Star-crossed States: No result from the UN Working Group on Reducing Space Threats
The long-standing goal of preventing an arms race in outer space could be slipping away
OPEN CANADA, BY: PAUL MEYER / 24 SEPTEMBER, 2023
It has become a challenge these days to keep up with the exponential growth in the number of satellites orbiting this planet. Current estimates of active satellites are upwards of 6000 with tens of thousands more launches planned by the end of the decade. The private sector is driving this growth with Elon Musk’s Starlink telecommunication constellation constituting almost half of the satellites operating in low earth orbit (the closest and most congested orbital slot).
The world is increasingly dependent on satellites to provide a vast spectrum of services essential for global security and well-being, and it is all the more regrettable therefore that this surge of activity in outer space is coinciding with what appears to be a nadir in the level of cooperation amongst leading space powers. Although objectively it would be in the interests of all spacefaring states, and the entire international community reliant on space-enabled services, to cooperate to ensure the continued safe and secure utilisation of outer space, the current situation is fraught with tension and mistrust. For over 40 years the UN has sought to prevent an arms race in outer space, but besides the repeated declarations that this remains a common goal there is little evidence of meaningful efforts to ensure it.
It was back in 1981 that the “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” (aka PAROS) item was added to the agenda of the UN General Assembly and the negotiating forum of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. While member states agreed to put this topic on the UN’s agenda, ever since they have held contending views as to how best to make progress on outer space security. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (with 112 states parties) provided some common ground in calling for the peaceful uses of outer space and prohibiting the stationing in orbit of weapons of mass destruction, but was silent on other types of weaponry. Although the treaty required its parties to exercise “due regard” for the space operations of other states and to avoid “harmful interference” with such operations these terms have lacked a common understanding as to their import.
The Cold War era development of space weapons including anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) demonstrated that the legal regime established by the Outer Space Treaty was insufficient to ensure that the peace was kept in outer space and almost all states agreed that “further measures” would be required to strengthen it. This broad consensus that the Outer Space Treaty needed to be reinforced with complementary agreements however, quickly broke down over the specific content and form such additional measures should take.
One camp led by China and Russia, although including many other states such as Brazil, India, Mexico and Indonesia, favours legally binding agreements to supplement the Outer Space Treaty. They argue that only legal agreements will have the authority and staying power to ensure compliance with their provisions. Political measures at best might supplement a legally binding instrument, but could never substitute for one.
The other camp led by the United States, supported by many of its allies, argue that at this stage it is best to develop politically binding measures, such as so-called Transparency and Confidence Building Measures .
dherents of this approach argue that the negotiation of a legally binding agreement would take too long and would flounder over issues of definition and verification. In their view, settling on a set of practical measures would be a quicker and more effective means of agreeing “rules of the road” for state-conducted space operations.
This argument over the best diplomatic path to take to prevent armed conflict in space has gone on for decades without a resolution. As a result, in recent years the relations among leading space powers have deteriorated significantly with mutual accusations of “weaponizing” outer space and the development of “counter-space capabilities” in the arsenals of states. ……………………………………………………………… more https://opencanada.org/star-crossed-states-no-result-from-the-un-working-group-on-reducing-space-threats/
NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. And now Ukrainians are paying a terrible price.
JEFFREY D. SACHS, Sep 20, 2023, Common Dreams
“…………………………….. According to the U.S. government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the Times’ favorite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidently blurted out the truth.
In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
To repeat, he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
When Prof. John Mearsheimer, I, and others have said the same, we’ve been attacked as Putin apologists. The same critics also choose to hide or flatly ignore the dire warnings against NATO enlargement to Ukraine long articulated by many of America’s leading diplomats, including the great scholar-statesman George Kennan, and the former US Ambassadors to Russia Jack Matlock and William Burns.
Burns, now CIA Director, was US Ambassador to Russia in 2008, and author of a memo entitled “Nyet means Nyet.” In that memo, Burns explained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the entire Russian political class, not just Putin, was dead-set against NATO enlargement. We know about the memo only because it was leaked. Otherwise, we’d be in the dark about it.
Why does Russia oppose NATO enlargement? For the simple reason that Russia does not accept the U.S. military on its 2,300 km border with Ukraine in the Black Sea region. Russia does not appreciate the U.S. placement of Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania after the U.S. unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty………………………………….
Even Zelensky’s team knew that the quest for NATO enlargement meant imminent war with Russia. Oleksiy Arestovych, former Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine under Zelensky, declared that “with a 99.9% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”……………………………………………
Putin made one last attempt at diplomacy at the end of 2021, tabling a draft U.S.-NATO Security Agreement to forestall war. The core of the draft agreement was an end of NATO enlargement and removal of U.S. missiles near Russia. Russia’s security concerns were valid and the basis for negotiations. Yet Biden flatly rejected negotiations out of a combination of arrogance, hawkishness, and profound miscalculation. NATO maintained its position that NATO would not negotiate with Russia regarding NATO enlargement, that in effect, NATO enlargement was none of Russia’s business.
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. The U.S. would object—by means of war, if needed—to being encircled by Russian or Chinese military bases in the Western Hemisphere, a point the U.S. has made since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Yet the U.S. is blind and deaf to the legitimate security concerns of other countries.
So, yes, Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to Russia’s border. Ukraine is being destroyed by U.S. arrogance, proving again Henry Kissinger’s adage that to be America’s enemy is dangerous, while to be its friend is fatal. The Ukraine War will end when the U.S. acknowledges a simple truth: NATO enlargement to Ukraine means perpetual war and Ukraine’s destruction. Ukraine’s neutrality could have avoided the war, and remains the key to peace. The deeper truth is that European security depends on collective security as called for by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), not one-sided NATO demands. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasionb
Pentagon exempts Ukraine operations from potential government shutdown
The decision means that training on American tactics and equipment can move forward uninterrupted if lawmakers don’t reach a funding deal by the end of the month.
Politico By LARA SELIGMAN, 09/21/2023
The Pentagon will exempt its Ukraine operations from a potential shutdown if lawmakers can’t agree on a deal to fund the government by the end of the month, allowing key training and other activities in support of Kyiv’s forces to move ahead uninterrupted, according to a Defense Department spokesperson.
Washington is more resigned to the looming government shutdown every day. As the Sept. 30 deadline approaches, congressional leaders showed little progress this week in moving a stopgap funding bill to avert that scenario. The House was in chaos on Thursday as a group of GOP hardliners tanked a vote that could have offered a path to fund the government.
But if lawmakers fail to reach an agreement and government appropriations lapse, DOD has decided to continue activities supporting Ukraine, DOD spokesperson Chris Sherwood told POLITICO Thursday — just hours after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley and other senior leaders at the Pentagon.
“Operation Atlantic Resolve is an excepted activity under a government lapse in appropriations,” Sherwood said, referring to the named operation for DOD’s activities in response to the Russian invasion.
The move means that the U.S. military’s activities related to the war, such as training of Ukrainian soldiers on American tactics and equipment, as well as shipments of weapons to Kyiv, will continue despite any potential shutdown.
As recently as Tuesday, Sherwood had said the shutdown could halt those activities, as POLITICO first reported.
It’s good news for Zelenskyy, as U.S. and European officials worry that international support for continuing to aid Ukraine could be waning. Zelenskyy also pleaded his case with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday morning before heading to the White House to meet with President Joe Biden.
The Biden administration is also expected to announce a new package of military aid for Ukraine later on Thursday, including additional air defenses and artillery.
During the White House meeting, Biden announced a new $325 million package of aid for Ukraine, including more air defenses, artillery and additional cluster munitions. He also said that the first of the U.S. Army’s M1 Abrams tanks pledged to Kyiv are expected to arrive on the battlefield next week.
Typically, when the government shuts down, all military activities stop unless they are deemed critical to national security. ……………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/21/pentagon-exempts-ukraine-operations-from-shutdown-00117482
This War Wasn’t Just Provoked — It Was Provoked Deliberately
Caitlin’s Newsletter, CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, SEP 24, 2023
In an interesting speech about the way US imperial aggression provokes violence around the world, antiwar commentator Scott Horton made reference to an April 2022 article from Yahoo News that had previously escaped my attention.
The article is titled “In closer ties to Ukraine, U.S. officials long saw promise and peril,” and it features named and unnamed veterans of the US intelligence cartel saying that long before the February 2022 invasion they were fully aware that the US had “provoked” Russia in Ukraine and created a powderkeg situation that would likely lead to war.
“By last summer [meaning the summer of 2021], the baseline view of most U.S. intelligence community analysts was that Russia felt sufficiently provoked over Ukraine that some unknown trigger could set off an attack by Moscow,” a former CIA official told Yahoo News’ Zach Dorfman, who adds, “(The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.)”
Dorfman writes that initial support provided to Ukraine during the Obama administration had been “calibrated to avoid aggravating Moscow,” but that “partially spurred by Congress, as well as the Trump administration, which was more willing to be aggressive on weapon transfers to Kyiv, overt U.S. military support for Ukraine grew over time — and with it the risk of a deadly Russian response, some CIA officials believed at the time.”……………………
“I understand the moral argument,” says former CIA official Jeffrey Edmonds regarding the weapons transfers into Ukraine, “but I also understand the argument that, well, why would you want to give these things if it’s just going to increase the chances that Russia does something?”
So while we members of the public were blindly speculating about whether or not Russia would attack Ukraine, the US intelligence cartel was fully aware that the US was taking actions ensuring that that would happen. That’s the environment the US security state knew it was operating under when it continued to taunt the idea of adding Ukraine and Georgia to NATO right up until the final moments before the invasion.
It’s been funny to watch the response of empire apologists to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s surprising refutation of a year and a half of empire propaganda by openly admitting that NATO expansion provoked the invasion of Ukraine and acknowledging that NATO powers rejected Moscow’s proposed compromises which could have averted the war. Basically the only argument they now have after this admission is to say that Russia should not have viewed NATO expansion as an existential threat.
Their only remaining trick is to argue with reality; to basically say that yes it’s reality that NATO expansion provoked this war because Moscow saw it as a threat, but reality shouldn’t have been what reality was. They argue that Russia should have felt completely different feelings about a military threat on its border than nations like the United States would feel, since as we’ve discussed previously the last time there was a credible military threat near the US border the US responded so aggressively that the world almost ended.
That’s really all they’ve got: “Yes it’s true that all the people who’ve died and lost their homes in this war did so because we were amassing a hostile military alliance near Russia’s border, but in our defense the Russians should’ve thought different thoughts in their heads than the ones that we ourselves would think about a hostile military threat on our border.”
If all westerners deeply understood all the suffering and danger that has been unleashed upon our world by this war, and deeply understood the fact that their own governments played a role in starting it, the political status quo of the western world would be impossible to maintain. Which is why such unprecedented levels of propaganda and internet censorship have gone into preventing westerners from coming to such an understanding. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/this-war-wasnt-just-provoked-it-was?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=137340680&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email
Is World War III About to Start? Part I: Drift Toward War
We have now come full circle. Warnings from Washington continue that Putin had better not go nuclear, which can be read as inviting him to do so. This is obviously a new phase of brinkmanship that could give the U.S. a pretext for themselves moving to nuclear war.
Nuke rattling from both sides over Ukraine.
SCHEERPOST, By Richard C. Cook September 23, 2023
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.”
Anyone with a discernible pulse is aware of the danger that the conflict could escalate into a conflagration large and destructive enough to morph into World War III. The threshold would likely be crossed once nuclear weapons were unleashed. The military doctrines of all nuclear powers stipulate that such an attack would justify an in-kind response, though without always ruling out the same for lesser provocations of a potentially existential nature.
President Biden has said “the world faces the biggest risk of nuclear Armageddon since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.” The context of Biden’s statement came a month earlier on September 21, 2022, when Putin warned the West he was not bluffing when he said he would be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia against what he said was “nuclear blackmail.” Earlier, in an April 21, 2021, speech, Putin said:
We really do not want to burn bridges. But if someone mistakes our good intentions for indifference or weakness and intends to burn or even blow up these bridges, they must know that Russia’s response will be asymmetrical, swift, and tough. Those behind provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done in a way they have not regretted anything for a long time.
Another to speak of nuclear war has been former Russian president and prime minister Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy head of the Russian Security Council and one of Putin’s top advisers. Commenting on Ukraine’s highly touted but now failed 2023 “spring offensive,” Medvedev said in July 2023 that if Ukraine succeeded in taking Russian sovereign territory—including Crimea plus the four Donbass oblasts (regions) annexed by Russia last year—Russia “would have to use nuclear weapons by virtue of the Russian Presidential Decree.” This decree stated that any assault on Russian territory justified a nuclear response.
On Hiroshima Day, August 6, 2023, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, “The drums of nuclear war are beating once again. Mistrust and division are on the rise. The nuclear shadow that loomed over the Cold War has re-emerged.” One who has predicted world war has been UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace. On May 19, 2023, he warned “that the UK could enter a direct conflict with Russian and China in the next seven years and has called for an increase in military spending to counter the potential threat.” Speaking to London’s Financial Times, Wallace said “a conflict is coming with a range of adversaries around the world.”
More recently, independent commentator Tucker Carlson, who has said the U.S. is intentionally seeking war with Russia, remarked in a September 2023 interview on The Adam Corolla Show that the Biden administration would attempt to stay in power by starting a “hot war” with Russia before the 2024 election. Carlson argued that the U.S. was “already at war” with Russia in Ukraine. He added, “I don’t think we’ll win it.”
………………………………………………………………… Nor are proxy wars anything new. They began with the Korean War. Of course, there were U.S. “boots on the ground,” but North and South Korea also fought against each other with Russia/China and the U.S./UN having the backs of each respectively. The Vietnam War was fought with U.S. troops and weapons aiding the South Vietnamese against the Russian-backed Hanoi regime and its ally, South Vietnam’s Viet Cong. The Korean conflict became a stalemate; Vietnam, a debacle. ……………………………………………………………
Purporting to be offended by the U.S.-Soviet nuclear standoff, whereby peace was assured only by the logic of “Mutually-Assured Destruction,” Reagan proposed an armada of “defensive” weapons in space. The military-industrial complex seized on Star Wars as a cornucopia of lucrative research and development projects that ended when space shuttle Challenger blew up. The space shuttle was being converted to a testing platform for space weaponry, as I saw personally at NASA when I worked there in 1985-1986…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
9/11, the Neocons’ “new Pearl Harbor,” produced the “War on Terror,” the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the military doctrine of Full-Spectrum Dominance, and the assaults on Afghanistan, Iraq, and later Libya. The ideological focal point was demonization of all things Islam. The rationale? “They hate our freedoms.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..UKRAINE — THE CROSSROADS
Now the U.S., with the Neocons firmly entrenched in the State Department and elsewhere, surrounded Russia with military bases………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Finally, after eight years of Ukrainian provocations, the death from Ukrainian shelling of more than 10,000 Donbass civilians, and the treachery of Germany and France in failing to uphold the Minsk agreements they had guaranteed, Russia entered Ukraine with its military forces in February 2022. The conflict was on, a conflict that Russia is winning. U.S.-led sanctions against Russia failed to bring down its economy or force regime change against Putin. But each Ukrainian setback on the battlefield has been followed by more weapons and money supplied to the Volodymyr Zelensky regime by the U.S., UK, Germany, France, and other NATO members.
But who was calling the shots? In March 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators reached agreement on a tentative settlement at meetings in Istanbul. UK prime minister Boris Johnson then rushed to Kiev to induce Zelensky to tear up the agreement and continue the war. Western escalation has included billions of dollars worth of heavy tanks and other weapons to Ukraine, along with cluster munitions and depleted uranium projectiles. There have been drone attacks on Russia itself and on Crimea. But the Ukrainian counteroffensive has collapsed, with speculation increasing of a major Russian counterattack, possibly even cutting Ukraine off from the Black Sea.
We have now come full circle. Warnings from Washington continue that Putin had better not go nuclear, which can be read as inviting him to do so. This is obviously a new phase of brinkmanship that could give the U.S. a pretext for themselves moving to nuclear war. Meanwhile, the U.S. understands that it could in no way challenge Russia in a conventional war even with the entire NATO alliance being activated. Even then, divisiveness within NATO and the absence of sufficient military force anywhere in Europe make this impossible at present. Veteran military analyst Scott Ritter writes in Sputnik News on September 21, 2023, that even were the U.S. to activate its entire military force stationed in Europe against Russia, it would be defeated within one to two weeks of intensive combat. The only alternative would then be to activate a gigantic airlift of additional forces into Europe with U.S. cargo planes sitting ducks for destruction en route. Impossible.
There are now signs that the U.S. may be pressuring Ukraine to agree to a cease-fire, with a “freeze” along the lines of the decades-old Korean settlement. But all this would do would be to “kick the can down the road”—possibly until after the 2024 U.S. presidential election, likely to be preceded by elections in Ukraine in March. There are no signs that the U.S. is ready to concede a Russian victory involving the redrawing of the European security apparatus with Russia a respected party. The Ukrainian government speaks of a “long-term” conflict lasting decades. So there is no way to aver that the war in Ukraine is ending or to speculate about the next phase.
So, is a nuclear World War III a possibility? https://scheerpost.com/2023/09/23/is-world-war-iii-about-to-start-part-i-drift-toward-war/
Cannon Fodder: Number of Ukrainian Amputee Soldiers Going Through the Roof
Ekaterina Blinova, 21 Sept 23
Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have become amputees, while many more sustained other injuries or died on the battlefield. The scale of amputations in Ukraine has reached that of the First World War, according to Western media.
Between 20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost one or more limbs since the beginning of the conflict, Western press has reported.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense recently announced that 40% of wounded Ukrainian soldiers have serious limb injuries that appear to be incurable.
However, it is difficult to know for sure how many Ukrainian soldiers have disabilities, because this information is top secret, according to a Norwegian media outlet.
A commonly cited ratio for dead and injured in wars is 2-4 people wounded for each person killed. Sometimes, the number of those wounded may be 13 times as high depending on what weapons systems are used on the battlefield. One could easily calculate what price Ukrainians paid for the counteroffensive encouraged and sponsored by the West.
As per the Russian Defense Ministry, over 71,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed during the three months of the Kiev regime’s counteroffensive.
Given that Ukraine and Russia have been involved in high-scale counter-battery duels since the outset of the conflict, most of the wounds at the front have been caused by shrapnel and artillery fire, military personnel and war correspondents have said. Meanwhile, Ukrainians also sustained heavy losses while trying to storm Russia’s sophisticated defense lines and minefields, which have been largely blamed by the Western press for the failure of the Kiev regime’s offensive operations.
Ukrainian Amputees Evoke Scale of WWI
Western journalists assume that during 18 months of the special military operation in Ukraine, there have been at least 10 times the number of Ukrainian amputees than Americans with the same sort of injuries over 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
For their part, US medical experts say that injuries of this magnitude had not been seen by Western military surgeons since World War II. The First World War saw at least 67,000 Germans and 41,000 British amputees, according to some estimates.
Several clinics in Ukraine cite 20,000 amputee cases, but the actual figure may be higher as it takes time to register patients after undergoing the amputation procedure, per the media. Some patients have to wait for weeks or even months for the surgery as the Ukrainian healthcare system is overwhelmed.
During the unfolding conflict, the Ukrainian Armed Forces suffered a scale of losses for which the army’s medical service was unprepared, Tetiana Ostashchenko, commander of the Medical Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, told a Ukrainian broadcaster on August 26.
“Neither the legislative framework nor the system itself was designed for such volumes of medical care,” Ostashchenko stressed.
She said that new problems emerge every day and despite the nation’s healthcare system trying to solve them, it is not working as quickly as required.
To complicate matters further, the battlefield first aid straps used by Ukrainian during combat to stem bleeding, are often fitted too high to the injured limb and left on for too long. As a result, the cells in the limb die and a whole arm or leg will need to be removed instead of just part of it. What’s worse, sometimes these surgeries are done in horrific conditions, according to the British press.
Prosthetics is yet another problem faced by Ukrainian military amputees. One arm could cost $100,000 while a hook in place of a hand is an additional $8,000. A number of Western charities help some Ukrainian soldiers to get new artificial limbs but there are too many amputees returning from the battlefield.
Kiev Throws Ukrainians Into ‘Meat Grinder’
Previously, former Prime Minister of Ukraine Nikolai Azarov stated that Kiev is deliberately hiding the figures of real losses in order to avoid payments to the families of fallen soldiers, attributing them to the number of missing people instead.
There have also been cases when wounded Ukrainian soldiers were left to die by their fellows on the battlefield. On September 12, captured Ukrainian serviceman Yevgeny Zinovik told Sputnik that he had been abandoned by the Ukrainian military and laid on the ground suffering from wounds for four days, until Russian reconnaissance officers found him. Zinovik confessed that he was glad to be captured after all this suffering. He said that he had undergone treatment in a Donetsk hospital.
………………………………………………………………………….. Ukrainians Hide Abroad or Surrender
A glaring indicator of Kiev running out of military personnel is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky‘s order to conduct a full review of all mobilization exemptions granted by Military Medical Commissions (MMCs) starting from February 24, 2022.
In addition to bringing young and elderly to the front, the Kiev regime has requested European states extradite Ukrainian draft-age adults. However, EU states are resisting those requests, citing European laws that prevent them from deporting refugees or altogether refusing to send Ukrainians back home. One should bear in mind that Ukrainians are a source of cheap labor in Europe…………………..
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230921/cannon-fodder-number-of-ukrainian-amputee-soldiers-going-through-the-roof-1113563445.html
‘Biden’s phase’ of Ukraine war is beginning
This Week, Blinken explicitly stated for the first time that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow has previously called a “red line,” which would make Washington a direct party to the conflict.
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR Indian Punchline
The ground war in Ukraine has run its course, a new phase is beginning. Even diehard supporters of Ukraine in the western media and think tanks are admitting that a military victory over Russia is impossible and a vacation of the territory under Russian control is way beyond Kiev’s capability.
Hence the ingenuity of the Biden Administration to explore Plan B counselling Kiev to be realistic about loss of territory and pragmatically seek dialogue with Moscow. This was the bitter message that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken transmitted to Kiev recently in person.
But President Zelensky’s caustic reaction in a subsequent interview with the Economist magazine is revealing. He hit back that the western leaders still talk the good talk, pledging they will stand with Ukraine “as long as it takes” (Biden mantra), but he, Zelensky, has detected a change of mood among some of his partners: “I have this intuition, reading, hearing and seeing their eyes [when they say] ‘we’ll be always with you.’ But I see that he or she is not here, not with us.” Certainly, Zelensky is reading the body language right, as in the absence of an overwhelming military success shortly, western support for Ukraine is time-limited.
Zelensky knows that sustaining the western support will be difficult. Yet he hopes that if not Americans, European Union will at least keep supplying aid, and but may open negotiations over the accession process for Ukraine possibly even at its summit in December. But he also held out a veiled threat of terrorist threat to Europe — warning that it would not be a “good story” for Europe if it were to “drive these people [of Ukraine] into a corner”. So far such ominous threats were muted, originating from low ranking activists of the fascist Bandera fringe.
But Europe has its limits, too. The western stockpiles of weapons are exhausted and Ukraine is a bottomless pit. Importantly, conviction is lacking whether continued supplies would make any difference to the proxy war that is unwinnable. Besides, European economies are in doldrum,’ the recession in Germany may slide into depression, with profound consequences of “deindustrialisation.”
Suffice to say, Zelensky’s visit to the White House in the coming days becomes a defining moment. The Biden Administration is in a sombre mood that the proxy war is hindering a full-throttle Indo-Pacific strategy against China. Yet, during an appearance on ABC’s This Week, Blinken explicitly stated for the first time that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow has previously called a “red line,” which would make Washington a direct party to the conflict.
The well-known American military historian, strategic thinker and combat veteran Colonel (Retd.) Douglas MacGregor (who served as advisor to the Pentagon during the Trump administration), is prescient when he says that a new “Biden’s phase of the war” is about to begin. That is to say, having run out of ground forces, the locus will now shift to long-range strike weapons like the Storm Shadow, Taurus, ATACMS long-range missiles, etc.
The US is considering sending ATACMS long-range missiles that Ukraine has been asking for a long time with the capability to strike deep inside Russian territory. The most provocative part is that NATO reconnaissance platforms, both manned and unmanned, will be used in such operations, making the US a virtual co-belligerent.
Russia has been exercising restraint in attacking the source of such enemy capabilities but how long such restraint will continue is anybody’s guess………………………………………………………… more https://www.indianpunchline.com/bidens-phase-of-ukraine-war-is-beginning/
The harrowing truth about the war in Ukraine.
Russian press reports the high proportion of amputees among injured Ukrainian soldiers – perhaps up to 50,000. (Of course they don’t mention the Russian casualties, – that figure could be the same, – or likely more.)
The thing is – the media is so full of reports about who’s winning, and what lovely new weapons that Ukraine needs in order to win, and how the war will go on “as long as it takes“.
That seems to mean “as long as there are any fit-enough Ukrainian soldiers left”. Russia has four to five times as many soldiers as Ukraine has. So, the brutal reality is, Russia can afford to lose more casualties. On both sides, the leaders apparently don’t care . So, logically – it’s sort of unlikely that Ukraine can win, isn’t it?
That consideration doesn’t seem to matter to the West. No attention is given to what sort of state Ukraine’s people, and its environment will be in, as this forever war goes on.
As I pointed out, Russian media is not stressing their numbers of amputees. And Western media publicises the medical care that USA is giving to a few of the Ukrainian amputees, while not mentioning the total horrible picture.
The real human toll is ignored. Isn’t it time that the slaughter in Ukraine is ended?
This is one reason why I might appear to be giving constantly a pro-Russian point of view.
It’s not really pro-Russian. It’s pro-truth. The Western media continually vomits forth the lie that Ukraine will win. This lie suits the USA purpose of weakening Russia, which has nothing to do with the well-being of the people of Crimea, or the Donbass, or Ukraine in general.
We’re Being Prepared For The Ukraine War To Last Into The 2030s
So western empire managers and their agenda-setters in the mass media are making it as clear as could be that the US-centralized empire has found itself in yet another endless war, another “grinding war of attrition” featuring unfathomable destruction and suffering with no exit strategy, which once again pours vast fortunes into the coffers of the military industrial complex. The only difference is that this time it comes with the added bonus of the threat of nuclear annihilation.
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, SEP 23, 2023 https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/were-being-prepared-for-the-ukraine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=137313925&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email
Western officials and media pundits are now directly acknowledging that Ukraine’s much-touted “spring counteroffensive” has been a catastrophic failure, but rather than seeing this as a reason to reconsider the mainstream political consensus on this war, they are instead telling everyone that the counteroffensive’s failure means we must commit to the status quo of bloodshed and nuclear brinkmanship for years to come.
In a recent article titled “US and G-7 Allies Expect War in Ukraine to Drag On for Years,” Bloomberg reports that the US-centralized power structure expects to be backing its proxy conflict against Russia for a very long time, potentially into the 2030s.
Bloomberg reports:
“The US and its allies in the Group of Seven now expect the war in Ukraine may drag on for years to come and are building that possibility into their military and financial planning.
“A senior official from one European G-7 country said the war may last as much as six or seven more years and that allies need to plan financially to continue support for Kyiv for such a long conflict.“
“That’s much longer than many officials had expected earlier this year, but slow progress in Ukraine’s counteroffensive in recent months has tempered expectations.”
In a recent interview with CNN, outgoing Joint Chiefs chair Mark Milley said that achieving Kyiv’s official goal of fully recapturing all Ukrainian territory is going to require “very significant effort over a considerable amount of time.”
“I can tell you that it’ll take a considerable length of time to militarily eject all 200,000 or plus Russian troops out of Russian-occupied Ukraine,” Milley added. “That’s a very high bar. It’s going to take a long time to do it.”
In a recent interview with German newspaper Berliner Morgenpost, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also pounded home the point that this war will drag on for a very long time.
“Most wars last longer than is expected when they first start. Therefore, we must prepare ourselves for a long war in Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said.
“We are all wishing for a quick peace,” Stoltenberg added. “But at the same time, we must recognize: If President Zelensky and the Ukrainians give up the fight, their country would not exist anymore. If President Putin and Russia laid down their weapons, we would have peace. The easiest way to end this war would be if Putin withdrew his troops.”
You see this claim from empire managers and their apologists all the time: that the only obstacle to peace in Ukraine is Russia refusing to leave. This of course ignores the many extensively-documented western aggressions which are known to have provoked Russia’s invasion, a fact that Stoltenberg himself admitted to earlier this month.
Demanding that Russia end its aggressions without the west agreeing to end its own aggressions which led to this conflict is just demanding that Russia lie down and submit to being ruled and dominated by the western empire. It’s not a call for peace, it’s a call for the total victory of Washington and its cohorts.
Stoltenberg reinforced his point that this war will drag on for years by affirming that Ukraine will gain NATO membership when this war is over, which is effectively a message to Moscow that if it still finds NATO membership for Ukraine unacceptable it must either annex Ukraine into the Russian Federation entirely or keep this war going on forever.
“Ukraine will become a member of NATO — all allies have made that clear,” Stoltenberg said, adding that Ukraine will need NATO protection when the war ends, otherwise “history could repeat itself.”
The western media are conveying the same message. Notorious empire propaganda rag The Economist has a new article out titled “Ukraine faces a long war. A change of course is needed,” featuring a Ukrainian flag with the words “TIME FOR A RETHINK” scrawled across it. If you didn’t know anything about The Economist you might assume at first glance that this was an article about rethinking the approach of backing an endless proxy conflict — especially after its opening paragraphs acknowledge that “The plan is not working” and “Ukraine has liberated less than 0.25% of the territory that Russia occupied in June.”
You would be wrong though. What The Economist means is that we should switch from thinking of this as a war that can be won in a timely fashion to one which will continue for the foreseeable future:
“Both Ukraine and its Western supporters are coming to realise that this will be a grinding war of attrition. President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Washington this week for talks. ‘I have to be ready for the long war,’ he told The Economist. But unfortunately, Ukraine is not yet ready; nor are its Western partners. Both are still fixated on the counter-offensive. They need to rethink Ukraine’s military strategy and how its economy is run. Instead of aiming to “win” and then rebuild, the goal should be to ensure that Ukraine has the staying power to wage a long war — and can thrive despite it.”
So western empire managers and their agenda-setters in the mass media are making it as clear as could be that the US-centralized empire has found itself in yet another endless war, another “grinding war of attrition” featuring unfathomable destruction and suffering with no exit strategy, which once again pours vast fortunes into the coffers of the military industrial complex. The only difference is that this time it comes with the added bonus of the threat of nuclear annihilation.
All for what? To advance the US empire’s goal of total planetary domination, a status quo that it can only maintain by brandishing armageddon weapons at its enemies with increasing hostility year after year.
When it comes to the war in Ukraine it is definitely time for a rethink, but not by the same monsters who thought us into this horror in the first place.
United Nations Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Continues to Gather Strength
September 21st, 2023 http://nuclearactive.org/
On Wednesday, September 19th, the landmark Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons had been signed by almost half of all countries in the world after a ceremony at the United Nations General Assembly in New York where Sri Lanka acceded to the Treaty and the Bahamas signed it.
This means 93 states have now signed, ratified or acceded to the Treaty that outlaws nuclear weapons and all nuclear weapons-related activity.
The Treaty was negotiated in 2017 and entered into force in 2021. It is the first multilateral agreement to ban nuclear weapons in a comprehensive manner and establish a framework for their elimination.
Melissa Parke, the Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN, said, “The growing support for the [Treaty] brings added authority to what is already the strongest international norm against the worst weapons of mass destruction. This is sorely needed at this moment when the war in Ukraine and escalating tensions in the Korean peninsula have brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any time since the height of the Cold War.”
Speaking of Sri Lanka and the Bahamas, Ms Parke added, “Any use of nuclear weapons would be an unparalleled humanitarian and environmental catastrophe and these two countries are to be praised for doing their part to prevent these horrific weapons from ever being used in conflict again.”
With the Bahamas’ signature, adherence to the Treaty by Caribbean states is now almost universal. Sri Lanka’s accession sends an important disarmament message to its nuclear-armed neighbors in South Asia, India and Pakistan.
The Treaty bans countries from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits countries from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in these activities. https://www.icanw.org/the_treaty
In November, the second meeting of state parties to the Treaty will be held at the United Nations. https://www.icanw.org/tpnw_second_meeting_of_states_parties Key areas of the Treaty will be discussed, which include disarmament, increasing risks, the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and related issues.
Also up for discussion are the two verification pathways for a nuclear-armed state, like the United States of America, to join the Treaty. The two pathways are: elimination of a state’s arsenal and then joining the Treaty; or join the Treaty first and then eliminate the state’s arsenal.
For more information, please visit the ICAN website at https://www.icanw.org/. CCNS is an ICAN Partner Organization.
Maintaining the USA nuclear arsenal, at $750 billion over the next decade
2 This is what it’s like to maintain the US nuclear arsenal
By Tara Copp, Associated Press, Sep 21, 23 C ISR NET
The U.S. will spend more than $750 billion over the next decade to revamp nearly every part of its aging nuclear defenses. Officials say they simply can’t wait any longer — some systems and parts are more than 50 years old.
For now, it’s up to young military troops and government technicians across the U.S. to maintain the existing bombs and related components. The jobs are exacting and often require a deft touch. That’s because many of the maintenance tasks must be performed by hand……………………………………
Because the U.S. no longer conducts explosive nuclear tests, scientists are not exactly sure how aging warhead plutonium cores affect detonation. For more common parts, like the plastics and metals and wiring inside each detonator, there are also questions about how the years spent in warheads might affect their integrity.
So, workers at the nation’s nuclear labs and production sites spend a lot of time stressing and testing parts to make sure they’re safe. . At the Energy Department’s Kansas City National Security Campus, where warheads are made and maintained, technicians put components through endless tests. They heat weapons parts to extreme temperatures, drop them at speeds simulating a plane crash, shoot them at high velocity out of testing guns and rattle and shake them for hours on end. The tests are meant to simulate real world scenarios — from hurtling toward a target to being carted in an Air Force truck over a long, rutty road.
Technicians at the Los Alamos National Lab conduct similar evaluations, putting plutonium under extreme stress, heat and pressure to ensure it is stable enough to blow up as intended. Just like the technicians in Kansas City, the ones in Los Alamos closely examine the tested parts and radioactive material to see if they caused any damage…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Workers younger than the warheads
It’s not unusual to see a 50-year-old warhead guarded or maintained by someone just out of high school, and ultimate custody of a nuclear weapon can fall on the shoulders of a service member who’s just 23.
……………………………….. At the Kansas City campus, for example, just about 6% of the workforce has been there 30 years or more — and over 60% has been at the facility for five years or less.
That change has meant more women have joined the workforce, too. In the cavernous hallways between Kansas City’s secured warhead workrooms are green and white nursing pods with a greeting: “Welcome mothers.”
At Los Alamos, workers’ uniform allowance now covers sports bras. Why? Because underwire bras were not compatible with the secured facilities’ many layers of metal detection and radiation monitoring. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2023/09/20/this-is-what-its-like-to-maintain-the-us-nuclear-arsenal/
Floating for Peace on the Golden Rule
By Robert C. Koehler, 20 Sept 23, http://commonwonders.com/floating-for-peace-on-the-golden-rule/—
It’s 10 p.m. at Montrose Harbor in Chicago. Kiko and Tamar help me step from the dock into the wobbly rowboat. Kiko rows us out to the Golden Rule and I climb aboard in wonder. Oh my God! This is it – the 30-foot, anti-nuke sailboat with a history going back almost seven decades . . . back to the era of atmospheric nuclear testing and the Cold War at its simmering height.
The Golden Rule: “Floating for sanity in an insane world.”
Well, somebody’s got to do it! The United Nations has tried. In 2017 it passed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was finally ratified (by 50 countries) in 2021. Technically, nuclear weapons are now “illegal” – what a joke. The possibility of nuclear war, i.e., Armageddon, is more alive than ever. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock is now set at 90 seconds to midnight.
But the nuclear-armed nations and their allies haven’t given an inch. Their motto remains: Nukes forever (or at least until the end of the world as we know it). This is the case despite an overwhelming global opposition to nukes and “mutually assured destruction.”
Perhaps humanity’s primary – or only – hope is a global reunification from the ground up: the creation of one world, which is not at perpetual war with itself and realizes that power results not from domination but connection: power with others, not over them.
And this, I believe, is where the Golden Rule comes in. Let’s return for a moment to 1958, when hell was still naked and visible: when atmospheric nuclear testing was the order of the day. For the United States, the chosen test site was Bikini Atoll, a coral reef in the Marshall Islands. The inhabitants were relocated and their home destroyed. A total of 67 nuclear tests were conducted, beginning in 1946, with nuclear fallout spreading across the island chain.
A man named Albert Bigelow, unable to shrug off what could be the end of the world, finally felt driven to action, declaring; “How do you reach men when all the horror is in the fact that they feel no horror?” He bought a boat, which was named the Golden Rule, and he and three other Quakers took it upon themselves to sail to the Marhsall Islands and disrupt the testing – you know, with their own lives. As they prepared to do so, they declared their intention to the world.
What happened, however, was that the Golden Rule was stopped by the U.S. Coast Guard before it reached the island chain and the four men were arrested. They were jailed for several months, but the publicity surrounding the event was enormous, igniting outrage. The eventual outcome was the end of atmospheric nuclear testing – step one, you might say, in the process of global nuclear disarmament.
Bigelow eventually sold the Golden Rule and, by 2010, it was just a forgotten fragment of history, sitting derelict in Humboldt Bay, California. One day it sank. Though it was pulled up, the plan was to burn it. This is where Veterans for Peace – aware of the boat’s history – stepped in. The organization purchased and restored the Golden Rule, and it became, once again, a floating force for peace.
The Golden Rule is reborn. And its most recent journey is something called the Great Loop. The boat was transported from Humboldt Bay to Minneapolis, where it set sail down the Mississippi River, captained (for much of the journey) by Kiko Johnston-Kitazawa, a Hawaiian educator, sailor and canoe builder, who responded when Veterans for Peace began seeking a crew and captain.
Kiko described the Great Loop to me thus: “one year, 10,000 miles, a hundred stops.” It went down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, then sailed around the tip of Florida, went over to Cuba to reconnect with that island (ah, site of the infamous “Cuban Missile Crisis” of 1962), then came back to the U.S. coast. Up to New York, into the Hudson River and the Erie Canal, then across Lake Erie, up the Detroit River and around the Great Lakes. Its final stop was Chicago, which was where I met Kiko and connected with the Golden Rule, at a reception hosted by Nuclear Energy Information Service.
This is a peace journey extraordinaire. Kiko was adamant, when he talked to me, that reaching beyond the community of committed peace activists was a crucial part of their mission – connecting with people regardless of their political viewpoints: simply talking about nuclear weapons and the danger humanity is facing: building, you might say, a movement of ordinary people . . . creating a sane future, one human being at a time.
The Veterans for Peace website describes the Golden Rule’s Great Loop journey thus: “We’ve had great reception from local peace activists, politicians, and people of faith. Brass bands, Raging Grannies, musicians and artists have welcomed us in many towns. . . Media coverage has been outstanding, with frequent interviews on local radio, TV and newspapers. Twenty mayors, city councils and state legislatures welcomed the Golden Rule with proclamations supporting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Thousands of volunteers helped with events, hosting and crewing the Golden Rule!”
It was when I was talking to Kiko at the NEIS event that he invited me to see the Golden Rule, which was docked just a few miles away. There’s no way I could turn down this invitation, despite my balance issues and untrustworthy joints. We drove to the harbor, then rowed beneath a shimmering moon out to the boat. I was able to climb aboard. They showed me around. I stood on the historic vessel – this floating future of peace – and took in its cramped quarters with reverence and awe.
We’re all on this journey – to transcend war and nukes, to evolve, to create a world at peace with itself.
Yes, nuclear weapons are immoral. They’re also, practically speaking, useless.
Bulletin, By Ward Hayes Wilson | September 19, 2023
Almost everyone who works actively against nuclear weapons is, at some level, appalled by the immorality of nuclear weapons. This makes sense because the indiscriminate killing of children, grandparents, people with disabilities, and a host of other ordinary folks is appalling.
As a result, the first argument that almost all activists reach for is moral. They bring forward hibakusha to put a human face on the immorality. They talk about the indigenous people who suffered during the mining and production of nuclear weapons. They show graphic pictures of the destruction, the burns, the radiation sickness, and other catastrophic damage done by the bombings. They say, in effect, “Look at the immorality!” They sometimes point to it with a hint of outrage in their voices. How can people not be moved by these horrible, immoral acts?
And yet here we are, 78 years later, in the midst of a second nuclear weapons arms race. Every nation that possesses nuclear weapons is either expanding or upgrading its nuclear arsenal. How can this be?
It seems undeniable, after the better part of a century has passed, that moral arguments are not enough to eliminate nuclear weapons. When a strategy fails for 78 years, it’s probably time for a rethink.
I believe most people—including national leaders—hesitate to eliminate nuclear weapons not because they are heartless, or lack any sense of morality, or are idiots, but because they believe, for some reason, that nuclear weapons are necessary. After all, people often set their moral feelings aside when they believe their survival is at stake.
In the case of nuclear weapons, many people believe that nuclear weapons are such powerful weapons that they can guarantee a country’s safety. Therefore it makes sense that most countries secretly want such powerful weapons, and as a consequence, nuclear weapons will always exist. They are such desirable weapons, in other words, that even if you could ban them, someone would inevitably build an arsenal in secret. So it’s impractical to even think about eliminating them.
If this analysis of how people feel is right, then there are, in fact, two parts to the nuclear weapons elimination equation: morality and necessity. You can only solve the equation if you take on both parts. But you have to solve the parts in the right sequence. Before you can move people with moral discourse, you have to first remove the roadblock in their heads that tells them that their country must have nuclear weapons to keep them safe.
The key to eliminating nuclear weapons, then, is to start with the practical consideration. Make a case that nuclear weapons could reasonably, realistically be eliminated, neutralize that part of the equation, and the morality argument falls like a hammer blow.
“But Ward,” a devil’s advocate might argue, “there are no practical arguments for eliminating nuclear weapons.” Well, actually, there are. A lot of them. Let me point out just three.
First, you may have noticed that when Vladimir Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons again and again in Ukraine last fall, a number of establishment sources suddenly spoke up, making the case that nuclear weapons actually aren’t very good weapons. The New York Times, The Institute for the Study of War, and even Gen. David Petraeus all argued that using nuclear weapons on the battlefield wasn’t very militarily useful.
And if you look back over past wars, military commanders have repeatedly turned away from using nuclear weapons—not because of moral concerns, but because of practical doubts about the military value of the weapons.[1]
It has been an open secret in Washington for decades, apparently, that battlefield use of nuclear weapons was militarily inadvisable……………………..
Finally, many people argue that nuclear weapons are important because of nuclear deterrence. But even a 12-year-old can effectively show that deterrence is fatal over the long run. After all, human beings are fallible, aren’t they? And human beings play a critical role in nuclear deterrence. Human beings make the threats, evaluate the threats, and decide how to respond.
………………………………….if you’re willing to argue against nuclear weapons with a two-step process—first showing that the necessity argument is false and only then arguing that the weapons are horrible and immoral—there’s a clear pathway to elimination. https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/yes-nuclear-weapons-are-immoral-theyre-also-practically-speaking-useless/
The President’s Power To Launch Nuclear Weapons Highlights A Troubling Paradox In U.S. Strategy
The paradox is that although the NC3 system provides checks on the authority to use weapons at every level below the president, the president himself (or herself) has sole authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons. There are no limits on that authority, no official with the power to countermand a launch order from the chief executive.
Loren Thompson, Forbes, 30 Sept 23
The U.S. government is engaged in a comprehensive modernization of its nuclear arsenal that will replace all three types of weapon systems comprising the strategic deterrent and upgrade the command network that controls them.
The nuclear command, control and communications system, often referred to simply as NC3 in military circles, is the least visible part of the strategic posture, but also the most complex. It consists of over 200 separate programs, some of which also provide command of non-nuclear forces.
Command and control of the nuclear force is vital to the deterrence of war. As Bruce Blair, a seminal thinker on the subject, observed in a 1985 book, “If command and control fail, nothing else matters.”
A single warhead of the kind commonly found in the Russian strategic arsenal can devastate 36 square miles of an urban area such as New York, and the Russians have at least 1,550 such warheads capable of reaching targets in the U.S.
China, after many years of restraint, is now expanding its own strategic arsenal.
The U.S. government long ago abandoned efforts to blunt a major nuclear attack against its homeland. The destructive power of the Russian and Chinese arsenals seemed too fearsome to counter, and leaders worried that trying to do so would provoke an arms race.
So, U.S. survival depends instead on the threat of retaliation. The fundamental precept of deterrence strategy is that an aggressor will not attack if it knows it will suffer intolerable damage in response. That’s the phrase planners often use—”intolerable damage.”
But it isn’t enough to possess weapons capable of visiting such destruction on an adversary. There needs to be an NC3 system that can detect attacks quickly, determine their source, and deliver a nuclear response proportional to the provocation.
Speed and proportionality are critical for the threat of retaliation to be credible. If the U.S. fails to react quickly, much of its arsenal might be destroyed on the ground. If it fails to respond in a measured way, it could cause a limited attack to escalate to all-out war.
The overarching goal of U.S. nuclear strategy is to prevent nuclear war from occurring by depriving enemies of any rational reason for beginning one. The nuclear force must be able to survive and operate even in the midst of cataclysmic conflict.
At the same time, adversaries and allies must be sure that there is no chance of what Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley in a 2021 memo described as “an illegal, unauthorized or accidental launch.”
Thus, the nation’s nuclear posture must be super stable, and yet able to respond deliberately and decisively in a surprise attack.
This has led to an underlying paradox in that posture as planners struggle to reconcile the need for control of weapons with the need to act fast in an emergency.
The paradox is that although the NC3 system provides checks on the authority to use weapons at every level below the president, the president himself (or herself) has sole authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons. There are no limits on that authority, no official with the power to countermand a launch order from the chief executive.
Conversely, if the president elects not to launch weapons, even in an extreme crisis, no official has the power to compel him. The president’s control of the nuclear arsenal is absolute, at least until his demise in said crisis is confirmed.
Demise in such a scenario would be highly likely. The only plausible circumstances in which a rational adversary would launch a nuclear attack is the belief that it can degrade U.S. retaliatory forces in a surprise attack.
The adversary would probably begin by destroying the nation’s capital in what is sometimes called a decapitating attack on the government, and then quickly shift to targeting U.S. nuclear forces before the chain of command can regroup.
U.S. Strategic Command trains continuously to preclude such an attack from succeeding, but there’s no way of knowing how a nuclear adversary might act in a crisis, or how they might assess their options…………………………………
In a command and control system where tens of billions of dollars have been spent to assure affirmative control of weapons of mass destruction, at the very apex of the system the ultimate decider has no constraints on his or her authority to launch.
This unfettered power exists even in the absence of any apparent emergency. If President Biden directed a nuclear launch today, the only way that could be stopped would be for subordinates to violate their oaths to follow orders. Even if the president appeared to be suffering from diminished cognitive capacity, or an emotional breakdown.
………….fears of existential conflict have made the presidency “something akin to a nuclear monarchy.”
Does the president’s power make deterrence more credible? In some circumstances it probably does. In other circumstances, it might make nuclear conflict more likely—for example, if the attacker thinks the president will be too disoriented to respond quickly, or is threatening to launch in the absence of a real provocation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2023/09/19/the-presidents-power-to-launch-nuclear-weapons-highlights-a-troubling-paradox-in-us-strategy/?sh=7d87205c13cf
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (194)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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
nuclear-news 