nuclear-news

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

China increasing its nuclear arsenal, but still far smaller than USA’s


China increasing nuclear arsenal much faster than was thought, Pentagon says .  Guardian, China is expanding its nuclear force much faster than US officials predicted just a year ago, highlighting a broad and accelerating buildup of military muscle designed to enable Beijing to match or surpass US global power by mid-century, according to a new Pentagon report.

The number of Chinese nuclear warheads could increase to 700 within six years, the report said, and may top 1,000 by 2030. The report released on Wednesday did not say how many weapons China has today, but a year ago the Pentagon said the number was in the “low 200s” and was likely to double by the end of this decade.

The numbers would still be significantly smaller than the current US nuclear stockpile of about 3,750 nuclear weapons. The Biden administration is undertaking a comprehensive review of its nuclear policy and has not said how that might be influenced by its China concerns………… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/03/china-increasing-nuclear-arsenal-much-faster-than-was-thought-pentagon-says

November 4, 2021 Posted by | China, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. Discloses Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Numbers


U.S. Discloses Nuclear Stockpile Numbers, November 2021, By Shannon Bugos, Arms Control Association

The Biden administration has publicly released the total number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile, a sharp reversal of the previous administration’s refusal to do so for the past three years…………

The U.S. stockpile of nuclear warheads was at 3,750 as of September 2020, according to the administration document. This number captures active and inactive warheads, but not the roughly 2,000 retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. The document lists stockpile numbers going back to 1962, including the warhead numbers from the years when the Trump administration refused to declassify the information.

This number represents an approximate 88 percent reduction in the stockpile from its maximum (31,255) at the end of fiscal year 1967, and an approximate 83 percent reduction from its level (22,217) when the Berlin Wall fell in late 1989,” the document said.

Despite a significant overall reduction, the updated figures show the scale of reductions to the stockpile has diminished in recent years and even reflect a 20 warhead increase between September 2018 and September 2019 under the Trump administration.

The Biden administration also disclosed how many nuclear warheads the Energy Department has dismantled each year since 1994, for a total of 11,683. The Obama administration decided in 2010, for the first time, to release the entire history of the size of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The Trump administration declassified the stockpile data for 2017, but did not do so again for the following years…………  https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-11/news/us-discloses-nuclear-stockpile-numbers

November 2, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Mohamed bin Zayed Receives Nazarbayev Prize for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World and Global Security


BY ASSEL SATUBALDINA in INTERNATIONAL on 1 NOVEMBER 2021

NUR-SULTAN – Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces Mohamed bin Zayed received the Nazarbayev Prize for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World and Global Security on Oct. 28 for his contribution to peace, regional stability, and sustainable economic development during the meeting with Former Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, reports the press service of First President.

The award was established in 2016 with a goal to urge international actors to pursue more vigorous efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. King Abdullah II of Jordan was the first person to receive the prestigious award back in 2017 during his visit to Kazakhstan. ……….. https://astanatimes.com/2021/11/mohamed-bin-zayed-receives-nazarbayev-prize-for-a-nuclear-weapon-free-world-and-global-security/

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Kazakhstan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hidden agenda: Will COP26 let nuclear power in the door and, if so, why?

Hidden agenda — Beyond Nuclear International  October 31, 2021    https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/10/31/hidden-agenda/

—  The unspoken argument for more nuclear power, By Linda Pentz Gunter

Not that the two things are unconnected. The civilian nuclear power industry is desperately scrambling to find a way into the COP climate solutions. It has rebranded itself as “zero-carbon”, which is a lie. And this lie goes unchallenged by our willing politicians who blithely repeat it. Are they really that lazy and stupid? Possibly not. Read on.

Nuclear power isn’t a climate solution of course. It can make no plausible financial case, compared with renewables and energy efficiency, nor can it deliver nearly enough electricity in time to stay the inexorable onrush of climate catastrophe. It is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous, hasn’t solved its lethal waste problem and presents a potentially disastrous security and proliferation risk. 

New, small, fast reactors will make plutonium, essential to the nuclear weapons industry as Henry Sokolski and Victor Gilinsky of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center continue to point out. Some of these so-called micro-reactors would be used to power the military battlefield. The Tennessee Valley Authority is already using two of its civilian nuclear reactors to produce tritium, another key “ingredient” for nuclear weapons and a dangerous blurring of the military and civil nuclear lines.

So here we are again at another COP (Conference of the Parties). Well, some of us are in Glasgow, Scotland at the COP itself, and some of us, this writer included, are sitting at a distance, trying to feel hopeful.

But this is COP 26. That means there have already been 25 tries at dealing with the once impending and now upon us climate crisis. Twenty five rounds of “blah, blah, blah” as youth climate activist, Greta Thunberg, so aptly put it. 

So if some of us do not feel the blush of optimism on our cheeks, we can be forgiven. I mean, even the Queen of England has had enough of the all-talk-and-no-action of our world leaders, who have been, by and large, thoroughly useless. Even, this time, absent. Some of them have been worse than that.  

Not doing anything radical on climate at this stage is fundamentally a crime against humanity. And everything else living on Earth. It should be grounds for an appearance at the International Criminal Court. In the dock.

But what are the world’s greatest greenhouse gas emitters consumed with right now? Upgrading and expanding their nuclear weapons arsenals. Another crime against humanity. It’s as if they haven’t even noticed that our planet is already going quite rapidly to hell in a handbasket. They’d just like to hasten things along a bit by inflicting a nuclear armageddon on us as well.

Not that the two things are unconnected. The civilian nuclear power industry is desperately scrambling to find a way into the COP climate solutions. It has rebranded itself as “zero-carbon”, which is a lie. And this lie goes unchallenged by our willing politicians who blithely repeat it. Are they really that lazy and stupid? Possibly not. Read on.

Nuclear power isn’t a climate solution of course. It can make no plausible financial case, compared with renewables and energy efficiency, nor can it deliver nearly enough electricity in time to stay the inexorable onrush of climate catastrophe. It is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous, hasn’t solved its lethal waste problem and presents a potentially disastrous security and proliferation risk. 

Nuclear power is so slow and expensive that it doesn’t even matter whether or not it is ‘low-carbon’ (let alone ‘zero-carbon’). As the economist, Amory Lovins, says, “ Being carbon-free does not establish climate-effectiveness.” If an energy source is too slow and too costly, it will “reduce and retard achievable climate protection,” no matter how ‘low-carbon’ it is.

New, small, fast reactors will make plutonium, essential to the nuclear weapons industry as Henry Sokolski and Victor Gilinsky of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center continue to point out. Some of these so-called micro-reactors would be used to power the military battlefield. The Tennessee Valley Authority is already using two of its civilian nuclear reactors to produce tritium, another key “ingredient” for nuclear weapons and a dangerous blurring of the military and civil nuclear lines.

Keeping existing reactors going, and building new ones, maintains the lifeline of personnel and know-how needed by the nuclear weapons sector. Dire warnings are being sounded in the halls of power about the threat to national security should the civil nuclear sector fade away.

This is more than a hypothesis. It is all spelled out in numerous documents from bodies such as The Atlantic Council to The Energy Futures Initiative. It has been well researched by two stellar academics at the University of Sussex in the UK — Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone. It’s just almost never talked about. Including by those of us in the anti-nuclear power movement, much to Stirling and Johnstone’s consternation.

But in a way it’s just glaringly obvious. As we in the anti-nuclear movement wrack our brains to understand why our perfectly empirical and compelling arguments against using nuclear power for climate fall perpetually on deaf ears, we are maybe missing the fact that the nuclear-is-essential-for-climate arguments we hear are just one big smokescreen.

At least, let’s hope so. Because the alternative means that our politicians really are that lazy and stupid, and also gullible, or in the pockets of the big polluters, whether nuclear or fossil fuel, or possibly all of the above. And if that’s the case, we must brace ourselves for more “blah, blah, blah” at COP 26 and a truly horrible outlook for present and future generations.

We are grateful, therefore, to our colleagues attending COP 26, who will be promoting— rather than tilting at —windmills as they make their case, one more time, that nuclear power has no place in, and in fact hinders, climate solutions. 

And I hope they will also point out that expensive and obsolete nuclear power should never be promoted — under the false guise of a climate solution — as an excuse to perpetuate the nuclear weapons industry.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the International specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, spinbuster, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The untold story of the world’s biggest nuclear bomb

The Tsar Bomba is dead; long live the Tsar Bomba. As the United States, Russia, and China seem to be engaged in new arms races in several domains, including unusual and new forms of nuclear delivery vehicles, the Tsar Bomba is a potent example of how nationalism, fear, and high-technology can combine in a fashion that is ultimately dangerous, wasteful, and pointless.

The untold story of the world’s biggest nuclear bomb,  Bulletin,  By Alex Wellerstein, October 29, 2021   n the early hours of October 30, 1961, a bomber took off from an airstrip in northern Russia and began its flight through cloudy skies over the frigid Arctic island of Novaya Zemlya. Slung below the plane’s belly was a nuclear bomb the size of a small school bus—the largest and most powerful bomb ever created.

At 11:32 a.m., the bombardier released the weapon. As the bomb fell, an enormous parachute unfurled to slow its descent, giving the pilot time to retreat to a safe distance. A minute or so later, the bomb detonated. A cameraman watching from the island recalled:

A fire-red ball of enormous size rose and grew. It grew larger and larger, and when it reached enormous size, it went up. Behind it, like a funnel, the whole earth seemed to be drawn in. The sight was fantastic, unreal, and the fireball looked like some other planet. It was an unearthly spectacle! [1]

The flash alone lasted more than a minute. The fireball expanded to nearly six miles in diameter—large enough to include the entire urban core of Washington or San Francisco, or all of midtown and downtown Manhattan. Over several minutes it rose and mushroomed into a massive cloud. Within ten minutes, it had reached a height of 42 miles and a diameter of some 60 miles. One civilian witness remarked that it was “as if the Earth was killed.” Decades later, the weapon would be given the name it is most commonly known by today: Tsar Bomba, meaning “emperor bomb.”

Designed to have a maximum explosive yield of 100 million tons (or 100 megatons) of TNT equivalent, the 60,000-pound monster bomb was detonated at only half its strength. Still, at 50 megatons, it was more than 3,300 times as powerful as the atomic bomb that killed at least 70,000 people in Hiroshima, and more than 40 times as powerful as the largest nuclear bomb in the US arsenal today. Its single test represents about one tenth of the total yield of all nuclear weapons ever tested by all nations.[2]

At the time of its detonation, the Tsar Bomba held the world’s attention, largely as an object of infamy, recklessness, and terror. Within two years, though, the Soviet Union and the United States would sign and ratify the Limited Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, and the 50-megaton bomb would fall into relative obscurity.

From the very beginning, the United States sought to minimize the importance of the 50-megaton test, and it became fashionable in both the United States and the former Soviet Union to dismiss it as a political stunt with little technical or strategic importance. But recently declassified files from the Kennedy administration now indicate that the Tsar Bomba was taken far more seriously as a weapon, and possibly as something to emulate, than ever was indicated publicly.

And memoirs from former Soviet weapons workers, only recently available outside Russia, make clear that the gigantic bomb’s place in the history of Soviet thermonuclear weapons may be far more important than has been appreciated. Sixty years after the detonation, it’s now finally possible to piece together a deeper understanding of the creation of the Tsar Bomba and its broader impacts.

The Tsar Bomba is not just a subject for history; some of the same dynamics exist today. It is not just the story of a single weapon that was detonated six decades ago, but a parable about political posturing and technical enablement that applies just as acutely today. In a new era of nuclear weapons and delivery competition, the Tsar Bomba is a potent example of how nationalism, fear, and high-technology can combine in a fashion that is ultimately dangerous, wasteful, and pointless.

From kilotons to megatons to gigatons

…………………….. By the spring of 1951, Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam at Los Alamos had developed their design for a workable hydrogen bomb

………………. Only a few months later, in July 1954, Teller made it clear he thought 15 megatons was child’s play. At a secret meeting of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission, Teller broached, as he put it, “the possibility of much bigger bangs.” At his Livermore laboratory, he reported, they were working on two new weapon designs, dubbed Gnomon and Sundial. Gnomon would be 1,000 megatons and would be used like a “primary” to set off Sundial, which would be 10,000 megatons. Most of Teller’s testimony remains classified to this day, but other scientists at the meeting recorded, after Teller had left, that they were “shocked” by his proposal. “It would contaminate the Earth,” one suggested. Physicist I. I. Rabi, by then an experienced Teller skeptic, suggested it was probably just an “advertising stunt.”[4] But he was wrong; Livermore would for several years continue working on Gnomon, at least, and had even planned to test a prototype for the device in Operation Redwing in 1956 (but the test never took place).[5]

All of which is to say that the idea of making hydrogen bombs in the hundreds-of-megatons yield range was hardly unusual in the late 1950s. If anything, it was tame compared to the gigaton ambitions of one of the H-bomb’s inventors. It is hard to convey the damage of a gigaton bomb, because at such yields many traditional scaling laws do not work (the bomb blows a hole in the atmosphere, essentially). However, a study from 1963 suggested that, if detonated 28 miles (45 kilometers) above the surface of the Earth, a 10,000-megaton weapon could set fires over an area 500 miles (800 kilometers) in diameter. Which is to say, an area about the size of France.[6]………………………….

Planning for a 100-megaton bomb……………

Russian accounts by participants claim Arzamas-16 scientists had been inspired, in part, by speculations about gigantic, gigaton-range bombs in the foreign press in May 1960. The physicist and designer Victor Adamski said that Sakharov and others tried to immediately assess the plausibility of the news reports, and came up with the schema that was ultimately used for the Tsar Bomba…………………

Sakharov was already queasy about the long-term deaths from nuclear fallout, and he wanted to minimize the excess radioactivity produced by the test. In 1958, he had calculated that for every megaton of even “clean” nuclear weapons, there would be some 6,600 premature deaths over the next 8,000 years across the globe, owing to carbon atoms in the atmosphere that would become radioactive under the bomb’s neutron flux.[17………………….

An American Tsar Bomba?

…………………  Even after denouncing the Tsar Bomba as pointless terrorism, there were scientists and military planners working for the US government who were considering nuclear weapons with yields 20 times larger……………….

The Limited Test Ban Treaty

In 1963, the United States stood at a crossroads. Down one path was a new generation of “very high-yield” nuclear weapons with continued atmospheric nuclear testing. Down the other was the possibility of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which would ban future atmospheric testing, effectively precluding the development of high-yield weapons.

……………….. even while the United States professed to not care about “very high-yield” weapons, it continued to study them well into the Johnson administration. 

…………. the Soviets never broke the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and smaller warheads became the norm. Warheads that could be mounted in multiples and independently targeted on a single missile, or put into submarines, became the core of the arsenal. Large, high-yield weapons would, eventually, be mostly phased out. The dismissal of the uselessness of the Tsar Bomba would become orthodoxy, as even the CIA (eventually) concluded that the Soviets were not going to field such a thing in numbers or try to put superbombs on missiles.

……………..  even if such weapons are now purely relegated to history, we should remember that the decision not to deploy them was not made because the Soviet Union and United States shied away from the shocking megatonnage. It was because massive bombs were harder to use, and something about them symbolized the ridiculousness of the arms race in a way that making thousands of “smaller” weapons (some as big as 20–30 megatons) did not.

The United States did not make 50- to 100-megaton bombs or gigaton bombs, but it made a gigaton arsenal……………. Today it is probably around 2,000 megatons—more than enough to devastate the planet in a full-scale nuclear war.

The Tsar Bomba is dead; long live the Tsar Bomba. As the United States, Russia, and China seem to be engaged in new arms races in several domains, including unusual and new forms of nuclear delivery vehicles, the Tsar Bomba is a potent example of how nationalism, fear, and high-technology can combine in a fashion that is ultimately dangerous, wasteful, and pointless. “Very high-yield” nuclear weapons weren’t necessary for deterrence, and they were explored at the expense of not only other weapons systems, but also the multitude of other things that nations could spend their wealth and resources on. They didn’t bring safety or security. https://thebulletin.org/2021/10/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-nuclear-bomb/

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Time is running out for victims of the world’s first nuclear explosion

 By Joshua Miller, KYODO NEWS – 31 Oct 21, Albuquerque New Mexico.  Speak of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the significance is obvious. “Trinity Site?” Most people are still unaware that it was the location of the world’s first nuclear explosion and endures as one of the most consequential sites in human history.

Drifting packs of tourists take turns snapping photographs in front of a 3-meter obelisk where a plaque explains that Trinity is where the first nuclear device was ever exploded on July 16, 1945. Most seem indifferent to what many view as the stage for a dry run to the devastating atomic bombings of the two Japanese cities……

Aside from the plaque and some photographs depicting the site and explosion that occupy a nearby fence, little illustrates the magnitude of what happened there 76 years ago when the Manhattan Project’s secret test scattered radioactive ash over the residents, and flora and fauna, of nearby villages.

But at the entrance to the site, a small group of peaceful protestors display signs and hand out pamphlets to raise awareness for “the unknowing, unwilling, and uncompensated innocent victims” of the 1945 test. Public access at Trinity is only allowed twice a year.

The Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium is seeking compensation from the United States government for the generations of people in the region who have suffered from cancer, which the group blames on the downwind fallout.

The scientific and medical communities are divided on whether there is a definitive link between the Trinity test and the number of cancer-related illnesses in the region, including Tularosa, Alamogordo and Carrizozo, but the anecdotal evidence is undeniable.

“We bury our loved ones on a regular basis. Somebody dies and somebody else is diagnosed,” said Tina Cordova, a sixth-generation New Mexican and cancer survivor who co-founded the Tularosa Downwinders in 2005.

“This is the eighth year that we’ve come here to do this. When we heard that they take tour buses in there, we decided that we would start staging these peaceful demonstrations to make sure that, while they over-glorify the science and industry in there, they hear the history of the people, the actual people, who were subject to this without consent or knowledge.”

Cordova was instrumental in getting a bill introduced to Congress in September to amend and extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which recognizes claims related to the nearly 200 atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests conducted by the United States between 1945 to 1962.

The fund, set to expire on July 11, 2022, has paid out nearly $2.5 billion in claims for people living or working downwind of the Nevada Test Site, as well as onsite participants, uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters, according to the Department of Justice. However, since its enactment in 1990, the RECA has never recognized New Mexico as a downwind state.

“This is the eighth year that we’ve come here to do this. When we heard that they take tour buses in there, we decided that we would start staging these peaceful demonstrations to make sure that, while they over-glorify the science and industry in there, they hear the history of the people, the actual people, who were subject to this without consent or knowledge.”

Cordova was instrumental in getting a bill introduced to Congress in September to amend and extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which recognizes claims related to the nearly 200 atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests conducted by the United States between 1945 to 1962.

The fund, set to expire on July 11, 2022, has paid out nearly $2.5 billion in claims for people living or working downwind of the Nevada Test Site, as well as onsite participants, uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters, according to the Department of Justice. However, since its enactment in 1990, the RECA has never recognized New Mexico as a downwind state…………………..

By the time the dust had settled, the damage was done. According to the Tularosa Downwinders, the radioactive ash descended onto the thousands of families living within a 50-mile radius of the blast and contaminated the soil, water, crops and livestock vital to the region’s small farms and villages.

“A lot of people got cancer here, from all over the area in Tularosa, Carrizozo, Alamogordo, in El Paso even. All the way in Albuquerque,” Herrera said. “I’m convinced it’s because of the bomb.”

Herrera was diagnosed with a parotid tumor, a cancer affecting the salivary glands, in 1998. While touring Japan, he recalled the shock from his Navy buddies after telling them that a bomb similar to the ones that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki had exploded near his home. “They couldn’t believe it,” he said.

Although the magnitude of what happened at the Trinity Site appeared lost on many visitors, others, such as retired veteran Paul Goulding, 68, who lives in nearby Las Cruces, said, “It’s just the effects of a nuclear explosion. And there’s victims on both sides of the Pacific. And I think the American public needs to understand that their fellow citizens suffered unknowingly. And are still suffering.”

Cordova maintains that environmental racism and the government’s lack of accountability for their negligence in conducting such a wantonly dangerous experiment are the major roadblocks in getting New Mexicans reparations but is hopeful that the RECA will be expanded under the Biden administration.  https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/10/b47f81cc76fd-feature-time-is-running-out-for-victims-of-worlds-1st-nuclear-explosion.html

November 1, 2021 Posted by | health, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

N. Korea accuses U.S. of acquiescing in nuclear proliferation with double standards

N. Korea accuses U.S. of acquiescing in nuclear proliferation with ‘double standards‘All News  October 31, 2021 SEOUL, (Yonhap) –– North Korea’s foreign ministry on Sunday accused the United States of “acquiescing” in nuclear proliferation around the world based on “double standards,” taking issue with the U.S.’ recent submarine deal with Australia and other policy moves.

The ministry made the accusations in an article, entitled “Is the U.S. really a guardian of the nuclear non-proliferation regime?,” claiming that the international community is paying attention to the U.S.’ “systematic” violation of the regime.

“The U.S. itself has ignored the principle of nuclear non-proliferation and allowed for double standards in line with their strategy for the domination of the world,” the ministry said in the writing.

The ministry stressed that the U.S. built and used nuclear arms for the first time in the world and took the first proliferation step by transferring technology for nuclear-powered submarines to Britain on the pretext of responding to threats from the then Soviet Union in the past.

The ministry also took note of the recent trilateral agreement among the U.S., Britain and Australia to equip Australia with “conventionally-armed” but nuclear-powered submarines. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20211031004300325

November 1, 2021 Posted by | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US should announce ‘no first use of nuclear weapons,’ with no strings attached

US should announce ‘no first use of nuclear weapons,’ with no strings attached:    https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1237769.shtml Global Times editorial, Oct 31, 2021 The US plans to finalize the Nuclear Posture Review as soon as the end of this year. It is reported that the Biden administration is discussing whether it should put some limits on the use of nuclear weapons, such as the announcement of “no first use of nuclear weapons,” or a declaration of “sole purpose” that means nuclear weapons can be used under certain circumstances, including responding to a nuclear attack.

According to media reports, US allies, including the UK, Germany, France, Japan and Australia, have strongly opposed the US’ adjustment to its nuclear policies. They believe such a move will weaken the US’ protection of its allies. This possible adjustment also means the US would offer a courtesy to China and Russia.It has long been discussed whether the US should put limits on its use of nuclear weapons. The US was about to nail the adjustment during former president Barack Obama’s tenure. The Obama administration considered adopting a “no first use” pledge and laid out a vision for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama’s plan was soon abandoned after being rejected by US allies including Japan.

When Donald Trump was in the Oval Office, the US accelerated the modernization of its nuclear arsenal. The Trump administration’s fiscal 2018 budget included $60-90 billion for nuclear weapons programs. Now it’s the turn of the Democratic administration led by Biden to control the nuclear button, and it is completely possible that it thinks about reducing the nuclear risks in the world. If Biden can really take the step to announce “no first use” of nuclear weapons or take pragmatic measures to restrain US nuclear policies, the move will be widely welcomed across the globe.

However, Biden obviously continued with the strategy of enhancing major power competition adopted by the Trump administration. Great power relations nowadays are much tenser than during the Obama administration. Biden stresses coordinated action with its allies and fierce competition with China and Russia. It is highly doubtful whether Biden has the courage to take real steps in restricting the use of nuclear weapons.

The reactions from the US’ allies, as reported by the media, are pretty much disappointing. In particular, countries like Japan which once suffered from nuclear strikes oppose restricting the use of nuclear weapons. The anti-nuclear doctrine the US allies have advocated is entirely deceitful. On the contrary, what they pursue is unilateral nuclear security. They want to expand their own right to use nuclear power, but have tried every possible means to squeeze the right of the others to use nuclear power.

China has announced the “no first use” nuclear policy at a very early phase. It has adhered to this policy since the first day it owned nuclear weapons. US allies should think this way: If China walks away from this policy, how much pressure will it add to regional security? Similarly, if the US, as the world’s No.1 military power, announced restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons, it will without doubt create constructive opportunities to global security, with advantages outweighing disadvantages.

Nuclear posture is the thorniest security dilemma – particularly issues such as the number of nuclear warheads and anti-missiles. If the US can take the lead in restricting the use of nuclear weapons in this era, it is likely to expand the route undertaken by China in the past and push forward a new period of nuclear security. US allies such as Japan and Australia are falling into the trap of their own petty calculations, but they will not feel more secure if the US does not try to make the commitment of restricting the use of nuclear weapons.

A group of former US officials and experts, including former secretary of defense William Perry, wrote a letter to then Japanese prime minister Yoshihide Suga and other Japanese leaders of political parties, asking them not to oppose a “no first use” nuclear stance that may be announced by the US. Those former officials certainly did not make their appeals from the stance of China and Russia. Their considerations on nuclear security deserve comprehension from the Western world, rather than a fundamental rejection.

China has no way to influence whether the US will eventually head toward the direction of restricting the use of nuclear weapons. Even if the US does that, it will highly unlikely remain to be a unilateral decision. The US will likely require China, Russia and other countries to meet some of its demands. That being the case, it is possible that it will constitute new pressure on China.

A group of former US officials and experts, including former secretary of defense William Perry, wrote a letter to then Japanese prime minister Yoshihide Suga and other Japanese leaders of political parties, asking them not to oppose a “no first use” nuclear stance that may be announced by the US. Those former officials certainly did not make their appeals from the stance of China and Russia. Their considerations on nuclear security deserve comprehension from the Western world, rather than a fundamental rejection.

China has no way to influence whether the US will eventually head toward the direction of restricting the use of nuclear weapons. Even if the US does that, it will highly unlikely remain to be a unilateral decision. The US will likely require China, Russia and other countries to meet some of its demands. That being the case, it is possible that it will constitute new pressure on China. 

November 1, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why India’s nuclear ICBM test is counterproductive for tactical and strategic stability

Why India’s nuclear ICBM test is counterproductive for tactical and strategic stability, CGTN, 
Hamzah Rifaat Hussain 31 Oct 21,  On the threat of nuclear weapons during conflict, the rule is that skirmishes, tensions and conventional conflicts between countries need to be resolved through confidence-building measures and dialogue to prevent it from descending into the nuclear domain, when conversely, adding nuclear dimensions to tensions would only exacerbate trust deficits and threaten nuclear nonproliferation.

Despite this, better sense has not prevailed in New Delhi either on the results of Corps Commander-level talks or the decision to establish credible deterrence, given its decision to test a nuclear capable intercontinental missile (ICBM) called “Agni-5” amid tensions with China with a range of 5,000 kilometers on October 27. 

The missile, which descended into the Bay of Bengal, is touted to have a high degree of accuracy, yet it belittles the significance of border talks with China, which was previously considered pivotal by Defense Minister Rajnath Singh.

Furthermore, India tackling China by strengthening its weapons systems will not resolve its numerous internal quagmires, which include a pandemic stricken economy and challenges to inclusivity. ………….  https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-10-31/Why-India-s-nuclear-ICBM-test-is-counterproductive-for-stability-14Oa6m7T9Xq/index.html

November 1, 2021 Posted by | India, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Likud MK: Israel must strike Iran by year’s end if there’s no new nuke deal

Likud MK: Israel must strike Iran by year’s end if there’s no new nuke deal, Times of Israel, 

Tzachi Hanegbi says opposition party will give full backing if government decides to attack Tehran’s nuclear program

By TOI STAFF   31 Oct 21, Likud MK Tzachi Hanegbi said Saturday that in the absence of a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, Israel should carry out a strike on the Islamic Republic by the end of the year, adding that the government would have the full backing of his party on the matter……….  https://www.timesofisrael.com/likud-mk-israel-must-strike-iran-by-years-end-if-theres-no-new-nuke-deal/

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Israel, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The US nuclear aresenal is becoming more destructive and possibly more risky

THE US NUCLEAR ARSENAL IS BECOMING MORE DESTRUCTIVE AND POSSIBLY MORE RISKY,  Center for Public Integrity,  R. Jeffrey Smith 29 Oct 21, A little-noticed, new fuze that better controls a nuclear blast’s timing will enable the United States to more easily destroy protected targets in other countries. 
R. Jeffrey Smith  A sophisticated electronic sensor buried in hardened metal shells at the tip of a growing number of America’s ballistic missiles reflects a significant achievement in weapons engineering that experts say could help pave the way for reductions in the size of the country’s nuclear arsenal but also might create new security perils.

The wires, sensors, batteries, and computing gear now being quietly installed on hundreds of the most powerful U.S. warheads give them an enhanced ability to detonate with what the military considers exquisite timing over some of the world’s most challenging targets, substantially increasing the probability that in the event of a major conflict, those targets would be destroyed in a radioactive rain of fire, heat, and unearthly explosive pressures.

The new components — which determine and set the best height for a nuclear blast — are now being paired with other engineering enhancements that collectively increase what military planners refer to as the individual nuclear warheads’ “hard target kill capability.” This gives them an improved ability to destroy Russian and Chinese nuclear-tipped missiles and command posts in hardened silos or mountain sanctuaries, or to obliterate hardened military command and storage bunkers in North Korea, also considered a potential U.S. nuclear target.

The increased destructiveness of the new warheads means that in some cases fewer weapons could be needed to ensure that all the objectives in the nation’s nuclear targeting plans are fully met, opening a path to future shrinkage of the overall arsenal, current and former U.S. officials said in a series of interviews, in which some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive technology……..

Georgetown University professor Keir Lieber, and Dartmouth University associate professor Daryl Press, a consultant to the Defense Department, have estimated that the fuzes have roughly doubled the destructive power of the U.S. submarine fleet alone. …………..

Georgetown University professor Keir Lieber, and Dartmouth University associate professor Daryl Press, a consultant to the Defense Department, have estimated that the fuzes have roughly doubled the destructive power of the U.S. submarine fleet alone. ………….

Hans Kristensen, who monitors such technological efforts for the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit group in Washington, says that the warhead improvements in total look uncomfortably like new designs. He says in some ways this is not surprising: As the U.S. arsenal has shrunk by roughly a third due to arms agreements struck in the past two decades, “the engineers and weaponeers began looking for ways to enhance the capabilities of the weapons that would be left.” And the results, he said, “are so far removed from the Obama era’s limitation that [they are] one step short of a new nuclear weapon.” ………… https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/future-of-warfare/nuclear-weapon-arsenal-more-destructive-risky/

October 30, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Reinforcing security through prohibition of nuclear weapons

Reinforcing security through prohibition of nuclear weapons  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02227-3/fulltext, Frank Boulton
October 30, 2021 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02227-3   

The Nuclear Weapons Group of Medact, the UK affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, commends the Editors1 for drawing attention to the first meeting of states parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which will be held in January, 2022. Publications in The Lancet have previously referred to the controversial but important public health issue of nuclear war.2,  3In our response4 to the UK Government’s 2021 integrated review of security, defence, development, and Foreign Policy, we drew attention to the dangers of raising the cap on the UK’s stockpile of weapons unilaterally to “no more than 260 warheads”,5 and to the plans to deliver new and flexible W93 warheads on upgraded mark 7 re-entry vehicles. These developments show that the UK is reinforcing a global trend towards usable nuclear options, thereby increasing the likelihood of nuclear conflict.6,  7

Beyond the devastating blast and heat effects of nuclear explosions, and the vast release of ionising radiation, lie the long-term global environmental effects of a nuclear war on cities, which contain the highest quantities of combustible materials. Specifically, the so-called nuclear winter would cause many millions (if not billions) of people, including non-combatants, to die from starvation.8 The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons thereby offers a real international opportunity to reinforce the world’s security after the COVID-19 pandemic.I have received no renumeration for any work related to this Correspondence. I am a member of Medact, the UK affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and until March, 2021, I was deputy speaker of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War International Council.References;  ………..

October 30, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UN General Assembly First Committee approves Iran’s proposal for nuclear disarmament

UN General Assembly First Committee approves Iran’s proposal for nuclear disarmament https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/466473/UN-General-Assembly-First-Committee-approves-Iran-s-proposal

  1. Politics

October 29, 2021  TEHRAN— Iran’s proposed biennial resolution, entitled “Pursuing the Implementation of the Agreements Reached at the NPT Review Conferences in 1995, 2000 and 2010,” has ratified by the UN General Assembly First Committee.

The proposed resolution was adopted with the support of a majority of the UN members, Fars News reported on Thursday.

The resolution calls on the NPT signatories to accelerate the implementation of their commitments to the complete destruction of their nuclear arsenal in accordance with the principles of transparency, irreversibility and international oversight.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear states have pledged to destroy all their nuclear weapons. In addition, they are legally obliged not only to refrain from any attempt to build nuclear weapons, but also to refrain from transferring such weapons to other countries, deploying them outside their territory, or cooperating with other governments to build nuclear weapons.

After decades of non-compliance with these legal obligations, the nuclear armed states have reaffirmed their commitment to take effective practical steps to destroy nuclear weapons in the final documents of the NPT Review Conferences of 1995, 2000 and 2010.

Part of the resolution proposed by Iran also emphasizes the implementation of the decision of the NPT Review Conference in 1995 to establish a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East. The decision calls on the Zionist regime to join the NPT and accept the International Atomic Energy Agency’s oversight of its nuclear facilities. 

Iran’s proposed resolution also highlights the need to provide security assurances to non-nuclear states that they will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them.

The United States, the Zionist regime, the European Union member states, and several of United States’ Western allies voted against the resolution, despite their explicit commitment to nuclear disarmament.

Haidar-Ali Balouji, Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN International Committee for the Disarmament and Security at this year’s meeting, referred to the new nuclear arms race and the process of modernization of these weapons as “warning trends” and called for an end to such actions. 

The resolution is expected to be presented to the UN General Assembly in about a month and will be finally adopted there.


 

October 30, 2021 Posted by | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

NATO and Washington spoiling for another war

Washington always looking for another war  http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2021/10/washington-always-looking-for-fight.html

  NATO ‘Master Plan’ aimed at Russia  BRUCE K. GAGNON , BATH, MAINE, UNITED STATES,

The collapsing US military & economic empire is making Washington & NATO even more dangerous. US could not beat the Taliban but thinks it can take on China-Russia-Iran…a sign of psychopathology for sure.

It didn’t take long for the US to up the ante with China and Russia. So soon after the crushing defeat from 20 years of death and destruction in Afghanistan we find Washington stirring the fire pit and looking for more trouble.

It’s really no surprise. Just take a close look at US history – one filthy war after the other.

Just this past week we’ve seen ‘F the EU’ Victoria Nuland go to Moscow hoping for an audience with Putin. She only got to meet with lower level, but competent Russian diplomats, and came away with nothing other than furthering the divide between our two nations. Actually, that might have been the US strategy. 

The word is that Nuland went in with a list of Washington’s demands. Russia said ‘nyet’ and handed Nuland a list of their own. Of course Nuland said ‘No’ and was then sent packing back to the US.

Secretary of War Lloyd Austin (former Raytheon board member) just stopped in Georgia, Ukraine, and Romania before heading to Brussels for hand-wringing with the NATO clowns. 

Austin stated during a news conference in Bucharest that the purpose of these visits was to highlight “the importance of deepening cooperation among our Black Sea allies and partners to deter and defend against Russian malign activities in the region.” 

That’s the political hype. His real purpose in Georgia, Ukraine, and Romania? Spur them to make trouble for Moscow in any way and every way they possibly can. And I’m sure Austin said the magic words, ‘Of course the US will back you if you get into a fight with Russia. First, we’ll supply you with more weapons and plant more of our troops in your nation to protect you from the Russian bear.’ 

At the Brussels meeting NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the following:


  • Allies will kick off a $1.16 billion NATO Innovation Fund to develop dual-use emerging and disruptive technologies. NATO will also establish its first artificial intelligence strategy to incorporate data analysis, imagery, and cyber defense.
  • The allies are spending more on defense and they agreed to increase the readiness of forces.
  • Significant improvements are being made to alliance air and missile defenses. NATO calls for strengthening conventional capabilities with fifth-generation jets, adapting exercises and intelligence, and improving the readiness and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent.
    • We exchanged views on how to preserve the gains and ensure Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists.
    • NATO’s new strategy ensures that the alliance will have “the right forces in the right place at the right time.”They also characteristically took at shot at China from behind the safe walls of NATO HQ in Brussels with a stream of rhetoric.

Austin’s remarks followed the completion of a two-day NATO ministerial where he said officials offered “unique perspectives” on China, which he noted remains the Pentagon’s “primary pacing challenge.”

“Indeed, I applaud NATO’s work on China and I made it clear that the United States is committed to defending the international rules-based order which China has consistently undermined for its own interests,” Austin told reporters.

At an October 21 CNN town hall, Joe Biden was asked about China.

“I just want to make China understand that we are not going to step back, we are not going to change any of our views.” Biden said. Asked whether the US would come to Taiwan’s defense if it were attacked, he replied: “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”

  • Now let’s analyze this NATO meeting and the comments on China just a bit.First, who has Russia invaded? Since the US orchestrated coup in Ukraine in 2014 (when the Russian-ethnic people in Crimea voted to ask Russia to take them back into the federation) there has been no invasion of anyone near its borders. At the same time US-NATO has been holding war games repeatedly all along Russian borders. When Moscow has responded by holding counter-war games inside its own country Washington and Brussels have howled in condemnation. Talk about a double-standard!And please note the words above by Austin – “I applaud NATO’s work on China” – just what does that mean? 
  • NATO has gone global. The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance has now decided that it should be ‘defending democracy in the Pacific’. Who is the aggressor in this case? What right does NATO have to decide it is the new global cop?
  • Can’t lick Afghanistan so let’s take on China & Russia
    NATO has no legitimate reason to exist today – the Soviet Union and their Warsaw Pact Alliance are long gone. Russia just built an undersea natural gas pipeline called Nord Stream 2 to furnish fuel to Europe in order to help alleviate their current energy crisis. It’s a big business deal for Moscow. Why would Russia want war with Europe?The insanity of US-NATO is exposed for anyone willing to see the obvious. Washington and Brussels got their high-tech asses kicked by a ill-armed rag-tag but determined Taliban in Afghanistan. Now they somehow dream that they can take on both China and Russia who have formed a military alliance as they watch the NATO endless war machine heading their way.
  • I understand that all these moves by US-NATO absolutely benefit the military industrial complex which has installed one of their agents (Lloyd Austin) as secretary of war. But do these psychopaths actually believe they can start a war with China and Russia and possibly win? Don’t they know that such a war would go nuclear in a hot flash?

It’s obvious that the US-NATO war cabal are blinded by power and greed. There can be no other explanation that comes close to making sense.

It’s a dangerous and dirty game these fat cats are playing – at the same time that climate crisis rages in our faces, legions of people face evictions from their homes, and the basic cost of living goes sky high.

Are we heading for a collapse in the US and around the globe? How could that not be happening under these present conditions? 

And the US-NATO response? 

How about another war?

Which party in Washington is leading this descent into hell?

October 29, 2021 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

War hawks quietly positioning Canada to participate in US-led Ballistic Missile Defence program

War hawks quietly positioning Canada to participate in US-led Ballistic Missile Defence program,  The Canada Files: Joyce Nelson  , 20 Sept 21, 

During the 2021 federal election campaign, there has been almost no emphasis or discussion in the media on the Liberal government’s plan to spend more than $553 billion on the military over the next 20 years, including the awarding of contracts for purchase of military fighter jets and armed drones in the next few months. The contracts for new frigates have already been awarded, including design components by Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and BAE Systems.

Even more telling, there has been virtual silence about the fact that Canada is quietly being moved into position to participate in U.S. ballistic missile defence (BMD) – a hot-button issue in Canada since December 2001, when U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Since then, the U.S. has spent more than $100 billion attempting to build a missile shield, and for almost two decades the U.S. and defense industry lobbyists (Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin) have been pressuring Canada to join in.

In January 2021, CBC News reported, “The recent Liberal defence policy reaffirmed the 2005 decision by Paul Martin’s government to remain on the sidelines of any continental BMD effort, despite pleas from both the Senate and House of Commons defence committees to reconsider joining.”

Only six months later, however, that Liberal policy appears to have dramatically changed.

In fact, the day before the election call, Canada’s Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a joint statement agreeing to “modernize” NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and outlining “priority areas for new investments”.

Their August 14th joint statement says: “Canada and the United States share a desire to coordinate in fielding new capabilities to complement and eventually replace the North Warning System with more advanced technological solutions as soon as possible, including next-generation over-the-horizon radar systems that can dramatically improve early warning and persistent surveillance of North American airspace and approaches. Ensuring effective awareness ultimately requires a system-of-systems approach including a network of Canadian and U.S. sensors from the sea floor to outer space.”

“System-of-systems” is Pentagon jargon for BMD.

Political/Defense analyst Keith Jones has stated that this joint commitment is meant to pave the way “for Canada’s participation in the US ballistic missile shield, whose underlying purpose is to enable the US to wage ‘winnable’ nuclear war.” 

That may be why there has been so much silence around the joint statement. If no one knows about it, or what it means, then there can be no opposition to it.

A Bit of History………

Renewed BMD Rhetoric……….

Increased Insecurity Both Russia and China have warned that the Pentagon’s relentless pursuit of ballistic missile defense destabilizes security for their countries and causes nuclear escalation.  

Both Russia and China have warned that the Pentagon’s relentless pursuit of ballistic missile defense destabilizes security for their countries and causes nuclear escalation.  

As Canadian peace activist Peggy Mason, president of the Rideau Institute, recently wrote, “So the untold billions spent by the USA on nuclear modernization and missile defences have played a key role in convincing China that it, too, must increase its nuclear arsenal. Can there be clearer proof of the utter disconnect between the US nuclear posture and the security of that country (and its allies)?”

For a thorough analysis of BMD, a must-read is the lengthy July 26, 2021 report by Ernie Regehr, called “Canada and the Limits to Missile Defence,” available on The Simons Foundation website. Regehr is particularly scathing about U.S. “first strike,” pre-emptive attacks and the chronic strategic destabilization and instability that BMD is causing around the world.

Perhaps a deeper dive into the origins of the missile shield concept will reveal the urgency of stopping it.

A Deeper Dive…….

Canada & BMD Presently, the NDP is further embracing militarism. Their current party platform complains about “outdated” military hardware

and states : “In contracting for new military equipment, including ships and fighter jets, New Democrats will ensure maximum industrial benefits and jobs. This will help ensure the survival of healthy shipbuilding and aerospace industries all across Canada.”

With anti-Russia and China rhetoric so paramount, with militarism and military spending so rampant, and with Canada’s war hawks (especially Harjit Sajjan and Chrystia Freeland) eager to please the U.S., it looks like BMD is quietly back on the federal agenda in Canada.

Ernie Regehr asks the important questions about ballistic missile defence: “Would Canada want to be partnered to a system headed for the weaponization of space? Would Canada want to be a partner in a defence system that depends on pre-emptive attacks?” 

Regehr urges that Canada “maintain its decades-long wariness of strategic missile defence” and instead pursue, “in the company of like-minded states, the arms control/disarmament and prevention strategies on which Canadian and global security really do depend.” https://www.thecanadafiles.com/articles/war-hawks-quietly-positioning-canada-to-participate-in-usa-led-ballistic-missile-defence-program

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Canada, weapons and war | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »