nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Rapid Dragon: the US military game-changer that could affect conventional and nuclear strategy and arms control negotiations

Bulletin, By George M. Moore | August 4, 2023

The United States Air Force recently announced the successful test of its Rapid Dragon system in a major Pacific exercise.[1] This followed an earlier successful test during an exercise in Norway in late 2022.[2]

………………..In standard English, Rapid Dragon converts cargo aircraft into weapons carriers that can deploy cruise missiles (and potentially other standoff or self-defense weapons) by releasing them on pallets via the planes’ rear cargo ramps. Such a system makes a cargo aircraft into the equivalent of a bomber. Potentially the cargo aircrafts’ weapons load is limited only by how many pallets will fit in the cargo bay.

………………………………………………………The potential to develop Rapid Dragon so it can deliver nuclear weapons does not seem to have received any attention. The AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is nuclear capable and currently deliverable by the B-52. It appears that nothing would prevent the Rapid Dragon deployment of the ALCM, turning any cargo aircraft capable of using Rapid Dragon into a nuclear delivery aircraft.

The potential to use Rapid Dragon for nuclear weapons delivery (and eventually this will occur) will create new issues when serious nuclear weapons limitation resume. 

……………………………………..The potential for nuclear launch from cargo aircraft creates new tactical problems that could affect survivability and deterrence concepts. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

more https://thebulletin.org/2023/08/rapid-dragon-the-us-military-game-changer-that-could-affect-conventional-and-nuclear-strategy-and-arms-control-negotiations/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter08072023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_RapidDragon_0804202

August 9, 2023 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Oppenheimer’ the movie versus our nuclear reality

In a thermonuclear war, assuming the combatants maintained a so-called “second strike” capability to retaliate fully if hit first, there would be no winners — only losers.

BY HARLAN ULLMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 08/07/23  https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4140178-oppenheimer-the-movie-versus-our-nuclear-reality/

Seventy-eight years ago, the first atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945. About 200,000 Japanese were initially killed. 

The summer blockbuster “Oppenheimer” tells this story from the perspective of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the technical director of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, that built the bomb. But the movie does not tell the whole story, depriving the public of a broader understanding of the impact of the arrival of the nuclear age.

The movie omits how and why the actual decision to use these weapons was made and, despite Oppenheimer’s great regret about becoming a “destroyer of civilization,” that would become relevant only after the first hydrogen bomb was detonated in 1952.

The White House meeting to use these weapons lasted about an hour. The alternative was to continue the war and invade the Japanese home islands. But Operation Downfall, the invasion plan, estimated at least a million Allied casualties and many times that for the Japanese given their history of suicidal resistance. Hence, there was little debate on dropping the bombs. [Ed. these interpretations are questioned by many historians, with claims that the Japanese were already ready to surrender]]

After the “Little Boy” bomb leveled Hiroshima, the Japanese war cabinet voted to continue fighting. But when “Fat Man” destroyed Nagasaki, home to Japan’s largest Christian population and about 400 prisoners of war, the war cabinet was deadlocked. The emperor broke the deadlock. Japan would surrender unconditionally. The reason was “shock and awe.”

People could understand how thousands of plane bombing raids could cause vast amounts of death and destruction. But one bomb from a single bomber creating that carnage was inconceivable. The Japanese also did not know how many atomic weapons the U.S. possessed and assumed the worst. Hence, from suicidal resistance, Japan was shocked and awed into total capitulation.

The damages from the atomic bombings and Japanese deaths were expected to be no greater than the firebombing raids on Japanese and German cities. Tokyo and Nagoya,  Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin had been continuously firebombed. The Japanese battleship “Haruna” was also firebombed. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in those incidents, perishing in infernos as deadly as those caused by the atom bombs, many more than were initially killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Enola Gay was the single B-29 that bombed Hiroshima. The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the 20 kiloton range. One kiloton had the explosive equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT. Hence, the two atom bombs each had the power of 40,000 tons of TNT and were generated by nuclear fission — that was splitting atoms using uranium-235 and plutonium-239.

Then, nuclear weapons were seen as more powerful extensions of conventional weapons requiring fewer delivery systems. The future debate over the 1949 U.S. defense budget and the supercarrier versus the B-36 largely rested on the assumption that nuclear weapons were not existential to society. 

But the thermonuclear age changed the nature of war, confirming Oppenheimer’s worst fears. For the only time in history, war was existential. In a thermonuclear war, assuming the combatants maintained a so-called “second strike” capability to retaliate fully if hit first, there would be no winners — only losers. And “boosted” fission would greatly increase the power of nuclear weapons.

A thermonuclear weapon is based on fusing atoms. The power of the first hydrogen bomb was about 10 megatons. A megaton is the equivalent of 1 million tons of TNT, or potentially, 1,000 times larger than a nuclear weapon.

B-29s could carry a 20-ton payload. Two thousand B-29s carried the combined explosive power of one 20 kiloton A-bomb. But a 20 megaton hydrogen bomb would have required 2 million B-29s to impose the same level of damage.

Whether or not Oppenheimer had the foresight to recognize the consequences of thermonuclear war, he certainly opposed developing those weapons. However, the nuclear genie was long out of the bottle. If the U.S. had not proceeded, the Soviet Union almost certainly would have, as Moscow had stolen many of our nuclear secrets, of which the “super bomb” was one.

But the question that Oppenheimer posed about weapons threatening humanity is more relevant today. Unlike the Cold War, China no longer believes, as Mao did, that “to have a few [atom bombs] is just fine.” Along with the U.S. and Russia, there could be three nuclear superpowers.

Britain, France, India, Pakistan and North Korea likewise are nuclear-armed as is Israel, which still has not confirmed its status. A number of states could go nuclear, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and, to the dismay of the U.S. among others, Iran. 

What can be done to prevent armageddon? That may be the looming strategic question of the coming decades.

August 8, 2023 Posted by | weapons and war | 1 Comment

Nuclear weapons since Oppenheimer: Who’s in control?

Bulletin, By Lisbeth Gronlund | August 4, 2023

The theme of control—and the lack of it—appears throughout Christopher Nolan’s latest film Oppenheimer.

………………………………………………………… While others were not so sanguine, Oppenheimer expected that he and other scientists who built the bomb would have a hand in future US policy. This belief also proved to be short-lived.

The scene in which the two bombs that would be detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are boxed up and handed over to the military hammers home the point that the scientists were no longer in control of these weapons—literally and figuratively……………………..

…………………………….. Who really has been in control all these years? No one.

Policy makers—not just in the United States but in all nations with nuclear weapons—have abdicated their responsibilities to curb and eliminate the threat posed by their nuclear weapons. They have let the interests of their military and arms producers control the agenda—and the budget for these weapons. They have been swayed by the abstract goal of “deterrence,” which is a creature with a voracious appetite.

During the 2020 presidential election campaign, President Joe Biden pledged to adopt a “no first use” policy. It is shocking that the United States still considers using nuclear weapons first to be a viable option, even though it would likely spur a wider nuclear war. Sadly, it was not shocking that President Biden’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review did not include this promised policy change. Instead, the president gave in to the military, which does not like to foreclose options. But, of course, that’s exactly what he and his overseas counterparts need to do—foreclose options. Take control.  https://thebulletin.org/2023/08/nuclear-weapons-since-oppenheimer-whos-in-control/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter08072023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_WhosInControl_08042023

August 8, 2023 Posted by | Religion and ethics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Counting the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This is a very long, well-researched, and amply illustrated article. Below are a few snatches to give a sense of the work involved in seeking an answer to this question.

Bulletin, By Alex Wellerstein, August 4, 2020

How many people died as a result of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

There is one thing that everyone who has tackled this question has agreed upon: The answer is probably fundamentally unknowable. The indiscriminate damage inflicted upon the cities, coupled with the existing disruptions of the wartime Japanese home front, means that any precise reckoning is never going to be achieved.

Earliest estimates……………………………………………………………………………………….

Occupation estimates………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. One of the most useful sources they consulted was also one of the most grim: schools and schoolchildren, which kept meticulous attendance records. Not only were there good records, but “the headmasters in many instances had made earnest efforts to trace families by letter, messenger, or personal contact.” Even better, the researchers found that many of the children were not in their classrooms at the time of the bombing, but had been detailed into “patriotic work parties” throughout the city, working in factories or working on firebreaks. So this provided data for many different distances from the bombing, and different types of structures. In this tragic fashion, the most vulnerable of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a key role in establishing the total death counts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Japanese-led reconsiderations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So what numbers should one use?

Given all of the above, and the disagreements about source terms that can dramatically alter the totals, what numbers should people who want to discuss the victims of the bombings use when doing so?

There is, I think it should be clear, no simple answer to this. In practice, authors and reports seem to cluster around two numbers, which I will call the “low” and the “high” estimates. The “low” estimates are those derived from the estimates of the 1940s: around 70,000 dead at Hiroshima, and around 40,000 dead at Nagasaki, for 110,000 total dead. The “high” estimates are those that derive from the 1977 re-estimation: around 140,000 dead at Hiroshima, and around 70,000 dead at Nagasaki, for a total of 210,000 total dead. Given that the “high” estimates are almost double the “low” estimates, this is a significant difference. There is no intellectually defensible reason to assume that, for example, an average (105,000 dead at Hiroshima, 55,000 dead at Nagasaki) would be more accurate or meaningful.

My qualitative sense is that historians who want to emphasize the suffering of the Japanese (and the injustice of the bombing) tend to prefer the “high” numbers, while those who want to emphasize the military necessity of the attack tend to prefer the “low” numbers. And therein lies the real question: What do these estimates do for us, rhetorically? It is clear that numbers, stripped from their technical contexts, are deployed primarily as a form of moral calculus. And this should not surprise us, given that so much of the argument defending the atomic bombs relies on another casualty estimate: how many people might have died in a full-scale land invasion of Japan (numbers that have been similarly contested for decades, ranging from tens of thousands of casualties, to the more imaginative millions).

Separately, the number of dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have also been explicitly compared to the estimated dead from the devastating firebombing attacks against both Germany (notably Dresden) and Japan (notably Tokyo) that preceded them. This argument is again part of the justification of atomic bombings, an attempt to show that they were not “special” in any particular moral sense when put up against “conventional” Allied activity. Whether this is or isn’t a strong argument is out of scope for this article, but it is just worth keeping in mind what work the “low” numbers do, for they pale in comparison with the highest estimates of the Tokyo bombing dead, and with the estimates for a land invasion of Japan.

Given that there is no satisfactory way to decide whether the “low” or “high” estimates are more accurate, it is fairly clear there is no “neutral” choice to be made. It ultimately comes down to which sort of authority one wishes to go with: the official estimates of the United States military in the 1940s, or the later estimates by a group of anti-nuclear weapons scientists, largely spearheaded by Japan. Both made legitimate points in making their estimations; neither show any apparent perfidy or obvious intellectual dishonesty.

Short of choosing one or the other, is there an elegant way to talk about the range? Saying “between 70,000 and 140,000 people died at Hiroshima” captures some of it, but does not really capture the reasons for the variance in these numbers. I might suggest, if there is space to do so, saying something like:

“The United States military estimated that around 70,000 people died at Hiroshima, though later independent estimates argued that the actual number was 140,000 dead. In both cases, the majority of the deaths occurred on the day of the bombing itself, with nearly all of them taking place by the end of 1945.”

This makes the authorship claims more explicit (even as it generalizes quite a bit into “the United States military” and “independent estimates”), and also makes it clear that this range is the cause of two entirely different assessments, not the errors of a single assessment. And it clarifies the question of timing, if the latter clause is allowed in. It is a wordy explanation—journalists will no doubt question whether it is worth the space in an article where they probably just wanted a simple number to quote—but if we are going to invoke such uncounted dead, it is worth the effort to do it in a way that is respectful of the uncertainties involved.

 https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter08072023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_CountingDeadHiroshimaNagasakiMag_08042020
—

August 8, 2023 Posted by | Japan, Reference, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ukraine fights narrative battle as counteroffensive stalls – NBC

Rt.com 7 Aug 23

Kiev and its supporters are reportedly worried about perceptions in the West

Faced with a lack of progress on the battlefield, the government in Kiev has taken up a public relations battle in the West, NBC News reported on Friday, citing several US and Ukrainian officials.

As some US officials are “frustrated at the pace” of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, Kiev and some of its backers “worry about losing control of the narrative,” according to NBC. 

“If the perception gets out there that the Ukrainians can’t win, then we’re not going to provide them the stuff they need to win,” former US ambassador to Kiev William Taylor told the outlet, warning of a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Nikodem Rachon, spokesman for the Polish embassy in Washington, told NBC that Russia “exploits” Ukraine’s lack of battlefield success in propaganda, “aiming to weaken the unity of countries supporting Ukraine.”

President Vladimir Zelensky himself has admitted the “slower pace” of the counteroffensive, blaming the West for delayed deliveries of weapons and ammunition that gave the Russians time to dig in. Deputy Defense Minister Anna Maliar recently claimed gains of “about 241 square kilometers” of territory, which NBC described as “less than 100 square miles.”……………………………………………………………………………..

The Russian Defense Ministry reported on Friday that Ukraine had lost more than 43,000 troops and over 4,900 pieces of heavy weaponry over the course of June and July, including German-made tanks, US-made infantry fighting vehicles, and 747 pieces of artillery.

British intelligence has blamed “weeds and shrubs” growing along the line of contact for slowing down Ukraine’s armor. Kiev officials have latched onto another talking point, however. Leonid Polyakov, a former deputy defense minister of Ukraine who now works for a think tank advising President Vladimir Zelensky, told NBC that Ukraine can’t properly follow US military doctrine without air support.

We have launched a counteroffensive without any kind of air superiority – not in the air force, not in drones, not in helicopters,” Polyakov said. He told a story about two Ukrainian brigades that launched unsupported attacks in June and July and got “shredded” by Russian defenses.

“We wouldn’t do it. We’ve never done it and yet we’re asking them to do it,” agreed ex-ambassador Taylor, who fought in Vietnam as an infantry officer.

The US and its allies are currently training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighters, but no country has pledged to actually deliver the jets just yet.   https://www.rt.com/russia/580844-ukraine-offensive-narrative-battle/
—

August 8, 2023 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Decades Later, the U.S. Government Called Hiroshima and Nagasaki ‘Nuclear Tests’

The military was able to test both a uranium-fueled bomb on Hiroshima and a second plutonium bomb on Nagasaki to gauge their effects on big cities.

Today, in some elite circles of Russia and the United States, normalized talk of using “tactical” nuclear weapons has upped the madness ante.

NORMAN SOLOMON, AUG 1, 2023 https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/2663585/posts/4838936867

In 1980, when I asked the press office at the U.S. Department of Energy to send me a listing of nuclear bomb test explosions, the agency mailed me an official booklet with the title “Announced United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 Through December 1979.” As you’d expect, the Trinity test in New Mexico was at the top of the list. Second on the list was Hiroshima. Third was Nagasaki.

So, 35 years after the atomic bombings of those Japanese cities in August 1945, the Energy Department—the agency in charge of nuclear weaponry—was categorizing them as “tests.”

Later on, the classification changed, apparently in an effort to avert a potential P.R. problem. By 1994, a new edition of the same document explained that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “were not ‘tests’ in the sense that they were conducted to prove that the weapon would work as designed…or to advance weapon design, to determine weapons effects, or to verify weapon safety.”

But the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually were tests, in more ways than one.

Take it from the Manhattan Project’s director, Gen. Leslie Groves, who recalled: “To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the targets should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the first target be of such size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb.”

A physicist with the Manhattan Project, David H. Frisch, remembered that U.S. military strategists were eager “to use the bomb first where its effects would not only be politically effective but also technically measurable.” The military was able to test both a uranium-fueled bomb on Hiroshima and a second plutonium bomb on Nagasaki to gauge their effects on big cities.

For good measure, after the Trinity bomb test in the New Mexico desert used plutonium as its fission source on July 16, 1945, in early August the military was able to test both a uranium-fueled bomb on Hiroshima and a second plutonium bomb on Nagasaki to gauge their effects on big cities.

August 7, 2023 Posted by | history, Japan, weapons and war | 1 Comment

NATO’s Secret Armies – Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe

This fascinating new study shows how the CIA and the British secret service, in collaboration with the military alliance NATO and European military secret services, set up a network of clandestine anti-communist armies in Western Europe after World War II.

These secret soldiers were trained on remote islands in the Mediterranean and in unorthodox warfare centres in England and in the United States by the Green Berets and SAS Special Forces. The network was armed with explosives, machine guns and high-tech communication equipment hidden in underground bunkers and secret arms caches in forests and mountain meadows. In some countries the secret army linked up with right-wing terrorist who in a secret war engaged in political manipulation, harrassement of left wing parties, massacres, coup d’états and torture.

Codenamed ‘Gladio’ (‘the sword’), the Italian secret army was exposed in 1990 by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti to the Italian Senate, whereupon the press spoke of “The best kept, and most damaging, political-military secret since World War II” (Observer, 18. November 1990) and observed that “The story seems straight from the pages of a political thriller.” (The Times, November 19, 1990). Ever since, so-called ‘stay-behind’ armies of NATO have also been discovered in France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Greece and Turkey. They were internationally coordinated by the Pentagon and NATO and had their last known meeting in the NATO-linked Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) in Brussels in October 1990.

August 7, 2023 Posted by | EUROPE, resources - print, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Greg Mitchell on “Oppenheimer” & Why Hollywood Is Still Afraid of the Truth About the Atomic Bomb

The movie Oppenheimer about the “father of the atomic bomb” focuses on J. Robert Oppenheimer’s conflicted feelings about the weapons of mass destruction he helped unleash on the world, and how officials ignored those concerns after World War II as the Cold War started an arms race. Journalist Greg Mitchell says that while the film is well made and worth seeing, “the omissions are quite serious.” He says there is little mention of the dangers of radiation and no focus on the impact of the bomb on its victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The film also does not question the necessity of using the bomb in the first place, upholding the “official narrative … that has held sway since 1945,” says Mitchell.

Greg Mitchell is a documentary filmmaker and the author of numerous books, including The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. He was editor of Nuclear Times magazine from 1982 to 1986 and has written about this new film for Mother Jones, on his Substack, and in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times headlined “‘Oppenheimer’ is here. Is Hollywood still afraid of the truth about the atomic bomb?” Transcript: https://www.democracynow.org/2023/7/2…

August 7, 2023 Posted by | media, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Kiev’s broken record: No matter what advanced weaponry the West sends, there is no magic wand to conjure a Ukrainian victory

Rt.com 6 Aug 23

Zelensky’s team keeps asking for more advanced military hardware as though hoping for a divine intervention that can turn the tide of war.

“………………………………………………………………………Ukrainian presidential adviser Mikhail Podoliak……….. advocated for a political solution to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine by calling on the West to provide F-16 fighters, ATACMS long-range artillery rockets, and modern missile and air defense systems to Ukraine.

According to Podoliak, these weapons are needed by Ukraine to forcibly evict Russian forces from territory Ukraine claims is illegally occupied by Russia (including Crimea). Anything less than this, he contends, “will result in the collapse of the global security order and the triumph of bloody cannibals around the world.”

…………………..the emphasis placed by the Ukrainian politician on the impact the requested weapons would have on the outcome of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is telling. On its face, Podoliak’s statement at once reveals the depth of Ukraine’s military difficulties, and the reality that nothing – not even the provision of the requested weapons systems – can reverse the trajectory of strategic defeat that Kiev currently finds itself on.

Back in December 2022, the commander of Ukrainian forces, General Valery Zaluzhny, articulated what material support he wanted from NATO, Western Europe, and the US in order to defeat Russia. “We need tanks,” Zaluzhny said. “We need armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles. And we need ammo. Please note, I’m not talking about the F-16 now.”

At the end of June 2023, however, Zaluzhny, confronted with the fact that the counteroffensive he had promised if he received the requested weapons (he did) was failing, sang a different tune. “I do not need 120 planes [i.e., F-16’s]. I’m not going to threaten the whole world. A very limited number would be enough. But they are needed. Because there is no other way. Because the enemy is using a different generation of aviation. It’s like we’d go on the offensive with bows and arrows now, and everyone would say, ‘Are you crazy’?”

The US and its NATO allies are currently providing training to Ukrainian pilots on the F-16, and it is expected that Ukraine may receive a small number of the aircraft sometime later this year. But they will not be available in time to have an impact on Ukraine’s faltering counteroffensive, something Zaluzhny believes to be a mistake on the part of his Western partners.

Zaluzhny’s American counterpart, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, disagrees. Following a virtual meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which coordinates the supply of weaponry to Ukraine, Milley told the press that the provision of F-16s made no sense from a financial perspective. “If you look at the F-16, 10 F-16s [cost] a billion dollars, the sustainment cost another billion dollars, so you’re talking about $2 billion for 10 aircraft,” Milley said, noting that if the US had provided F-16s earlier, Ukraine would not have gotten much of the equipment Zaluzhny claimed he needed to carry out the Ukrainian counteroffensive. “There are no magic weapons in war,” Milley said. “F-16s are not and neither is anything else.”

Podoliak and the Ukrainians disagree. While hopes for an F-16-powered ‘Divine Wind’ remain quashed for the moment, Kiev is hoping that the US will lift its prohibition on the supply of ATACMS long-range artillery rockets. As things currently stand, however, such a decision is not in the works, with the Biden administration continuing to be worried about any possible escalation in the Ukraine conflict that could lead to a direct military-on-military clash between the US and Russia.

……………………….The problem facing Ukraine is that Russia has responded to the provisions of these weapons by unleashing a massive suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) campaign designed to neutralize them, and all of Ukraine’s air defense for that matter. This campaign has been successful at stripping away air defense from the front lines and weakening it around critical strategic targets inside Ukraine. Russia today enjoys air superiority throughout Ukraine, able to strike any target it desires at any time. While Ukraine continues to ask for modern air defense systems to replace those destroyed by Russia, the bottom line is these will suffer the same fate as those that preceded them – being destroyed or rendered ineffective. 

Podoliak knows the hard truth, yet he and other senior Ukrainian officials continue to call upon the collective West to provide a miracle weapon that will tip the scales in Ukraine’s favor………. https://www.rt.com/russia/580768-ukraine-western-weapons-victory/

August 7, 2023 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why no Hollywood movie on Nagasaki A Bombing?

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition
Glen Ellyn IL  06 Aug 23
In the 1952 movie ‘Above and Beyond’, movie idol Robert Taylor played handsome Col. Paul Tibbetts, straight out of Central Casting, who piloted Enola Gay to drop the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima 78 years ago today. We all grew up in awe of Tibbetts, Enola Gay and the perfect mission which incinerated Hiroshima from the first A Bomb dropped in anger.My awe eventually turned to revulsion over a horrendous war crime.
 
But who piloted what plane that dropped the second A Bomb on Nagasaki just 3 days later?

 The American Story has largely erased the saga of the Nagasaki mission for good reason. It was a colossal screw up that almost got the pilot court martialed; indeed, nearly detonated Fat Man over the Pacific en route.

Trouble began early on. Paul Tibbetts, fresh from his Hiroshima success, picked his friend Charles Sweeney to pilot the drop plane ‘Bockscar’ instead of its regular pilot Fred Bock. Sweeney was unfamiliar with both combat and the plane. Preparing for takeoff, Sweeney was unable to operate the reserve tank containing 640 gallons of fuel needed to get Bockscar safely back to its Tinian takeoff point. Bock may have had the familiarity with the plane to accomplish that. Regulations required the mission be scrapped so Sweeney and crew exited Bockscar. But Tibbetts overruled them and the mission was on with insufficient fuel.

Three hours in, worse trouble. Fat Man’s red detonation lights began blinking wildly. Chief weaponeer Dick Ashworth frantically searched the blueprints and realized 2 switches had been reversed in the pre flight assembly. Solving that problem, everyone relaxed till Bockscar failed to rendezvous with the second of two back up planes, one for photography and one for instruments. The instrument plane, The Big Stink, was 9,000 feet above Bockscar.

Instead of pushing on to original target Kokura, Sweeney wasted 45 minutes of precious fuel trying to link up. Big Stink pilot Hoppy Hopkins broke radio silence frantically calling Tinian asking “Is Bockscar down?” Mission officials only heard “Bockscar Down” and freaked out believing Bockscar, Fat Man and the 13 member crew were in Davy Jones Locker.

Ashford was frantic that all was lost. As tension mounted between the weaponeer and the pilot, he finally persuaded Sweeney to proceed to primary target Kokura. But a smokescreen put up by Japanese defenders responding to the Hiroshima attack caused Sweeney to go around for a second and third bomb run, wasting more fuel.

More trouble. Flack and approaching Japanese Zeros forced Sweeney to abandon Kokura to flee 100 miles to alternate target Nagasaki.

The drop made, Sweeney made a desperate dive to avoid the mushroom cloud that nearly engulfed them. But his previous delays made the return trip to Tinian impossible. Low on fuel, Sweeney began a treacherous 450 mile flight on dwindling fuel for Okinawa. All aboard Bockscar prepared to ditch. Approaching the Okinawa airfield unable to radio the tower of their emergency, Bockscar had to drop into a forced landing amid numerous other flights without control tower clearance. Bockscar bounced 25 feet in the air landing at 30 MPH over the maximum landing speed, nearly colliding with a row of fuel laden B-24’s. One engine quit on the approach and another upon touchdown. Thinking Bockscar was lost, airport personnel inquired who this strange plane was that descended out of the sky unannounced. ‘We just dropped an atomic bomb’ was the reply.

There were no celebrations for the crew of Bockscar. Officials considered a courts martial for Sweeney for his life and mission threatening delays but considered the embarrassment it would cause and decided against. Why mar the mission-perfect first nuking of civilians by Paul Tibbetts and Enola Gay?

While we’ll never get a Hollywood treatment of the Bockscar A Bomb mission, it would be a lot more exciting than ‘Above and Beyond’. An appropriate title? ‘Nearly Down and Out Over Nagasaki’.

August 7, 2023 Posted by | history, media, Reference, weapons and war | 2 Comments

Like ‘the tolling of a distant temple bell’, Ibuse Masuji’s Black Rain remembers the horrors of Hiroshima and warns of the inhumanity of war

Jindan Ni, August 4, 2023  https://theconversation.com/like-the-tolling-of-a-distant-temple-bell-ibuse-masujis-black-rain-remembers-the-horrors-of-hiroshima-and-warns-of-the-inhumanity-of-war-205837?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%202700227280&utm_content=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%202700227280+CID_e1af8a5e068132789cd3bffaecf54867&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Like%20the%20tolling%20of%20a%20distant%20temple%20bell%20Ibuse%20Masujis%20Black%20Rain%20remembers%20the%20horrors%20of%20Hiroshima%20and%20warns%20of%20the%20inhumanity%20of%20war

In May 2023, almost 80 years after its devastation by an atomic bomb, Hiroshima again became the focus of world attention as the host city for the 49th G7 Summit.

On the summit’s official website, Hiroshima is presented as the exemplar of Japan’s postwar success. It is described as an “international city of peace and culture” and “resolute postwar advancement”. There are photos of its serene landscapes, its local delicacies and sake, and its modern sports and street culture.

The bombing of Hiroshima at the conclusion of World War II is mentioned just once. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial, according to the site, “speaks to the horrors of nuclear weapons”.

Hiroshima has more than this to tell us. But its stories, its “several pasts”, have been constantly abridged – or “refashioned”, as Michel Foucault would say. They have been adapted to serve political agendas.

On August 6, 1945, after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, President Harry Truman released a statement that praised the scientific achievement:

“Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base […]

It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East […]

What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history. It was done under high pressure and without failure”.

The atomic bomb was something altogether different for Japan. After the bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese emperor Hirohito broadcast his “jewel voice” to make the announcement of Japan’s surrender to his subjects. He spoke in an opaque, classical language almost incomprehensible to ordinary Japanese:

“The enemy has for the first time used cruel bombs to kill and maim extremely large numbers of the innocent and the heavy casualties are beyond measure; if the war were continued, it would lead not only to the downfall of our nation but also to the destruction of all human civilization.“

In these statements, we can see Truman and Hirohito attempting to justify their actions. We can see interpretations of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki taking different tracks. Such modified national memories install a kind of forgetting. They are ways of marginalising or erasing individual experiences of the war.In these statements, we can see Truman and Hirohito attempting to justify their actions. We can see interpretations of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki taking different tracks. Such modified national memories install a kind of forgetting. They are ways of marginalising or erasing individual experiences of the war.

During the postwar occupation of Japan, from 1945-1952, the Allied occupiers sought to remould the Japanese minds. The “horrors of nuclear weapons” could not be mentioned. Pictures and narratives about the atomic bombs were subject to strict censorship.

Only after the easing of censorship could Japanese writers begin to reveal the details of the horrendous suffering that occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These works became collectively known as genbaku bungaku, or “atomic bomb literature”. The explorations of the destructive power of war and institutionalised violence have left their mark on contemporary Japanese literature.

Ibuse Masuji’s Black Rain, which won the prestigious Noma Literary Prize after its publication in 1965, epitomises atomic bomb literature. It is now considered a classic of modern Japanese literature.

Black Rain records the scorching memories of the hibakusha – atomic bomb survivors – of the bombing and its aftermath. More significantly, it critiques the brutality of war, the militarised state, and the purposeful forgetting of history. Ibuse based his novel on journals and interviews with the bomb survivors, writing against amnesia using what he called the “crudest kind of realism”.

Forgetting and stigmatisation

Black Rain begins four years and nine months after the war. Shizuma Shigematsu and his family live a seemingly quiet and normal life in the village of Kobatake, about 100 kilometres from Hiroshima city. But the fact that they once lived and worked close to Hiroshima is still a weight upon their lives.

Shigematsu is vexed about his niece Yasuko’s poor marriage prospects. There are rumours circulating in the village that Yasuko was near the epicentre of the explosion and now has radiation sickness. As her guardian, Shigematsu is agonised with guilt, as it was at his instigation that Yasuko came to Hiroshima city, so as to avoid the army’s conscription of young women to work in the factories that produced military supplies.

During the war, “irresponsible talk” was strictly forbidden by the army. But after the war, Shigematsu laments, rumours stigmatising people like Yasuko are by no means under control. To prove that Yasuko was not exposed to radiation, Shigematsu decides to copy Yasuko’s wartime diary entries and show them to the village matchmaker.

For the survivors of Hiroshima, memories of the bombing return unbidden. The misery of past has to be revisited to ease their present predicament.

Initially, no one knew what happened when the bomb fell. It was beyond everyone’s comprehension. And it is this horror of not knowing that Black Rain agonisingly depicts. Because of this, people who were not at the epicentre went towards it. They went in search of their families and were thus unnecessarily exposed to radiation.

Yasuko was one of these victims. She was 10 kilometres from the epicentre, but became caught in the radioactive “black rain” on the way to find her uncle and aunt. The rain leaves ominous strange black stains on Yasuko. Her dread is heartwrenching:

I felt horrified, and then awfully sad. However many times I went to the ornamental spring to wash myself, the stains from the black rain wouldn’t come off.

Despite Shigematsu’s efforts to prove that Yasuko is free from radiation sickness, she develops symptoms eventually, almost five years after the bomb. There is no cure for this condition and the doctor asks Shigematsu to report Yasuko’s case to the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC), which was established by the Allied occupation in 1947 with “the highest ideals” in order to collect data of the victims.

The commission only documented cases like Yasuko’s; it provided no treatment for the victims.

Tradition versus modernity

In Black Rain, Ibuse boldly challenges the modernisation which Japan has been determined to achieve since the Meiji Restoration, which began in 1868.

His critique of modernity is highly nuanced, with a tinge of humour. For example, when Shigematsu decides to copy Yasuko’s diaries, his wife Shigeko asks him to use Chinese brush ink instead of ordinary pen ink which does not last. To convince him, she shows him a letter which was sent to his great-grandfather from Tokyo in 1870.

The letter sender proudly concludes his letter by emphasising “this letter, in accordance with my promise to you at the time, is written in the ‘ink’ commonly in use in the West.” But the ink has “faded to a pathetic light brown colour”.

Shigematsu agrees to his wife that they should use the traditional brush ink so that their diaries and memories can be well preserved.

In the introduction to his English translation of Black Rain, John Bester writes that Ibuse shows “infinite nostalgia” towards “the beauty of the Japanese countryside and the ancient customs of its people”. For Ibuse, it is only through traditional food and medicine that the damages brought by science and modernity, exemplified by the atomic bomb, can be eased and soothed.

Appeal to nature, humanity and peace

Black Rain dwells on the atrocity of war as it affects people, but it also documents damage that war inflicts on nature. Shigematsu recalls the massive gingko tree he liked to play under, which stood outside his friend Kōtarō’s place. It was cut down for the “national interest” during the war.

Similarly, the novel records that villagers were ordered to dig pine-tree roots to extract oil for “the engines of the planes whose job it was to shoot down B-29s”.

Animals also suffered as a result of the atomic bomb, just as people did. The fish in the lake died. Like the bomb survivors who lost teeth and hair, they lost their scales and could not swim normally.

In Black Rain, the collective forgetting of the direct experiences of the victims leads to systematic stigmatisation and bias against them, which exacerbates their struggle. Shōkichi – Shigematsu’s friend who also survived the bomb – stridently announces:

Everybody’s forgotten! Forgotten the hellfires we went through that day – forgotten them and everything else, with their damned anti-bomb rallies. It makes me sick, all the prancing and shouting they do about it.

Shōkichi’s visceral repulsion to the anti-bomb rallies speaks of a collective forgetting, in which the enduring sufferings of the “precious victims” have been deployed as convenient narratives to serve the “national interest”. As the historian John Dower succinctly puts it, the rallies and memorial activities conformed to the state’s need of “nuclear victimization”, which aimed to shape “new forms of nationalism in postwar Japan”.

One of the maimed survivors in Black Rain writes in his journal that he now has permanent ringing in his ears: “it persists in my ear day and night, like the tolling of a distant temple bell, warning man of the folly of the bomb”.

Black Rain calls for a proper remembering of the war. In Ibuse’s documentary novel, Hiroshima is allowed to speak more and remember more. Through Shigematsu’s voice, Ibuse expresses the anger and despair of the people forced to endure the war:

I hated war. Who cared, after all, which side won? The only important thing was to end it all soon as possible: rather an unjust peace, than a “just” war!

August 6, 2023 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES, Reference, resources - print, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Those who will fire the nuclear weapons are thoroughly trained to have no hesitation. We must stop them.

SCOTT RITTER: The Atomic Executioner’s Lament

Consortium News, August 2, 2023

While the world focuses on the trials and travails of the scientists who invented the atomic bomb, little attention is paid to the hard positions taken by the nuclear executioners, the men called upon to drop these bombs in time of war.

“…………………………………………………………………………… Formed on March 6, 1945, the 1st Ordnance Squadron, Special (Aviation) was part of the 509th Composite Group, commanded by then-Lieutenant Colonel Paul Tibbets. Prior to being organized into the 1st Ordnance Squadron, the men of the unit were assigned to a U.S. Army ordnance squadron stationed a Wendover, Utah, where Tibbets and the rest of the 509th Composite Group were based.

While Oppenheimer and his scientists designed the nuclear device, the mechanism of delivery — the bomb itself — was designed by specialists assigned to the 509th. It was the job of the men of the 1st Ordnance Squadron to build these bombs from scratch.

………………………………..the decision was made that the final assembly of the bomb would be done only after the Enola Gay took off.

One of the 1st Ordnance Squadron technicians placed the uranium slug into the bomb at 7,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean.

The bomb worked as designed, killing more than 80,000 Japanese in an instant; hundreds of thousands more died afterwards from the radiation released by the weapon.

For the pilot and crew of the Enola Gay, there was no remorse over killing so many people………………………………………..Tibbets told Terkel. “If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: ‘You’ve killed so many civilians.’ That’s their tough luck for being there.”

Major Charles Sweeney, the pilot of Bockscar, the B-29 that dropped the second American atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945, held similar convictions about his role in killing 35,000 Japanese instantly.

……………………………………………………………….While the world focuses on the trials and travails of Oppenheimer and Sakharov, they remain silent about the hard positions taken by the nuclear executioners, the men called upon to drop these bombs in time of war.  There have only been two such men, and they remained resolute in their judgement that it was the right thing to do.

The executioner’s lament is overlooked by most people involved in supporting nuclear disarmament. This is a mistake, because the executioner, as was pointed out to Oppenheimer by the men of the 1st Ordnance Squadron, is in control.

They possess the weapons, and they are the ones who will be called upon to deliver the weapons. Their loyalty and dedication to task is constantly tested in order to ensure that, when the time comes to execute orders, they will do so without question.

………………………………………………………… Those who will execute the orders to use nuclear weapons in any future nuclear conflict will, in fact, execute those orders. They are trained, like Tibbets and Sweeney, to believe in the righteousness of their cause.

Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian prime minister and president who currently serves as the deputy chairman of the Russian National Security Council, has publicly warned the Western supporters of Ukraine that Russia would “have to” use nuclear weapons if Ukrainian forces were to succeed in their goal of recapturing the former territories of Ukraine that have been claimed by Russia in the aftermath of referenda held in September 2022………………………………………………………..

The Russians who would execute the orders to launch nuclear weapons against the West would be operating with the same moral clarity as had Paul Tibbets and Charles Sweeney some 88 years ago. The executioner’s lament holds that they will be saddened by their decision but convinced that they had no other choice.

Proving them wrong will be impossible, because unlike the war with Japan, where the survivors were given the luxury of reflection and accountability, there will be no survivors in any future nuclear conflict.

The onus, therefore, is on the average citizen to get involved in processes that separate the tools of our collective demise — nuclear weapons — from the those who will be called upon to use them.

Meaningful nuclear disarmament is the only hope humankind has for its continued survival.

The time to begin pushing for this is now, and there is no better place to start that on Aug. 6, 2023 — the 78th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, when like-minded persons will gather outside the United Nations to begin a dialogue about disarmament that will hopefully resonate enough to have an impact of the 2024 elections.  https://consortiumnews.com/2023/08/02/scott-ritter-the-executioners-lament/

August 6, 2023 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | 1 Comment

‘Barbenheimer’ highlights U.S. ignorance of nuclear reality

Lack of images depicting the real-life horrors of the atomic bombs left a generation in the dark

BY DON CARLETON 4 Aug 23  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2023/08/04/japan/barbie-oppenheimer-nuclear-weapons/

As we approach the 79th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America is gripped in a confusing and (as some have argued) insensitive cultural moment.

The release of very different movies, “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer,” on the same day has spawned the “Barbenheimer” craze where the two come together in a strange yet symbiotic fashion. Box office records have been broken across America and it has become a trend among moviegoers to express an ironic sense of humor by seeing both films on the same day.

In addition, countless internet jokes and memes — some showing “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” juxtaposed against the backdrop of atomic explosions — have gone viral. However, the resulting satire has led to deep offense and anger among many Japanese. Things culminated earlier this week when Warner Bros. (the makers of “Barbie”) issued an apology after their official U.S. social media account reacted positively to a Barbenheimer meme.

These memes aren’t harmless fun, because atomic bombs are never harmless. The two bombs dropped by the American armed forces on Hiroshima and Nagasaki created immense and intense human suffering. The Barbenheimer trend thus glosses over the tragedy at the core of “Oppenheimer” and points to the fact that few Americans have ever fully grappled with the enormous devastation of the atomic bombings. In large part, that’s because few Americans have ever seen that reality.

In 2018, I was approached by Hankaku Shashin Undo, the Anti-Nuclear Photographer’s Association (ANPM), who have worked since 1982 to preserve the legacy of Japanese photographers who documented the bombings and their immediate aftermath firsthand in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As the executive director of the Briscoe Center for American History at the University of Texas at Austin, a research center dedicated to fostering scholarly and public understanding of U.S. history, I was interested in ANPM’s invitation to collaborate. At the heart of ANPM’s activism is a desire to remove the danger of nuclear war from the world 

— a motive we can all support, regardless of how we feel about the American decision to drop the bombs. In working together, we hoped to raise visual awareness of “what actually happened” in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that a new generation of Americans might better understand the realities of nuclear war.

ANPM agreed to place a large digital archive of photographs at the Briscoe Center and I agreed to publish a book and create an exhibition of selected images. Along with two members of my staff, I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 2018, meeting with museum staff, journalists and hibakusha.

The result was “Flash of Light, Wall of Fire,” a 2020 book and subsequent exhibit. Throughout the project, our goal was simple. We wanted to show Americans something that they had never seen before: comprehensive visual evidence of the devastation and suffering atomic bombs cause.

Why have Americans not seen this evidence until now?

After World War II, photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immediately suppressed by the Japanese military and later by the American occupation forces in Japan, meaning very few were published on either side of the Pacific Ocean. After the end of the occupation in the 1950s (when Japanese books documenting the bombings began to be published and the memorial museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were founded), few photographs made their way from Japan to the United States.

If Americans thought of the bomb at all, their only visual memory was of the mushroom cloud, not the horrors inflicted on the Japanese civilians. This void led to a strange cultural dichotomy during the 1950s.

On the one hand, Americans took the bomb very seriously, with the Cold War fueling moments of political and cultural hysteria from McCarthyism to suburban fallout shelters. On the other hand, cultural fads such as “Miss Atomic Bomb” to atomic-themed candy made light of the bombings. Today, with Barbenheimer, we see that the pattern still resonates — seriousness on one hand, silliness on another, all smushed together in our popular culture.

“Oppenheimer” is a moving and serious film that raises important questions about the consequences of nuclear weapons through the personal experiences of physicist Robert Oppenheimer. It includes harrowing depictions of the July 1945 Trinity test site explosion in New Mexico, as well as a compelling scene where Oppenheimer briefly envisions the terrifying human effects of the bombs during a victory speech.

However, there is no attempt to depict the resulting terrors from the perspective of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Director Christopher Nolan explains this decision, in part: “(Oppenheimer) learned about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the radio, the same as the rest of the world.” It would be unreasonable to criticize Nolan for not including longer and more graphic scenes of this nature, given his vision for the film’s focus on Oppenheimer’s perspective. But without those scenes, and without any visual record in our collective memory, it is easier to avoid the ramifications of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when our view is taken from the bomb bay doors of the Enola Gay or Bockscar.

Conversely, it is impossible to deny the terror and tragedy of the bombings when one looks through the eyes of Yoshito Matsushige, Yosuke Yamahata, Eiichi Matsumoto, Shigeo Hayashi and other photographers on the ground in 1945. Thus, when the Briscoe Center agreed to receive, display and publish photographs donated by the ANPM, the desire was to get the American mind to look from under the mushroom cloud, so to speak.

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted our project (as well as the 75th anniversary commemorations in Japan) and diminished the impact of the center’s book and exhibit. Nevertheless, next year’s 80th anniversary gives historians, archivists and curators around the world a new opportunity.

The Barbenheimer moment shows us that much work remains to be done. If Americans are going to take the very real nuclear dangers of our age more seriously than previous generations (not to mention having a clearer view of what was done to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), they must be confronted with the stark visual evidence of what actually happened. On the whole, Americans are still looking at the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from a distance — visually, emotionally and intellectually.

As we approach the 80th anniversary of the bombings, it is time to make a renewed push to change that perspective.

August 6, 2023 Posted by | media, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia could convert civilian nuclear to military, Israeli expert warns

Former deputy head of Atomic Energy Commission fears that Riyadh’s demand to enrich uranium as part of Israel normalization deal may open ‘Pandora’s box,’ launch Mideast arms race

Times of Israel, By TAL SCHNEIDER2 August 2023,

Illustrative: A US nuclear bomb test at the Marshall Islands, 1954. (Wikicommons/US Department of Energy)

A former top official for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission has warned that agreeing to Saudi Arabia’s demand to be allowed to build a nuclear power plant as part of a normalization deal with Israel may create a dangerous international precedent and effectively prompt a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

“It won’t matter how many guarantees we receive from the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Ariel (Eli) Levite, who served as principal deputy director general for policy at Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission from 2002 to 2007, told Zman Israel, The Times of Israel’s Hebrew-language sister site, on Monday.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly set three conditions for signing a normalization agreement with Israel — access to advanced American defense technology such as the THAAD missile system, the establishment of a defense alliance with the United States, and a green light to develop nuclear power for civilian purposes.

…………………………………………………. “If Saudi Arabia builds a reactor, they can only place it near the Red Sea, because a reactor needs large amounts of water for cooling, and if a disaster or terrorist attack occurs there it won’t be a simple matter — for us too, since we are not far away,” – Levite, the former Atomic Energy Commission deputy director

Illustrative: A US nuclear bomb test at the Marshall Islands, 1954. (Wikicommons/US Department of Energy)

A former top official for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission has warned that agreeing to Saudi Arabia’s demand to be allowed to build a nuclear power plant as part of a normalization deal with Israel may create a dangerous international precedent and effectively prompt a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

“It won’t matter how many guarantees we receive from the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Ariel (Eli) Levite, who served as principal deputy director general for policy at Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission from 2002 to 2007, told Zman Israel, The Times of Israel’s Hebrew-language sister site, on Monday.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly set three conditions for signing a normalization agreement with Israel — access to advanced American defense technology such as the THAAD missile system, the establishment of a defense alliance with the United States, and a green light to develop nuclear power for civilian purposes.

Binary Options Fraud – ToI journalist Simona Weinglass’ storyPauseNext playlist itemUnmute

Loaded: 49.91%Picture-in-PictureFullscreenClose

For the last demand, National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi said Monday that Israel’s approval would not be required.

“Dozens of countries operate civilian nuclear programs. This is not something that endangers them or their neighbors,” Hanegbi told the Kan public broadcaster, adding that the issue would be solely between Washington and Riyadh.

Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Editionby email and never miss our top storiesNewsletter email addressGET IT

By signing up, you agree to the terms

Levite, the former Atomic Energy Commission deputy director, said there was no problem with nuclear reactors for energy production as long as they are properly maintained. However, he cautioned, “If a security or operational failure occurs, there can be an enormous environmental fallout. We know this from several incidents in the past, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima” — two severe nuclear leaks in Ukraine in 1986 and Japan in 2011.

“If Saudi Arabia builds a reactor, they can only place it near the Red Sea, because a reactor needs large amounts of water for cooling, and if a disaster or terrorist attack occurs there it won’t be a simple matter — for us too, since we are not far away,” he added.

Ariel (Eli) Levite speaking at a conference at the Reichman Institute in Herzliya, 2019. (YouTube screenshot via Zman Israel; used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)

Israel is also worried about the possibility of a civilian reactor being converted for military applications, Levite noted.

He said the biggest problem with Riyadh’s demand was that “they’re not satisfied with reactors for energy purposes, but are also interested in a uranium enrichment program. This is the most problematic and sensitive part of the deal that may be currently in the making.”…………………………………. more https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-arabia-could-convert-civilian-nuclear-to-military-israeli-expert-warns/

August 6, 2023 Posted by | Saudi Arabia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear catastrophe threat is ‘great and growing’, warn over 100 top medical journals

hypersonic missiles under constant development by many countries decrease the time available to distinguish between an attack and a false alarm.

Even ‘limited’ nuclear war with 250 of 13,000 nuclear weapons could kill 120 million people outright, op-ed says

Vishwam Sankaran, 3 Aug,  https://www.independent.co.uk/world/nuclear-catastrophe-threat-risk-growing-b2386802.html

The threat of a nuclear catastrophe is “great and growing” under the current global political environment, over 100 top medical journals have warned in a joint editorial.

Current efforts to control nuclear arms, as well as those for non-proliferation are “inadequate” to protect the world’s population against the threat of nuclear war, the editors of the journals warned, while pointing to the danger underlined by growing tensions between many nuclear armed states.

“As editors of health and medical journals worldwide, we call on health professionals to alert the public and our leaders to this major danger to public health and the essential life support systems of the planet – and urge action to prevent it,” the editors of journals like Lancet, BMJ, JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine said in the op-ed.

They also warned of the increasing risk of rapid escalation with the modernisation of nuclear arsenals by many countries, including China and the US.

Citing an example, the editors noted that hypersonic missiles under constant development by many countries decrease the time available to distinguish between an attack and a false alarm.

“Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity,” they said.

“Even a ‘limited’ nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting two billion people at risk,” the editorial said.

Once a nuclear weapon is detonated in any part of the world, escalation to an all-out nuclear war can occur rapidly.

They called for the prevention of any use of nuclear weapons as an urgent public health priority, adding that fundamental steps be taken to abolish all nuclear weapons.

The editors called on health professional associations worldwide to support efforts urging the adoption of a “no first use policy” and urge all states currently involved in conflicts to publicly and unequivocally pledge that they will not use nuclear weapons in these conflicts.

“The danger is great and growing. The nuclear armed states must eliminate their nuclear arsenals before they eliminate us,” they wrote.

August 6, 2023 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »