nuclear-news

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

Doomsday Clock Reveals How Nuclear War Would Decimate Civilization

NewsWeek BY ARISTOS GEORGIOU ON 11/4/22 The organization behind the Doomsday Clock has published a guide that details the potentially catastrophic consequences of a global nuclear war—which could kill hundreds of millions in hours—in what is a “wake-up call” for people around the world, the author told Newsweek.

………….. The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic device designed to warn the public about how close humanity is to destroying itself with “dangerous technologies of our own making,” such as nuclear weapons as well as those that are contributing to climate change.

The clock, which was created in 1947 and is maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists magazine, has been reset 24 times, most recently in 2020 when the minute hand moved from two minutes to midnight to 100 seconds to midnight.

In January 2022, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin, which decides the clock’s time, announced that the minute hand was staying at 100 seconds to midnight. The board said that Ukraine was a potential flashpoint in an “increasingly tense International security landscape.” After Russia invaded the country in late February, the board condemned its actions.

On October 20, the Bulletin published an article titled “Nowhere to Hide: How a Nuclear War Would Kill You and Almost Everyone Else,” which was authored by François Diaz-Maurin, the magazine’s associate editor for nuclear affairs.

“Clearly, with the war in Ukraine, we were—and still are—concerned that the world could be sleepwalking into nuclear war,” Diaz-Maurin told Newsweek. “As a magazine covering those risks since pretty much when nuclear weapons were created, we had a responsibility to do something. This article is a wake-up call from the Bulletin.”……………………….

By detailing the potentially devastating consequences for humanity, the article was published to try to minimize the threat of such a war breaking out.

“If you are better informed about…the consequences of using nuclear weapons in a war, you are more likely not to go down that path,” Diaz-Maurin said. “There is no small or acceptable use of a nuclear weapon. Any use would put the world into uncharted territory.”

In the article, Diaz-Maurin wrote that hundreds or thousands of detonations would occur within minutes of each other in a nuclear war.

Given the destructive power of nuclear weapons, even a “limited” regional exchange between India and Pakistan—involving 100 15-kiloton warheads launched at urban areas—would result in 27 million direct deaths.

A global, all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia, based on a scenario involving 4,400 100-kiloton weapons, would very quickly result in a minimum of 360 million deaths around the world from the direct effects alone.

Even though these figures are staggering, the article notes that these deaths would be only the beginning of a massive catastrophe that would affect not only the warring parties and their allies but the entire world…………………..  https://www.newsweek.com/doomsday-clock-organization-creates-guide-showing-impact-nuclear-war-1756945

November 3, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA’s deliberate ambiguity on use of nuclear weapons really means “don’t mess with us or we’ll nuke you”

Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us.

But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.

We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind

US Holds World Hostage to Its Nukes, Ex-American Intel Officer Says

Sputnik International, 29.10.2022 

Earlier this week, Pentagon released nuclear posture, which suggests that the US doesn’t rule out use of the nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear threats – which contradicts previous pledges by the Biden administration.

Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, explained Sputnik why Washington adopted new nuclear policies and what do they mean for regular Americans.

Sputnik: Why are Russia and Сhina to be blamed for the Biden’s administration failure to reduce nuclear weapons?

Scott Ritter: We have to look for somebody to blame. We can’t blame ourselves. That’s normally what happens. But we are solely to blame. President Biden ran on a platform that said that he would be seeking what’s called the single-use policy for nuclear deterrence. And what that means is its a single-purpose policy. And the single purpose would be that the sole purpose of the US nuclear weapons arsenal is deterrence. And that’s it; that we would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstance other than to respond to somebody using nuclear weapons against us; that we are here to deter a nuclear attack on the United States.

He’s broken that promise. The strategy that he has propagated recently is a strategy that continues the past practice of having deliberate ambiguity about the conditions and circumstances under which America could use nuclear weapons, up to and including a pre-emptive nuclear attack by the United States in response to a non-nuclear incident.

Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us. But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.

This has nothing to do with China and Russia. China and Russia have nuclear weapons arsenals. Which would be covered under the sole purpose doctrine. But this is about blackmailing the world. But we can’t tell the world that we’re blackmailing it. We have to blame it on China and Russia. But there’s no linkage whatsoever between the nuclear posture, as published by the Biden administration, and the nuclear arsenals of China and Russia. If that was it, then we’d have a bold purpose doctrine.

Sputnik: What’s the reason for the West to escalate the nuclear rhetoric?

Scott Ritter: That’s a separate question, separate from the issue of the nuclear posture in the National Security Strategy. We have a current situation right now where Ukraine is losing this conflict. The West is recognizing that ultimately Ukraine will lose this conflict and that there’s nothing they can do to forestall this defeat. And so what they’ve done is they have created in terms of an information warfare, propaganda driven exercise, the threat of a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine. It makes no sense. I think Vladimir Putin addressed this in his presentation to the Valdai conference, that it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about a Russian nuclear weapon used in Ukraine. There’s no reason for this. It’s not part of their doctrine. It isn’t going to happen.

But this isn’t about reality. This is about shaping perception. And so that’s where this nuclear crisis is coming from today – talks of a dirty bomb, talks of a Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike, President Zelensky begging NATO to carry out their own pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia, NATO holding an annual exercise that trains the use of the very weapons President Zelensky asked NATO to use against Russia. NATO should have cancelled that exercise or at least postponed it to a later date, but they didn’t. Russia has now responded with its own strategic nuclear exercise. Again, an annual exercise, this one testing not tactical nuclear weapons, but strategic nuclear weapons.

And people are trying to make a linkage between all of this. There isn’t. But this is where the heightened rhetoric and the heightened threat and the heightened crisis comes from. This is independent from the publication of the National Security Strategy. The National Security Strategy isn’t designed to do anything different than what past national security strategies have done, which is to put the world on notice that the United States has a nuclear weapons arsenal, that it will use any time it determines, whether or not the threat is nuclear in nature. We’re holding the world hostage, but we’ve been holding the world hostage for decades.

Sputnik: In the 2022 NPR, the Pentagon refuses to back away from the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” – what were the reasons to obliterate main agreements in the sphere of strategic security?

Scott Ritter: This is not a new position by the Pentagon. This is actually a posture that emerged during the presidency of George W. Bush. That was the first time that this notion that we would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear threat emerged.

The Obama administration talked about walking away from that, but it’s very difficult for presidents to disentangle their desires from the pressures of the establishment. And when we’re dealing with nuclear weapons and the issue of nuclear deterrence, the establishment is extraordinarily powerful because they can always say that you’re weakening. You can tell a president that you’re weakening America, you’re putting American lives at risk…………………………………………………………………………

We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind.  https://sputniknews.com/20221029/us-holds-world-hostage-to-its-nukes-ex-american-intel-officer-says-1102824182.html

November 2, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

War and Regrets in Ukraine

The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow’s rising military strength.

Washington may regret its role in the war in Ukraine.

 https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-and-regrets-in-ukraine/ Douglas Macgregor, Oct 19, 2022

Of the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger, former national security advisor and secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, said, “We should never have been there.” Before long, Americans, even the politicians inside the Beltway, will reach the same conclusion about Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war against Russia. 

No one in the White House, the Senate, or the House consciously set out to turn the proxy Ukrainian war with Moscow into a contest of “competitive societal collapse” between Russia and NATO. But here we are. No one imagined that the Biden administration and the bipartisan war party would drive Americans and Europeans into a political, military, and economic valley of death, from which there is no easy escape. Yet that is precisely what is happening.

For the moment, Washington remains blind to these developments. Whether in print, radio, television, or online, the narrative is clear: despite horrific losses—at least 400,000 Ukrainian battlefield casualties including 100,000 soldiers killed in action—Ukrainian forces are winning. Moreover, the narrative says, America’s financial and economic dominance will ultimately overwhelm the deceptively weak Russian economy.

The Ukrainian-victory narrative admittedly benefits hugely from Western media that actively “tune out” opposing views and depict Russia and its armed forces in the worst possible light. The fact that nearly half a century of the Cold War conditioned Americans to think the worst of Russians certainly helps. 

Yet there is also a measure of “true faith” at work, a condition of national narcissism, inside the Beltway that believes Washington can control what happens thousands of miles away in Eastern Ukraine. The message resonates in Congress because it rests on a critical strategic assumption that American citizens have yet to challenge: that American national power is limitless and unconstrained—as though a series of strategic failures, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, never happened.

Given that American politicians are always more preoccupied by domestic affairs than foreign policy, members of Congress are quick to adopt the “true faith.” This faith explains why for the last eight years members thought a future war with Russia was a low-risk affair. Ukrainians would provide the cannon fodder and Washington would provide the expensive weaponry and munitions. 

Predictably, Washington’s governing strategic principles are unchanged from previous U.S. interventions around the world. Muddle through: masses of soldiers—in this case Ukrainians advised by U.S. and allied officers—and huge infusions of cash, equipment, and technology can and will permanently alter strategic reality in America’s favor. 

The stupefying air of self-righteousness the Biden administration assumes when it attacks erstwhile strategic partners such as Saudi Arabia or delivers moralizing lectures to Beijing’s leadership, or when its media surrogates express contempt for the Russian state, is downright dangerous. Political figures in Washington are ready to indulge any transgression if it is committed in the name of destroying Russia. They do not view U.S. foreign policy in the context of a larger strategy, nor do they comprehend Russia’s capacity to hurt the United States, a bizarre judgment of Russia’s actual military and economic potential. 

The result is a toxic climate of ideological hatred making it hard to imagine a contemporary U.S. secretary of State ever signing an international agreement renouncing war as an instrument of U.S. national policy, as Secretary of State Frank Kellogg did in 1928. But as one of Shakespeare’s characters in the Merchant of Venice warned, “The truth will out.” 

The ongoing buildup of 700,000 Russian forces with modern equipment in Western Russia, Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia is a direct consequence of Moscow’s decision to adopt an elastic, strategic defense of the territories it seized in the opening months of the war. It was a wise, though politically unpopular choice in Russia. Yet, the strategy has succeeded. Ukrainian losses have been catastrophic and by November, Russian Forces will be in a position to strike a knockout blow. 

Today, there are rumors in the media that Kiev may be under pressure to launch more counterattacks against Russian defenses in Kherson (Southern Ukraine) before the midterm elections in November. At this point, expending what little remains of Ukraine’s life blood to expel Russian forces from Ukraine is hardly synonymous with the preservation of the Ukrainian state. It’s also doubtful that further sacrifices by Ukrainians will assist the Biden administration in the midterm elections.  

The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow’s rising military strength.

In retrospect, it is easy to see how Congress was beguiled by the denizens of think tanks, lobbyists, and retired generals, who are, with few exceptions, people with a cocktail level of familiarity with high-end conventional warfare. Members of the House and Senate were urged to support dubious strategies for the use of American military assistance, including reckless scenarios for limited nuclear war with Russia or China. 

For some reason, U.S. politicians have lost sight of the reality that any use of nuclear weapons would overwhelm the ends of all national policy.  

November 2, 2022 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Target Australia ’: Australia’s Defence Strategic Review must address nuclear risks

Pine Gap near Alice Springs, RAAF Base Tindal for US B-52’s near Katherine, Darwin Harbour, North-West Cape near Exmouth, and the Stirling submarine base near Fremantle are all potential targets for a strike by China in a conflict with the US over Taiwan or the South China Sea

Pearls and Irritations, By David Noonan, Nov 3, 2022

The Defence Strategic Review must act in accordance with Australia’s commitment to sign the UN “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” (the ‘Ban Treaty’) and not seek to compromise that path by supporting roles in nuclear warfare alongside the US.

Anthony Albanese made a commitment in his “Changing the World” Speech (ALP National Conference, 18 Dec 2018), stating:

“We have on our side the overwhelming support of the Australian people. …

Our commitment to sign and ratify the nuclear weapons ban treaty in government is Labor at our best”

The ALP National Platform (2021, p.117) commits “to sign and ratify the Ban Treaty” and Australia must do so in this term of the ALP in federal office.

The Ban Treaty Article 1 Prohibitions require nations to never under any circumstance use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, OR to assist or encourage, in any way, anyone to do so.

To come into compliance with the Ban Treaty, the Defence Review must evolve our Alliance with the US to put an end to defence reliance on US ‘nuclear deterrence’.

The US ‘nuclear weapons umbrella’ is a threat to use nuclear weapons in Australia’s defence policy – a threat that has long been contrary to International Humanitarian Law and is now illegal since the Ban Treaty came into force as a permanent part of International Law from 22 January 2021.

The roles of Pine Gap and the North-West Cape communications base must evolve to exclude military operations related to the use, or threat to use, nuclear weapons.

The ICAN Report “Choosing Humanity” (July 2019) best sets out the case for Australia to sign the Ban Treaty. Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong should now refer the Ban Treaty to an Inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as a proposed treaty action.

 Australians have a right to know the risk exposure we face in peace time and in war:

While preparing for war, a second lead task for the Defence Review is to provide transparency on the consequences for Australia as a target in an escalating conflict between the US and China.

The Review must report on the scenarios, risks, and consequences of a nuclear or conventional attack by China on bases in Australia and on the potential resultant health calamity.

Both China and Russia’s priority and capacity to attack US bases in Australia has long been recognised. An ASPI Report (Sept 2022) states Pine Gap is a high-level nuclear target, noting:

“We need to understand what the implications would be for Alice Springs, which is a town of 32,000 people only 18 kilometres from the base.”

The lead author of the report, Paul Dibb has stated: “The risk of nuclear war is now higher than at any time since the Cold War. … Australia should not feel its geographic distance from the epicentre of conflict affords it any significant protection. … We need to plan on the basis that Pine Gap continues to be a nuclear target, If China attacks Taiwan, Pine Gap is likely to be heavily involved.”

A Lowy paper (09 August 2021) also cites Darwin as a potential target in a US-China conflict:

“The arena of hostilities for any such conflict would be mostly confined to East Asia, with the possible exception of strikes against US forces using Darwin as a rear-area staging base.”

No doubt Australia acquiring nuclear powered attack submarines and visits or basing US or UK nuclear subs at Stirling naval base near Fremantle escalates the risk profile we face.

Beijing’s Global Times “China needs to make a plan to deter extreme forces of Australia” (07 May 2021) threatened “retaliatory punishment” with missile strikes “on the military facilities and relevant key facilities on Australian soil” if Australia coordinates with the US in a war over Taiwan:

“China has a strong production capability, including producing additional long-range missiles with conventional warheads that target military objectives in Australia when the situation becomes highly tense.”

Pine Gap near Alice Springs, RAAF Base Tindal for US B-52’s near Katherine, Darwin Harbour, North-West Cape near Exmouth, and the Stirling submarine base near Fremantle are all potential targets for a strike by China in a conflict with the US over Taiwan or the South China Sea……………………more

David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St., is an Independent Environment Campaigner and was a long-term campaigner for Australian Conservation Foundation.

See the public submission to the Defence Review by David Noonan (29 Oct 2022).

 https://johnmenadue.com/target-oz-the-defence-strategic-review-and-our-risk-exposure-with-the-us-and-china/

November 2, 2022 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA’s new nuclear policies: first strike OK, “usable”weapons, nukes for Europe, for any purpose USA likes, and against non-nuclear nations.

Brandon’s “Usable Nukes” Are the Fast-Track to Jopocalypse MIKE WHITNEY • OCTOBER 31, 2022

“The Biden administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is, at heart, a terrifying document. It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk. Citing rising threats from Russia and China, it argues that the only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.” Stephen Young, Union of Concerned Scientists

Maybe you’re one of the millions of people who think the US would never use its nuclear weapons unless the threat of a nuclear attack was imminent.

Well, you’d be wrong, because according to the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review, the bar for using nukes has been significantly lowered. The new standard reads like this: (nukes can be used) “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

“Defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies”??

That’s a pretty broad net, isn’t it? That could include anything from a serious threat to national security to an ordinary economic competitor. And that loosy-goosy definition appears to be just what the authors were looking for. The hardliners wanted to fundamentally change US nuclear doctrine so the conditions under which nukes could be used was greatly expanded. The obvious objective of this dramatic policy-shift is to eliminate any obstacle to the free and unfettered use of nuclear weapons. Which is precisely what the neocons have always wanted; a green light to Armageddon. Now they got what they wanted. Here are a few of the changes in policy that suggest that a full-blown nuclear war is no longer a remote possibility, but an increasingly likely prospect.

1– First-Strike Use: Biden refuses to rule out first-strike use of US nuclear weapons …in reversal of his campaign promise. This is from The Daily Mail:

“… on the campaign trail, Biden had vowed to switch to a ‘sole purpose’ doctrine, which maintains that the US would only use nuclear weapons to respond to another nation’s nuclear attack….

President Joe Biden is abandoning a campaign vow to alter longstanding US nuclear doctrine, and will instead embrace existing policy that reserves America’s right to use nukes in a first-strike scenario, according to multiple reports.” (Daily Mail)

2– Nuclear Escalation: The Biden team has accelerated the deployment of modernized U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons to NATO bases in Europe. (The B61-12 carries a lower yield nuclear warhead than earlier versions but is more accurate and can penetrate below ground.) This is from Reuters:

Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernised U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the “nuclear threshold” and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning.
Amid the Ukraine crisis, Politico reported on Oct. 26 that the United States told a closed NATO meeting this month that it would accelerate the deployment of a modernised version of the B61, the B61-12, with the new weapons arriving at European bases in December, several months earlier than planned.

“We cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency. (Reuters)

3– ‘Tactical’ means ‘Usable’: Biden’s new regime of low-yield nukes (which can still blow up a city the size of New York.) are called “tactical” weapons because they are designed for use on the battlefield, which is to say, Biden no longer limits the use of nukes for national defense but also supports their use in conventional wars. (like Ukraine?) This is from Aljazeera:

“Tactical nuclear warheads were created to give military commanders more flexibility on the battlefield. In the mid-1950s, as more powerful thermonuclear bombs were being built and tested, military planners thought smaller weapons with a shorter range would be more useful in ‘tactical’ situations,” according to Al Jazeera’s defence analyst Alex Gatopoulos. (Aljazeera)

4– Fasttrack to Nuclear War: Biden’s New Euro-Nukes have lowered the threshold for nuclear war. This is from MSN:

Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernized US B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the “nuclear threshold” and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning…

“The United States is modernizing them, increasing their accuracy and reducing the power of the nuclear charge, that is, they turn these weapons into ‘battlefield weapons’, thereby reducing the nuclear threshold,” Grushko said….

Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, said on Saturday on Telegram that the new B61 bombs had a “strategic significance” as Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons were in storage, yet these U.S. bombs would be just a short flight from Russia’s borders.

“We cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency. (MSM)

5– Increasing the Reasons for using Nukes: The Nuclear Posture Review abandons Biden’s promise to ensure that US nuclear weapons would be used for the “sole purpose” of deterring or responding to a nuclear attack. Instead, the NPR states that the US will consider the use of nuclear weapons “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

Sole purpose could significantly reduce the risk of unintended escalation and increase the credibility of more flexible and realistic nonnuclear response options in a range of importance contingencies.” (Federation of American Scientists)

6– More Escalation: The US now reserves the right to use its nukes against non-nuclear weapon countries. This is from an article at Bloomberg News:

The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy rejected limits on using nuclear weapons long championed by arms control advocates and in the past by President Joe Biden.

Citing burgeoning threats from China and Russia, the Defense Department said in the document released Thursday 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.” In response, the US will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies.” (“Pentagon’s Strategy Won’t Rule Out Nuclear Use Against Non-Nuclear Threats”, Bloomberg)………………………………………………………………………….

The White House, the Pentagon and the entire US foreign policy establishment now march in lockstep behind the most fanatically-lethal defense policy in the nation’s 246-year history. The National Defense Strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review and the National Security Strategy all embrace the same reckless warmongering policy that will inevitably lead to mass annihilation and civilizational collapse. The doves and critical thinkers have all been removed from the foreign policy apparatus while the madmen and warhawks drag the world inexorably towards catastrophe. God help us. https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/brandons-usable-nukes-are-the-fast-track-to-jopocalypse/

November 2, 2022 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Loosening the Nuclear Knot – ARMS CONTROL TODAY

Arms Control Association

November 2022 By Daryl G. Kimball

Over the long, dangerous course of the nuclear age, the easing of tensions and resolution of crises between the nuclear-armed states have relied not only on good luck and self-restraint, but on effective, leader-to-leader dialogue.

For example, a key turning point in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was the decision by President John F. Kennedy to listen to advisers recommending a diplomatic course of action and back-channel talks. This allowed the two sides, as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev described it, to “take measures to untie that knot” and thus avoid “the catastrophe of thermonuclear war.”

……..  the risk of nuclear war is probably higher than at any point since 1962. The invasion has also led to the suspension of the U.S.-Russian strategic stability dialogue and talks designed to maintain limits on their strategic nuclear arsenals.

………………….  senior U.S. officials say that, despite intensified military competition with China, it is vital to engage in talks with leaders in Beijing on improved crisis communication, forms of mutual restraint, and arms limitations. Unfortunately, Chinese officials have rebuffed U.S. overtures for bilateral strategic risk reduction talks.

To loosen the knot of war, the Biden administration needs to explore other pathways for dialogue. One option surely under consideration but not yet deployed in this crisis is the multilateral P5 process, which involves all five nations recognized as nuclear-weapon states under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

The group has met annually since 2009 to explore confidence-building measures in relation to their nuclear forces. The United States holds the rotating chair, but has not yet convened a meeting. To date, the P5 process has been underutilized and has underperformed. But in this time of heightened nuclear danger, the Biden administration must try to use it to ease nuclear tensions with China and Russia.

Leaders in Beijing continue to tout the process. Last month, Li Song, Chinese ambassador for disarmament affairs, told a UN meeting that the five NPT nuclear-weapon states “should further enhance communication on such issues as strategic stability and reduction of nuclear risks.” With Russia continuing to issue veiled nuclear threats, it is in the vital interest of all five states to pursue joint steps and joint statements designed to lower the temperature.

For instance, the group might consider updating and implementing the 1973 U.S.-Soviet Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War, which pledges the two states “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the other party” and “avoid military confrontations, and as to exclude the outbreak of nuclear war.” The agreement requires that “if at any time there is the risk of a nuclear conflict,” each side “shall immediately enter into urgent consultations with each other and make every effort to avert this risk.”

The United States might also propose that the P5 process be augmented to allow for sustained discussions on specific arms control proposals relevant to all five states. Since the recent collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Russia and the United States have expressed interest in negotiating a new arrangement to limit or ban certain types of these weapons. At their February 2022 summit, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping called for talks with the United States to curtail possible deployments of missiles that had been limited by the treaty. The Biden administration should test their seriousness by advancing proposals for mutual restraints on these types of ballistic and cruise missile systems by all three states through the P5 process.

As they stared into the nuclear abyss 60 years ago, Kennedy and Khrushchev turned to diplomacy to reach the compromises necessary to preserve their nations’ survival. Today’s leaders must be even more creative and persistent in the pursuit of risk reduction and disarmament if we are to avoid arms racing and the possibility of nuclear catastrophe.  https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-11/focus/loosening-nuclear-knot

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

US troops on the ground in Ukraine – media

https://www.rt.com/russia/565747-us-troops-in-ukraine/ 2 Nov 22, The military personnel are reportedly inspecting Western weapons deliveries.

American troops are on the ground in Ukraine, where they are monitoring NATO arms deliveries to the country, an anonymous Pentagon official told several US media outlets on Monday. It is unclear how many personnel are involved, or where they are located.

Speaking to the Associated Press, NBC News, and other members of the Pentagon press pool, the official said that the contingent of troops is led by Brigadier General Garrick Harmon, the US defense attache to Kiev.

“There have been several of these inspections,” the official told reporters, without revealing where the examinations have taken place. He added that the checks are not happening “close to the front lines,” but where security conditions allow. 

The US inspected its arms shipments to Ukraine before Russia launched its military operation in February, but pulled its personnel out of the country days before it began. It is unclear how many troops have returned or when the checks restarted. 

The Pentagon official would only say that a “small” number of troops are involved.

The US State Department announced last week that it would allocate “personnel to assist the government of Ukraine with handling…of US security assistance,” although it did not mention that these personnel would be drawn from the ranks of the military. The plan was announced after media reports, citing US intelligence agencies, claimed that Washington could not trace the weapons it sends to Ukraine.

One intelligence source told CNN in April that these weapons disappear “into a big black hole” once they enter the country. The anonymous Pentagon official told journalists that Kiev has been “transparent,” and has cooperated with inspectors thus far.

While Americans have fought and died in Ukraine of their own accord, Monday’s announcement marks the first time since February that Washington has acknowledged the presence of uniformed troops in Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has cautioned the US and its NATO allies against getting involved in the conflict, and even before the announcement, he stated that the Kremlin views itself as fighting the “entire Western military machine” in Ukraine. 

November 2, 2022 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Finland hints at allowing NATO to station nuclear weapons (?targets) on its soil

 https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/10/31/finland-hints-at-allowing-nato-to-station-nuclear-weapons-on-its-soil/ By Chris King • 31 October 2022 ,

The Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, hinted that nuclear weapons could be deployed on Finnish soil should the country’s application to join NATO be approved.

It was recently reported by a newspaper in Helsinki that nuclear weapons could soon be stationed on Finland’s border with Russia if the country’s bid to join NATO is approved. Should it come to that, it is bound to anger Moscow.

Nuclear missiles launched from the Finnish border would take far less than a minute to reach Moscow. That is a very short warning period. It is certain that the Kremlin will not like this at all, but it could soon become reality. 

The reason: Finland – together with Sweden – submitted an application to join NATO in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. According to the Helsinki newspaper Iltalehti, the draft accession law, as submitted by the Finnish government to Parliament, does not include an exemption for nuclear weapons

Finnish Foreign and Defence Ministers Pekka Haavisto and Antti Kaikkonen both pledged to NATO in July that they would not seek ‘restrictions or national reservations’ if Helsinki’s proposal goes through. This was reported by various defence sources to exxpress.at.

Foreign policy insiders said that NATO nuclear weapons could be moved through Finnish territory or stationed there. In addition, there are no restrictions on establishing NATO bases in the country.

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin told Finnish broadcaster Yle on Saturday 29: “I think it’s very important that we don’t set any preconditions or limit our own room for manoeuvre when it comes to permanent bases or nuclear weapons”. It is thought highly unlikely though that nuclear weapons would be stationed on Finnish soil.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US already has around 100 nuclear weapons in Europe. They are located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Britain and France, both NATO members, also maintain their own independent nuclear arsenals.

Earlier this month, the Polish government said it had held talks with Washington about hosting US nuclear weapons, but the Americans have not confirmed this. Polish President Andrzej Duda said there was a ‘potential opportunity’ for his country to engage in ‘nuclear sharing’.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Finland and Sweden’s applications for membership in May, calling the move a ‘historic moment’ for the alliance.

November 1, 2022 Posted by | Finland, weapons and war | Leave a comment

As Australia gets American nuclear-capable bombers, it risks becoming a dangerous military mess and target – like Guam

China’s furious reaction as Australia gets US nuclear-capable bombers A furious Beijing has blasted reports of the US gifting Australia nuclear-capable bombers, prompting a concerning warning from China.

 https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/chinas-ominous-threat-to-australia-over-us-nuclearcapable-bombers/news-story/ca67d55d29ef716883078e4fb8e2101f Ally Foster and Frank Chung, November 1, 2022 –

Australia has been issued an ominous threat, after China lashed out at reports of the US sending nuclear-capable bombers to the Northern Territory.

According to an investigation by the ABC’s Four Cornersthat aired on Monday, Washington has drawn up plans to build a dedicated a “squadron operations facility” at the Tindal air base south of Darwin that will house “six B-52s”.

These aircraft are capable of delivering both nuclear and conventional weapons, with a combat range of more than 14,000km.

The news has prompted a furious response from Beijing, with the former editor-in-chief of the CCP-run Global Times issuing an ominous warning to Australia.military

Commentator Hu Xijin said Australia would need to “bear the risks” of this move.

“The PLA’s Dongfeng missiles definitely fly faster than the B-52 bombers,” he wrote on Twitter.

“If Australia wants to become a “big Guam,” then it must bear the corresponding strategic risks.”

There have even been warnings that accepting these bombers could “trigger a regional arms race”.

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian said by sending the bombers to Australia, the US had “increased regional tensions, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and may trigger a regional arms race”.

“Defence and security co-operation between any countries should be conducive to regional peace and stability and not target or harm the interests of third parties,” he told reporters in Beijing.

Mr Zhao said Beijing was urging all the countries concerned to “abandon the old Cold War zero-sum thinking and narrow geopolitical concepts”.

The focus should instead be on contributing more to regional peace and stability and enhancing “mutual trust”, he said.

November 1, 2022 Posted by | South Africa, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The nuclear threats that hang over the world

Even a limited strike in Ukraine would have catastrophic global effects

Ft.com GIDEON RACHMAN, 31 Oct 22,

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” That joint statement was issued at the beginning of this year by China, France, Russia, the UK and the US — the five official nuclear weapons states. The following month, Russia invaded Ukraine. Ever since, world leaders have been grappling with the threat that a nuclear war might indeed be fought — quite soon.

From the outset, Vladimir Putin has described the conflict as existential for Russia and hinted that he might use nuclear weapons to prevail………………………………….

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/f3dce448-a7e4-4fbe-80a4-d317af4b8317

The US and its allies are focused on preventing Russia from making that fatal step across the nuclear threshold — through a mixture of deterrence and diplomacy. But they are also already thinking hard about the global aftermath of the use of a Russian nuclear weapon. This is unknown territory and the pressure is intense…….

Broadly speaking, there are four main scenarios to consider: nuclear normalisation, nuclear blackmail, avoidance of war, and Armageddon.

It is not hard to see how the use of a Russian nuclear weapon could spiral into an all-out nuclear war — leading to what President Biden himself has termed “Armageddon”. Washington has warned that if Moscow were to use a nuclear weapon, there would be a response with “catastrophic” consequences for Russia.

The Americans have not spelt out in public what that response would be. Many commentators think that it would be military, but non-nuclear. General David Petraeus, a former CIA head, has talked of Nato forces attacking Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine with conventional weapons and sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet……………

But direct western military involvement would probably trigger a further Russian response. The west and Russia might then rapidly move up the “escalation ladder”, making the nightmare of all-out nuclear war distinctly possible. As one US official puts it: “I don’t think anyone should be confident that we can control the escalation risks.”

Because the prospect of escalation to Armageddon is so horrific, there is also a real possibility that even the use of a Russian nuclear weapon would not trigger a direct western military response — with the US instead trying to organise the complete economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia. But that would open the door to another disturbing future: “nuclear normalisation”.

Nuclear weapons would have been shown to be tools that can be used in a war of aggression — not just for deterrence. Russia, and even China, might be tempted to cross the nuclear threshold again. And non-nuclear states — such as Japan, South Korea, Germany and a host of others — would rush to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

Global turmoil would follow the use of a nuclear weapon. Markets would crash and publics might panic across the world, with the possibility of large-scale population movements out of cities………………………………..

The three darkest scenarios — Armageddon, normalisation and successful nuclear blackmail — are all far more possible than they should be. But, collectively, they remain less likely than the fourth possibility — that nuclear war is avoided. In all previous nuclear crises since 1945, the leaders of great powers have drawn back from the brink. The knowledge that a false move could cause millions of deaths — or even destroy the planet — is enormously sobering. It has kept the world from sliding into nuclear conflict since 1945. It should work again. Probably. https://www.ft.com/content/f3dce448-a7e4-4fbe-80a4-d317af4b8317—

November 1, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear gravity bomb more powerful than Hiroshima blast to be added to NATO’s arsenal

it makes using nuclear weapons thinkable for the first time since the 1940s and deploying the B61-12 only encourages this trend further………………….. The new bombs will be able to be dropped from numerous aircraft including B-2 stealth bombers, and smaller warplanes like the F-15, F-35 and Tornado.

The new B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb which can carry a yield more powerful than the Hiroshima blast will be delivered by the US to Europe months earlier than planned

By Rachel Hagan, World News Reporter, 28 Oct 2022

The US is speeding up the delivery of highly accurate guided tactical nuclear weapons to Europe by around four months as tensions rise between Moscow and the West.

The B61-12 gravity bomb was due for Spring 2023 but they are now accelerating plans to have it ready for this December, US officials told NATO allies during a closed-door meeting in Brussels this month.

But what are these weapons and what are they capable of?

The new thermonuclear bombs are “dial-a-yield” devices and are one of the most versatile in the US’ arsenal because its explosive power can be ramped up or down depending on the target.

Specialist defence magazine, the National Interest, called the bomb the most devastating nuclear bomb in the arsenal of the US……………………………

They say it makes using nuclear weapons thinkable for the first time since the 1940s and deploying the B61-12 only encourages this trend further………………….. The new bombs will be able to be dropped from numerous aircraft including B-2 stealth bombers, and smaller warplanes like the F-15, F-35 and Tornado.

November 1, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pentagon Scraps Submarine Nuclear Cruise Missile Program

The United States’ newly declassified Nuclear Posture Review and its National Defense Strategy show that the U.S. government is intent on modernizing and updating its nuclear arsenal.

National Interest, by Caleb Larson, 31 Oct 22, The U.S. Department of Defense has decided to ax the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile, known as the SLCM-N, instead opting to refurbish current stockpiles of nuclear weapons and rely on the Trident, a submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missile.

A fact sheet for the recently-published nuclear posture review, which outlines the United States’ nuclear capabilities, described the future of the U.S. strategic deterrence arsenal…………………………………………………

For now, it seems the United States will not pursue a naval nuclear cruise missile but instead focus on modernizing and refurbishing the capabilities it already has.  https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/pentagon-scraps-submarine-nuclear-cruise-missile-program-205627

November 1, 2022 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

THE BIGGEST LIE – ADDICTED TO WAR – WHAT MOST AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T KNOW and DON’T WANT TO KNOW

The mainstream media will never tell the truth about this, as they are owned by the very people and corporations who make huge profits from U.S. wars. 

THE BIG LIE is so big and so complete in the United States. It’s like mass hypnosis. Like mass brainwashing. ………  Most Americans are taught to believe that we are The Good Guys. And once again, most people are not taught about the true nature of U.S. foreign policy

 THE BIG LIE is so big and so complete in the United States. It’s like mass hypnosis. Like mass brainwashing. ………  Most Americans are taught to believe that we are The Good Guys. And once again, most people are not taught about the true nature of U.S. foreign policy

https://www.addictedtowar.com/the-big-lie, By Frank Dorrel – Publisher of ADDICTED To WAR: www.addictedtowar.com, 31 Oct 22,

What Is This BIG LIE – I Am Talking About? ………………..

Well, it’s not Donald Trump claiming that he won the 2020 election for President……….

I’m not talking about Climate Change/Global Warming.…. now heating faster than expected

I’m not talking about Systemic Racism in the United States.………. this terrible situation.

I’m not talking about The Prison Industrial Complex…………  this sad story is not really a secret

I’m not talking about Poverty and Homelessness…………. very sad situation happening to millions of American people.

I’m not talking about COVID, the pandemic that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American people in the last two years

THE BIG LIE

The BIG LIE I am talking about has to do with U.S. foreign policy and U.S. wars, both overt and covert. We are not told the truth about them or that the U.S. is a Global Empire that controls much of the World through force and power and threatens Third World countries, who are not willing to do as we say. Most American people do not know these things. Most do not believe these things are true. And most people are not willing to take a closer look at all of this.

I suggest you go to my website to see what I am talking about. Go to the Film Page: www.addictedtowar.com/films  and watch as many of these important anti-war films as you can. They are all on YouTube and can be watched for free. Take as long as you need. I do not think you will find another list like this anywhere on the Internet. I have watched all of these films at least two or more times. Every one of them is very well done. Altogether, they reveal THE BIG LIE. These films are never aired on television. Not even on PBS.

Go to the Talks and Interviews Page: www.addictedtowar.com/talks-interviews  – and watch and listen to as many of them as you can. The very first talk is by Martin Luther King Jr. It’s titled – BEYOND VIETNAM: A Time To Break Silence. Once again, take your time to watch these talks by these activists. They reveal the horrors our country has been committing all of these years with its many wars against innocent poor people around the World.

THE BIG LIE

I am talking about is what Martin Luther King Jr. said in his BEYOND VIETNAM Speech: “The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in The World Today, My Own Government.” The Military, the Oil Companies, the Corporations, the Weapon Makers, the Bankers, the Mainstream Media & the Politicians, also known as The Military-Industrial-Complex. They make war for profit and also to control the resources of the World. And WE, the PEOPLE are LIED to about this. One of their biggest weapons is propaganda. And they really know how to use it. It is a global battle of the rich versus the poor. And war is, for the most part, racist. We bomb, invade and kill mostly people of color.

Read this article by James Lucas titled: THE UNITED STATES HAS KILLED MORE THAN 20 MILLION PEOPLE IN 37 NATIONS SINCE WWII: https://popularresistance.org/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-in-37-nations-since-wwii  

Read this article by Professor Larry Mosqueda of Evergreen State College titled: SHOCKED and HORRIFIED, written on September 15th, 2001: www.globalissues.org/article/257/shocked-and-horrified

The mainstream media will never tell the truth about this, as they are owned by the very people and corporations who make huge profits from U.S. wars. Most people in the government will not talk about or look at this. If they were to do so, they would become outcasts and pariahs, shunned by others in the government. And for the most part, people in the military will not look at or talk about these things. However, some have spoken out. And many of them are listed on my site. The one group that does look at this issue is the Anti-War Movement. We are part of the alternative media in this country. You can see who some of these organizations are by going to: www.addictedtowar.com/sources-and-websites  . CovertAction DEMOCRACY NOW, is on this list.

There is an anti-war movement in this country. But it’s just not big enough to make much of a difference. Most people are not taught about these things in their schools, in their churches, or by their parents. And they won’t learn about THE BIG LIE by watching the mainstream news on television or by reading the mainstream newspapers.

HOW DID I LEARN ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?

I first started learning about all of this when I discovered KPFK 90.7 FM Radio in 1980. KPFK is part of the Pacifica Network: https://pacificanetwork.org   – consisting of five radio stations in this country. They are KPFA in Berkeley, KPFK in Los Angeles, WBAI in New York, WPFW in Washington DC and KPFT in Houston. The first Pacifica station was KPFA in Berkeley. It was started in 1949 by Lou Hill, a man who refused to go to World War II. He wanted to have a station that was against war, dealt with social injustice and had no commercial sponsors so that the truth could be told. I discovered KPFK by chance. No one told me about it.

Read more: THE BIGGEST LIE – ADDICTED TO WAR – WHAT MOST AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T KNOW and DON’T WANT TO KNOW

I had a job as a driver for the University of Southern California. I drove about 200 miles a day. One day in 1980, I was turning the FM channels and heard Alan Watts talking on KPFK. He was an amazing storyteller, a philosopher of sorts, and very interesting to listen to. He was already dead when I started listening to him. So every Monday at 2:00 PM, I put on KPFK. Then one Monday, I left the station on and heard Noam Chomsky talking about U.S.-supported death squads in El Salvador.

That was the beginning for me. From that time on, I listened to KPFK as much as possible. I discovered many other truth-tellers on KPFK, talking about U.S. foreign policy, who you would never hear on the mainstream media. People like Howard Zinn, Ramsey Clark, Michael Parenti, Daniel Ellsberg, John Stockwell, Philip Agee, S. Brian Willson, Roy Bourgeois, Medea Benjamin, Kathy Kelly & many others. Then I discovered Blase Bonpane, who had his own weekly program on KPFK called WORLD FOCUS.

I began listening to Blase every week. Soon he became my mentor. The more I learned about what the U.S. had been doing with its foreign policy, the more upset I got. During the listener-sponsored fund-drives, I would order books and talks by these truth-tellers. Whenever they came to Los Angeles to speak, I would go to listen to them in person. I joined the Veterans For Peace group in Los Angeles and would go to their meetings. It was there that I met Tony Russo and learned so much about what he called THE U.S. WAR IN VIETNAM. Tony had been partners with Daniel Ellsberg in revealing The Pentagon Papers.

At that time, I was learning about what was happening in Nicaragua, with the U.S. supporting the Contra’s and the history of U.S. interventions there. The more I learned, the worse it got. I had no idea that my country, the United States, had been doing so many terrible things to innocent poor people all over the World. I went to hear John Stockwell at least three times. He had been a marine and was the CIA Station Chief in Angola. The stories he told about the atrocities the CIA had been committing around the World were absolutely chilling. You can hear him giving an amazing talk in 1989 here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmYZ_kWHk3Q  .

It was on KPFK that I first heard about S. Brian Willson, as he and three other veterans began their VETERANS FAST FOR LIFE on the Capitol Steps in Washington DC in 1986. They were protesting U.S. foreign policy in Central America; in Nicaragua,

El Salvador and Guatemala. They fasted for something like 40 days and got a lot of attention all over the country through the Pacifica Network and the anti-war movement. I sent them a $100 donation and a letter of support. And I went on a march supporting these four veterans, S. Brian Willson, Charlie Liteky, Duncan Murphy and George Mizo – in Downtown Los Angeles and marched with a big crowd, right behind Jackson Browne and Kris Kristofferson.

On September 1st, 1987, I heard Blase Bonpane say on KPFK that Brian Willson had been run over at The Concord Naval Weapons Station in Northern California by a train that was carrying weapons to be shipped to Central America and used to kill innocent people there. Brian lost both legs but survived the attack. One year later, he came to Los Angeles to give a talk, which I heard about on KPFK. I went to hear him and my life was changed forever. To this day, I have never heard anyone speak quite like Brian did that night. He was so clear with his message against the U.S. war in Vietnam. I’ll never forget one thing he said: “How could I have gone 10,000 miles across the ocean to take part in killing people I did not know anything about”. Brian had been a believer in that war. He was a conservative republican, an anti-communist and an All-American young man. But he had his epiphany when he witnessed a fishing village in Vietnam that we had bombed & napalmed. He was sent to inspect the success of this mission. He saw maybe 100 people, all of them dead or dying. No soldiers. No weapons. Only women, children and a few older men. He went to four other villages that week and observed the same thing. We were killing villagers and reporting that they were V.C. or Viet Cong. Brian started to speak out against what he had witnessed and soon he was sent back to the States. Some years later, he became a full-time anti-war activist. Brian’s mantra is: We Are Not Worth More. They Are Not Worth Less.

Everything that Brian writes about on his website is well worth reading: www.brianwillson.com . You can watch Brian at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ_cO1wC0yI  – An excellent film about Brian titled: “PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE: The Story of S. Brian Willson” – can be rented or bought at: www.addictedtowar.com/about-paying-the-price . I was the associate producer on this amazing film. Brian is the last segment in my film: “What I’ve Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy: The War Against The 3rd  World.”  If you have never seen my film, please take the time to watch it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gMGhrkoncA  . And once again, watch the films on The Film Page and the talks on The Talks & Interviews Page. In doing so, you could earn what would be like the equivalent of a PH.D in: The True History of U.S. Foreign Policy.

There is also the Book Page, which lists over 90 excellent books you can read, most on the topic of U.S. Foreign Policy: www.addictedtowar.com/books  .

HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH ALL OF THIS?  WHY MOST PEOPLE CAN’T SEE THESE TRUTHS?

Here is why I believe that most Americans cannot and will not see these truths that I have been talking about. THE BIG LIE is so big and so complete in the United States. It’s like mass hypnosis. Like mass brainwashing. Like something out of Orwell’s book 1984. I believe the biggest tool for brainwashing is the television set that we watch. Most Americans are taught to believe that we are The Good Guys. And once again, most people are not taught about the true nature of U.S. foreign policy in their schools, in their churches or by their parents. And they won’t learn about THE BIG LIE by watching the mainstream news on television or by reading the mainstream newspapers.

I Think The Following Is A Very Important Point In All of This!

Many people have lived a pretty good life here in the United States. They have had a lot of freedom and have been given a lot of opportunity to do what they want, to go for their own special dreams. Not everyone gets there, but at least, many have had that chance. This doesn’t necessarily happen if you are Black or Latinx or Native American or poor. And many people have had various problems fitting in our society and end up unhappy and discontented. But this is America. The Land of The Free and The Home of The Brave. There are so many things here that people appreciate. This is certainly true in my case. And many people have come here from other countries in order to have a better life. And ironically, many of these people have come from some of the very countries we have attacked and invaded. We have had it good here compared to them.

But do these facts make it OK to have a foreign policy that has literally killed millions of innocent people and ruined the lives of many millions more, all for lies?

We are told that our military goes into other countries to help the people and bring freedom and democracy. But of course, that is not what has been happening with our foreign policy. How do you help people when you invade them, drop bombs on them, send in drones to kill them, place sanctions on them and support dictators who oppress them. Most Americans do not want to believe or accept that our country has been doing these horrendous things and still is. And the policies of the U.S. also has ruined the lives of millions more people all over the World. This is not what most American’s believe. It’s much easier being ignorant than it is to realize that this is happening and has been happening all along.

For those of us who have come to understand these things, it is not easy, as we learn that others do not want us to tell them about this or to try to educate them about this. And since the vast majority of Americans do not know or believe these things, it’s very easy to dismiss those of us who do, calling us crazy or conspiracy theorists, without ever looking at the evidence we have to show them. I cannot tell you how many friends I have had in my life who are no longer my friends. Many will not call me back or respond to emails I have sent them about this. It is an amazing thing to experience. After over 40 years of being an activist, I do understand why people do not want to know. It’s just too painful to know. It’s simply easier not to know. Life can be hard. Life can be difficult. And it certainly is now with all that we are dealing with. But life is so much easier not having to deal with the information I have been talking about. However, by denying these truths, we unknowingly support the deaths and destruction of millions.

I do want to say that most of the people who have been involved, in one way or another, in carrying out these barbarous acts committed by the U.S. are not necessarily lying. For the most part, they are simply following orders. The soldiers follow orders. The politicians go along with what they are told. And the reporters in the mainstream media don’t really do true journalism. They get their stories from the State Department, the CIA or other government sources. They don’t investigate on their own to see if these stories are really true or not. The victims of U.S. foreign policy are in other countries, out of sight, out of mind. And the people I have just mentioned will not look at the information we in the anti-war movement try to give them. So the terrible, horrible and unbelievable things our country does happens because we live THE BIG LIE here in the United States.

I want to close with something important that Blase Bonpane said back in 2009. He said:

“The reason he did his anti-war work was because he wanted to stop his country (United States) from killing millions of innocent people all over the world”.

What Blase said is the very same reason why I have been doing my anti-war work all of these years. Blase was loved and respected by so many people. He died in 2019.

And I also want to thank all of the Truth-Tellers and Anti-War Activists I have mentioned in this article and who are on my website – for being my teachers, and for continuing to do this important work. The question is how can we reach enough people to change from being a war-like country to a Peace-Like country? Peace means that we help people in other countries and in our own country. We do not invade them, we do not bomb them, we do not starve them and we do not kill them.

You can read the 2004 edition of ADDICTED To WAR: www.addictedtowar.com/read-book  . The 2015 edition can be purchased here: www.addictedtowar.com/store  . ADDICTED To WAR is a book that most everyone (12 years and older) can read and understand. Hundreds of high school teachers and college professors have used it in their classrooms. We need to have more teachers and professors using it. When I was in high school, a book like ADDICTED To WAR could never have been used in class at all.  I have read it every year since we first published it in 2002. I always think what a fantastic, one-of-a-kind book ADDICTED To WAR is.

In 2000, I put together my film compilation titled: “WHAT I’VE LEARNED ABOUT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: The War Against The Third World.” I updated it in 2015, adding three new segments.

It can be seen here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gMGhrkoncA  –  If you have not seen it, please do. 

Publisher: ADDICTED To WAR

Associate Producer: PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE: The Story of S. Brian Willson

Producer: What I’ve Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy:

Member: Veterans For Peace

310-838-8131

us.addicted.to.war@gmail.com

frank.dorrel@gmail.com  

www.addictedtowar.com

October 31, 2022 Posted by | media, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

With nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in Australia, USA could make lethal nuclear attack on mainland China.

The ability to deploy the long-range bombers to Australia sends a strong message to adversaries about Washington’s ability to project lethal air power, the US Air Force was quoted as saying in the report.

China slams report US to deploy nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in Australia amid Taiwan tensions, SCMP 31 Oct 22

The US Air Force said deploying long-range bombers to Australia sends a message to adversaries about Washington’s ability to project lethal air power

As the B-52s could reach and potentially attack mainland China, they will serve as a warning to Beijing over a Taiwan assault, a defence analyst said

The United States is planning to deploy up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to an airbase in northern Australia, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday, amid heightened tensions with Beijing.

Dedicated facilities for the bombers will be set up at Australian air force’s remote Tindal base, about 300km (190 miles) south of Darwin, the capital of Australia’s Northern Territory, said the source, who declined to be identified because they are not authorised to speak publicly on the issue.

The development was first reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC)‘s Four Corners programme, citing US documents………………………..

Australia’s Northern Territory is already host to frequent military collaborations with the United States. Thousands of US marines rotate through the territory annually for training and joint exercises, first started under President Barack Obama.

Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles’ office did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment…………………

The ability to deploy the long-range bombers to Australia sends a strong message to adversaries about Washington’s ability to project lethal air power, the US Air Force was quoted as saying in the report.

Last year, the US, Britain and Australia created a security deal that will provide Australia with the technology to deploy nuclear-powered submarines, riling China.

Becca Wasser, senior fellow at the Washington-based Centre for a New American Security, told the ABC that putting B-52s that could reach and potentially attack mainland China in Australia will be a warning to Beijing, as fears grow of an assault on Taiwan.

Asked about US nuclear bombers being positioned in Australia, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said defence and security cooperation between countries should “not target any third parties or harm the interests of third parties.”

“The relevant US behaviours have increased regional tensions, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region,” Zhao told reporters at a regular briefing in Beijing

“China urges the parties concerned to abandon the outdated Cold War and zero-sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical thinking, and to do something conducive to regional peace and stability and enhancing mutual trust between the countries,” Zhao added.  https://scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3197806/amid-taiwan-tensions-us-deploy-nuclear-capable-b-

October 31, 2022 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A failure to review America’s nuclear posture

By Joe Cirincione | October 28, 2022

The question is complicated by a process that gives those most interested in continuing nuclear programs the authority to write the policy governing these weapons.

The Pentagon controls the pen

 https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/a-failure-to-review-americas-nuclear-posture/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter10312022&utm_content=NuclearRisk_FailureToReview_10282022#post-heading—By Joe Cirincione | October 28, 2022,

President Joe Biden has passed on his best chance to operationalize his stated goal of reducing the role in US security policy of America’s more than 5,400 nuclear weapons with the public release on October 27 of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

Biden is now the 14th president over eight decades to attempt to reconcile the risks that derive from nuclear deployments with the demands of deterrence. He has discovered how difficult this can be.

Biden’s NPR adjusts nuclear policy and programs at the margins while making no significant changes to the Pentagon’s budgets and deployments. It endorsed dozens of nuclear-weapons programs that will cost an estimated $634 billion over this decade, according to a May 2021 assessment from the Congressional Budget Office. Including in that estimate missile defense programs, weapons programs added after the Congress report and expected inflation could bring the cost to almost $1 trillion per decade for several decades to come.

This includes proceeding with a new land-based, long-range missile rushed toward production in the last months of the Trump administration without examining less expensive and less dangerous alternatives to its production. That project alone could cost $264 billion overall.

This failure is not unique to Biden. Every president in the nuclear age has struggled to control the weapons supposedly under his sole authority. Primarily this is because US nuclear posture is not a rational response to an external threat environment. It is driven by those who see nuclear superiority as a tool of global power, those who use nuclear security as a wedge issue in partisan politics, and by those powerful arms corporations that realize vast profits from manufacturing, marketing, and maintaining these deadly arsenals

The question is complicated by a process that gives those most interested in continuing nuclear programs the authority to write the policy governing these weapons. The Pentagon controls the pen. Biden appears to have concluded that it is too costly in political terms to fight for his views, which included repeated statements that the United States has no need to ever use a nuclear weapon first. He has let the Pentagon dictate his strategy rather than challenge a bureaucracy resisting any alteration of current programs and doctrine.

Elsewhere, I have detailed how a safer, more rational nuclear policy could have included, among other steps, reducing the number of deployed strategic warheads by one-third, to about 1,000, taking nuclear-armed missiles off hair-trigger alert, embracing no first use or sole purpose doctrines, and requiring an additional senior official to authorize launch. Pacts such as AUKUS that encourage the spread of nuclear weapons technology must also be rethought.

But consideration of these and other steps were effective excluded early in the process when the Defense Department fired then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Leanor Tomero, whom Biden had placed in charge of nuclear and missile defense policy and who had been pressing, following Biden’s presidential guidance, for consideration of some of the alternatives. According to knowledgeable sources, Pentagon staff complained to Republican staff on the Senate Armed Services Committee that Tomero wasn’t sufficiently supportive of “nuclear modernization” – the euphemism for the mountain of contracts that drive the nuclear posture.

Tomero was an early casualty of an entrenched nuclear bureaucracy fiercely protective of its contracts, secrecy, and privilege . As American University Professor Sharon Weiner wrote: “The nuclear weapons establishment will limit choice by presenting everything as an interlocking set of military requirements instead of multiple options for meeting deterrence goals.” She was right.

As Weiner predicted and the NPR reflects, “These options will likely allow, at best, only narrow deviations from the status quo.”

President Bill Clinton was the first to issue an NPR in 1994; Biden should be the last. Policy should flow from the White House to executing departments, not the reverse. Let this be the end of a flawed, inadequate, and dangerous nuclear posture review process.

October 31, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »