When it comes to arms supplies, the US is its friends’ worst enemy.
Rt.com 9 Oct 23 #Ukraine
Throughout recent history, the perceived weapon of choice for a terrorist (or freedom fighter, depending on one’s perspective) has been an AK-47 assault rifle. Today, in the aftermath of the so-called post-9/11 “global war on terror,” it’s not uncommon to see such fighters with a Glock 9mm pistol, or a Colt M4 carbine.
These are weapons paid-for by the US taxpayer and ostensibly provided to forces joined in the cause of defeating terrorists and/or freedom fighters (again, depending on the political beliefs of the observer), but that end up in the hands of the latter instead. Obviously, that is never the outcome Washington intends. And yet, somehow, these weapons end up arming the very forces the US and its allies are trying to defeat.
The most recent example of this phenomenon appears to involve Hamas and the attacks perpetrated by militants affiliated with that organization on military and civilian targets in southern Israel. A video, the authenticity of which has yet to be verified, purports to show a Hamas fighter thanking Ukraine for the provision of small arms, ammunition, and hand grenades. More videos, taken during the actual assaults, show the Hamas fighters armed with a plethora of US-made weapons.
These videos have alarmed some US lawmakers, such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia’s 14th District, who, in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack, Tweeted/Xeeted “We need to work with Israel to track serial numbers on any US weapons used by Hamas against Israel. Did they come from Afghanistan?” the Congresswoman asks. “Did they come from Ukraine? Highly likely the answer is both.”
Any attempt to answer Marjorie Taylor Greene’s questions will more than likely turn up information that should make the US government very uncomfortable. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been saying since June of this year that US-made anti-tank weapons intended for Ukraine were turning up on the Israeli border. Left unsaid by Netanyahu was how this had come to be – corruption is rampant inside Ukraine, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has reported on hundreds of millions of dollars of aid being diverted into the hands of parties it was not originally intended for. By my calculations based on conversations with numerous informed sources, the amount diverted could be as high as six out of every ten dollars of assistance sent to Ukraine. It’s one thing if this involves money; it’s another thing altogether if this involves weapons.
The wide availability of US-made weapons on the global black market used by terrorists/freedom fighters to arm themselves is reflective of the lax approach the US takes when it comes to providing military assistance to parties involved in active combat. The US appears to be more interested in reinforcing the political messaging attached to such deliveries–that the US is actively supporting friends in need. The actual security-related aspects of this effort, however, seem to escape most senior US policy makers.
This became evident in May 2022, when Rand Paul, a Republican Senator from Kentucky, tried to have an inspector general put in place to monitor and account for some $40 billion in military assistance to Ukraine requested by President Joe Biden. Senator Paul’s motion was overwhelmingly defeated by a Congress which appeared to be happy to assume a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” posture when it came to the issue of Ukraine and corruption.
The issue of US weapons falling into the hands of persons not only for whom the weapons were not intended, but –more critically– into the hands of people the weapons were intended to fight against, who then use them against American allies, is not a new one………………………………………….
The reality is that the US has become one of the major sources of weapons for terrorists/freedom fighters around the world. While Marjorie Taylor Greene is correct to demand answers when it comes to the issue of the security of Israel, a long-time American ally, the same questions can be asked about virtually every security assistance program instituted by the US in the post-9/11 era. It appears that America’s approach to fighting the global war on terror has ended up making those whom it calls terrorists more capable of carrying out the acts of violence US policy portends to be trying to stop. The sad truth is that America, in its rush to arm the world, in many ways ends up being its friends’ worst enemy. https://www.rt.com/news/584413-hamas-fighters-us-weapons/
With the role of nuclear powers in maintaining global order and its ongoing arms race, it’s unsurprising that the United States has its eyes on Russia’s ongoing development of nuclear-powered missiles. However, it’s also a little more personal, especially because the United States had canceled a similar project more than half a century earlier: Project Pluto.
……………………………………………………………………………………… What is Project Pluto?
……………………. In 1961, the United States successfully unveiled the revolutionary Tory IIA-I in the midst of the Cold War. Mounted on top of a railroad car, it marked the world’s first nuclear ramjet engine when it came to life for just a few seconds. Three years later, the U.S. tested the Tory II-C, which was able to run for five minutes at full power — generating 513 megawatts or 35,000 pounds of thrust.
In theory, this marked a game-changing innovation for nuclear-powered missiles. However, coming off the heels of the success from the Tory II-C testing, the U.S. Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission canceled Project Pluto for good. So, what made the U.S. Air Force change its mind?
The beginning of the end for Project Pluto
Despite spending $260 million for its budget, Project Pluto’s sponsors cited fears that the project would be dangerous to even its allies, doing things such as “deafen, flatten, and irradiate people” en route to its target (even before the bomb drops).
SCIENCE Why The US Canceled Project Pluto: The Super Weapon That Never Was Romolotavani/Getty Images BY QUINA BATERNA/OCT. 8, 2023 7:45 AM EST With the role of nuclear powers in maintaining global order and its ongoing arms race, it’s unsurprising that the United States has its eyes on Russia’s ongoing development of nuclear-powered missiles. However, it’s also a little more personal, especially because the United States had canceled a similar project more than half a century earlier: Project Pluto.
In 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the development of several innovative nuclear weapons, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile. In his presidential address, Putin claimed that Russia’s innovations would make NATO missile defense systems “useless.” Citing the United States’ withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, Putin reiterates that its ongoing response is reactionary to the increasing range and proximity of the U.S. global missile defense systems to Russian borders.
A year later, The New York Times published an article stating U.S. officials suspected a nuclear blast from Russia’s Nenoksa Missile Test Site was one of the worst nuclear accidents in the region since Chernobyl. Reports claim that at least seven people were killed in the explosion, including five scientists (via The Bulletin). Here’s how it could have been inspired by the United States’ Project Pluto, and why it may cause problems.
What is Project Pluto? Nevada National Security Site For decades, the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) has had an extensive history of supporting U.S. national security through nuclear testing. The base has served as a testing site for several types of new weapons, such as the Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile (SLAM) using nuclear ramjet power: codenamed Project Pluto.
In a 2013 brochure, the NNSS claimed that the principles behind the ramjet power used nuclear heat in combination with the force from the air in front of a vehicle to make it expand. Afterward, its exhaust provides the thrust necessary to fly and create impact.
In 1961, the United States successfully unveiled the revolutionary Tory IIA-I in the midst of the Cold War. Mounted on top of a railroad car, it marked the world’s first nuclear ramjet engine when it came to life for just a few seconds. Three years later, the U.S. tested the Tory II-C, which was able to run for five minutes at full power — generating 513 megawatts or 35,000 pounds of thrust.
In theory, this marked a game-changing innovation for nuclear-powered missiles. However, coming off the heels of the success from the Tory II-C testing, the U.S. Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission canceled Project Pluto for good. So, what made the U.S. Air Force change its mind?
The beginning of the end for Project Pluto Federal Government of the United States (via Wikimedia) Despite spending $260 million for its budget, Project Pluto’s sponsors cited fears that the project would be dangerous to even its allies, doing things such as “deafen, flatten, and irradiate people” en route to its target (even before the bomb drops).
Aside from this, it’s possible that additional testing requirements and manufacturing risks may have also come into consideration. In an interview with Scientific American, Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program shared, “They had a proof-of-principle reactor on the ground, but my impression is that at the time the project was canceled there was probably still a substantial amount of engineering work that needed to be done, not to mention flight testing.”
According to the NNSS brochure, one of the key challenges that scientists cited was the materials used for the reactor. While typically used at the time, concrete made it difficult for missiles to fly long trips towards targets. In addition, materials needed to be able to withstand incredible heat to avoid damaging the structural integrity of the missile.
SCIENCE Why The US Canceled Project Pluto: The Super Weapon That Never Was Romolotavani/Getty Images BY QUINA BATERNA/OCT. 8, 2023 7:45 AM EST With the role of nuclear powers in maintaining global order and its ongoing arms race, it’s unsurprising that the United States has its eyes on Russia’s ongoing development of nuclear-powered missiles. However, it’s also a little more personal, especially because the United States had canceled a similar project more than half a century earlier: Project Pluto.
In 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the development of several innovative nuclear weapons, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile. In his presidential address, Putin claimed that Russia’s innovations would make NATO missile defense systems “useless.” Citing the United States’ withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, Putin reiterates that its ongoing response is reactionary to the increasing range and proximity of the U.S. global missile defense systems to Russian borders.
A year later, The New York Times published an article stating U.S. officials suspected a nuclear blast from Russia’s Nenoksa Missile Test Site was one of the worst nuclear accidents in the region since Chernobyl. Reports claim that at least seven people were killed in the explosion, including five scientists (via The Bulletin). Here’s how it could have been inspired by the United States’ Project Pluto, and why it may cause problems.
What is Project Pluto? Nevada National Security Site For decades, the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) has had an extensive history of supporting U.S. national security through nuclear testing. The base has served as a testing site for several types of new weapons, such as the Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile (SLAM) using nuclear ramjet power: codenamed Project Pluto.
In a 2013 brochure, the NNSS claimed that the principles behind the ramjet power used nuclear heat in combination with the force from the air in front of a vehicle to make it expand. Afterward, its exhaust provides the thrust necessary to fly and create impact.
In 1961, the United States successfully unveiled the revolutionary Tory IIA-I in the midst of the Cold War. Mounted on top of a railroad car, it marked the world’s first nuclear ramjet engine when it came to life for just a few seconds. Three years later, the U.S. tested the Tory II-C, which was able to run for five minutes at full power — generating 513 megawatts or 35,000 pounds of thrust.
In theory, this marked a game-changing innovation for nuclear-powered missiles. However, coming off the heels of the success from the Tory II-C testing, the U.S. Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission canceled Project Pluto for good. So, what made the U.S. Air Force change its mind?
The beginning of the end for Project Pluto Federal Government of the United States (via Wikimedia) Despite spending $260 million for its budget, Project Pluto’s sponsors cited fears that the project would be dangerous to even its allies, doing things such as “deafen, flatten, and irradiate people” en route to its target (even before the bomb drops).
Aside from this, it’s possible that additional testing requirements and manufacturing risks may have also come into consideration. In an interview with Scientific American, Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program shared, “They had a proof-of-principle reactor on the ground, but my impression is that at the time the project was canceled there was probably still a substantial amount of engineering work that needed to be done, not to mention flight testing.”
According to the NNSS brochure, one of the key challenges that scientists cited was the materials used for the reactor. While typically used at the time, concrete made it difficult for missiles to fly long trips towards targets. In addition, materials needed to be able to withstand incredible heat to avoid damaging the structural integrity of the missile.
To manage this, Coors Porcelain Company (now CoorsTek) — an offshoot of the famous American brewery and beer company — designed solutions with ceramics. According to a 1996 case filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, 18,681.5 kilograms of beryllium were used in Project Pluto to fabricate 500,000 beryllium and beryllium-uranium fuel elements. However, this didn’t come without risks, with its workers acquiring chronic beryllium disease (CBD) years later.
Is the nuclear dream still alive?
While there was a time in history when nuclear energy powering everything was the goal, there’s a reason why America doesn’t build more nuclear power plants. With issues in regulation, increasing manufacturing prices, and growing renewable energy alternatives, there are increasingly more effective options for powering our machines — as well as our weapons…………………….. https://www.slashgear.com/1410540/us-canceled-project-pluto-why/–
Space-based weapons and nuclear-powered space vehicles might seem the stuff of Science Fiction but many of the leading militaries in the world now have ‘Space Commands’, an armed service dedicated ‘dominance’ in the world of space. Representatives from the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities heard today about the threat to peace now being posed by the increasing militarisation of space.
Professor Emeritus Dave Webb was the guest speaker at the October meeting of the NFLA Steering Committee. Dave is the former Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and is now the Convenor of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. Established in 1992, the network is an international body of academics and activists opposed to the militarisation and the use of nuclear power in space.
In 1999, the United Nations General Assembly declared that October 4-10 every year would be designated as ‘World Space Week’ to ‘celebrate the contributions of space science and technology to the betterment of the human condition’; in response the Global Network designates 7-14 October as ‘Keep Space for Peace Week’.
Despite being signatories to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which prohibits nuclear weapons in space; limits the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes; establishes that space shall be freely explored and used by all nations; and precludes any country from claiming sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body, many of the world’s leading powers have established new military commands to establish a presence in space.
With communications, navigation, command-and-control, surveillance, espionage, and the detection of threats being reliant on signals beamed from space, each of the world’s major powers wants to be able to ensure that its satellites remain safe from electronic interference, sabotage, or destruction, whilst over time being able to develop the capability to destroy those of their adversaries in time of war.
As militarisation continues, tensions between the powers engaged in this space race will increase and so war will become more likely. This year’s theme for ‘Keep Space for Peace Week’ reflects one such source of tension – the increasingly crowded skies above our Earth.
Professor Webb explains: “This year we are highlighting the danger posed to peace by our crowded Low Earth Orbit.
“In 1985 – 1988, there were about 5,000 – 6,000 objects in orbit, there are now about 27,000 and this figure is increasing rapidly. Elon Musk’s Space X has launched about 12,000 satellites and various other companies are now planning 71,000 more.
“The United States being especially aggressive in working to secure as many of the remaining slots as possible, seeking to freeze out its rivals generating resentment. The Global Network is currently engaged in legal action in the US to pressure the Federal Communications Commission to follow the law and conduct environmental impacts assessments before approving any further launches,
6th October 2023
Star Wars? Learned professor speaks of threat to peace in space
Space-based weapons and nuclear-powered space vehicles might seem the stuff of Science Fiction but many of the leading militaries in the world now have ‘Space Commands’, an armed service dedicated ‘dominance’ in the world of space. Representatives from the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities heard today about the threat to peace now being posed by the increasing militarisation of space.
Professor Emeritus Dave Webb was the guest speaker at the October meeting of the NFLA Steering Committee. Dave is the former Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and is now the Convenor of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. Established in 1992, the network is an international body of academics and activists opposed to the militarisation and the use of nuclear power in space.
In 1999, the United Nations General Assembly declared that October 4-10 every year would be designated as ‘World Space Week’ to ‘celebrate the contributions of space science and technology to the betterment of the human condition’; in response the Global Network designates 7-14 October as ‘Keep Space for Peace Week’.
Despite being signatories to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which prohibits nuclear weapons in space; limits the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes; establishes that space shall be freely explored and used by all nations; and precludes any country from claiming sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body, many of the world’s leading powers have established new military commands to establish a presence in space.
With communications, navigation, command-and-control, surveillance, espionage, and the detection of threats being reliant on signals beamed from space, each of the world’s major powers wants to be able to ensure that its satellites remain safe from electronic interference, sabotage, or destruction, whilst over time being able to develop the capability to destroy those of their adversaries in time of war.
As militarisation continues, tensions between the powers engaged in this space race will increase and so war will become more likely. This year’s theme for ‘Keep Space for Peace Week’ reflects one such source of tension – the increasingly crowded skies above our Earth.
Professor Webb explains: “This year we are highlighting the danger posed to peace by our crowded Low Earth Orbit.
“In 1985 – 1988, there were about 5,000 – 6,000 objects in orbit, there are now about 27,000 and this figure is increasing rapidly. Elon Musk’s Space X has launched about 12,000 satellites and various other companies are now planning 71,000 more.
“The United States being especially aggressive in working to secure as many of the remaining slots as possible, seeking to freeze out its rivals generating resentment. The Global Network is currently engaged in legal action in the US to pressure the Federal Communications Commission to follow the law and conduct environmental impacts assessments before approving any further launches,
“NASA scientists have warned that growing space debris could lead to likely-cascading collisions in orbit, however accidental. This ‘Kessler Syndrome’ could lead to military tensions as collisions would often involve space vehicles of competing nations, and retaliation and further escalation might result.”
In readiness for possible future warfighting in space, the UK Government has also established a Space Command as the fourth branch of the armed forces, with a mission to ‘protect and defend UK and allied interests in, from, and to space’.
UK government funding is also backing research at the Universities of Bangor and Southampton to develop nuclear propulsion systems for the next generation of rockets and Rolls Royce has received a grant to develop a nuclear power plant for deployment at a future crewed moon-base. In addition, seven space ports are in development in the UK, five in Scotland, one in Snowdonia, and one at Newquay.
The NFLAs have real worries about the use of the space ports for military purposes and the deployment of nuclear power in space.
NFLA Steering Committee Chair, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill explained: “With new space ports, UK Space Command will be looking to deploy more military spy satellites to further its mission, but over time a new generation of military space vehicles may be developed with the capacity to carry conventional or non-conventional weapons. Although this might seem fanciful, this pattern has been followed with drones.
“At first these unmanned aerial vehicles were used for surveillance, but they have since been developed into formidable weapons platforms bristling with missiles, with strikes guided by anonymous remote operators located thousands of miles from the battlefield; coupled with AI, they would be more formidable still as a robot never tires nor has second thoughts. Who is to say that space vehicles will not be developed in a same pattern, if left unchecked?”
The NFLAs are also concerned that a British manned moon base might be usurped for military, rather than altruistic scientific, purposes, and that any use of nuclear power there will lead to the contamination of space and the lunar surface, and pose a real of radioactive contamination if an explosion took place on Earth.
Cllr O’Neill concluded: “Any failed launch or re-entry of a nuclear-powered space vehicle could, if an explosion occurred, lead to the dispersal of radioactive contamination into our atmosphere. This fear was one of the reasons cited by the advisory body CORWM, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, for not recommending to government any plan to blast radioactive waste into space.
“These are the many reasons why it is so important that we Keep Space for Peace.”
“We were not the ones who organized a bloody coup in Kiev; it wasn’t us who intimidated the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents with Nazi-style ethnic purges. We weren’t the ones who tried to force the Donbass to obey using shellings and bombings. We were not the ones who threatened violence against those who wanted to speak their native language,”
Rt.com 6 Oct 23
The president stressed that the Ukraine conflict is not about expansion
The conflict with Ukraine is not driven by territorial ambitions, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted in a speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club on Thursday.
Putin stressed that Russia is already the largest country in the world and therefore is not motivated by seeking new lands.
He noted that Russia still has a lot of work to do in developing the remote Siberian and the Far Eastern regions…….
The Russian leader insisted that a lasting peace can only be established when “everyone feels safe and knows that their opinion is respected.”
Elsewhere in his speech, Putin said that Russia was not the one that initiated the conflict in Ukraine, but is instead trying to put an end to it.
“We were not the ones who organized a bloody coup in Kiev; it wasn’t us who intimidated the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents with Nazi-style ethnic purges. We weren’t the ones who tried to force the Donbass to obey using shellings and bombings. We were not the ones who threatened violence against those who wanted to speak their native language,” Putin said, stressing that it was Kiev that used tanks and artillery to wage war against the Donbass.
Despite civilians and children being killed in Donbass long before Russia launched its military operation last year, no other countries, especially in the West, paid any attention to this or shed any tears for them, the president said.
“The war started by the Kiev regime with the active, direct support of the West is now in its tenth year,” Putin noted. “The special military operation is aimed at stopping it.”
The four-day 20th anniversary meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club has been taking place in Sochi since October 2. The end of the forum is marked by a plenary session. Its participants include politicians, scientists, and social activists, including foreign guests. https://www.rt.com/russia/584093-no-new-lands-russia/
CNN, By Mariya Knight, October 6, 2023 #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said Friday that by arming Ukraine, the United States is pushing Russia toward using nuclear weapons.
“I am getting the impression – I say again that it is my opinion – that Americans are pushing Russians toward using the most terrifying weapon. They arm Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky and his army and provide long-range missiles. Even missiles able to fly for 300 km (186 miles),” Lukashenko said during his visit to a military facility in the Brest region.
Lukashenko added that if such a missile struck Russian territory, Moscow would have to respond.
“One such attack deep into the Russian territory and the response will be colossal. Otherwise, why do we need these (nuclear) weapons for?,” Lukashenko said.
According to him, the fanning of tensions between the countries could lead to a situation when Russia “will take out the red button and put it on the table.”
He added that Americans didn’t fear for their safety “because they are across the ocean.”
Lukashenko’s comments came after Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday it was possible to revoke the ratification of a treaty banning nuclear tests.
The day after Putin’s comments, Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said the State Duma Council “will definitely discuss the issue of revoking ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty” at their next meeting.
Lukashenko also commented on the uncertain fate of US Congress aid for Ukraine, calling it a signal for Ukraine “to hurry up, expand the scope of the counteroffensive and throw more young men there.”
The incident raises serious concerns about the safety of submarine missions and the readiness of governments to seek international assistance in times of such crises. It also raises questions about the effectiveness of defense systems and their potential to backfire
55 Chinese sailors are feared dead in a tragic incident involving a nuclear submarine in the Yellow Sea. According to a confidential UK report, the submarine became entangled in a trap set up for Western sub-surface vessels, leading to a catastrophic system failure and the poisoning of the crew. Despite the severity of the situation, the Chinese government has officially denied the incident’s occurrence, and it appears that international assistance for the stranded submarine was declined.
The fatal accident occurred on August 21st, during a mission in the Yellow Sea. The submarine collided with a chain and anchor obstacle, resulting in system failures that took six hours to repair and bring the vessel to the surface. As a result of these system failures, the onboard oxygen system malfunctioned catastrophically, leading to the poisoning of the crew and the subsequent loss of life.
The Echoes of Past Submarine Catastrophes
This incident brings to mind the Kursk catastrophe, where over 100 Russian sailors died in an explosion aboard their nuclear submarine in August 2000. Initially, the Kremlin denied reports of the incident and declined assistance from Britain and Norway until it was too late to save those trapped inside the vessel. The Kursk disaster remains the biggest in submarine history with 118 lives lost.
Similarly, the Chinese government has refuted speculations about the incident as completely false, and Taiwan has also denied internet reports. The UK report on the incident is highly classified and based on defense intelligence. Despite official denials, it is believed that the incident did occur and that China declined international support.
Implications of the Submarine Disaster
The incident raises serious concerns about the safety of submarine missions and the readiness of governments to seek international assistance in times of such crises. It also raises questions about the effectiveness of defense systems and their potential to backfire, as in this case where the Chinese submarine was ensnared by its own trap intended for foreign vessels. The incident also highlights the importance of transparency in reporting such catastrophic events, as the refusal to acknowledge the incident only fuels speculation and mistrust.
The Human Cost of the Tragedy
Among the deceased are the captain of the Chinese PLA Navy Submarine 093-417 and 21 other officers. The loss of such a large number of naval personnel in a single incident is a devastating blow to the Chinese Navy and a stark reminder of the dangers that submarine crews face. As investigations continue, the world waits for definitive confirmation of the incident and its implications for international submarine operations.
The UK has run out of military equipment that it can give to Ukraine, according to a senior British military source speaking to The Telegraph.
“We’ve given away just about as much as we can afford,” the unnamed source told the paper, adding that the UK had a role to play in encouraging other nations to continue arming Ukraine.
“We will continue to source equipment to provide for Ukraine, but what they need now is things like air defense assets and artillery ammunition, and we’ve run dry on all that,” the source said.
The UK has been a staunch supporter of the proxy war in Ukraine and has led many escalations in NATO support, including the provision of Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which have a range of 155 miles, and toxic depleted uranium ammunition for use with British-made Challenger 2 tanks.
The Telegraph report came after Ben Wallace, who resigned as defense secretary last month, said he urged Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to spend billions more so Britain could overtake Germany as Ukraine’s top supporter in Europe. The source speaking to The Telegraph said the onus should not be on London to provide the “billions” Wallace has called for. “Giving billions more doesn’t mean giving billions of British kit,” the source said.
The UK’s lack of arms for Ukraine is the latest sign that NATO support for the proxy war is fracturing. Poland recently declared it would no longer provide Ukraine with weapons over a grain spat, Slovakia elected a candidate who campaigned on ending military support for Ukraine, and Congress still has yet to authorize the additional $24 billion in spending on the war that President Biden is seeking.
By Robert C. KoehlerWednesday, October 4th, 2023 #Ukraine #nuclear #nuclear-free #anti-nuclear #NoNukes
“………………………………What would shut down if Congress choked off funding? The Department of Defense informed the nation: “During a government shutdown, DOD still must continue to defend and protect the United States and conduct on-going military operations.”
The superficial certainty of these words jolted me. This was cliché writ large: “continue to defend and protect the United States.” The words took American vulnerability for granted, summoning a basic national lie. Nations are always in conflict. The need for armed defense — “ongoing military operations” — is a basic truth and must not be questioned.
A Pentagon spokesman assured us that “the U.S. military is going to continue to do its job and protect our national security interests.”
What “interests” are being referenced? The untouched cliché is the fact of an ever-hostile world. National interests are things like, you know: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The larger world hates this! The Defense Department’s assurances have the depth of a third-grade coloring book.
And an NPR story noted that a shutdown would strategically “play into the hands of U.S. competitors” — China, Russia, etc. — and, uh oh, we can’t let that happen, right?
In my unprotected emotional state, the shallowness of such “warnings” was almost too much to bear. Global warming, the threat of nuclear war — that’s stuff for another story. This story is about national defense, which requires a seriously limited understanding of our enemies and competitors. This is about winning and losing — abstractly, of course. Don’t think about the corpses that are piling up.
Why, oh why, I found myself quietly screaming, does militarism and national “defense” always get a free pass or a quick shrug? Why is killing for peace so easily taken for granted? As we approach the sixtieth anniversary of the JFK assassination, I found myself reaching out to the words he spoke in his inaugural address: “So let us begin anew — remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
Kennedy, in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, also said, in defiance of the defense establishment: “So, let us not be blind to our differences — but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
I quoted these words recently in a column but they are too valuable to let go, especially in this criminally simplified world of “global competition.” We know the world is far more complex than that — unless we’re talking about U.S. militarism. Then our awareness returns to the third grade, or earlier. ………………………..
No one wants to be the first to test a nuclear weapon, but everyone wants to be second
Popular Mechanics BY KYLE MIZOKAMI OCT 4, 2023 #nuclear #anti-nuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
Recent satellite photos of nuclear test sites in the United States, Russia, and China indicate that all three countries are taking steps to refurbish their nuclear weapons testing sites. None have conducted tests since the 1990s, but all three have viable reasons for resuming testing. One major obstacle to the resumption is the diplomatic and political fallout that would accompany such a test, as the rest of the world would condemn it.
A Three-Way Standoff
CNN asked experts to review images of U.S., Russian, and Chinese nuclear test sites taken from commercial Planet satellites. The experts concluded that there was increased activity at all three sites, including “new tunnels under mountains, new roads and storage facilities, as well as increased vehicle traffic coming in and out of the sites.”
Nuclear tests are typically conducted underground in order to contain the blast and radioactivity, which can be carried by winds and endanger nearby populations. Mountains are particularly useful as testers can dig horizontally, not vertically, to create a space to contain the explosion.
The United States conducted its last nuclear test in 1992, the Soviet Union in 1990, and China in 1996. (Russia inherited the Soviet Union’s nuclear stockpile.) The three countries, which together account for more than 92 percent of all nuclear weapons worldwide, have for decades refrained from testing nukes in what amounts to an unofficial ban. A Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty banning all nuclear weapons explosions exists but has not entered into force because eight countries, including the United States, have not ratified it.
In other words, there is no legal reason why a country can’t test a nuclear weapon. Still, although each of the “big three” countries has reasons why it would want to resume testing, none have so far done so—nobody wants the international condemnation that would accompany the resumption of testing.
United States’ Nuclear Weapons
The United States has 5,244 nuclear warheads divided into eight types, equipping land-based missiles, bombers, and submarines. The U.S. is fairly confident in the reliability of its nuclear arsenal, but there always could be an unseen flaw that would prevent a nuclear weapon from achieving its designated yield—its full explosive power. More nuclear testing could also help fully unlock the secrets of how nukes work.
The U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense have developed two new weapon types, the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb and the W76-2 submarine-launched missile warhead, without actually setting one off. Both warheads are derivatives of existing designs: the B61-12 is just the latest in the long line of B61 bombs dating back to the 1960s, while the W76-2 is a derivative of the W76 warhead featuring a much smaller explosive yield.
Russia’s Nuclear Weapons
Russia fields 5,589 nuclear warheads divided into ten or more types, ranging from strategic weapons mounted on long-range missiles, bombers, and submarines to low-yield tactical nuclear weapons delivered by rocket and cruise missile. The current Russian government has never tested a nuclear weapon, but Russia inherited nuclear weapons, facilities, and experts when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991……………………………
China’s Nuclear Weapons
China is likely the country that has the most to gain from the resumption of nuclear weapon tests. China has a standing arsenal of 410 nuclear weapons, with as few as four to six different warhead types. China ceased testing in 1996, and at the time had the most primitive arsenal of the three powers. Unlike the U.S. and Russia, China mainly sought high-yield, reliable bombs to offset the poor accuracy of its missiles.
China is in the midst of a nuclear arms buildup, having added about 100 to 150 warheads in the past decade. It has also added several new types of delivery systems, including the DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile, the JL-3 submarine-launched missile, and the highly anticipated H-20 stealth bomber. Beijing will likely want new, smaller warheads for these systems, particularly if it wants a single missile capable of nuking multiple targets.
While computer modeling and prediction could give China a degree of confidence that a new warhead design works, nobody will know for sure until it is tested.
The Takeaway
The current nuclear testing situation is in a standoff, with the three biggest nuclear powers waiting to see who, if anyone, tests first. Each has their own reasons to resume nuclear testing, but none want the stigma of being the first to break the informal ban. The second country to test would attract much less attention, and the third country even less. While we don’t know when the first new test will take place, the second test by another country will likely follow very quickly afterward.
Saudi Arabia is making a push for nuclear power as part of any US-brokered pact with Israel – and Riyadh won’t be shy about seeking what it wants.
Breaking Defense, By RIAD KAHWAJIon October 02, 2023 #nuclear #anti-nuclear @=#nuclear-free #NoNukes
DUBAI — With Saudi Arabia making clear its desire for nuclear power, the Middle East could find itself on the edge of a potential nuclear arms race — one in which the Kingdom attempts to play the great powers off each other in order to achieve its goals.
Right now, the Kingdom is nowhere near having a operative nuclear program. But Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman raised eyebrows in a late September interview when he said that if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon “we will have to get one.”
The timing of MBS’ statement was noteworthy for many analysts who believe it reflected a growing concern of the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program and to capitalize on the push by Washington and Tel Aviv to normalize relations with Riyadh by making the establishment of a Saudi nuclear program with full fuel cycle as a conditional step……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The concern among nonproliferation advocates: there is no reason to think the Saudis will be content with keeping the program purely civil, especially after MBS’ public statements about seeking a bomb…………………………………
Given MBS’ statement, there seems to be little doubt among experts that given a civil nuclear program, the Kingdom would seriously consider nuclear weapons.
Kiev wants “self-sufficiency” as arms supplies dwindle, but will need billions in Western aid to fund it, the news outlet has said
EU countries have given Ukraine all the arms they can without compromising their own defense, Politico has reported, citing a European official. Kiev is facing cuts to both arms supplies and cash injections as “cracks appear” in Western support, according to the outlet.
“We cannot keep on giving from our own stockpiles,” the European source said as quoted on Monday. There may still be robust political support, but “we’ve given everything that will not endanger our own security.”
The comment was made to Politico as part of its coverage of last week’s International Industries Defense Forum in Kiev, during which the hosts went on a “charm offensive directed at weapons-makers,” as explained in the report.
In a separate story on Tuesday, the outlet said that support for funding the Ukrainian government was “showing more cracks than ever.”
The failure of the US Congress last week to allocate aid money in its stopgap budget, the election victory of former Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who vowed to stop assistance to Ukraine on the campaign trail, and Kiev’s ongoing diplomatic row with Poland all send “a chilling message.”
The Ukrainian government expects to receive at least $42.8 billion from international donors next year, as outlined in its projected budget.
An expected fight over the EU’s joint budget means that “no one dares to predict anything” at this point, a diplomatic source told the news outlet. Another diplomat said the “big elephant in the room” in Europe is the concern that Washington could abandon Ukraine.
The event in Kiev was part of its effort to ramp up domestic military production. Germany’s Rheinmetall and the UK-based BAE have made some commitments to open production facilities in Ukraine. Kiev’s goal is to become “an Israel in Europe – self-sufficient but with help from other countries,” Daniel Vajdich, a Washington-based advocate for Ukraine, told Politico.
President Vladimir Zelensky floated the idea of paying for the proposed build-up with “confiscated Russian assets” when he spoke at the forum. Prime Minister Denis Shmygal indicated that the proposed plants would not be safe. He said 37 of Ukraine’s own facilities have been damaged by Russian strikes.
Russian officials have stressed that foreign-funded arms manufacturing sites in Ukraine would be treated as legitimate military targets. Denis Pushilin, the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, reiterated the policy during an interview on Monday.
The risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is ‘acute’, a former British ambassador to Riyadh has warned, amid reports that the US could help Saudi Arabia develop a civil nuclear programme in exchange for normalising relations with Israel.
Joe Biden’s administration is working keenly on a package of agreements that would see Riyadh formally recognise Israel’s nationhood, becoming the biggest Arab power to do so since the Jewish state was founded in 1948. Riyadh has made US assistance with its civil nuclear programme a key demand of the talks.
Under the terms of the deal, the Wall Street Journal reported last week, US and Israeli officials are discussing a potential US-run uranium enrichment centre on Saudi soil.
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.
The U.S. government has embarked upon the first comprehensive modernization of its strategic nuclear arsenal since the Cold War ended three decades ago. The Department of Defense is simultaneously developing a new generation of ballistic-missile submarines, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers.
Collectively, these three systems are referred to as the strategic “triad.” Every nuclear posture review conducted by the government since the Soviet Union collapsed—there have been five counting Biden’s—has endorsed the triad as the best approach to assuring nuclear deterrence.
During the Cold War, each leg of the triad was periodically modernized. However, with the waning of the Soviet threat, improvement slowed. As a result, the nuclear arsenal has aged markedly. With great-power competition now restored to prominence in the nation’s defense strategy, the deterrent is overdue for revitalization.
The most recent authoritative estimate of nuclear-weapons costs, produced by the Congressional Budget Office in July, projects that the Department of Defense and Department of Energy will spend $247 billion during the ten years ending in 2032 to modernize the nuclear force.
An even larger amount will be allocated in subsequent years, delivering revenues to hundreds of companies. For instance, industrial conglomerate TextronTXT-1.1% will provide reentry-vehicle technology for carrying nuclear warheads, and BoeingBA-2% hopes to build a successor to the E-4B flying command post (popularly known as the Doomsday plane).
However, four companies are poised to dominate modernization of the nuclear arsenal, each of them ultimately realizing tens of billions of dollars in sales.
Northrop Grumman NOC+0.5%is the big winner in this generation’s round of competitions to rebuild the nuclear force. ……………… The company thus finds itself firmly ensconced as a key contractor on all three legs of the triad for decades to come—an unprecedented achievement in the history of the nuclear program.
General Dynamics, a Virginia-based defense and aerospace conglomerate, will build the 12 Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines destined to carry two-thirds of U.S. strategic warheads, just as it built the existing Ohio class of strategic subs……….. Today it is the world’s leading producer of undersea warships, supporting modernization of both the U.S. and United Kingdom nuclear deterrents.
Lockheed Martin LMT-0.3%is the world’s biggest military contractor, and will play a number of roles in nuclear modernization. The Maryland-based company has built every generation of submarine-launched ballistic missile from the early Polaris weapons to today’s Trident II D5……………………………………………………………………………………..
Like General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin contributes to my think tank.
nuclear-news 