PETER HITCHENS: The arrogance and folly in Ukraine that could yet send us hurtling towards nuclear catastrophe

Daily Mail, By PETER HITCHENS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY, 12 December 2022
“………………………………………………………………….. let me quote the opening words of a frightening new book by Ben Abelow, How The West Brought War To Ukraine.
He says: ‘For almost 200 years, starting with the framing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States has asserted security claims over virtually the whole Western hemisphere. Any foreign power that places military forces near US territory knows it is crossing a red line. US policy thus embodies a conviction that where a potential opponent places its forces is crucially important.
‘In fact, this conviction is the cornerstone of American foreign and military policy, and its violation is considered reason for war.’
Because, you see, what I have described in my thriller is pretty much the mirror image of what the USA and Nato have been doing in Europe for some years. For Canada and the USA, read Russia. For Quebec, read Ukraine and the Baltic states. There are, in fact, Nato troops stationed now in Estonia.
They have been known to hold tank parades just yards from the border with Russia. That puts them 81 miles (about the distance from London to Coventry) from St Petersburg, Russia’s second city. Ben Abelow notes that ‘in 2020, Nato conducted a live-fire training exercise inside Estonia, 70 miles from Russia’s border, using tactical missiles with ranges up to 185 miles. These weapons can strike Russian territory with minimal warning. In 2021, again in Estonia, Nato fired 24 rockets to simulate an attack on air defence targets inside Russia’.
Again, can you begin to imagine the USA’s response to such action close to its borders, or Britain’s if (say) Ireland decided to join and host a foreign military alliance, hostile to us?
All kinds of slime will now be hurled at me, saying I am trying to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’m not. I continue to think it stupid, barbaric and wrong.
I think the best response to provocation is not to react in such ways. But not everyone is like me. And if nobody in the White House, the Pentagon or Nato thought that their policy towards Russia might be risking such an outcome, then I’d be amazed. As I’ve noted before, even the American anti-Russian superhawk Robert Kagan has said publicly that Russia was provoked. The worst bit of this is the nuclear element. In December 1987, I travelled to Washington to witness one of the most momentous and happy events of the age. This was the summit between Kremlin leader Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan, which culminated in the signing of a treaty banning medium-range nuclear missiles.
The danger from such weapons was that they were far more likely to be launched than long-range rockets. Experts calculated that using them might possibly not result in a total nuclear wipeout. Hence the need to get rid of them.
Well, Donald Trump repudiated that treaty in 2018, blaming Russia, not very convincingly, for his decision. This was the second major nuclear arms treaty the USA has torn up. Gorbachev snapped that this was ‘not the work of a great mind’. More frighteningly, he warned that ‘a new arms race has been announced’.
And now we have actual war in Ukraine, which no powerful person seems to want to end. In fact, anyone who urges serious peace talks is denounced as a traitor and appeaser. That filthy, cruel war is now slowly spreading into Russia itself, with consequences I daren’t guess at.
During the whole Cold War I never really believed we were in danger. The Cuban crisis, which slightly overshadowed preparations for my 11th birthday, persuaded me that everyone would have more sense. I thought and think that TV dramas about a nuclear Armageddon, such as the BBC’s The War Game and the American The Day After, were unconvincing. They couldn’t come up with a believable reason for a war to start.
But now it seems entirely plausible. And I’ve been watching the American TV series Jericho with grim fascination – not because its explanation of nuclear disaster is likely, but because its portrayal of a small, friendly town in a post-nuclear world slowly descending into savagery is convincing. Thanks to arrogance and folly, this could happen, and this is what it would be like if it did.
So I shall carry on saying that we need peace in Ukraine, and soon. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11524385/PETER-HITCHENS-arrogance-folly-Ukraine-send-nuclear-catastrophe.html
Maligned in Western Media, Donbass Forces are Defending their Future from Ukrainian Shelling and Fascism
Covert Action Magazine, By Eva Bartlett, – November 19, 2022
America is widely understood to be a key instigator behind conflict in Ukraine that has pitted brother against brother
meared, stigmatized, and lied about in Western media propaganda, the mostly Russian-speaking people of the Donbass region were being slaughtered by the thousands in a brutal war of “ethnic cleansing” launched against them by the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv, which the U.S. installed after the CIA overthrew Ukraine’s legally elected president in a 2014 coup.
Although the Donbass people had been pleading for Russian military aid to defend them against the increasingly murderous military assaults by the Ukraine government forces, which killed more than 14,000 of their people, Russian President Vladimir Putin declined to intervene. Instead, he tried to broker a peace agreement between the warring parties.
But the U.S. and Britain secretly colluded to sabotage peace negotiations, persuading president Zelenksy to ignore the Minsk 2 peace agreement that the Ukraine government had previously signed, and which had been countersigned by Russia, France and Germany.
Realizing that the U.S. and its NATO allies would never permit peace negotiations to succeed, Putin finally sent troops into Ukraine on February 24. Russian troops went in to support and reinforce the outnumbered and outgunned Donbass Special Forces who had been defending their land against attacks by the Kyiv government for nearly eight years.
Voices From the Frontlines of Former Eastern Ukraine Republics
In the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) in October, I went to a frontline outpost 70 meters from Ukrainian forces in Avdeevka (north and west of Donetsk), according to the Donbas commanders I spoke with there.
To reach that position, I went with two other journalists to a meeting point with two commanders of Pyatnashka—volunteer fighters, including Abkhazi, Slovak, Russian, Ossetian and other nationalities, including locals from Donbas.
From there, they drove us to a point as far as they could drive before walking the rest of the way, several minutes through brush and trenches, eventually coming to their sandbagged wood and cement fortified outpost.
It has changed hands over the years, Ukrainian forces sometimes occupying it, Donbas forces now controlling it.
One soldier, a unit commander who goes by the call sign “Vydra” (Otter), was formerly a miner from the DPR who had been living in Russia with his family. In 2014, he returned to the Donbas to defend his mother and relatives still there. He spoke of the outpost.
“We dug and built this with our hands. Several times over the years, the Ukrainians have taken these positions. We pushed them back, they stormed us…Well, we have been fighting each other for eight years.”
There, artillery fire is the biggest danger they face. “You can hide from a sniper, but not from artillery, and they’re using large caliber.”
His living quarters is a dank, cramped, room with a tiny improvised bed, with another small room and bed for others at the outpost.
A sign reads: “If shelling occurs, go to the shelter.” The kind of sign you see all over Donetsk and cities of the Donbas, due to Ukraine’s incessant shelling of civilian, residential areas. In a frontline outpost where incoming artillery is the norm, the sign is slightly absurd, clearly a joke.
An Orthodox icon sits atop the sign. Ukrainian nationalists hang and spray Nazi graffiti and slogans of death; these fighters revere their faith.
A poster, with the DPR flag, reads: “We have never known defeat, and it’s clear that this has been decided from above. Donbas has never been forced to its knees, and no one will ever be allowed to.”
The only things decorating the space are tins of tuna and canned meat, instant noodles, and washing powder. Their existence is bare minimum, nothing glamorous about it; they volunteer because, as they told me, this is their land and they will protect it.
Perhaps surprising to some, when Vydra was asked whether he hates Ukrainians, he replied emphatically no, he has friends and relatives in Ukraine.
“We have no hatred for Ukraine. We hate those nationalists who came to power. But ordinary Ukrainians? Why? Many of us speak Ukrainian. We understand them, they understand us. Many of them speak Russian………………………..
And I’m on the Myrotvorets [kill list] website.” [As is the author, see this article.]
He spoke of Ukraine’s shelling from 2014, when the people of the Donbass were unarmed and not expecting to be bombed by their own country…………………………………..
I asked how he felt to be treated and described as sub-human, to be called dehumanizing names, a part of the Ukrainian nationalists’ brainwashing propaganda. As I wrote previously:
“Ukrainian nationalists openly declare they view Russians as sub-human. School books teach this warped ideology. Videos show the extent of this mentality: Teaching children not only to also hate Russians and see them as not humans, but also brainwashing them to believe killing Donbas residents is acceptable. The Ukrainian government itself funds neo-Nazi-run indoctrination camps for youths.”
“It’s offensive,” Vydra said, “We are saddened: There are sick people. We need to heal them, slowly.”……………………………….
Commanders Speak of Geopolitical Reasons for Ukraine’s War
Outside, sitting in front of an Orthodox banner and a collection of collected munitions—including Western ones—two platoon commanders, “Kabar” and “Kamaz,” spoke of the bigger geopolitical picture. [See video]
“America is running the show here,” Kabar said. “It builds foreign policy on the basis of how its domestic policy is built, which is through conflicts with external countries. They are accustomed to proving their power to their people through terrorism around the world, inciting fires in Syria, in the east. They played the card of radical Islam there……………………
And now they are playing the card of fascism. They do not see themselves on the other side of good. They need wars, blood, cruelty, and they signed Europe up for this.
However, they’ve missed one point: Russia, since the days of the Soviet Union, has never retreated in large scale wars. ………………………………………
Western Media Inverted Reality, Lauding Nazis and Demonizing Defenders
While many in the West think that this conflict started in February 2022, those following events since 2014 are aware that, following the Maidan coup and Odessa massacre, and the rise of fascism in Ukraine against the Ukrainian people, the Donbas republics wanted to distance themselves from Ukraine’s Nazis and fascism.
The sacrifices which the people of the Donbas republics have endured, particularly those fighting to protect their families and loved ones, have been and continue to be immense………..
These defenders, many living in dank trench conditions didn’t choose war, they responded to it, to protect their loved ones and their future. In spite of more than eight years of being warred upon by Ukraine, they retain their humanity. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/11/19/maligned-in-western-media-donbass-forces-are-defending-their-future-from-ukrainian-shelling-and-fascism/
UN: Israel must take ‘immediate steps’ to give up nuclear weapons
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20221208-un-israel-must-take-immediate-steps-to-give-up-nuclear-weapons/ December 8, 2022
The UN General Assembly has called on Israel to take “immediate steps” to surrender its nuclear weapons and implement UN resolutions fully on the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
The General Assembly vote was carried 149-6 yesterday. Israel, Canada, Micronesia, Palau, the US and Liberia opposed the resolution, while another 26 countries abstained, including India and many European states.
Among other provisions, the draft resolution called for immediate steps towards the full implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty. The key component of the package deal adopted in the treaty calls for the creation of a Middle East “zone free of nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction” including “their delivery systems.”
The world body insisted that Israel must “accede to the Treaty without further delay, and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce their possession and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.”
Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is an open secret. Although it’s widely believed to have a stockpile of nuclear weapons, the apartheid state neither acknowledges nor denies the existence of a nuclear arsenal. Israel is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has not accepted IAEA safeguards on some of its principal nuclear activities.
Western countries have generally tolerated Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity despite the threat it poses to the region. The UN resolution presumes that Israel has such weapons and calls on it to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Lawmakers reject bid to audit US aid for Ukraine

House Republicans vowed to try again later after their resolution was narrowly defeated.

The US has been supplying Ukraine with assorted heavy weaponry, including armored vehicles, artillery, rockets and drones, since – and even before – Russia launched its military operation against the neighboring state in late February. The total amount of funds appropriated for Kiev in military and economic aid by the US has already exceeded $100 billion in less than a year.
https://www.rt.com/news/567836-us-lawmakers-ukraine-audit/ 7 Dec 22,
A resolution calling for an audit of US military and economic aid to Ukraine has been narrowly defeated in the House of Representatives. The measure, spearheaded by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and backed by multiple fellow legislators, was rejected by 26 votes to 22 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.
The proposed audit had been strongly opposed by House Democrats, who argued that such oversight activities would have sent a wrong signal to Ukraine, which has been strongly supported by Washington in its ongoing conflict with Russia.
“This is not the time for us to be divided. We’ve held together with NATO, and the EU, and our allies. Let’s not fall into this trap,” the top Democrat on the committee, Representative Gregory W. Meeks (NY), said during the debate.
Republicans rejected such arguments, however, insisting that the measure was about transparency and accountability for Americans, rather than about sending any messages to Kiev. Greene also claimed that House Democrats were “blinded by hate” for her and were making Ukrainian oversight a purely political issue.
Despite the failure of the resolution to get through the committee, the outcome of the vote was hailed as a major win by its sponsors, as it has demonstrated unity among Republicans. Greene vowed to continue her efforts to push through the audit motion, promising to try again when the Republicans gain a slim majority in the House.
“It’s official the Democrats have voted NO to transparency for the American people for an Audit for Ukraine. But we take over in January! This audit will happen!” Greene wrote on Twitter.
While the Republicans have managed to demonstrate unity on the issue of stricter oversight in relation to continued support for Kiev, few have actually spoken against it altogether. Greene is one of few conservative Republicans who have been vocally opposed to sending billions to Ukraine.
The US has been supplying Ukraine with assorted heavy weaponry, including armored vehicles, artillery, rockets and drones, since – and even before – Russia launched its military operation against the neighboring state in late February. The total amount of funds appropriated for Kiev in military and economic aid by the US has already exceeded $100 billion in less than a year.
Putin: Nuclear risk is rising, but we are not mad
By Alys Davies, 7 Dec 22, BBC News
Vladimir Putin has said the threat of a nuclear war was rising, but insisted Russia had not “gone mad” and would not use its nuclear weapons first.
The Russian president insisted that his country would only use weapons of mass destruction in response to an attack.
Speaking at Russia’s annual human rights council meeting, he also said the war in Ukraine could be a “lengthy process”.
Western officials believe Putin initially planned for a rapid victory.
Russia’s capacity to use nuclear weapons has come under increased scrutiny since it invaded Ukraine in February.
“Such a threat is growing, it would be wrong to hide it,” Putin warned while talking about the prospect of nuclear war via video link from Moscow.
But he asserted that Russia would “under no circumstances” use the weapons first, and would not threaten anyone with its nuclear arsenal.
“We have not gone mad, we are aware of what nuclear weapons are,” he said, adding: “We aren’t about to run around the world brandishing this weapon like a razor.”
Putin also boasted that Russia had the most modern and advanced nuclear weapons in the world, and contrasted its nuclear strategy to the US – who he said had gone further than Russia by locating its nuclear weapons on other territories.
“We do not have nuclear weapons, including tactical ones, on the territory of other countries, but the Americans do – in Turkey, and in a number of other European countries,” he said……………………………………… https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63893316
Russia accuses Ukraine of nuclear terrorism over Zaporizhzhia
The Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, said that Ukraine was continuing to shell the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, deliberately creating the threat of a possible nuclear catastrophe.
Shoigu said Russian forces were taking “all measures” to ensure the safety of the power plant, Europe’s largest, in the face of what he called “nuclear terrorism” from Kyiv, Reuters reported.
Ukraine denies shelling the facility, which has been under the control of Russian forces since the first days of the war, and has accused Russia of firing on it.
“Our units are taking all measures to ensure the safety of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant,” Shoigu told his military chiefs in a conference call, an abridged transcript of which was published by the defence ministry.
“In turn, the Kyiv regime seeks to create the appearance of a threat of a nuclear catastrophe by continuing to deliberately shell the site,” he added.
Shoigu said Ukraine had fired 33 large-caliber shells at the plant in the last two weeks. Most had been intercepted by Russian air defences, he said, though “some still hit objects that affect the safe operation of the nuclear power plant”.
“We classify these attacks by Ukrainian troops as nuclear terrorism,” he added.
Reuters was unable to independently verify the claims. Both Moscow and Kyiv blame each other for attacks on the facility. Kyiv has also accused Moscow of using the plant as a de facto weapons depot.
If Finland joins NATO, it needs a new nuclear weapons policy
Bulletin, By Robin Forsberg, Aku Kähkönen, Jason Moyer | December 8, 2022
As an aspiring NATO member, Finland must update its nuclear weapons policy. Nuclear weapons are an important pillar of the defensive alliance, which has the official position that for as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will inherently be a nuclear alliance.
…………… After filing its membership application in May 2022, Finland is now in the midst of its NATO accession process, with only Turkey and Hungary’s approval remaining. In its application, Finland is not seeking any exemptions to its membership and is committing to the alliance fully. This has initiated discussions about its upcoming policy on nuclear weapons.
………………. By applying for full NATO membership without any explicit restrictions, Finland allows itself the opportunity to chart its own decisions on nuclear weapons. But there is one caveat: Under Finland’s current national legislation nuclear weapons are illegal.
……….. By joining NATO, Finland will be allied with countries that have nuclear arsenals—and are prepared to use them if deemed necessary. This aligns with the creed of the alliance: Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s deterrence. This will be the new security reality facing Finland the day it joins the nuclear alliance. Yet, it has not been sufficiently debated what becoming a NATO member will mean for Finland’s approach to nuclear weapons. In part, this is due to interest in both Finland and NATO for a speedy and uncomplicated accession. But there is also a tradition of not debating national strategic security policies in public fora due to the Finns’ high trust in their national authorities. A healthy national debate, however, is needed to improve the understanding of nuclear weapons policies among the Finnish population and their potential impact on Finland’s security.
………… Finland has a history of a strong non-nuclear proliferation policy. In 1968, it was the first country to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and has ever since shown strong support for multilateral non-proliferation and conventional disarmament treaties. But this dogmatism has somewhat wavered in recent years, even before Russia invaded Ukraine.
,……………….. Finland chose to abstain from supporting the treaty [United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW0]…… Experts theorized at the time that Finland abstained from voting not to jeopardize its prospects of joining NATO.
……….. Discussing Finland’s revised nuclear weapons policy is important not to jeopardize the ethics of Finland’s continuous and long-standing support of disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. The debate should also be reflective of the people’s willingness to take part in NATO’s nuclear weapons exercises, activities, or planning.
…… As Finland becomes a party to a nuclear alliance, it must begin the process of updating its nuclear weapons policy. https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/if-finland-joins-nato-it-needs-a-new-nuclear-weapons-policy/
Thousands rally in Rome against arming Ukraine
Trade unionists and leftists marched after the new government promised more arms for Kiev next year
https://www.rt.com/news/567650-italy-ukraine-weapons-protest/ 5 Dec 22,
Left-wing demonstrators took to the streets in Rome on Saturday, demanding higher wages and condemning the Italian government for renewing a decree allowing it to send weapons to Ukraine until 2024.
Organized by Italy’s USB trade union and backed by a number of leftist political factions, the protest saw thousands of people assemble at the Piazza della Repubblica and march behind a banner reading “guns down, wages up.”
“The Meloni government is dragging us further and further into a spiral of war with unpredictable outcomes,” the USB wrote prior to the protest. “Italy is evidently a belligerent and active country in the conflict, despite the fact that the great majority of the population is against the war and the consequent sharp increase in military spending.”
Italy’s new prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, issued a decree on Thursday allowing her cabinet to continue sending weapons to Ukraine until the end of 2023 without seeking the formal approval of parliament. Her predecessor, Mario Draghi, was a staunch supporter of Kiev and lost power after a disagreement over arms shipments split the largest party in his coalition government, the Five Star Movement.
The Italian public is split too, with 49% opposing sending weapons to Kiev and 38% in favor, according to a poll taken by EuroWeek News last month. Additionally, 49% of Italians believe that Ukraine needs to make concessions to Russia in the ongoing conflict to speed up the peace process, while only 36% want Kiev to keep fighting.
Last month, another rally in Rome calling for a peace deal to end the Ukrainian conflict drew 100,000 people, organizers said.
Australia a”pot of gold” for America’s military section to wage war in space

US Space Force eyes ‘prime’ Australian real estate for future warfare operations, ABC News, By defence correspondent Andrew Greene 3 Dec 22
Visiting senior US military officers believe Australia is a “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow”, as they eye off this continent’s “prime” geography for future space operations.
Key points:
- US military officials visiting Australia say conflict in space in the next few years is a very real prospect
- They believe the war in Ukraine is demonstrating the growing importance of space as a new war-fighting domain
- Australia’s southern location and potential launch sites near the equator make it an attractive prospect for future operations
Top-ranking members of the US Space Force are warning of China’s growing capability in the emerging military domain as they meet defence counterparts and local industry representatives.
“I’m visiting my allies and we’re talking about future partnerships that we can have,” US Space Force Lieutenant-General Nina Armagno told reporters in Canberra.
“This is prime country for space domain awareness,” the director of staff of the US Space Force added while speaking at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The three-star general has travelled to Canberra along with Lieutenant-General John Shaw, the deputy commander of the US Space Command who is responsible for America’s combat capabilities above Earth……………………………..
Both of the visiting military officers believe the war in Ukraine is demonstrating the growing importance of space as a new war-fighting domain…………………………..
Australia’s own Defence Space Command was only formally stood up in March, but General Armagno says this country already has the natural advantage of its southern-hemisphere geography and potential launch sites close to the equator.
“It seems as [if] Australia is sitting on a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, really, for our common national security interests,” she said. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-02/us-space-force-eyes-australian-real-estate-future-warfare/101724368
Weapons company Raytheon continues to be the winner in the Ukraine war, with new $1.2 billion surface-to-air missile contract .

Raytheon wins $1.2 billion surface-to-air missile order for Ukraine, By Jen Judson, Defense News, 1 Dec 22
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army awarded Raytheon Missiles and Defense a contract worth as much as $1.2 billion to deliver six National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System batteries for Ukraine.
The contract is part of the fifth Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative package and includes training and logistical support to Ukraine’s military and security forces, the Army said in a a Nov. 30 statement.
Raytheon, the world’s second-largest defense contractor, won a contract in August to deliver to NASAMS batteries to Ukraine as part of the third USAI package. The new contract is a follow-on…………………
The work to award Raytheon a contract was led by the Army’s Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space, along with others across the Defense Department.
Ukraine has requested an integrated air and missile defense system that the U.S. and other allies are striving to fulfill. The system would be made up of short-range, low-altitude systems; medium-range, medium-altitude systems; and long-range, high-altitude systems that together would neutralize the threat of Russian aircraft and missiles.
Ukrainian forces had been using Russian-made SA-6 and SA-8 air defenses. In addition to NASAMS, the country also asked for Cold War-era Hawk systems – a medium-range, medium-altitude system, that’s considered to still be effective. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/12/01/raytheon-wins-12-billion-surface-to-air-missile-order-for-ukraine
‘Deliberate ambiguity’: Israel’s nuclear weapons are greatest threat to Middle East
https://peoplesworld.org/article/deliberate-ambiguity-israels-nuclear-weapons-are-greatest-threat-to-middle-east/ December 2, 2022 11:06 AM CST BY RAMZY BAROUD
As Western countries are floating the theory that Russia could escalate its conflict with Ukraine to a nuclear war, many of those governments continue to turn a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Luckily, many other countries around the world do not subscribe to this endemic hypocrisy.
The Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction was held between Nov. 14-18, with the sole purpose of creating new standards of accountability that, as should always have been the case, would apply equally to all Middle Eastern countries.
The debate regarding nuclear weapons in the Middle East could not possibly be any more pertinent or urgent. International observers rightly note that the period following the Russia-Ukraine war is likely to accelerate the quest for nuclear weapons throughout the world. Considering the seemingly perpetual state of conflict in the Middle East, the region is likely to witness nuclear rivalry as well.
For years, Arab and other countries attempted to raise the issue that accountability regarding the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons cannot be confined to states that are perceived to be enemies of Israel and the West.
The latest of these efforts was a United Nations resolution that called on Israel to dispose of its nuclear weapons, and to place its nuclear facilities under the monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Resolution number A/C.1/77/L.2, which was drafted by Egypt with the support of other Arab countries, passed with an initial vote of 152-5. Unsurprisingly, among the five countries that voted against the draft were the United States, Canada and, of course, Israel itself.
U.S. and Canadian blind support of Israel notwithstanding, what compels Washington and Ottawa to vote against a draft entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East?” Keeping in mind the successive right-wing extremist governments that have ruled over Israel for many years, Washington must understand that the risk of using nuclear weapons under the guise of fending off an “existential threat” is a real possibility.
Since its inception, Israel has resorted to, and utilized the phrase “existential threat” countless times. Various Arab governments, later Iran and even individual Palestinian resistance movements, were accused of endangering Israel’s existence per se. Even the non-violent Palestinian civil society-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement was accused by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015 of being an existential threat to Israel. Netanyahu claimed that the boycott movement was “not connected to our actions; it is connected to our very existence.”
This should worry everyone, not just in the Middle East, but the whole world. A country with such hyped sensitivity about imagined “existential threats” should not be allowed to acquire the kinds of weapons that could destroy the entire Middle East several times over.
Some may argue that Israel’s nuclear arsenal was intrinsically linked to real fears resulting from its historical conflict with the Arabs. However, this is not the case. As soon as Israel completed Stage 1 of its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their historic homeland, and long before any serious Arab or Palestinian resistance was carried out in response, Israel was already on the lookout for nuclear weapons.
As early as 1949, the Israeli army had found uranium deposits in the Negev Desert, leading to the establishment, in 1952, of the highly secretive Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC).
In 1955, the U.S. government sold Israel a nuclear research reactor. But that was not enough. Eager to become a full nuclear power, Tel Aviv resorted to Paris in 1957. The latter became a major partner in Israel’s secretive nuclear activities when it helped the Israeli government construct a clandestine nuclear reactor near Dimona in the Negev Desert.
The father of the Israeli nuclear program at the time was none other than Shimon Peres who, ironically, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. The Dimona Nuclear Reactor is now named “Shimon Peres Nuclear Research Center-Negev.”
With no international monitoring whatsoever, thus with zero legal accountability, Israel’s nuclear quest continues to this day. In 1963, Israel purchased 100 tons of uranium ore from Argentina, and it is strongly believed that during the October 1973 Israel-Arab war, Israel “came close to making a nuclear preemptive strike,” according to Richard Sale, writing for United Press International (UPI).
Currently, Israel is believed to have “enough fissionable material to fabricate 60-300 nuclear weapons,” according to former U.S. Army Officer Edwin S. Cochran.
Estimates vary, but the facts about Israel’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are hardly contested. Israel itself practices what is known as “deliberate ambiguity,” so as to send a message of its lethal power to its enemies, without revealing anything that may hold it accountable to international inspection.
shows what now is known as the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center near the city of Dimona, Israel. A long-secretive Israeli nuclear facility that gave birth to its undeclared atomic weapons program appeared to be undergoing its biggest construction project in decades recently, according to newly taken satellite photos analyzed by The Associated Press. | U.S. Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science / U.S. Geological Survey | via AP
Estimates vary, but the facts about Israel’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are hardly contested. Israel itself practices what is known as “deliberate ambiguity,” so as to send a message of its lethal power to its enemies, without revealing anything that may hold it accountable to international inspection.
What we know about Israel’s nuclear weapons has been made possible partly because of the bravery of former Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, a whistleblower who was held in solitary confinement for a decade due to his courage in exposing Israel’s darkest secrets.
Still, Israel refuses to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), endorsed by 191 countries.
Israeli leaders adhere to what is known as the “Begin Doctrine,” in reference to Menachem Begin, the rightwing Israeli prime minister who invaded Lebanon in 1982, resulting in the killing of thousands. The doctrine is formulated around the idea that, while Israel gives itself the right to own nuclear weapons, its enemies in the Middle East must not. This belief continues to direct Israeli actions to this day.
U.S. support for Israel is not confined to ensuring the latter has “military edge” over its neighbors in terms of traditional weapons, but also to ensure Israel remains the region’s only superpower, even if that entails escaping international accountability for the development of WMDs.
The collective efforts by Arab and other countries at the UN General Assembly to create a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons are welcomed initiatives. It behooves everyone, Washington included, to join the rest of the world in finally forcing Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a first but critical step toward long delayed accountability.
Secrecy on USA’s new nuclear stealth bomber, and of course, secrecy on its cost to taxpayers.


The fact that the price is not public troubles government watchdogs.
Pentagon unveils new nuclear stealth bomber after years of secrecy The HillBY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS VIA NEXSTAR MEDIA WIRE – 12/02/22
WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s newest nuclear stealth bomber is making its public debut after years of secret development and as part of the Pentagon’s answer to rising concerns over a future conflict with China.
The B-21 Raider is the first new American bomber aircraft in more than 30 years. Almost every aspect of the program is classified. Ahead of its unveiling Friday at an Air Force facility in Palmdale, California, only artists’ renderings of the warplane have been released. Those few images reveal that the Raider resembles the black nuclear stealth bomber it will eventually replace, the B-2 Spirit.
The bomber is part of the Pentagon’s efforts to modernize all three legs of its nuclear triad, which includes silo-launched nuclear ballistic missiles and submarine-launched warheads, as it shifts from the counterterrorism campaigns of recent decades to meet China’s rapid military modernization………………………………….
Six B-21 Raiders are in production; The Air Force plans to build 100 that can deploy either nuclear weapons or onventional bombs and can be used with or without a human crew. Both the Air Force and Northrop also point to the Raider’s relatively quick development: The bomber went from contract award to debut in seven years. Other new fighter and ship programs have taken decades.
The cost of the bombers is unknown. The Air Force previously put the price for a buy of 100 aircraft at an average cost of $550 million each in 2010 dollars — roughly $753 million today — but it’s unclear how much the Air Force is actually spending.
The fact that the price is not public troubles government watchdogs.
“It might be a big challenge for us to do our normal analysis of a major program like this,” said Dan Grazier, a senior defense policy fellow at the Project on Government Oversight. “It’s easy to say that the B-21 is still on schedule before it actually flies. Because it’s only when one of these programs goes into the actual testing phase when real problems are discovered. And so that’s the point when schedules really start to slip and costs really start to rise.”
The Raider will not make its first flight until 2023. However, using advanced computing, Warden said, Northrop Grumman has been testing the Raider’s performance using a digital twin, a virtual replica of the one being unveiled.
…………………… Given advances in surveillance satellites and cameras, the Raider will debut very much under wraps and will be viewed inside a hangar. Invited guests including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will witness the hangar doors open to reveal the bomber for its public introduction, then the doors will close again. https://thehill.com/homenews/3759575-pentagon-unveils-new-nuclear-stealth-bomber-after-years-of-secrecy/
Broken promises: how nuclear armed states are failing on their commitments to disarm

2 Dec22
As the US Air Force shows off its new B-21 stealth bomber and Russia and China are expanding and updating their own nuclear arsenals, we explore how these states are violating their commitments under international law and increasing the risk of nuclear catastrophe.
The United States Air Force today showed off its latest means of using weapons of mass destruction: the B-21 stealth bomber. This aircraft, developed by Northrop Grumman, is designed to drop two new types of nuclear weapons: the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb and the LRSO nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile, as well as various conventional weapons. The B61-12 nuclear bomb has an explosive yield of up to 50 kilotons; in comparison, the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945, killing more than 140,000 people, had a yield of just 16 kilotons.
A single B61-12 bomb dropped by a Northrop Grumman B-21 would likely kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and injure many more, and cause massive damage to civilian infrastructure and the environment; radioactive fallout could contaminate large areas across multiple countries.
The development of the B-21 represents yet another step in the modernisation of the US nuclear arsenal. The B-21 bomber will reportedly be deployed at three bases in the US, resulting in an increase of the number of bomber bases with nuclear weapons from two bases today to five bases by the 2030s. The B-21 will carry new and “improved” nuclear weapons, and is obviously intended to do so for decades to come.
Northrop Grumman, the manufacturer of the B-21, received $5 billion in income from nuclear-weapon-related contracts in 2021, and spent $11 million on lobbying elected officials, including those who approve such contracts. The company also contributed several million dollars to think tanks researching and writing about nuclear weapons.
But the US is certainly not alone: Russia and China are also expanding and updating their nuclear arsenals. Russia has developed and successfully tested its new Sarmat ICBM; the missile was displayed in public in November. The Sarmat is intended to replace the SS-18 ICBM and will likely carry the same warheads: 10 warheads per missile, each with a yield of 500-800 kilotons. That means that one Sarmat missile could carry the same destructive force as at least 250 Nagasaki-size warheads, only one of which killed 74,000 people in 1945. According to a US report, China has recently increased its nuclear arsenal beyond 400 warheads, and now has 300 ICBMs, an increase of 200 since 2021. Chinese nuclear submarines are reportedly now patrolling while armed with nuclear missiles. (Since both Russia and China are much less transparent than the US about their nuclear capabilities, it is possible that they are also modernizing and expanding their arsenals in other ways.)
All these steps by China, Russia and the US are directly contrary to their obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT requires them to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”. Under the NPT, the three countries have made an “unequivocal undertaking … to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals” and have committed to “pursue policies that are fully compatible with the Treaty and the objective of achieving a world without nuclear weapons”. …………………………….
ICAN Executive Director, Beatrice Fihn, commented “This is why the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is so important. Now that the treaty is in force, nuclear weapons are comprehensively prohibited under international law. By joining the TPNW and participating actively in its implementation, countries can contribute to stigmatising and delegitimising nuclear weapons and building a robust global norm against them. The TPNW is clear: the actions of nuclear-armed states to retain, modernize and expand their nuclear arsenals are illegal, immoral and unacceptable,” https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_weapons_modernisation_russia_china_us_failing_commitments_to_disarm
Britain’s bunkers offer little chance of survival after a nuclear attack
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/02/britains-bunkers-offer-little-chance-of-survival-after-a-nuclear-attack 2 Dec 22 David Saunders and Mark Newbury write that, with no bunker provision for civilians, most of us won’t have access – and those who do should not expect to live long.
The owner of the Kelvedon Hatch bunker suggests that those selected for his shelter might survive for 10 to 20 years in it while avoiding nuclear fallout (‘When you hear the four-minute warning’ … Whatever happened to Britain’s nuclear bunkers?, 24 November). This is, sadly, an unrealistic expectation if one simply looks at the likely impact on infrastructure of even a limited nuclear attack on the UK, based on exercises and analysis conducted during the cold war.
It was accepted 50 years ago that nobody above ground is likely to be left fit or alive to generate power or supply clean water. Food cannot be grown in a radioactive environment and, in the period preceding any outbreak of war, there will be diminished food stocks due to panic buying or rationing.
The scenarios modelled by civil defence analysts even during the 1980s Pershing and cruise missile deployment suggested that survival in Britain’s local government bunkers would be short lived. There was never any provision in the UK for sheltering the civilian population in the event of a nuclear conflict and Britain’s civil defence posture was abandoned as a posture after the 1960s.
While in neutral Sweden and Switzerland housebuilding rules made provision to protect the civil population, in Britain the idea of being able to survive to the same extent as in, say, the blitz in the second world war is merely a pious hope.
Nice to know that, according to the civil defence historian Nathan Hazlehurst, “Key members of central government, the military and royal family will have access to bunkers, along with those staff needed to run the country post-attack.” The rest of us will (I assume) have to make do with an updated version of the much-derided Protect and Survive booklet.
Kim Jong Un wants North Korea to be a nuclear superpower – the real risk is a regional arms race
The Conversation, Alexander Gillespie, December 2, 2022
The recent claim by Kim Jong Un that North Korea plans to develop the world’s most powerful nuclear force may well have been more bravado than credible threat. But that doesn’t mean it can be ignored.
The best guess is that North Korea now has sufficient fissile material to build 45 to 55 nuclear weapons, three decades after beginning its program. The warheads would mostly have yields of around 10 to 20 kilotons, similar to the 15 kiloton bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.
But North Korea has the capacity to make devices ten times bigger. Its missile delivery systems are also advancing in leaps and bounds. The technological advance is matched in rhetoric and increasingly reckless acts, including test-firing missiles over Japan in violation of all international norms, provoking terror and risking accidental war.
The question now is how best to bring the pariah nation into the orbit of arms control negotiations and international dialogue. However remote the chances of that, the alternative risks a regional nuclear arms race………………………………………….
Three decades of non-compliance with international obligations by North Korea have not engendered trust or a willingness by surrounding countries to submit to a nuclear neighbour. More likely is a regional nuclear arms race, as happened when India got the bomb and Pakistan had to keep up, or when Israel triggered Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
South Korea, Japan and possibly even Taiwan are likely to follow suit, either asking to host US ballistic missiles or pursuing independent nuclear strategies – especially if they feel the US won’t defend them after the next presidential election.
None of this makes the world safer. https://theconversation.com/kim-jong-un-wants-north-korea-to-be-a-nuclear-superpower-the-real-risk-is-a-regional-arms-race-195726
-
Archives
- April 2026 (338)
- 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




