive combat.
The military is already facing an enormous recruiting shortfall. Last year the army alone fell short of its goal by fifteen thousand soldiers and is on track to be short an additional twenty thousand this year. On top of that, the report notes that the Individual Ready Reserve, which is composed of former service personnel who do not actively train and drill but may be called back into active service in the event they are needed, has dropped from seven hundred thousand in 1973 to seventy-six thousand now.
Do you want your children to be fed into a meat grinder on the other side of the globe?
If not, it is time to stand up and say something………………………………………………………………………………………
We need to pull back from the brink before it is too late.
But our leaders won’t do that.
They don’t want to upset the Military Industrial Complex.
Unfortunately, we could also soon find ourselves in a war with China……………………………………………
The Military Industrial Complex wants to make even more money, and our politicians want to keep the campaign contributions rolling in.
So we will continue to speed toward a date with the unthinkable as the fate of our society hangs in the balance.
