weapons and war « nuclear-news

A new nuclear weapons delivery system is the last thing the US needs

The Hill, BY YINT HMU, – 11/21/22,

As conditions for Russian soldiers deteriorate on the battlefields of Ukraine, we have seen a rhetorical escalation of threats of a nuclear strike from Moscow in response. The risk of a possible nuclear conflict has not been this high since the height of the Cold War decades ago.

At this moment, we should be doubling down on our efforts toward nuclear arms control. Instead, the United States Congress is trying to develop a new nuclear weapons delivery system we don’t need, and one the Biden administration has emphatically declared it doesn’t want.

Congress’s pet nuclear boondoggle is known as the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N). It’s a Cold War-era idea that was given new life by former president Donald Trump only to haunt us in the year 2022. Nuke-happy, hawkish Democrats teamed up with the GOP and managed to slip $45 million for SLCM-N research and development into this year’s defense budget — the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that is now being debated.

If completed, SLCM-N would essentially do what its name suggests: deliver nuclear warheads from ships, submarines or naval aircraft on a trajectory that makes it hard to track by radar.

Weapons like the SLCM-N are inherently more dangerous because of their ambiguous nature. These weapons look pretty much like conventional missiles, which are carried by U.S. naval assets around the world. Neither our allies nor our adversaries will be able to tell whether any random ship or submarine is armed with a nuclear weapon. And whenever a ship or a submarine fires a missile, everyone will be left wondering if it’s a nuke or not. The risk of accidental nuclear conflict is exponentially higher with these weapons in play. And they’re not treaty-limited either, which further destabilizes the environment.

Members of Congress, nuclear non-proliferation groups and anti-war organizations have called for the elimination of the SLCM-N. The Biden administration has also strongly opposed its funding in the NDAA. And in the recently released Nuclear Posture Review, the administration laid out multiple reasons to scrap the SLCM-N program entirely, ranging from the cost of the program to its redundancy with already existing weapon systems.

Still, the SLCM-N is on track to receive its funding. The provision to fund the research and development of the program passed the House, and right now it’s in the Senate as part of the NDAA. But it’s not a done deal yet, and there’s still time for the Biden administration and Senate Democrats to eliminate the program. ………………..

At a time when the world is rightly terrified of tactical nuclear weapon use by Russia, it’s unacceptable for Congress to go rogue and pursue the development of SLCM-N. The Biden administration needs all the credibility it can get to reduce nuclear risk in Ukraine. Congress pursuing a new tactical nuclear delivery system — a destabilizing move at any time — is especially counterproductive now. It’s time for Democrats to step up and end SLCM-N once and for all.

Yint Hmu is a senior associate for digital campaigns at Win Without War. You can follow him on Twitter @yinth_. https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3745138-a-new-nuclear-weapons-delivery-system-is-the-last-thing-the-us-needs/

November 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

N Korea warns of ‘all-out’ nuclear response to US ‘aggression’

North Korea has promised to ‘resolutely react’ to US threat of nuclear weapons use with its own nuclear capabilities.

19 Nov 2022

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has promised to use nuclear weapons to counter threats from the United States hours after test-firing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICMB), the latest escalation as the UN Security Council prepares to convene an emergency session on Pyongyang’s actions.

The United Nations Security Council, at the behest of Japan, South Korea and the US will gather on Monday to discuss North Korea’s latest missile launch…………………………………….. more https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/19/north-korea-warns-of-all-out-nuclear-response-to-us-provocation

November 20, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | North Korea, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

NATO’s hair trigger: The Polish missile incident was a close brush with nuclear annihilation

https://www.rt.com/news/566710-polish-missile-incident-nato/ Scott Ritter. 18 Nov 22The fervor with which Poland and others sought to drag NATO into a war with Russia should ring alarm bells for everyone

The world dodged a bullet this week, with some NATO members trying, but failing, to trigger Article 4 as a means of confronting Russia in Ukraine. We may not be so lucky next time.

The recent scandal surrounding what most of the world now agrees was an errant Ukrainian surface-to-air missile landing on Polish soil, killing two Polish citizens in the process, has exposed an ugly reality about the eastern reaches of NATO today:

Despite the more reserved stance of the old NATO establishment (the US, UK, France, and Germany), the new upstarts in eastern Europe seem hell-bent on finding a mechanism that will justify NATO intervention in Ukraine.

This predilection for nuclear annihilation (no one should have any misgivings that a NATO-Russia conflict would end any other way) should send alarm bells ringing in the halls of power throughout NATO and the rest of the world, because left to their own devices, the Russophobic officials that dominate the governments of Poland and the three Baltic republics act like lemmings, running toward the Ukrainian cliff, oblivious to their fate as they chase the fantasy of NATO defeating Russia on a European battlefield.

The rush to judgment that accompanied the arrival of the Ukrainian surface-to-air missile on Polish soil serves as a stark reminder about how the supposedly defensive characteristics of the NATO Charter can be used to promote, rather than deter, conflict.

Let there be no doubt – NATO was aware that the missile that impacted near the village of Przewodów in Poland, killing two Polish citizens, was a Ukrainian surface-to-air missile the moment it was launched.

The airspace over Ukraine is one of the most highly-monitored locations in the world. Without revealing sources and methods, suffice it to say there isn’t anything that happens over Ukraine that isn’t registered in real time on a NATO display in headquarters throughout Europe – including Poland.

And yet … Poland saw fit to summon the Russian ambassador and lodge a protest.

Moreover, Poland declared that it would increase its military readiness while contemplating the activation of Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, a mechanism which allows the alliance to discuss security threats to member states with an eye on possibly using NATO military force to rectify the situation. Article 4 is behind every combat deployment of NATO since its inception, from Serbia, to Libya, to Afghanistan.

On cue, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, whose country borders Poland, tweeted that “every inch of NATO territory must be defended!”

Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala likewise turned to Twitter to exclaim: “If Poland confirms that the missiles also hit its territory, this will be a further escalation by Russia. We stand firmly behind our EU and NATO ally.”

For its part, Estonia called the news “most concerning,” with its foreign minister declaring via Twitter, “We are consulting closely with Poland and other allies. Estonia is ready to defend every inch of NATO territory.”

While all parties concurred that there was no basis for triggering Article 5 of NATO (i.e., the collective security clause), Article 4 was very much in play. Poland was adamant: The missile “attack” against Poland was clearly a crime, one that could not go unpunished. As such, under Article 4, Poland would be pushing “for NATO members and Poland to agree on the provision of additional anti-aircraft defense, including in part of the territory of Ukraine.”

And there you have it: “Including in part of the territory of Ukraine.”

Enter Germany, stage left: “As an immediate reaction to the incident in Poland, we will offer to strengthen air policing with combat air patrols over its airspace with German Eurofighters,” a German Defense Ministry spokesperson declared.

Cue NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who convened an emergency meeting of NATO ambassadors in Brussels to discuss the Polish incident. According to the Finnish foreign minister (Finland, although not a NATO member, was invited to the meeting), “Closing the airspace [above Ukraine] will definitely be discussed. Various options of how we can protect Ukraine are on the table.”

While Germany reportedly rejected the establishment of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, noting that such an action would pose a threat of direct confrontation between Russia and NATO, one is left pondering how such a discussion came to be in the first place: Ukraine fired a surface-to-air missile, which was tracked by NATO as it impacted on Polish soil. And, as a result, NATO members end up discussing the possibility of invoking Article 4 of the NATO Charter, seeking to extend NATO air defense into Ukrainian air space in concert with the establishment of a no-fly zone enforced by NATO aircraft.

“Even if it was a blue on blue [incident] with a Ukrainian rocket that landed in Poland, I think there is still enough ground for Poland to invoke Article 4,” a former director of policy planning for NATO, Fabrice Pothier, declared.

Just to clarify what Mr. Pothier is saying: Because Ukraine fired a surface-to-air missile that ended up landing on Polish soil, NATO is justified in invoking Article 4, setting the stage for a possible NATO-Russia conflict in Ukraine which could lead to global nuclear annihilation.

If there was ever any doubt about the threat NATO posed to the entire world, there is no more.

That this is being promulgated on behalf of a Ukrainian leader who, despite universal consensus that the missile which hit Poland was Ukrainian, denies this possibility, all the while blaming Russia in the hopes that NATO will intervene, only adds to the insanity of this crisis.

While it appears that the world has dodged the potential death sentence triggered by the NATO Article 4 this time, the hair-trigger aspect of NATO’s Pavlovian response mechanism when it comes to seeking causal justification for military intervention in Ukraine should have everyone on high alert.

November 18, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters blames US profiteers for Ukraine conflict

https://www.rt.com/news/566577-roger-water-ukraine-profit/ 15 Nov 22

They let it happen because it’s good for business, according to Roger Waters

British rock star Roger Waters has hit out against the US for profiting off of the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which he says Washington allowed to happen because it was beneficial to American interests.

Discussing US foreign policy on the Bad Faith podcast on YouTube, the Pink Floyd co-founder stated that the conflict in Ukraine was “the best thing to happen to them in the last 10 years,” because it was “really good for business.”

“Part of their business is making money from the war through making weapons and selling them to the people and taking the profits from it,” Waters explained, adding that this money never goes to ordinary people. “It’s not you or me, not ordinary people who invest in the war industry. It’s people with tons of cash, and they get very well paid when there’s war.”

Another benefit of the war for the political establishment, according to Waters, is that it allows it to convince people who struggle to make ends meet and end up homeless that their woes are the fault of the Russians and Putin, who is compared to Hitler and accused of being responsible for “destroying everyone’s lives.”

Roger says he has now been banned from performing in Poland for openly criticizing the West’s military meddling and calling for peace between Russia and Ukraine.

Previously, the musician had written letters personally addressed to presidents Vladimir Putin, Zelensky and Joe Biden, calling for diplomatic talks to end the conflict, stating it is “the worst possible thing that can be happening,” due to the potential of an all-out nuclear war.

November 18, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Top US general warns of reality on the ground in Ukraine

Rt.com 16 Nov 222. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley says Kiev can only hope for a political solution,

Ukraine’s chances of a near-term military victory over Russia are not high, top US general Mark Milley has cautioned. He noted that despite Kiev’s recent advances on the battlefield and the capture of the city of Kherson, Moscow still has a significant combat presence in the country.

Speaking at a news conference at the Pentagon on Wednesday, Milley stated that “the probability of a Ukrainian military victory defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they define or what the claim is Crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily.”………………………….. more https://www.rt.com/news/566708-ukraine-military-victory-unlikely/

November 18, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Finland refutes nuclear weapons ‘siting’ and reinforces border

Defense News, By Gerard O’Dwyer, 18 Nov 22,

HELSINKI — Finland has refuted any possibility that the currently unaligned Nordic state will consider hosting nuclear weapons on its territory once a member nation of NATO.

The rebuttal comes as Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s government presented new proposals to reinforce the country’s 830 mile (1,340 km) border with Russia.

Underlining the need to retain “good neighbor relations” with Russia, Sauli Niinistö, Finland’s president and commander-in-chief of the Finnish Armed Forces (FAF), said that siting nuclear weapons on its territory was never intimated or discussed as a pre-condition for Finnish membership in the alliance.

“Finland has no intention of allowing nuclear weapons to be located on its territory. There are no indicators that any NATO-nation is offering nuclear arms to Finland,” Niinistö said……………………………………….

The Finnish government has allocated $1.7 billion to the military for defense materiel procurements in 2023. This represents a $800 million increase compared to the defense equipment procurement budget for 2022. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/11/18/finland-refutes-nuclear-weapons-siting-and-reinforces-border/

November 18, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Finland, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US nuclear strategy gravely threatens global security

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202211/1279678.shtml By Kong Jun Nov 16, 2022 The US Department of Defense recently released its 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which continues the US’ consistent Cold War mentality and hegemonic logic, plays up great power competition and bloc confrontation, and exploits nuclear deterrence as a geopolitical tool. The international community is widely concerned that the US nuclear strategy will severely deteriorate the global strategic security environment.

The NPR shows that the incumbent US administration has not adopted a policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons or the policy that “the sole purpose of our nuclear arsenal weapons is to deter -and, if necessary, retaliate for – a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies” as it promised during the 2020 presidential campaign, but has continued its longstanding policy of reserving the option of launching a preemptive nuclear strike.

While shouting the slogan of “reducing the role of nuclear weapons,” the US claims to deter nuclear and non-nuclear strategic attacks with nuclear weapons. Its hypocrisy is evident for all to see. Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, recently published an article that suggested the NPR “sends muddled messages about the role of nuclear weapons in US defense strategy and foreign policy at a time when the United States should be more clearly de-emphasizing the salience of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear weapons use.”

The US nuclear strategy undermines strategic mutual trust among major powers. The US has long pretended to be a victim, hyping up nuclear threats from China and Russia and exaggerating that “by the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries,” and openly tailored its nuclear deterrence strategy against China, Russia and other countries. The size of China’s nuclear arsenal is not on the same level with that of the US, and China has pledged to “no first use” of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. The US’ hyping up of the “China nuclear threat theory” will not change the fact that the US’ nuclear weapons pose a threat to the world, nor will it justify its nuclear expansion. Instead, it will only severely impair the strategic security relations of major powers.

The US nuclear strategy raises the risk of nuclear conflict. US President Joe Biden expressed his opposition to his predecessor’s plan to deploy a low-yield nuclear warhead called the W76-2. However, the NPR has retained this type of nuclear warhead and earmarked it for tailored deterrence against China and Russia, and also stated its intention to deploy a new B61-12 nuclear bomb. In January, the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races reiterated that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Going back on its own words, the US is developing nuclear weapons for combat use, in a complete disregard of the consequences of increasing the risks of nuclear conflict.

The US nuclear strategy stimulates a nuclear arms race. As a country with the largest nuclear arsenal, the US bears special and primary responsibilities for nuclear disarmament and should reduce its nuclear weapons in accordance with the international consensus. Regrettably, the US does not have any substantive nuclear disarmament measures, but instead seeks to upgrade its nuclear triad. The US expansion of nuclear arsenal has undermined global strategic balance and stability. It cannot be ruled out that other nuclear-weapon States will follow suit. It will also stimulate non-nuclear-weapon States to develop nuclear weapons of their own or seek “nuclear umbrella,” thereby impeding the international arms control and disarmament process.

The US nuclear strategy undermines the international nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. Washington talks about strengthening regional nuclear deterrence and detailed plans to deploy strategic bombers, dual-capable fighter jets and even nuclear weapons in the Asia-Pacific region. This is exactly the same as its nuclear submarine cooperation with the UK and Australia under AUKUS and its connivance of the talks about nuclear sharing in Japan and the ROK, which fully exposes the reality that it puts geopolitical self-interest above nuclear non-proliferation obligations and is a complete destroyer of the international nuclear non-proliferation system.

Washington mentions China dozens of times in the report and speculates on and smears the modernization of China’s nuclear capabilities. In fact, since possessing nuclear weapons, China has explicitly undertaken not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and unconditionally committed itself not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free-zones, and always keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security. The US, which has long been in a hegemonic position, should change its hegemonic mentality of maliciously speculating about other countries.

At the moment, the global security structure, as well as international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms, are facing the most severe challenge since the end of the Cold War. The risk of nuclear arms race and nuclear conflict keeps rising. How the US uses its huge nuclear arsenal has a major bearing on world peace and development. We urge the US to abandon the Cold War mentality and the logic of hegemonism, pursue a rational and responsible nuclear policy, and play its due role in maintaining global strategic stability and world peace and security.

November 16, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Poland missile incident is step towards World War III – Medvedev

Rt.com 16 Nov 22A hybrid war waged by the West against Russia could lead to disastrous consequences, the former Russian leader warns.

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has warned that incidents like the missile explosion which killed two people in Poland risk prompting a major global conflict.

The incident “proves just one thing: waging a hybrid war against Russia, the West moves closer to the World War”, the ex-president, who is now the deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, wrote on Twitter on Wednesday. He also put the words “missile strike” in quotation marks…………………………………..

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky was quick to blame Russia for the incident late on Tuesday, urging NATO, of which Poland is a member, to act against this “attack on collective security.” Despite not being backed by any proof, the claims were picked by the media in Poland and by some of the country’s officials.

Warsaw put its military on alert, and said it was discussing whether to invoke NATO’s Article 4, which would require consultations on the situation with the other 29 member states and a consensus decision on how to proceed.

However, US President Joe Biden said soon afterwards: “it is unlikely, in the minds of the trajectory, that it [the missile] was fired from Russia.” The Associated Press also cited three US officials as saying preliminary data suggested the missile was actually Ukrainian, fired by the country’s air defenses amid a large-scale Russian attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

Russia’s Defense Ministry has insisted that it did not carry out any strikes near the Ukrainian-Polish border on Tuesday. It later clarified that analysis of photos from the site showed that the debris were from a missile for the S-300 air defense system operated by Ukraine’s military. https://www.rt.com/russia/566619-poland-missile-ukraine-medvedev/

November 16, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Did the “stray missiles” to Poland come from Russian or from Ukrainian military?

Ukraine Weapons Tracker @UAWeapons

So what crashed in the village of Przewodów, Poland today? With the cooperation of @blueboy1969 we analyzed the available photos of fragments and came to a clear conclusion that they belong to the 48D6 motor of the 5V55-series missile of the S-300 AD system- a Ukrainian one.

So what crashed in the village of Przewodów, Poland today? With the cooperation of

@blueboy1969 we analyzed the available photos of fragments and came to a clear conclusion that they belong to the 48D6 motor of the 5V55-series missile of the S-300 AD system- a Ukrainian one.

Poland Considering NATO Article 4 Activation, Says Spokesman, By Reuters. Nov. 15, 2022,

WARSAW (Reuters) – Poland is verifying if it needs to request consultations under Article 4 of the NATO military alliance treaty, a government spokesman said on Tuesday, after a report that a blast that killed two people near the Ukrainian border was caused by stray Russian missiles.

The United States and Western allies said they were investigating but could not confirm a report on Tuesday that the blast in the village of Przewodow resulted from stray Russian missiles. Russia’s defence ministry denied it.

November 15, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Biden, Xi ‘Agreed’ Nuclear Weapons Should Never Be Used

https://www.barrons.com/news/biden-xi-agreed-opposition-to-nuclear-weapons-use-in-ukraine-white-house-01668432907 By AFP – Agence France PresseNovember 14, 2022,

US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping agreed in talks Monday that nuclear weapons should never be used, including in Ukraine, the White House said.

“President Biden and President Xi reiterated their agreement that a nuclear war should never be fought and can never be won and underscored their opposition to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine,” it said in a statement.

The pair held their first face-to-face talks since Biden took office on the sidelines of a G20 meeting expected to be dominated by the war in Ukraine.

The pair shook hands at the start of the meeting, with Biden saying the superpowers shared the responsibility to show the world that they can “manage our differences, prevent competition from becoming conflict”.

The White House said he had told Xi that Washington would “continue to compete vigorously” with China, but “this competition should not veer into conflict”.

Biden raised objections to China’s “coercive and increasingly aggressive actions toward Taiwan,” the White House said after three hours of talks aimed at avoiding conflict between the rival superpowers.

And he told Xi the world should encourage North Korea to act “responsibly”, after a record-breaking series of missile launches by Pyongyang and growing fears of a new nuclear test.

November 15, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Top Zelensky advisor threatens war with Iran

The GrayZone, ALEXANDER RUBINSTEIN·NOVEMBER 12, 2022,

Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, has called for attacks inside Iran as the country’s drones cause setbacks for the Ukrainian military.

On November 5, Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, has advocated for military strikes on drone production sites located in Iran. President Zelensky echoed Podolyak’s belligerent rhetoric the following day, demanding Iran be “punished” for allegedly supplying drones to Russia.

Kiev adopted its hostile posture towards Tehran after claiming Russia deployed Iranian-supplied drones to strike Ukrainian civilian infrastructure throughout much of October.

In an interview with a Ukrainian news outlet on November 5, Podolyak argued that the response to Iran supplying Russia with drones should not be limited to sanctions or even a total trade embargo: “It seems to me that it should not be sanctions or even an embargo, yes a total embargo. It seems to me that it would be possible to carry out specific strikes on the production of drones, ballistic missiles, and so on.”………………………….

Podolyak has been ranked the third most influential Ukrainian by the Kiev-based Focus Magazine.

………………………………………. Though there is no record of any Iranian missile being used in an attack on Ukrainian infrastructure thus far, Zelensky declared, “We are preparing to respond.”

Just as Iranian-made drones appear to have given Russian forces a major boost on the battlefield, the US HIMARS artillery system has enabled significant Ukrainian gains, including the recapture of Kherson. However, no high ranking officials in Russian president Vladimir Putin’s office have similarly threatened the United States, or any of the other 40 countries that provided Ukraine with critical military assistance. https://thegrayzone.com/2022/11/12/zelensky-threatens-war-iran/

November 14, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Biden’s Nuclear Policy Fails the Ukraine Test

His administration’s Cold War-style thinking is missing a golden opportunity.

Defense One, BY TOM Z. COLLINA, POLICY DIRECTOR, PLOUGHSHARES FUND, NOVEMBER 14, 2022

Senior Russian military leaders reportedly recently discussed how they might use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, while other Russian officials were suggesting that Kyiv might detonate a “dirty bomb”—suggestions widely dismissed as a setup for a false-flag excuse to escalate the war. And even before all that, President Joe Biden reckoned that the world was closer to “Armageddon” than any time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis…………………………………….

Cause for concern? You bet. But if you’re looking for new ideas to address Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempts at nuclear blackmail in Ukraine, you won’t find them in the Biden administration’s new statement on nuclear policy. Known as the Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, the report is a disappointing defense of the status quo. It breaks little new ground, and it fails to respond to the Ukraine moment. Reading it, you might almost forget that the world is facing the most serious nuclear threat in 60 years.

Lacking fresh thinking on the Ukraine crisis, the Biden team has fallen back on the old Cold War playbook: when in doubt, build more nuclear bombs. Biden lends his support to essentially all the new nuclear weapons proposed by his predecessor, including a new $260 billion intercontinental ballistic missile and new lower-yield warheads for missiles on Trident submarines. As a candidate, Biden said the Trump administration’s new Trident warheads were a “bad idea,” and that having them would make the U.S. “more inclined to use them.” Now that he’s president, Biden opposes just one Trump-proposed nuke—a new and unneeded sea-launched cruise missile—that will likely win support in Congress anyway due to the administration’s tepid effort to stop it.

Building new nukes we don’t need will not solve the Ukraine crisis, but it could get us into another expensive and dangerous arms race. One of the more troubling assertions in the NPR is that “By the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history, face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.” This sets the stage for a future administration to argue, erroneously, that the Pentagon needs a larger nuclear arsenal—say, as big as Russia’s and China’s combined. This could lead to a new arms race with both Moscow and Beijing.

What should we do instead? In the short term, the Biden team needs to talk with Russia’s leaders, as it has started to do. These talks should not yet be about ending the war in Ukraine, but we need to set clear expectations with Russia about preventing the war from going nuclear or spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders. As Biden has rightly said, we must do all we can to prevent direct U.S. conflict with Russia, which would lead to World War III. Biden has so far successfully balanced support for Ukraine while withholding U.S. forces, a no-fly zone, and more sophisticated weapons.

…………………… One of the underappreciated lessons of the Ukraine crisis is that the West would be better off if nuclear weapons were not part of the conflict. Russia might have not invaded if it did not have nukes to hide behind, and the United States could play a bigger role in helping Ukraine if it did not have to worry about Russian nuclear escalation. As Putin is showing, the bomb is a weapon of the weak and only serves to neutralize the U.S. conventional military advantage.

The Biden NPR missed a golden opportunity to update our nuclear policies for a new era. We cannot meet the Ukraine moment with Cold War thinking. President Biden must, and can, do better. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/11/bidens-nuclear-policy-fails-ukraine-test/379717/
—

November 14, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

G20 leaders to denounce use, or threat, of nuclear weapons – draft (?a pious hypocrisy in opposition to the UN Nuclear Ban Treaty).

The nuclear weapons countries, and their craven supporters deserve a hypocrisy certificate

Among the G20 countries are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, – all of whom have nuclear weapons and make veiled threats to use them

Australia, Canada, and the European Union also belong – supporting the ‘nuclear umbrella’ that might defend them.

Then there are Japan and Saudi Arbia – itching to get nuclear weapons themselves

By Jan Strupczewski

BRUSSELS, Nov 11 (Reuters) – Leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies will next week denounce the use of, or any threat to use, nuclear weapons, according to an early draft of a G20 statement seen by Reuters.

G20 leaders are meeting in Indonesia on Nov 15-16 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine will top their agenda.

“Many members strongly condemned Russia’s illegal, unjustifiable and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine, and called on it to immediately end the war,” the draft, which may change and would need Moscow’s approval for unanimity, said.

“The use, or threat of the use, of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.”

Concern about possible nuclear escalation during Russia’s war in Ukraine surged after two speeches by President Vladimir Putin in which he indicated he would, if needed, use such weapons to defend Russia……….

The leaders are also to say they would support all efforts conducive to a “just” peace.

November 11, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Tactical’ Nuclear Weapons Could Unleash Untold Damage, Experts Warn

By Ed Holt , BRATISLAVA, Nov 10 2022 (IPS) – Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the conflict’s potential to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons has been highlighted by political analysts and military experts alike.

Now growingly bellicose rhetoric from Russian president Vladimir Putin, particularly following the illegal annexations of four parts of Ukraine at the end of September, has raised fears he may be seriously considering using them. He has been quoted in September this year as saying that Russia would use “all available means to protect Russia and our people”, but last month said there was no need to consider the use of nuclear weapons. This week Russia ordered troops to withdraw from the Dnieper River’s west bank near the southern city of Kherson.

But while much of the media debate around this prospect has focused on the expected use of a so-called low-yield “tactical” nuclear weapon and what this might mean strategically for either side in the war, anti-nuclear campaigners say any discussion should be reframed to reflect the devastating reality of what the use of even the smallest weapons in modern nuclear arsenals would mean.

They say that even if only one such bomb was dropped, be it in Ukraine or in any other conflict, the consequences would cause a country – if not a continent-wide catastrophe, with horrific immediate and long-term health effects and a subsequent humanitarian disaster on a scale almost certainly not seen before.

Moreover, they say, a single strike would almost certainly be met with a similar response, quickly igniting a full-scale nuclear war that would threaten much of human life on earth.

“There is no conceivable reality in which a nuclear weapon is used, and life goes on as normal. It is very, very likely that there would be escalation and additional nuclear weapons used, but even the use of one nuclear weapon would break a decades-long taboo on the use of the most catastrophic, horrific weapon ever created,” Alicia Sanders-Zakre, Research, and Policy Coordinator, at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) told IPS.

“We have already seen the global impacts of the war in Ukraine just using conventional weapons, including worldwide rising inflation, and energy and food shortages. But the use of a nuclear weapon would really have consequences beyond what any of us can imagine,” she added……………………………………………

Campaigners against nuclear weapons worry the global public is not being made properly aware of the scale of the loss of life and ecological damage which would be wrought by the use of such a weapon.

“There has been a lot of discussion about using a tactical nuclear bomb in Ukraine. But the use of the word ‘tactical’ is no more than a rebranding exercise to make a nuclear weapon sound like a conventional one,” Dr Ruth Mitchell, Board Chair of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), told IPS.

“A tactical nuclear weapon would be about the same size as the one dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we don’t need to imagine what the effects would be; we have already seen them,” she added.

The death toll itself would be massive, but authorities would also have to deal with radioactive fallout possibly contaminating large areas, while the event itself would trigger massive population dislocation.

And a report by ICAN also shows that even the most advanced healthcare systems would be unable to provide any effective response in such a situation, highlighting the likely destruction of local healthcare facilities and staff and pointing out that the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima destroyed 80% of its hospitals and killed almost all its doctors and nurses………………………….more https://www.ipsnews.net/2022/11/tactical-nuclear-weapons-treat-could-unleash-untold-damage-experts-warn/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tactical-nuclear-weapons-treat-could-unleash-untold-damage-experts-warn

November 11, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The definitive case against nuclear submarines for Australia

Australia needs submarines, but conventional ones are more than adequate for the nation’s security. Australia’s north is archipelagic, which means smaller, shorter-ranged submarines can close maritime avenues of approach.

The Saturday Paper, Albert Palazzo -adjunct professor at UNSW Canberra. He was a former director of war studies for the Australian Army. November 12, 2022

It’s more than a year since Australia scuttled its submarine deal with France in favour of the nuclear-powered submarine arrangement Scott Morrison announced as part of the AUKUS agreement. There’s been a change of government and more announcing, yet any real detail on why we need such boats, how we’ll get them, which ones they’ll be and how much they’ll cost remains unknown. What has become increasingly clear, however, is that these warships are a massive boondoggle for which there is little strategic justification.

Australia maintains its defence forces to provide for the nation’s security. Every capability the Australian Defence Force acquires undergoes a detailed decision process that includes an examination of how the weapon meets national security requirements. With the nuclear-powered submarine program, however, Australia’s starting point was an announcement confirming the acquisition and the AUKUS agreement, an order of proceedings that conveniently bypassed the messy and challenging aspects of justification for the purchase.

Perhaps skipping this phase was necessary because the rationale given for the acquisition is unsound. At best, it is a desire to be seen to be supporting the ANZUS Treaty. What is not being asked is whether support for the alliance should be the main basis for the acquisition of such expensive platforms with such narrow utility.

Like a kid in a lolly shop, Australia has been given permission to buy the biggest treat on display … What is missed, however, is that being in the inner sanctum generates a massive obligation – and some day that bill may fall due.

What does Australia intend to do with its fleet of nuclear-powered submarines? The answer seems to be that we’ll project power into the East and South China seas, in order to deter our largest trading partner, China, from taking actions inimical to Australian and American interests.

If China is a threat today, why is the government planning to acquire a platform that will not be available for 15 years or more? Shouldn’t the priority be on more readily available weapons? These would include off-the-shelf conventional submarines, additional long-range strike missiles, and drones of all kinds.

Even once Australia has acquired its entire fleet of eight submarines, only two or three are likely to be available for operations at any one time. Deterrence necessitates the ability to intimidate one’s opponent. China is a large country with great industrial depth and a population accustomed to hardship. It also has 66 submarines of its own and more on the way. It is hubris to expect Australia will be able to intimidate a great power, at least on its own.

More worryingly, the seas in which Australia aims to operate are within China’s anti-access/area denial zone, an area guarded by missiles, mines, aircraft and ships, and of such lethality that even the United States is unsure it could penetrate without massive losses. Even if our future submarines did get inside this defensive zone, they would not last long. Essentially, these submarines should not be expected to return home.

Survivability is an important criterion for such an expensive purchase. Enthusiasts point to the better survival potential of nuclear-powered submarines because they remain submerged for longer periods, thereby making detection harder. By contrast, conventional subs must periodically surface to recharge their batteries. But this is an advantage that is fast becoming irrelevant. Sensor technology is improving and becoming pervasive, as demonstrated daily in the war in Ukraine. It is a very big gamble to act on a presumption that sub-surface sensors will not improve in the 15 to 20 years before Australia’s submarines become operational. In fact, a study from Australian National University’s National Security College expects that before 2050 the oceans will become fully transparent to hunters from above.

Any defensive advantage currently possessed by nuclear-powered submarines will be gone.

More questions need to be asked: What is the strategic benefit of being able to operate off the Chinese coast? How do nuclear-powered submarines improve Australia’s security? And are there better options for the nation’s defence?

The answers to the first two questions are: “There is none” and “They don’t.” The third answer is: “Yes, there are indeed better options.” Australia needs submarines, but conventional ones are more than adequate for the nation’s security. Australia’s north is archipelagic, which means smaller, shorter-ranged submarines can close maritime avenues of approach. …………

Supporters of the nuclear-powered submarine pay too little attention to the project’s opportunity cost. According to experts at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the eight planned submarines will cost at least $116 billion, and likely much more – upwards of $200 billion, according to some analysts. Australia needs submarines, but conventional ones are more than adequate for the nation’s security. Australia’s north is archipelagic, which means smaller, shorter-ranged submarines can close maritime avenues of approach………………………….. more https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2022/11/12/the-definitive-case-against-nuclear-subs

November 11, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »