How Long Can Israel Defy the World?
More probably, however, Israel will resist such pressure and threat to resort to the Samson Option, i.e., a nuclear attack on the countries endangering “Israel’s right to exist”. In this worst-case scenario, Israel would be annihilated, but those who put pressure on it would also suffer enormous casualties. Obviously, no country in the world will run the risk of a nuclear attack to free the Palestinians.
By Prof. Yakov M. Rabkin, https://www.juancole.com/2024/01/long-israel-world.htm .
Palestinians in Gaza are being decimated. Over 20,000 have been killed, mostly women and children. Three times more have been wounded. Some experts qualify it as genocide, others as massacre. Two million people have been displaced, many more than during the entire history of displacement of the Palestinians since the start of the Zionist settlement at the turn of the 20th century.
As Israel takes out hospitals and civilian infrastructure, infectious diseases and famine threaten to kill many more people. Several Israeli soldiers have been reported infected during the ground operations, one has died. General Giora Eiland suggests relying on the weapon of imminent epidemics in lieu of endangering the lives of Israeli soldiers in real warfare. Gaza is violently demodernized, bombed into stone age: hospitals, schools, power stations are bombed to rubble. What is happening appears unprecedented.
The number of victims is, indeed, unprecedented. Yet the unfolding tragedy follows the old script of the Zionist project, which is European in more than one sense. It is rooted in ethnic nationalisms of Eastern and Central Europe. Nations must live in their “natural” environment where those not of the titular nationality would be at best tolerated. According to an Iraqi journalist writing in 1945, the Zionists’ goal was “to expel the British and the Arabs from Palestine so that it will be a pure Zionist state. … Terrorism [was] the only means that can bring the Zionist aspirations to fruition.” Significantly, the journalist did not consider the future state Jewish but Zionist. He must have known that Jews from countries other than those of Europe and European colonization constituted a miniscule part of the Zionist movement.
Zionism is also European because it is a settler colonial project, the most recent of all. The Palestine Jewish Colonization Association was among several agencies devoted to turning the multi-ethnic and multi-confessional Palestine into “the Jewish homeland”. The Jewish Colonial Trust, the predecessor of Bank Leumi, today Israel’s largest bank, financed the segregated economic development of the Zionist settlement in Palestine. In the usual colonial manner, the early Zionist settlers were eager to establish a separate colony rather than integrate in the existing Palestinian society.
Zionism is not only the most recent case of settler colonialism. Israel is unique in that, unlike Algeria or Kenya, it is not populated by migrants from the colonial metropolis. But this distinction matters little to the indigenous Palestinians who, just like in many other such situations, are being displaced, dispossessed, and massacred by the settlers. Displacement is enacted not only in Gaza, where it is massive and indiscriminate, but also in the West Bank where it is more focused.
To attain its objectives Zionism has had to rely on major powers, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, France and, nowadays, the United States. The Zionists, committed to the success of their project, have been pragmatic and ideologically promiscuous. They would enjoy the support of the Socialist International during most of of the 20th century and then switch to become the darlings of White supremacists and the extreme-right.
Zionism is a nationalist response to anti-Jewish discrimination and violence in Europe. It deems antisemitism endemic and ineradicable, explicitly rejecting long-term viability of Jewish life anywhere except in “the Jewish state” in Palestine. The Nazi genocide in Europe reinforced this conviction and offered legitimacy to the fledgling colonial project while such projects were crumbling elsewhere in the world. The Zionist project, ignoring the opposition of the Palestinians and other Arabs, simply exported Europe’s “Jewish question” to Palestine.
Palestinians gradually understood that the Zionist project would deprive them of their land and resisted it. This is why the early Zionist settlers, most of them from the Russian Empire, formed militias to fight local population. They perfected their terrorist experience gained during the Russian revolution of 1905 with colonial counterinsurgency measures learned from the vast experience of the British. Established against the will of the entire Arab world, including the local Palestinians, the state of Israel has had to live by the sword. The army and the police have worked hard to keep the Palestinians down (the British used to call it “pacification of the natives”). Their task has been to conquer as much land as possible with as few Palestinians remaining on it as possible.
Many Palestinians now in Gaza had been expelled from the very area in what is now Israel that experienced the Hamas attack in October. They are mostly refugees or descendants of refugees. The high density of the population in an enclosed area (some called it “the largest open-air prison) makes them particularly vulnerable. When Israel did not like the election of Hamas in 2006, it laid siege to Gaza, limiting access to food, medicines, work etc. Israeli officials were openly admitting they were putting the Gazans “on a diet” while having to “mow the lawn” from time to time, subjecting the Gazans to violent “pacification”.
The 16 years of siege intensified anger, frustration and despair leading to the Hamas attack. In response, Israeli used drones, missiles, and aircraft to continue what used to be done with rifles and machine-guns. The death rate has increased, but the goal of terrorizing Palestinians into submission has remained the same. The name of the current onslaught on Gaza is “Iron Swords”, aptly reflects the Zionists’ century-old choice to live by the sword rather than coexist with the Palestinians on equal terms. Ein berera, “we have no choice”, the common Israeli excuse for unleashing violence, is therefore misleading.
Impunity and Impotence
Israel has enjoyed a large degree of impunity, with dozens of UN resolutions simply ignored. Only once, in the wake of the 1956 Suez War, was Israel forced to give up territorial conquest. This happened under a threat coming from both the United States and the Soviet Union. Since then, Israel has relied on firm U.S. diplomatic and military support, which has become more brazen with the advent of America’s unipolar moment after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This support is now embodied in the supply of American munitions for the war on Gaza, in the presence of U.S. Navy vessels protecting Israel from third parties and in the U.S. vetoes at the Security Council. Israel and the United States are joined at the hip. Europe, while being more critical of Israel rhetorically, closely follows the U.S. line just as it does in the Ukraine conflict. In both conflicts, European chanceries appear to have abdicated independence and, possibly, ability of action.
Israel’s impunity also reflects impotence of the rest of the world. While Muslim and Arab governments decry and protest Israel’s assault on Gaza, none has imposed or even proposed economic, let alone military, sanctions. Fewer than a dozen of countries has suspended diplomatic relations or withdrawn diplomatic personnel from Israel. None has broken relations. Russia and China, along with most of the Global South, express their dismay at civilian casualties in Gaza but they too stop short of going beyond words.
The double standard of the Western reactions is obvious. Drastic economic sanctions imposed on Russia contrast with the generous supply of arms and at best verbal pleas for moderation in response to the Israeli actions in Gaza. In just a few months, the IDF surpassed Russia’s almost two-year record in the Ukraine with respect to the volume of explosives dropped, the number of people killed and wounded, and the civilian/military ratio among the casualties. Western sermons about inclusion and democracy are unlikely to carry much weight in the rest of the world. Palestinian lives do not really matter to Western governments.
This lackadaisical reaction to the massacres in Gaza contrasts with the indignation they provoke in the population in much of the world. Massive demonstrations call on governments to stop the violence. In response, most Western governments have strengthened measures to restrict freedom of speech. Opposition to Zionism has been declared antisemitic, the most recent such measure is the equivalence between anti-Zionism and antisemitism decided by the U.S. Congress in December 2023. Accusations of antisemitism are leveled at students, often Jewish, who organize pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Televised debates as to what constitutes “genocidal antisemitism” on elite university campuses divert attention from what looks like a real genocide in Gaza. Antisemitism serves as Israel’s Wunderwaffe, its ultimate weapon of mass distraction.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been banned in several European capitals where commercial or cultural boycott of Israel has been made illegal. This pressure from the ruling class, including courts, police, corporate media, employers, and university administrations, creates a powerful sense of frustration among the rank-and-file. Shortly after attacking Gaza in 2009, and over sharp criticism of its treatment of the Palestinians, Israel was unanimously accepted into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), made up of some 30 countries that boast democratic structures of governance. Former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, while still in office, placed solidarity with Israel above Canada’s interests to the point of claiming that his government would support Israel “whatever the cost.”
Support for Israel, tending to increase with income, has become a class issue. It serves as another reminder of the growing estrangement between the rulers and the ruled, the proverbial One Per Cent and the rest. It remains to be seen if popular frustration with the hypocrisy of governments in their support for the war on Gaza may one day result in political change that would begin to dent Israel’s impunity.
Israel is a state without borders. Geographically, it has expanded with military conquest or colonization. The Zionist movement and successive Israeli governments have taken great pains never to define the borders they envisage for their state. Israeli secret services and the army pay no heed to borders, striking targets in its neighboring countries at will. This borderless character is also embodied in Israel’s claim that it belongs to the world’s Jews rather than to its citizens. This leads to the overt transformation of Jewish organizations around the world into Israeli agents. This is particularly the case in the United States. Israeli agents, such AIPAC, ensure Israel’s interests in elections on all levels, from school boards to the White House. Israel has even played the legislative against the executive branch in Washington. Yet this unabashed political interference attracts a lot less criticism in mainstream media that the alleged meddling of China or Russia. Israel also intervenes in the political process of other countries.
Conflict Between Jewish and Zionist Values
Zionism has provoked controversy among Jews from its very inception. The first Zionist congress in 1897 had to be moved from Germany to Switzerland because German Jewish organizations objected to holding a Zionist event in their country. The Zionist argument that the homeland of the Jews is not the country, where they have lived for centuries and for which many have spilled their blood in wars, but in a land in Western Asia. For many Jews, this message bears disconcerting resemblance to that of the antisemites who resent their social integration.
Initially irreligious, Zionism transforms spiritual terms into political ones. Thus, ‘am Israel, “the people of Israel”, defined by their relationship to the Torah, becomes ethnicity or nationality in the Zionist vocabulary. This prompted the prominent European rabbi Jechiel Weinberg (1884-1966) to emphasize that “Jewish nationality is different from that of all nations in the sense that it is uniquely spiritual, and that its spirituality is nothing but the Torah. […] In this respect we are different from all other nations, and whoever does not recognize it, denies the fundamental principle of Judaism.”
Another reason for Jewish opposition to Zionism has been moral and religious. While prayers for the return to the Holy Land is part of the daily Judaic ritual, it is not a political, let alone a military objective. Moreover, the Talmud spells out specific prohibitions of a mass move to Palestine before Messianic times, even “with the accord of the nations”. This is why the Zionist project with its addiction to armed violence continues to repel many Jews causing them embarrassment and even revulsion.
True, the Pentateuch and several of the books of the Prophets, such as Joshua and Judges, teem with violent images. But far from glorifying war, Jewish tradition identifies allegiance to God, and not military prowess, as the principal reason for the victories mentioned in the Bible. Jewish tradition abhors violence and reinterprets war episodes, plentiful in the Hebrew Bible, in a pacifist mode. Tradition clearly privileges compromise and accommodation. Albert Einstein was among the Jewish humanists who denounced Beitar, the paramilitary Zionist youth movement, today affiliated with the ruling Likud. He deemed it to be“ as much of a danger to our youth as Hitlerism is to German youth”.
Zionism vigorously rejects this “exilic” tradition, which it deems “consolation of the weak”. Generations of Israelis have been brought up on the values of martial courage, proud of serving in the military. Zionists regularly refer to their state as a continuation of biblical history. The idea of the Greater Israel is rooted in the literal reading of the Pentateuch. Zionism demands total commitment and brooks little opposition or criticism. The passion of the Zionist commitment has led to assassination of opponents, pitched fathers against sons, splitting Jewish families and communities. The historian Eli Barnavi, former Israeli ambassador in Paris, warns that “the dream of a ‘Third Kingdom of Israel’ could only lead to totalitarianism”. Indeed, many Jewish community leaders, undisturbed by the specter of “dual loyalty”, insist that allegiance to the state of Israel must prevail over all others, including allegiance toward their own country.
The Zionists, whether in Israel or elsewhere, have long claimed to be “the vanguard of the Jewish people” with Zionism replacing Judaism for quite a few Jews. Their identity, initially religious, has become political: they are supporters and patriots of Israel, “my country right or wrong” rather than adherents of Judaism.
Generationally, Israel appears an exception among the wealthy countries. With every generation Israelis become more combative and anti-Arab. While in other countries young Jews are usually less conservative than their parents and embrace ideas of social and political justice, young Israeli Jews defy this trend. Israeli education inculcates martial values and the belief that, had the state of Israel existed before World War II, the Nazi genocide would never have taken place. What sustains the fragile unity of the non-Arab majority is fear: a siege mentality that most frequently takes the self-image of a virtuous victim determined to prevent a repetition of the Nazi genocide. The memory of that European tragedy has become a tool of mobilizing Jews to the Zionist cause. Its political utility is still far from exhausted.
Use of the genocide to foster Israeli patriotism has been unflagging since the early 1960s. After an air show in Poland in 2008, three Israeli F-15 fighter jets bearing the Star of David and piloted by descendants of genocide survivors overflew the former Nazi extermination camp while two hundred Israeli soldiers observed the flyover from the Birkenau death camp adjacent to Auschwitz. The remarks of one of the Israeli pilots stressed confidence in the armed forces: “This is triumph for us. Sixty years ago, we had nothing. No country, no army, nothing.”
State schools promote the model of a fighter against “the Arabs” (the word “Palestinian” is usually avoided), glorifies military service turning it into an aspiration and a rite of passage to adulthood. No wonder that Hamas and, by extension, all the Gazans, are often referred to as Nazis. Dozens of Israeli officials and public figures have openly incited genocide of Palestinians: dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza, flattening it into a parking lot, etc. Israeli political scientists have pointed out that civic religion provides no answers to questions of ultimate meaning, while at the same time it obliges its practitioners to accept the ultimate sacrifice. Civic space in Israel has become associated above all with “death for the fatherland.”
Elsewhere in the world, the Hamas attack has galvanized the Zionist commitment under the slogan “We stand with Israel!”. Massive and organized efforts are made to fight the information war. Israeli officials rely on a network of powerful supporters, including executives of high-tech companies, who make sure that the internet amplifies pro-Israel voices and muffles or cancels pro-Palestinian discourse. Censorship leads to self-censorship because pro-Palestinian involvement impedes job prospects and threatens careers.
However, unlike Israelis, diaspora Jews become less and less committed to Jewish nationalism with every generation. Growing numbers of young Jews refuse to be associated with Israel and choose to support the Palestinians. The systematic AI assisted massacre of Palestinians in Gaza has swollen their ranks, particularly in North America. Most spectacular protests against Israel’s ferocity have been organized by Jewish organizations, such as Not in My Name and Jewish Voice for Peace in the United States, Independent Jewish Voices in Canada, and Union juive française pour la paix in France. Prominent Jewish intellectuals denounce Israel and are found among the most consistent opponents of Zionism.
Albeit incongruently, these Jews are accused of antisemitism. Even more incongruently, the same accusation is hurled at ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists. While Israel’s claim to be the state of all Jews exposes them to disgrace and danger, many Jews who support the Palestinians rehabilitate Judaism in the eyes of the world.
The Samson Option
Since its beginning, critics of Zionism have insisted that the Zionist state would become a death trap for both the colonizers and the colonized. In the wake of the ongoing tragedy triggered by the Hamas attack, these words of an ultra-Orthodox activist spoken decades ago sound prescient:
“Only blind dogmatism could present Israel as something positive for the Jewish people. Established as a so-called refuge, it has, unfailingly been the most dangerous place on the face of the earth for a Jew. It has been the cause of tens of thousands of Jewish deaths … it has left in its wake a trail of mourning widows, orphans and friends…. And let us not forget that to this account of the physical suffering of the Jews, must be added those of the Palestinian people, a nation condemned to indigence, persecution, to life without shelter, to overwhelming despair, and all too often to premature death.”
The fate of the colonized is, of course, incomparably more tragic than that of the colonizer. Palestinian citizens of Israel face systemic discrimination while their kin in the West Bank are subject to repression from both the Israeli military and their subcontractors in the Palestinian Authority. Arbitrary detention without trial, dispossession, checkpoints, segregated roads, house searches without warrant and more and more frequent death at the hands of soldiers and settler vigilantes have become routine on the West Bank. Palestinians in Gaza, even prior to the operation Iron Swords, lived isolated on a small territory, with their access to food and medicine strictly rationed by Israel. Even peaceful protest would be met by lethal fire from Israeli soldiers sitting on the other side of the barrier. There was little work and no prospects for the future. The pressure cooker was ready to explode as it did on October 7.
Since then, thousands of Gazans have been killed and wounded by one of the most sophisticated war machines in the world. This provokes more anger and hatred among the Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank. Israelis find themselves in a vicious circle: chronic insecurity inevitable in a settler colony reinforces the Zionist postulate that a Jew must rely on force to survive, which in turn provokes hostility and creates insecurity.
Over two decades ago David Grossman, one of the best-known Israeli authors, addressed the then prime minister Ariel Sharon known for his bellicosity:
“We start to wonder whether, for the sake of your goals, you have made a strategic decision to move the battlefield not into enemy territory, as is normally done, but into a completely different dimension of reality — into the realm of utter absurdity, into the realm of utter self-obliteration, in which we will get nothing, and neither will they. A big fat zero….”
Critical voices within and particularly outside Israel call on the Israelis to recognize that “the Zionist experiment was a tragic error. The sooner it is put to rest, the better it will be for all mankind.” In practice this would mean ensuring equality for all the inhabitants between the Jordan and the Mediterranean and a transformation of the existing ethnocracy into a state of all its citizens. However, Israeli society is conditioned to see in such calls an existential threat and a rejection of “Israel’s right to exist”.
The settler colonial logic radicalizes society in the direction of ethnic cleansing and even genocide. No Israeli government would be capable of evacuating hundreds of thousands of settlers to free space for a separate Palestinian state; the chances of giving up Zionist supremacy in the entire land are even lower. Only strong-armed international pressure may make Israel consider such a reform.
More probably, however, Israel will resist such pressure and threat to resort to the Samson Option, i.e., a nuclear attack on the countries endangering “Israel’s right to exist”. In this worst-case scenario, Israel would be annihilated, but those who put pressure on it would also suffer enormous casualties. Obviously, no country in the world will run the risk of a nuclear attack to free the Palestinians.
Pressure is more likely to come from the public but largely misdirected at local Jewish communities, almost all of them associated in the public mind with Israel. While these Jews, even the most Zionist, have never influenced Israel’s policies towards the Arabs, they have become easy scapegoats for Israel’s misdeeds.
American politicians seem to agree. President Trump referred to Israel as “your state” when addressing a Jewish audience in the United States. President Biden said that “without Israel, no Jew anywhere is safe.” Israeli leaders appreciate such conflations between Judaism and Zionism, between Jews and Israelis. These conflations boost Zionism, feed antisemitism and push Jews to migrate to Israel. This is a welcome prospect for the country, which these new Israelis will strengthen with their intellectual, entrepreneurial, and financial resources as well as supply more soldiers for the IDF.
Despite the opprobrium and public denunciations, Israel appears immune to pressure from the rest of the world. Israeli disdain for international law, the United Nations and, a fortiori, to moral arguments is proverbial. “What matters is what the Jews do, not what the gentiles say”, was Ben-Gurion’s favorite quip. His successors, a lot more radical than Israel’s founding father, will make sure that the tragedy of Gaza does not lead to any compromise with the Palestinians. The Israeli mainstream mocks or simply ignores well-intentioned pleas of liberal Zionists, an endangered species, to “save Israel from itself”. However counterintuitive today, only changes within Israeli society may shake the usual hubris. In the meantime, Israel will continue to defy the world.
About the Author:
Yakov M. Rabkin is Professor Emeritus of History at the Université of Montréal. His publications include over 300 articles and a few books: Science between Superpowers, A Threat from Within: a Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, What is Modern Israel?, Demodernization: A Future in the Past and Judaïsme, islam et modernité. He did consulting work for, inter alia, OECD, NATO, UNESCO and the World Bank. E-mail: yakov.rabkin@umontreal.ca. Website: www.yakovrabkin.ca
Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not
Israel has always refused to confirm its possession of a nuclear arsenal and maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity throughout the region.
The country’s ballistic missile programme, called Jericho, is highly classified. Few details are in the public domain, but the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) estimates Israel has around 24 nuclear-capable missiles.
In general, Israeli leaders do not say much about their country’s atomic capabilities. But in November, far-right cabinet minister Amichai Eliyahu claimed it was an option to launch a nuclear strike on the Gaza strip – comments that were quickly disavowed by Benjamin Netanyahu.
In 2016, a leaked cache of emails from former US secretary of state Colin Powell included one that read: “The boys in Tehran know Israel has 200 [nuclear weapons], all targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands.”
Iran does not have nuclear weapons, but has several nuclear facilities across its territory which experts fear are being used to develop them. Tehran claims they are for civilian use.
In 2016, the country signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – widely known as the Iran nuclear deal – which lifted sanctions and around $100bn of frozen funds in exchange for an end to atomic weapon research.
………..Tehran has continued to enrich uranium at these sites of rates up to 60 per cent purity – which exceeds needs for commercial use and is just a step away from weapons-grade 90 per cent, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
That means Iran’s so-called “breakout time” – the time it would need to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb – is between six months to a year, according to experts.
Iran also vowed to revise its weapons doctrine if its nuclear sites were targeted by Israel before the attack on Friday morning.
What happens next?
So far, it is unclear. Israel maintains its policy of strategic ambiguity and Iran has immediately downplayed the severity of Israel’s attack – saying it would not respond.
A senior official said the country was looking at it more as an “infiltration” rather than an “external attack” – but previously Iran’s president said an attack would be met with a “severe response”. https://au.news.yahoo.com/many-nuclear-weapons-israel-iran-144603850.html
Israeli Settlers, Soldiers ‘Wiping Palestinian Communities Off the Map’ in the West Bank
“While the attention of the world is focused on Gaza, abuses in the West Bank, fueled by decades of impunity and complacency among Israel’s allies, are soaring.”
Jake Johnson. 17 Apr 24, https://www.commondreams.org/news/west-bank-communities-israeli-settlers?utm_source=Common+Dreams&utm_campaign=4bdd8521e2-Top+News%3A+Wed.+4%2F17%2F24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-37878a46b5-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D
Following the Hamas-led October 7 attack on southern Israel, the Israeli military drafted more than 5,000 settlers into “regional defense” units in the West Bank, Haaretzreported earlier this year. The Israeli newspaper noted that “alongside this large-scale mobilization, the [Israel Defense Forces] has distributed some 7,000 weapons to the battalions as well as to settlers who were not recruited into the army but received them as civilians whom the army considers eligible to carry military arms.”
HRW’s investigation found that “armed settlers, with the active participation of army units, repeatedly cut off road access and raided Palestinian communities, detained, assaulted, and tortured residents,
chased them out of their homes and off their lands at gunpoint or coerced them to leave with death threats, and blocked them from taking their belongings.”
“Israeli settlers and soldiers are literally wiping Palestinian communities off the map,” said Omar Shakir, HRW’s Israel and Palestine director.
“While the attention of the world is focused on Gaza, abuses in the West Bank, fueled by decades of impunity and complacency among Israel’s allies, are soaring.”
The new report comes days after Israeli settlers—escorted by IDF soldiers—went on their latest destructive and deadly rampage in the West Bank, killing at least two Palestinians, injuring dozens, and setting homes and vehicles ablaze. At least 20 households were displaced after Israeli settlers burned down their homes.
The wave of settler violence came after a missing 14-year-old Israeli boy was found dead in the area around the West Bank city of Ramallah. The Israeli military said the boy was killed in a “terrorist attack.”
Since October 7, according to the United Nations, Israeli settlers have launched more than 720 attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, displacing at least 206 households comprised of 1,244 people—including 603 children. Israeli soldiers in uniform have been present at many of the attacks.
“Settlers and soldiers have displaced entire Palestinian communities, destroying every home, with the apparent backing of higher Israeli authorities,” Bill Van Esveld, associate children’s rights director at HRW, said in a statement Wednesday. “While the attention of the world is focused on Gaza, abuses in the West Bank, fueled by decades of impunity and complacency among Israel’s allies, are soaring.”
HRW’s new report examines five West Bank communities that have come under attack by Israeli settlers, including one in which uniformed Israeli men armed with assault rifles entered tents and destroyed or stole people’s belongings, abused residents, and threatened to kill them if they didn’t leave the area.
“One man in uniform kicked me in the back of my neck,” a Palestinian mother told HRW. “They said, ‘Go to the valley, and if you come back, we will kill you.'”
None of the families forcibly evicted from the five communities examined in the HRW report have been allowed to return home.
“Palestinian children have seen their families brutalized, and their homes and schools destroyed, and the Israeli authorities are ultimately to blame,” Van Esveld said Wednesday. “Senior state officials are fueling or failing to prevent these attacks, and Israel’s allies are not doing enough to stop that.”
Following the latest wave of settler violence in the West Bank this past weekend, a coalition of human rights organizations said in a joint statement Wednesday that “the international community must swiftly and decisively pressure the government of Israel to halt these attacks and urgently de-escalate the situation.”
“With international attention centered on Gaza, the government of Israel has not only allowed settler violence to spiral but also persisted in the expansion of Israeli settlements built on Palestinian land and unlawfully seized Palestinian territory by designating it as ‘state land,’ blatantly violating international law,” the groups noted. “Concerted efforts are needed to tackle the root cause of settler violence by permanently dismantling settlement outposts and ensuring the safe return of displaced Palestinians to their lands.”
U.S. is building first new nuclear warhead in decades
Gustaf Kilander, Sat, 20 April 2024
The United States is building its first new nuclear warhead in decades but will do so without nuclear testing, according to energy department officials on Wednesday.
The warhead, known as the W93, is set to be used on ballistic missiles launched from submarines. It is being built using funds, $19.8bn, requested by the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) for the 2025 fiscal year, energy secretary Jennifer Granholm and NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby told the Senate Armed Services Committee, according to The Washington Times.
The warhead is in its early design stages at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the main site for the Manhattan Project which built the first nuclear bombs during World War II.
Production on the warhead is set to begin in the middle of the next decade, the officials testified.
The issue of updating its nuclear capabilities is a top priority for the Pentagon and the nuclear-armed submarines are central to the US nuclear forces. Other parts of the strategic capabilities include bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
“The W93 is a new program of record being established to meet requirements set by the [Department of Defense],” the NNSA states on its site.
“The Navy’s ballistic missile submarine force is the most survivable leg of the Triad and is currently equipped with two warhead types: the W76 and W88. These warheads provide approximately two-thirds of the total U.S. deployed force. The W93 will reduce current over-reliance on the W76 system and will allow the US to keep pace with future adversary threats.”
“All W93 key nuclear components will be based on currently deployed and/or previously tested nuclear designs, as well as extensive stockpile component and materials experience,” the NNSA adds…………………………………….
The Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina will produce plutonium pits for the new warhead, requested by now-retired Admiral Charles Richard in late 2020.
It will be built with help from the UK, which will also use the weapon. Admiral Richard had warned of nuclear developments in China, which has doubled its stockpile of nuclear warheads. https://au.news.yahoo.com/us-building-first-nuclear-warhead-143533346.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAExkFb73zWCbee9AK_vuFm2BTmp0kiQDmDUXiBzV6qklzWqYIFsX_LXu9LAxNrBCYBq1jiKFYYNtTql41UYxMkGOceFZGslm7ZB2DP56ACiY6zTGQry2jsKbYix7589Hu54kZpAcm6jfdeJQDJs1JEs77sAiMK0vhn8GH6AyXa6s
Eve of destruction. Can war in the Middle East be avoided?
by Stuart McCarthy | Apr 17, 2024 https://michaelwest.com.au/israel-iran-and-the-prospect-of-war/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2024-04-18&utm_campaign=Michael+West+Media+Weekly+Update—
Stuart McCarthy dissects the forever conflict.
Spectacular footage of Iranian missiles being intercepted by Israeli air defences in the night skies last weekend is only a portend of what’s at stake if Middle East tensions continue to spiral. As horrific as the human suffering in Gaza has been since October, there’s a risk of worse to come if cool heads don’t prevail. According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, there is now “a real danger of a devastating full-scale conflict.”
“Benjamin Netanyahu has completely lost his mental balance due to the successive failures in Gaza and his failure to achieve his Zionist goals.”
A history of tension
Tensions between Israel, Iran, and other Middle East and Western actors involved in the escalation go back decades, pre-dating the emergence of Hamas and Al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001 attacks, which drew the West into a ‘global war on terror’ that shaped many of the current animosities.This broader context is crucial in understanding how the Israel-Gaza conflict might reach a ceasefire or the prospects of an enduring two-state solution.
Western interests in the region have long revolved around the flow of oil to the global economy, a too-easily forgotten strategic vulnerability previously exploited by Middle East states in targeting the West’s support for Israel.
Organisation of Arab Oil Exporting Countries’ embargo that triggered the first oil shock of 1973 was a response to western support for Israel during the fourth Arab-Israeli war. That war, in turn, was an attempt by Egypt and Syria to recover the territories lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war in 1967. Those territories included the Golan Heights (Syria), the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt), and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
of 1973 was a response to western support for Israel during the fourth Arab-Israeli war. That war, in turn, was an attempt by Egypt and Syria to recover the territories lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war in 1967. Those territories included the Golan Heights (Syria), the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt), and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The second oil shock was a consequence of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. While the complex causes of that revolution remain the subject of debate, among them was a conservative backlash against the country’s secularisation of the Shah of Iran’s western-backed monarchy. The country is now a Shia Islamic theocracy.
The genesis of September 11 and the ensuing Afghanistan and Iraq wars is similarly complex, however among Al Qaeda’s grievances was the predominantly Sunni Arab states’ support of western military presence in the Middle East. Their main strategic objective was to provoke the West into invading the Holy Lands, thus sparking a popular Muslim uprising that would bring about regional or even global theocratic rule under a Wahhabi Caliphate.
The West obliged with its ill-fated 20-year military campaign in Afghanistan and the epic strategic blunder of invading Iraq on a false pretext. Among the outcomes of the latter was the rise of ISIS in Iraq, Syria and its affiliates elsewhere.
Status quo
Today’s Middle East instability – including the role of Islamist terrorism – is largely the result of western interventionism and strategic incompetence, even before we consider the specific question of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
As the West lost its way in a series of quagmires, Iran sought to bolster itself against the threat posed by Israel and its Western allies. Allegiances were forged with Hamas and other regional actors, motivated not necessarily by shared religious ideology but by shared strategic interests in countering Israel, its Western allies, and their Arab state enablers, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Other allies include Hezbollah in Lebanon and, more recently, the Houthis in Yemen. Both have been designated as terrorist organisations by Western governments, each is estimated to have more than 100,000 fighters in addition to significant arsenals of conventional weapons.
Saturday night’s retaliatory missile strikes against Israel have been dismissed by some as a strategic miscalculation, a futile escalation easily thwarted by Israel’s sophisticated air defence systems.
“To dismiss this event so lightly would be to fail to appreciate the broader context, the details of the attack and Iran’s obvious strategic interests.”
Hamas’ importance
The name Hamas translates to “Islamic Resistance Movement.” The significance of the Iran-led strikes last weekend is that these are being heralded – even celebrated by some – as a transition from ‘shadow war’ to overt, conventional military confrontation by a more unified resistance against the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
In the case of Hamas, at least, this movement transcends Sunni-Shia sectarian interests. The movement now also seems prepared to defy western military support for Israel despite the high risks involved, evidenced by the Saudi and western bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen.
The resistance movement’s rhetoric has become popular among Western protesters who are pressuring their governments to withdraw support for Israel over concerns about violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. Protest organisers are now using the explicit threat of “causing pain to the economy.”
Missile strikes no surprise
Saturday’s missile strikes, dubbed Operation True Promise by the IRGC, were telegraphed by Iran for a week. Not only did Iran forewarn Israel and the US, some reports suggest the IRGC also warned Jordan and other Arab states not to intervene “during the punitive attack against the Zionist regime.”
The aerial assault was preceded by the IRGC’s seizure of an Israeli-linked commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, several days after the IRGC’s naval commander boasted of their ability to close the critical shipping lane. The prospect of an actual blockade triggering another global economic shock is one of the main reasons for western naval presence in the Persian Gulf, a subject we will return to in a moment.
According to Israeli and other military sources, the projectiles fired towards Israel on Saturday night included 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and 110 ballistic missiles, launched from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Iranian military leaders announced soon after the launches that this would end their retaliation for Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus if there was no further Israeli escalation.
Hezbollah said it also fired two barrages of rockets at an Israeli military base in the Golan Heights. Most of the Iranian projectiles appear to have been intercepted by Israeli air defences and aircraft from Israel, the US, the UK, France and Jordan. Among those reportedly destroyed by the US were a ballistic missile on its launcher and seven drones in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.
The drone and missile attacks apparently targeted Israeli military installations, including the Nevatim Air Force Base in southern Israel. Nevatim is home to Israel’s F-35 fighter jets, including those thought to be involved in the 1 April attack on the Damascus consulate. Four missiles reportedly struck the air base, A fifth was reportedly aimed at a military radar site in northern Israel but missed the target. One child was reportedly injured in southern Israel when an Iranian drone was intercepted overhead.
Iran’s strategy
While Israeli officials have played down any Iranian successes, several independent experts have suggested the strikes were ‘well calibrated’ by Iran. They wanted the strategic effect of retaliating for Israel’s attack on the consulate while deterring further escalation by Israel and minimising the risk of direct military intervention by the US and other Western allies. Ali Vaezoff of the International Crisis Group told CNN:
“This attack crossed a psychological threshold. It’s the first time Iran is striking Israel directly from its own soil, but I think it was also an attack that was designed to be flashy but not fatal.
At time of writing. the Netanyahu war cabinet is reportedly engaged in a “heated debate” over how to respond, while the head of the Iranian military has said, “Our response will be much larger than [Saturday night’s] military action if Israel retaliates against Iran.” President Biden, Arab state leaders and other world leaders have called for Israel and Iran to de-escalate.
The stakes for escalation into full-scale war stretch well beyond the Middle East, including the possibility of another global economic shock. As concerned as many Australians may be for the civilian population of Gaza, such a shock would likely hit home in a way few yet appreciate. One-fifth of the world’s total oil consumption transits through the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran well placed to cause a major disruption using supersonic or hypersonic anti-ship missiles should it wish to do so.
Risk for Australia
Australia is one of the advanced Western economies most vulnerable to such a shock. The demand-led economy of the Covid-19 pandemic saw a decrease in national petroleum fuel consumption of as little as 7%, a decline accounted for mainly by the collapse in air travel, while the road transport sector remained functional.
Our near total dependence on imported oil and refined fuels, our long and vulnerable supply chains, and our negligence in failing to make the necessary preparations promise a significantly worse shock should a full-scale Middle East war break out.
While civil society’s efforts towards an Israel-Palestine ceasefire are laudable, those criticising the parties to this conflict from the comfort of their lounge rooms should perhaps reflect on how their own complacent dependence on a non-renewable resource contributes to the cycle of violence once again engulfing the region.
They might also contemplate life under the theocratic rule espoused by some of the conflict’s main actors. None of this is to diminish Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, but it should give pause to those cheering their favoured ‘side’ in a conflict threatening to spiral out of control.
Meanwhile, let’s hope cool heads prevail in the Middle East.
What do we know about Israel’s nuclear weapons?
The New Arab Staff, 23 November, 2023
Israel is believed to possess between 80 and 400 nuclear weapons but has never faced serious international scrutiny over this.
Despite widespread speculation, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied having nuclear weapons, adhering to a policy of deliberate ambiguity.
Israel is believed to have between 80 to 400 nuclear warheads, with the first completed around late 1966 or early 1967.
This estimate would position Israel as the sixth nation globally to develop nuclear weapons. Delivery methods for these weapons are believed to include aircraft, submarine-launched cruise missiles, and the Jericho series ballistic missiles.
Israel consistently reiterates the cryptic refrain that it will “not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East”. The nation has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) despite international calls to join.
Recently, the issue gained renewed attention when Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, of the extremist Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, suggested that using nuclear weapons against Gaza would be an option. He was suspended soon afterwards.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also recently said that the issue of Israel’s nuclear arsenal should remain a focus on the global agenda.
He accused Western nations of aiding and overlooking alleged crimes against humanity by Israel in Gaza, where over 14,000 people have been killed in indiscriminate bombardment.
History and implications
Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, was committed to acquiring nuclear weapons, justifying this by saying it was to prevent a recurrence of the Nazi Holocaust. …………………………..
By 1952, Israel Atomic Energy Commission chief Ernst David Bergmann sought nuclear collaboration with France, and laid the foundation for future French-Israeli cooperation. This partnership included Israeli scientists’ involvement in France’s nuclear facilities and knowledge sharing, particularly with those with experience on the Manhattan Project.
The relationship culminated in 1957, with France agreeing to build a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant in Israel, a decision influenced by geopolitical factors and mutual scientific benefits.
This partnership was solidified through secret agreements, ostensibly concentrating on peaceful use of atomic technology but with implications for weapons development………………………………….
The Dimona reactor achieved criticality in 1962, and by 1966 Israel had reportedly developed its first operational nuclear weapon, marking the beginning of its full-scale nuclear weapons production.
The exact costs of Israel’s nuclear program are unknown, but substantial foreign aid and Mossad’s covert operations played crucial roles.
Israeli defector Mordechai Vanunu dramatically revealed the extent of the nuclear programme in 1986, and he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and brought back to Israel, serving long years in prison.
By the mid-2000s, estimates of Israel’s nuclear arsenal varied widely, with speculation about uranium enrichment capabilities adding to these uncertainties.
Despite occasional statements by other countries expressing concern about Israel’s nuclear capabilities, there has been little pressure on Israel to declare its nuclear activities or open up its facilities for inspection, let alone to destroy its weapons.
Double standards
The international community’s approach to nuclear proliferation exhibits notable disparities, especially when comparing the cases of Israel, Iran, and Pakistan.
Israel, despite widespread belief in its possession of nuclear weapons, has never publicly confirmed this and enjoys a unique position of strategic ambiguity. It does not face the same level of scrutiny or sanctions imposed on other nations.
In contrast, Iran, whose nuclear program has raised global concerns about potential weaponisation, has been subject to rigorous inspections, strict sanctions, and intense diplomatic negotiations under frameworks like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Pakistan, having openly conducted nuclear tests in 1998, is often viewed through the lens of regional security dynamics, particularly its rivalry with India, and faces a distinct set of international concerns and regulatory measures. https://www.newarab.com/news/what-do-we-know-about-israels-nuclear-weapons
Iran Closes Nuclear Sites Fearing Israeli Attack: IAEA Chief
Tuesday, 04/16/2024 Iran International Newsroom, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202404162504
Iran shut down its nuclear facilities last Sunday over “security considerations,” UN nuclear chief Rafael Grossi has said, expressing concern over the “possibility” of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.
Speaking to reporters in New York on Monday, IAEA Director General confirmed that the facilities had reopened within 24 hours, but with no IAEA supervision, as the agency has decided to keep its inspectors away until the situation is “completely calm.”
Grossi was referring to rising tensions between Israel and Iran, which many fear may lead to an all-out war between the two countries and potentially engulf the whole Middle East.
Israel bombed Iran’s consulate in Damascus on 1 April, killing seven members of the Islamic Revolution’s Guards Corpse (IRGC), including a high-ranking commander and his deputy. Iran retaliated on 13 April, launching more than 300 missiles and drones towards Israel –all but a few of which were intercepted by Israel and its allies.
On Monday, Israeli officials vowed to respond to the attack. When asked about the possibility of Israel hitting Iran’s nuclear sites, Grossi said, “We are always concerned about this possibility.” He urged both sides to show “extreme restraint”.
Grossi also reiterated the IAEA’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
“A bit more than a year ago, I went to Tehran and signed a joint declaration with the Iranian government indicating a number of actions that we will be taking together with Iran,” Grossi said. “We started that process and that process was interrupted. And I have been insisting that we need to go back to that understanding that we had in March 2023.”
In September 2023, Iran withdrew the designation of several inspectors assigned to conduct verification activities in Iran under the Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement. Iran’s nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami later claimed that those expelled had had a history of “extremist political behavior”.
“We are always urging, asking and requiring Iran to cooperate with us in full,” Grossi told Iran International’s Maryam Rahmati. “It’s not that we are not there, but we are not there at the level that we consider we should be.”
The IAEA reported in February that Iran is enriching and stockpiling near-weapons-grade uranium, warning that such elevated purity cannot be explained by civilian applications.
When asked about Iran’s enrichment levels by Iran International, Grossi siad, “the fact that there is an accumulation of uranium enriched at very, very high levels does not automatically mean you’re having a weapon…but it raises questions in the international community.”
Iran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons, but no other state has enriched to that level without producing them.
A report published last month by the Institute for Science and International Security claimed that Iran is moving ahead with building a nuclear site deep underground near Natanz.
“This Iranian nuclear weapons-making facility could be impervious to Israeli and perhaps even American bombs,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz said at the time. “Time is quickly running out, as Iran moves into a zone of nuclear immunity, to deny the regime permanent use of this deadly site.”
Iran President Warns of ‘Massive’ Response if Israel Launches ‘Tiniest Invasion’
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi warned on Wednesday that the “tiniest invasion” by Israel would bring a “massive and harsh” response, as the region braces for potential Israeli retaliation after Iran’s attack over the weekend.
Raisi spoke at an annual army parade that was relocated to a barracks north of the capital, Tehran, from its usual venue on a highway in the city’s southern outskirts. Iranian authorities gave no explanation for its relocation, and state TV did not broadcast it live, as it has in previous years.
Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel over the weekend in response to an Israeli strike on Iran’s embassy compound in Syria on April 1 that killed 12 people, including two Iranian generals.
Israel successfully intercepted nearly all the missiles and drones.
It has vowed to respond, without saying when or how, while its allies have urged all sides to avoid further escalation.
Raisi said Saturday’s attack was a limited one, and that if Iran had wanted to carry out a bigger attack, “nothing would remain from the Zionist regime.” His remarks were carried by the official IRNA news agency.
AI-assisted genocide’: Israel reportedly used database for Gaza kill lists
“Israel is currently trying to sell these tools to foreign entities, to governments that are looking to what Israel’s doing in Gaza, not with disgust, but actually with admiration,” said Antony Loewenstein, an Australian journalist and author of The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World.
Aljazeera, 4 April 24
Two Israeli media outlets report the Israeli military’s use of an AI-assisted system called Lavender to identify Gaza targets.
The Israeli military’s reported use of an untested and undisclosed artificial intelligence-powered database to identify targets for its bombing campaign in Gaza has alarmed human rights and technology experts who said it could amount to “war crimes”.
The Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and Hebrew-language media outlet Local Call reported recently that the Israeli army was isolating and identifying thousands of Palestinians as potential bombing targets using an AI-assisted targeting system called Lavender.
“That database is responsible for drawing up kill lists of as many as 37,000 targets,” Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands, reporting from occupied East Jerusalem, said on Thursday.
The unnamed Israeli intelligence officials who spoke to the media outlets said Lavender had an error rate of about 10 percent. “But that didn’t stop the Israelis from using it to fast-track the identification of often low-level Hamas operatives in Gaza and bombing them,” Challands said.
It is becoming clear the Israeli army is “deploying untested AI systems … to help make decisions about the life and death of civilians”, Marc Owen Jones, an assistant professor in Middle East Studies and digital humanities at Hamid Bin Khalifa University, told Al Jazeera.
“Let’s be clear: This is an AI-assisted genocide, and going forward, there needs to be a call for a moratorium on the use of AI in the war,” he added.
The Israeli publications reported that this method led to many of the thousands of civilian deaths in Gaza.
On Thursday, Gaza’s Ministry of Health said at least 33,037 Palestinians have been killed and 75,668 wounded in Israeli attacks since October 7.
AI use ‘violates’ humanitarian law
“The humans that were interacting with the AI database were often just a rubber stamp. They would scrutinise this kill list for perhaps 20 seconds before deciding whether or not to give the go-ahead for an air strike,” Challands reported……………….
……………the fact that there were “five to 10 acceptable civilian deaths” for every single Palestinian fighter who was an intended target shows why there are so many civilian deaths in Gaza, according to Challands.
Professor Toby Walsh, an AI expert at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said legal scholars will likely argue that the use of AI targeting violates international humanitarian law.
“From a technical perspective, this latest news shows how hard it is to keep a human in the loop, providing meaningful oversight to AI systems that scale warfare terribly and tragically,” he told Al Jazeera.
‘War crimes’
The media outlets cited sources who said the Israeli army made decisions during the first weeks of the current conflict that “for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians”.
“Israel is currently trying to sell these tools to foreign entities, to governments that are looking to what Israel’s doing in Gaza, not with disgust, but actually with admiration,” said Antony Loewenstein, an Australian journalist and author of The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World.
“We’ll find out in the coming months and years who they may be … my sense is it’s gonna be countries that are currently saying they’re opposed to what Israel is doing.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/4/ai-assisted-genocide-israel-reportedly-used-database-for-gaza-kill-lists?fbclid=IwAR2e7Fms0mKy-8_MLuH_jj6aY6fWgr9FO4dFU2Hf3a0m4GtBFAbJofKhGV0
Israel attacking Iran ‘could prompt it to develop nuclear bomb in months’
‘Any Israeli strike inside Iran will take this risk,’ said one regional security analyst
. ‘Any Israeli strike inside Iran will take this risk,’ said one
regional security analyst. ‘If Iran’s general deterrence goes down, we
are at risk of the weaponisation of Iran’s nuclear programme’.
iNews 17th April 2024
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/israel-attack-iran-nuclear-bomb-months-3009662
‘Pakistan advanced nuclear weapons programme despite economic challenges’
Pakistan is reported to have 170 nuclear warheads as of January 2023
By: Pramod Thomas, 17 Apr 24, https://www.easterneye.biz/pakistan-nuclear-programme-india-us/
DESPITE economic challenges, Pakistan continued upgrading its nuclear capabilities, driven by its ongoing tensions with India, top US intelligence official told Congress.
The remarks by Lt Gen Jeffrey Kruse, director of the Defence Intelligence Agency came during a Congressional hearing on China on Monday (15).
Kruse told lawmakers that Pakistan has sought international support, including from the UN security council, to resolve its dispute with India about Kashmir.
Separately, Islamabad and New Delhi have maintained an uneasy ceasefire along the shared Line of Control since February 2021, he said.
“Pakistan has sustained its nuclear modernisation efforts despite its economic turmoil. Terrorist violence against Pakistani security forces and civilians also rose last year,” he said.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Pakistan is reported to have 170 nuclear warheads as of January 2023.
Cash-strapped Pakistan is banking on close allies like China and Saudi Arabia for loans to tide over its economic woes. Moreover, Pakistan’s finance minister Muhammad Aurangzeb is now in Washington to discuss a new loan package with the International Monetary Fund.
Pakistan’s contentious relationship with India continues to drive its defence policy, Kruse told US lawmakers.
However, cross-border violence between the countries has decreased since their February 2021 recommitment to a ceasefire, he said.
“Islamabad is modernising its nuclear arsenal and improving the security of its nuclear materials and nuclear C2 (command and control). In October, Pakistan successfully tested its Ababeel medium-range ballistic missile,” he said.
In 2023, militants killed around 400 security forces, a nine-year high, and Pakistani security forces have conducted almost daily counterterrorism operations during the past year.
Islamabad and New Delhi have a long history of strained relations, primarily due to the Kashmir issue as well as the cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan.
In 2019, Pakistan downgraded its diplomatic ties with New Delhi after the Indian government abrogated Article 370 of the constitution, revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcating the state into two union territories.
India has been maintaining that it desires normal neighbourly relations with Pakistan while insisting that the onus is on Islamabad to create an environment that is free of terror and hostility for such an engagement.
New Delhi has also asserted that the constitutional measures taken by the Indian government to ensure socio-economic development and good governance in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir are matters internal to India.
Bombs and viruses: The shadowy history of Israel’s attacks on Iranian soil
From cyberattacks and assassinations to drone strikes, Israel-linked plots have targeted Iran and its nuclear programme for years.
Israel’s leaders have signalled that they are weighing their options on how to respond to Iran’s attack early Sunday morning, when Tehran targeted its archenemy with more than 300 missiles and drones.
Iran’s attack, which followed an Israeli strike last week on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, that killed 13 people was historic: It was the first time Tehran had directly targeted Israeli soil, despite decades of hostility. Until Sunday, many of Iran’s allies in the so-called axis of resistance — especially the Palestinian group Hamas, the Lebanese group Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis and armed groups in Iraq and Syria — were the ones who launched missiles and drones at Israel.
But if Israel were to hit back militarily inside Iran, it wouldn’t be the first time. Far from it.
For years, Israel has focused on one target within Iran in particular: the country’s nuclear programme. Israel has long accused Iran of clandestinely building a nuclear bomb that could threaten its existence — and has publicly, and frequently, spoken of its diplomatic and intelligence-driven efforts to derail those alleged efforts. Iran denies that it has had a military nuclear programme, while arguing that it has the right to access civil nuclear energy.
As Israel prepares its response, here’s a look at the range of attacks in Iran — from drone strikes and cyberattacks to assassinations of scientists and the theft of secrets — that Israel has either accepted it was behind or is accused of having orchestrated.
Assassinations of Iranian scientists
- January 2010: A physics professor at Tehran University, Masoud Ali-Mohammadi, was killed through a remote-controlled bomb planted in his motorcycle. Iranian state media claimed that the US and Israel were behind the attack. The Iranian government described Ali-Mohammadi as a nuclear scientist.
- November 2010: A professor at the nuclear engineering faculty at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, Majid Shahriari, was killed in a car explosion on his way to work. His wife was also wounded. The president of Iran at the time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, blamed the United States and Israel for the attacks.
- January 2012: Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a chemical engineering graduate, was killed by a bomb placed on his car by a motorcyclist in Tehran. Iran blamed Israel and the US for the attack and said Ahmadi Roshan was a nuclear scientist who supervised a department at Iran’s primary uranium enrichment facility, in the city of Natanz.
- November 2020:Prominent nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was killed in a roadside attack outside Tehran. Western and Israeli intelligence had long suspected that Fakhrizadeh was the father of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. He was sanctioned by the United Nations in 2007 and the US in 2008.
- May 2022: Colonel Hassan Sayyad Khodaei of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was shot five times outside of his home in Tehran. Majid Mirahmadi, a member of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, alleged the assassination was “definitely the work of Israel”.
Israel’s cyberattacks on Iran
- June 2010:The Stuxnet virus was found in computers at the nuclear plant in Iran’s Bushehr city, and it spread from there to other facilities. As many as 30,000 computers across at least 14 facilities were impacted by September 2010. At least 1,000 out of 9,000 centrifuges in Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility were destroyed, according to an estimate by the Institute for Science and International Security. Upon investigation, Iran blamed Israel and the US for the virus attack.
- April 2011: A virus called Stars was discovered by the Iranian cyberdefence agency which said the malware was designed to infiltrate and damage Iran’s nuclear facilities. The virus mimicked official government files and inflicted “minor damage” on computer systems, according to Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran’s Passive Defense Organization. Iran blamed Israel and the US.
November 2011: Iran said it discovered a new virus called Duqu, based on Stuxnet. Experts said Duqu was intended to gather data for future cyberattacks. The Iranian government announced it was checking computers at main nuclear sites. The Duqu spyware was widely believed by experts to have been linked to Israel.- April 2012: Iran blamed the US and Israel for malware called Wiper, which erased the hard drives of computers owned by the Ministry of Petroleum and the National Iranian Oil Company.
- May 2012: Iran announced that a virus called Flame had tried to steal government data from government computers. The Washington Post reported that Israel and the US had used it to collect intelligence. Then-Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon did not confirm the nation’s involvement but acknowledged that Israel would use all means to “harm the Iranian nuclear system”.
- October 2018: The Iranian government said that it had blocked an invasion by a new generation of Stuxnet, blaming Israel for the attack.
- October 2021: A cyberattack hit the system that allows Iranians to use government-issued cards to purchase fuel at a subsidised rate, affecting all 4,300 petrol stations in Iran. Consumers had to either pay the regular price, more than double the subsidised one, or wait for stations to reconnect to the central
- distribution system. Iran blamed Israel and the US.
- May 2020: A cyberattack impacted computers that control maritime traffic at Shahid Rajaee port on Iran’s southern coast in the Gulf, creating a hold-up of ships that waited to dock. The Washington Post quoted US officials as saying that Israel was behind the attack, though Israel did not claim responsibility.
Israel’s drone strikes and raids on Iran
- January 2018: Mossad agents raided a secure Tehran facility, stealing classified nuclear archives. In April 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel discovered 100,000 “secret files that prove” Iran lied about never having a nuclear weapons programme.
- February 2022: Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett admitted in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal in December 2023, that Israel carried out an attack on an unmanned aerial vehicle, and assassinated a senior IRGC commander in February of the previous year.
- May 2022: Explosives-laden quadcopter suicide drones hit the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran, killing an engineer and damaging a building where drones had been developed by the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces. IRGC Commander Hossein Salami pledged retaliation against unspecified “enemies”.
- February 2024: A natural gas pipeline in Iran was attacked. Iran’s Oil Minister Javad Owji alleged that the “explosion of the gas pipeline was an Israeli plot”.
- January 2023: Several suicide drones struck a military facility in central Isfahan, but they were thwarted and caused no damage. While Iran did not immediately place blame for the attacks, Iran’s UN envoy, Amir Saeid Iravani, wrote a letter to the UN chief saying that “primary investigation suggested Israel was responsible”.
Environmental impacts of underground nuclear weapons testing
While underground nuclear tests were chosen to limit atmospheric radioactive fallout, each test still caused dynamic and complex responses within crustal formations. Mechanical effects of underground nuclear tests span from the prompt post-detonation responses to the enduring impacts resulting in radionuclide release, dispersion, and migration through the geosphere. Every test of nuclear weapons adds to a global burden of released radioactivity (Ewing 1999).
Bulletin, By Sulgiye Park, Rodney C. Ewing, March 7, 2024
Since Trinity—the first atomic bomb test on the morning of July 16, 1945, near Alamogordo, New Mexico—the nuclear-armed states have conducted 2,056 nuclear tests (Kimball 2023). The United States led the way with 1,030 nuclear tests, or almost half of the total, between 1945 and 1992. Second is the former Soviet Union, with 715 tests between 1949 and 1990, and then France, with 210 tests between 1960 and 1996. Globally, nuclear tests culminated in a cumulative yield of over 500 megatons, which is equivalent to 500 million tons of TNT (Pravalie 2014). This surpasses by over 30,000 times the yield of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.
Atmospheric nuclear tests prevailed until the early 1960s, with bombs tested by various means: aircraft drops, rocket launches, suspension from balloons, and detonation atop towers above ground. Between 1945 and 1963, the Soviet Union conducted 219 atmospheric tests, followed by the United States (215), the United Kingdom (21), and France (3) (Kimball 2023).
In the early days of the nuclear age, little was known about the impacts of radioactive “fallout —the residual and activated radioactive material that falls to the ground after a nuclear explosion. The impacts became clearer in the 1950s, when the Kodak chemical company detected radioactive contamination on their film, which was linked to radiation resulting from the atmospheric nuclear tests (Sato et al. 2022). American scientists, like Barry Commoner, also discovered the presence of strontium 90 in children’s teeth originating from nuclear fallout thousands of kilometers from the original test site (Commoner 1959; Commoner 1958; Reiss 1961). These discoveries alerted scientists and the public to the consequences of radioactive fallout from underwater and atmospheric nuclear tests, particularly tests of powerful thermonuclear weapons that had single event yields of one megaton or greater.
Public concerns for the effects of radioactive contamination led to the Limited (or Partial) Test Ban Treaty, signed on August 5, 1963. The treaty restricted nuclear tests from air, space, and underwater (Atomic Heritage Foundation 2016; Loeb 1991; Rubinson 2011). And while the treaty was imperfect with only three signatories at the beginning (the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union), the ban succeeded in significantly curbing atmospheric release of radioactive isotopes.
After the entry into force of the partial test ban, almost 1,500 underground nuclear tests were conducted globally. Of the 1,030 US nuclear tests, nearly 80 percent, or 815 tests (See Table 1 on original ), were conducted underground, primarily at the Nevada Test Site.[1] As for other nuclear powers, the Soviet Union conducted 496 underground tests, mostly in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan, France conducted 160 underground tests, the United Kingdom conducted 24, and China 22. These underground nuclear tests were in a variety of geologic formations (e.g., basalt, alluvium, rhyolite, sandstone, shale) to depths up to 2,400 meters.
In 1996, after some international efforts to curb nuclear testing and promote disarmament, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was negotiated, which prohibited all nuclear explosions (General Assembly 1996). Since the negotiation of the CTBT, India and Pakistan conducted three and two underground nuclear tests, respectively, in 1998. And today, North Korea stands as the only country to have tested nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
While underground nuclear tests were chosen to limit atmospheric radioactive fallout, each test still caused dynamic and complex responses within crustal formations. Mechanical effects of underground nuclear tests span from the prompt post-detonation responses to the enduring impacts resulting in radionuclide release, dispersion, and migration through the geosphere. Every test of nuclear weapons adds to a global burden of released radioactivity (Ewing 1999)…………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………….. Containment failures and nuclear accidents
Underground nuclear tests are designed to limit radioactive fallout and surface effects. However, containment methods are not foolproof, and radioisotopes, which are elements with neutrons in excess making them unstable and radioactive, can leak into the surrounding environment and atmosphere, posing potential risks to ecosystems and human health.
Instances of radiation leaks were not uncommon…………………………………..
Unintended radioactive releases from underground nuclear tests occurred through venting or seeps, where fission products and radioactive materials were uncontrollably released, driven by pressure from shockwave-induced steam or gas. In rare cases, more serious nuclear accidents occurred due to incomplete geological assessments of the surrounding medium in preparation for the test. A notable example of accidental release is the Baneberry underground nuclear test on December 18, 1970, which, according to the federal government, resulted in an “unexpected and unrecognized abnormally high water content in the medium surrounding the detonation point” ……………………………………………………………………………………………
Mechanical and radiation effects of underground nuclear tests
Three main factors affect the mechanical responses of underground nuclear tests: the yield, the device placement (i.e., depth of burial, chamber geometry, and size), and the emplacement medium (i.e., rock type, water content, mineral compositions, physical properties, and tectonic structure). These factors influence the physical response of the surrounding geological formations and the extent of ground displacement, which, in turn, determine the radiation effects by influencing the timing and fate of the radioactive gas release.
Every kiloton of explosive yield produces approximately 60 grams (3 × 1012 fission product atoms) of radionuclides (Smith 1995; Glasstone and Dolan 1977). Between 1962 and 1992, underground nuclear tests had a total explosive yield of approximately 90 megatons (Pravalie 2014), producing nearly 5.4 metric tons of radionuclides. ……………………………………………….
……………………………..The partitioning of radionuclides between the melt glass and rubble significantly impacts the subsequent transfer of radioactivity to groundwater.
…………………………Temperatures produced by large explosions can change the permeability, porosity, and water storage capacity by creating new fractures, cavities, and chimneys……………………. The explosion also affects the porosity of the surrounding rock. For example, a fully contained explosion of 12.5-kiloton yield in Degelen Mountain at the former Soviet Union’s Semipalatinsk test site resulted in up to a six-fold increase in porosity within the crush zone surrounding the cavity (Adushkin and Spivak 2015). Increased permeability and porosity of the surrounding rock can lead to more radionuclides being released, as more groundwater can pass through the geologic formation.
Hydrogeology and release of radioactivity
The main way contaminants can be moved from underground test areas to the more accessible environment is through groundwater flow. …………………………………………..
Given their long half-lives (Table 2 on original ), the ability of plutonium isotopes to migrate over time raises concerns about the long-term impacts and challenges in managing radioactive contamination.
In all these cases, colloid-facilitated transport allowed for the migration of radioactive particles through groundwater flow over an extended period—long after the nuclear tests or discharge occurred (Novikov et al. 2006). ………………………
The risks associated with the environmental contamination from underground nuclear tests have often been considered low due to the slow movement of the groundwater and the long distance that separates it from publicly accessible groundwater supplies. But these studies demonstrate that apart from prompt effect of radioactive gas releases from instantaneous changes in geologic formations, long-term effects persist due to the evolving properties of the surrounding rocks long after the tests. Long-lived radionuclides can be remarkably mobile in the geosphere. Such findings underscore the necessity for sustained long-term monitoring efforts at and around nuclear test sites to evaluate the delayed impacts of underground nuclear testing on the environment and public health.
Enduring legacy
Nearly three decades after the five nuclear-armed states under the CTBT stopped testing nuclear weapons both in the atmosphere and underground, the effects of past tests persist in various forms—including environmental contamination, radiation exposure, and socio-economic repercussions—which continue to impact populations at and near closed nuclear test sites (Blume 2022). The concerns are greater when the test sites are abandoned without adequate environmental remediation. This was the case with the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan that was left unattended after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, before a secret multi-million effort was made by the United States, Russia, and Kazakhstan to secure the site (Hecker 2013). The abandonment resulted in heavy contamination of soil, water, and vegetation, posing significant risks to the local populations (Kassenova 2009).
In 1990, the US Congress acknowledged the health risks from nuclear testing by establishing the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which provides compensation to those affected by radioactive fallout from nuclear tests and uranium mining. Still, there are limitations and gaps in coverage that leave many impacted individuals, including the “downwinders” from the Trinity test site without compensation for their radiation exposure (Blume, 2023). The Act is set to expire in July 2024, potentially depriving many individuals without essential assistance. Over the past 30 years, the RECA fund paid out approximately $2.5 billion to impacted populations (Congressional Research Service 2022). For comparison, the US federal government spends $60 billion per year to maintain its nuclear forces (Congressional Budget Office 2021).
As the effects of nuclear testing still linger, today’s generations are witnessing an increasing concern at the possibility of a new arms race and potential resumption of nuclear testing (Drozdenko 2023; Diaz-Maurin 2023). The concern is heightened by activities in China and North Korea and with Russia rescinding its ratification of the CTBT. Even though the United States maintains a moratorium on non-subcritical nuclear tests, its decision not to ratify the test ban treaty shows a lack of international leadership and commitment. As global tensions and uncertainties arise, it is critical to ensure global security and minimize the risks to humans and the environment by enforcing comprehensive treaties like the CTBT. Transparency at nuclear test sites should be promoted, including those conducting very-low-yield subcritical tests, and the enduring impacts of past nuclear tests should be assessed and addressed.
Endnotes………………………………………………………………more https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/environmental-impacts-of-underground-nuclear-weapons-testing/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter04152024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_EnvironmentalImpactsNuclearTests_03072024
Biden Tells Netanyahu US Won’t Support Attack on Iran
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said that Biden also told Netanyahu “that the United States is going to continue to help Israel defend itself,” signaling the US would intervene again to help Israel if it does choose to escalate the situation and comes under another attack.
The US is portraying the Iranian attack as an Israeli victory
by Dave DeCamp April 14, 2024, https://news.antiwar.com/2024/04/14/biden-tells-netanyahu-us-wont-support-attack-on-iran/
President Biden told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the US wouldn’t join Israel in any offensive action against Iran, multiple media outlets have reported.
US officials are touting Israel’s defense of Iran’s attack as a victory, and that’s the message Biden conveyed to Netanyahu, a sign the US doesn’t want the situation to escalate. Iran fired over 300 missiles and drones at Israel, which was a response to Israel’s bombing of Iran’s consulate in Damascus on April 1.
“Israel really came out far ahead in this exchange. It took out the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp] leadership in the Levant, Iran tried to respond, and Israel clearly demonstrated its military superiority, defeating this attack, particularly in coordination with its partners,” a senior Biden administration official told reporters, according to The Times of Israel.
In a statement on the attack released by the White House, Biden said he would convene with other G7 leaders to “coordinate a united diplomatic response to Iran’s brazen attack.”
Israeli officials claimed 99% of the Iranian missiles and drones were intercepted by Israeli air defense systems and with assistance from the US, Britain, and Jordan. Some missiles got through and damaged the Nevatim Airbase in southern Israel. Only one person was injured in the attack, a seven-year-old Bedouin girl in the Negev, and nobody was killed.
Iran gave Israel plenty of time to respond to the attack by announcing it fired the drones hours before they reached Israeli territory, and Tehran said it gave other regional countries a 72-hour notice. Iranian officials said the attack was “limited” and made clear they do not seek an escalation with Israel.
But Tehran is also warning it will launch an even bigger attack if Israel responds. “If the Zionist regime or its supporters demonstrate reckless behavior, they will receive a decisive and much stronger response,” Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi said in a statement on Sunday.
While the US is signaling it seeks de-escalation and won’t support a potential Israeli attack on Iran, it’s unclear what Israel will do next. The Israeli war cabinet convened to discuss the situation on Sunday, and Israeli media reports said they agreed a response would come but didn’t decide on where or when.
Israeli War Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz vowed Israel would respond but signaled it wouldn’t be imminent. Gantz said the “event is not over” and that Israel should “build a regional coalition and exact a price from Iran, in a way and at a time that suits us.”
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said that Biden also told Netanyahu “that the United States is going to continue to help Israel defend itself,” signaling the US would intervene again to help Israel if it does choose to escalate the situation and comes under another attack.
Israel’s bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria killed 13 people, including seven members of the IRGC. Israel has a history of conducting covert attacks inside Iran and killing Iranians in Syria, but the bombing of the diplomatic facility marked a huge escalation.
The short march to China’s hydrogen bomb
Bulletin, April 11, 2024. (very lengthy historic and technical detail. Good graphics)
On December 28, 1966, China successfully conducted its first hydrogen bomb test—only two years and two months after the successful explosion of its first atomic bomb. In so doing, China became the fastest among the five initial nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France, collectively known as P5) to pass from its first atomic bomb explosion to a first hydrogen bomb detonation.
There is still very limited knowledge in Western literature about how China built its first H-bomb. Based on newly available information—including Chinese blogs, memoirs, and other publicly available publications—this account reconstructs the history of how China made a breakthrough in understanding hydrogen bomb principles and built its first H-bomb—without foreign help.
Beyond the previously untold story of China’s early exploration of the hydrogen bomb theory, the article also explores in detail the so-called “100 days in Shanghai”—a milestone of China’s hydrogen bomb development—and describes the efforts that led to a series of three nuclear tests that happened in 1966 and 1967 and that are often called “the trilogy” of the H-bomb development in China.
Early explorations
Moscow’s broken promise
China officially started its nuclear weapon program on January 15, 1955.[1] About two years later, China and the Soviet Union signed the New Defense Technical Accord in Moscow. Under that agreement, Moscow would provide Beijing with a prototype of an atomic bomb model and relevant technical materials. In June 1959, however, as many major relevant facilities in the Chinese nuclear weapon program were at the peak of construction, Soviet-Sino relations deteriorated,[2] and Moscow sent a letter to Beijing formally announcing it would not provide the promised model and data. From the second half of 1959 onward, the Second Ministry of Machine Building Industry—China’s government ministry overseeing the nuclear industry—followed central government policy and relied on the country’s own capabilities to complete the task of developing the atomic bomb.[3]
In early 1960, the weaponeers of the Beijing institute of nuclear weapon research—called the Ninth Institute and placed under the leadership of the Second Ministry[4]—started to explore atomic bomb science and technology. As those weaponeers started working hard on the atomic bomb program, then-Minister of the Second Ministry Liu Jie began considering ways to conduct the nation’s hydrogen bomb development. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
On January 7, 1965, Liu Jie delivered a speech at the meeting of the Second Ministry, conveying Mao’s new instructions to the audience: “If we have hydrogen bombs and missiles, wars may not be fought, and peace will be more secure. We make the atomic bombs but will not be too many. It will be used to scare [enemies] and embolden [ourselves].” Mao also said that “it still needs three years to have the hydrogen bomb, which is too slow.” [23]
……………………………………… On February 3, 1965, the Second Ministry set the goal of testing the first hydrogen bomb device in 1968.[25]………………………………………………
…………………From February 1965 onward, the weaponeers tried different routes and proposed different ideas, but none was successful. ………………………………………………………………………
Gathering in Shanghai
In late September 1965, Yu Min and over 50 researchers gathered in Shanghai for what may have been the most intense period in the development of the hydrogen bomb………………….
……………………………….For nearly 100 days—and nights—all the physicists, mathematicians, and research assistants gathered in Shanghai would arrange shifts and take turns in the computer room around the clock to solve problems.[43]
…………………………………………………………………………….The group in Shanghai also continued the optimization design work of the boosted three-phase hydrogen aerial bomb.
Finally, in early January 1966, the researchers returned to Beijing with the new hydrogen bomb principle they had sought so hard for nearly 100 days and nights in Shanghai.
Testing the Bomb
………………………………………………..A new two-year plan included preparations for three nuclear tests that aimed for a breakthrough in confirming the H-bomb principle.
………………………….Low-yield hydrogen bomb (device 629).………………………………………………………………………………………………On December 28, 1966, the hydrogen bomb device 629-1 successfully exploded.[70]
………………..Third test: Full-yield hydrogen bomb (device 639)
…………………………………………………………………………………………..On June 17, 1967, China successfully conducted its first hydrogen bomb (device 639) air-burst test, which was coded operation 21-73……………………………..
more https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/the-short-march-to-chinas-hydrogen-bomb/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter04152024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_ChinaHydrogenBomb_04112024
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (64)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
