nuclear-news

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

Former Israeli premier says notion of destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities mere ‘nonsense’

Former Israeli premier says notion of destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities mere ‘nonsense’Press Tv, 11 January 2022   The former Israeli prime minister has dismissed any possibility of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the regime, saying that such a notion is “nonsense.”

Ehud Olmert made the remarks in a Monday interview with Israel’s Channel 12 news, during which he derided the idea that the Tel Aviv regime would be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities through a military strike.

Olmert emphasized that such a notion would be pure “nonsense,” adding, “It is unnecessary arrogance that indicates weakness, not strength.”

Olmert’s latest remarks echoed his previous assertions in an opinion piece published in Haaretz Hebrew site in which he noted that Israel did not have conventional military capabilities that enable it to strike and permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear facilities as it did in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.

The Israeli regime has never stopped advertising the threat of “military action” against Iran and falsely accusing the Islamic Republic of seeking to acquire nonconventional military capability.

Iran, for its part, has repeatedly downplayed Israel’s threats against its nuclear facilities, promising crushing response to any act of aggression against the country.

On January 3, Iran’s foreign minister slammed anti-Iranian remarks by Israel’s foreign minister Yair Lapid, saying that the Islamic Republic will defend its interests with power.

Hossein Amir-Abdollahian’s remarks came in a tweet in response to earlier claims by Lapid that the Zionist regime “could attack Iran if necessary without informing the Biden administration,” adding that “Israel has capabilities, some of which the world, and even some experts in the field, cannot even imagine.”…………………………… https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/01/11/674486/Ex-Israeli-PM-destroy-Iran-s-nuclear-capabilities-nonsense

January 11, 2022 Posted by | Iran, weapons and war | 1 Comment

US-Russia Talks May Be the Last Chance 

 It’s crunch time in Russia-U.S. relations. High-level talks starting Monday will determine the shape of world security for decades to come, observes Tony Kevin. Consortium News, By Tony Kevin, Pearls and Irritations  10 Jan 22,

On Monday, vital Russia-U.S. talks will start in Geneva. Russia’s delegation will be headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and the U.S. by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

These are ‘precursor’ negotiations – ‘talks about talks’, in the old strategic arms limitation treaties (SALT) terminology. Russia is driving the pace. The U.S. is in reactive mode, trying unsuccessfully to slow things down, to trim Russia’s sails. So far they are not succeeding.

Russia’s best-case scenario for Monday is this:  Successful precursor talks will be followed soon after by substantive, detailed foreign minister level negotiations, led by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, with participation of top military brass from both sides.

Russia is seeking detailed U.S.-Russia agreements on mutual security guarantees in Europe.

Unusually, Russian drafts of these agreements were handed over by Russia to the U.S. and at the same time made public on Dec. 17. Russia will want to achieve these solemn written mutual commitments, as well-summarized by Patrick Lawrence in Consortium News on  Dec. 28:

  • NATO will cease all efforts to expand eastward, notably into Ukraine and Georgia.
  • NATO guarantees that it will not deploy missile batteries in nations bordering Russia.
  • An end to NATO military and naval exercises in nations and seas bordering Russia.
  • The effective restoration of the treaty covering intermediate-range nuclear weapons. The U.S. abandoned the INF pact in August 2019.
  • An ongoing East-West security dialogue

These desired agreements would be backed up by early NATO-Russia negotiations in Brussels to achieve corresponding agreements at that level. Finally, the two presidents would formally seal the deal.

Russia’s worst-case scenario: that if the U.S. fails to negotiate towards this complete package – if the U.S. tries in its usual way to equivocate, delay, or cherry-pick Russia’s proposed deal – Russia will terminate the talks.

Coldest War

Russia-U.S. and Russia-NATO relations would then enter the deepest of deep freezes since the worst years of Cold War One. Russia would focus its economic and diplomatic resources entirely on relations with the East and South – backstopped by the Belt and Road Initiative of its reliable friend China. Russia would effectively stop trying to dialogue with U.S. and NATO Europe and call the U.S. bluff on enhanced sanctions. 

On the now highly militarized Russia-NATO frontier, armies, navies and tactical intermediate range missile forces (sufficient to destroy most of Europe and European Russia) would confront each other. Risks of East-West war by provocation or accident would be far greater than in the years 1989-2014, before the sharp deterioration in East-West relations brought about by the U.S.-backed, 2014 Ukraine coup.

Time Running Out

These present talks instigated by Russia are thus really the Last Chance Saloon: the last opportunity maybe for decades to pursue relaxation of East-West tensions – ‘détente’, in the old, nearly forgotten word of late Cold War One. Russia has had enough of years of creeping security deterioration and has drawn its red lines………

Russia has seen how under successive U.S. presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and now Biden, a strategically destructive pattern of U.S. and NATO behavior had emerged since 1999, when President Bill Clinton welshed on the 1989-91 agreements between Reagan and George H.W. Bush with Gorbachev, that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe following the reunification of Germany. ‘Though there was no formal written treaty as such, subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were well founded in numerous written contemporaneous memcons and telcons (formal written records of conversations) at the highest levels. 

As the West offered soothing words and prevarications, NATO expanded, first with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary in 1999. There were further large expansions in 2004 and 2009, bringing NATO right up against Russia’s Western frontiers. Provocatively, NATO then listed Ukraine and Georgia as candidates for NATO membership……………………………….

Putin is now holding the strongest negotiating cards. My betting — indeed my hope — is that Russia will achieve its demanded mutual security guarantees in Europe in the coming weeks.

International security – Australia’s security — will be greatly strengthened if he succeeds.

Much could still go wrong. There are troublemakers in the Western bloc whose careers depend on maintaining East-West tensions at just below the level of war. They will try hard to subvert and derail Russia’s goals.

In Australia, as in the U.S., there is almost complete public ignorance of this subject matter. Be prepared for massive disinformation in the coming weeks from the partly Pentagon and State Department funded think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and from mainstream media, hysterically whipping-up alleged threats of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine.  This propaganda offensive, turning Russia’s defensive posture into aggression, is already under way, especially in the U.S.

Australia sadly no longer has the intellectual resources for an informed and balanced public discussion of these momentous developments. Ignorance and groundless fears of Russia prevail. Dissenting voices such as mine have been marginalized and almost silenced.

One might hope there is more reality-based knowledge in the national security community. But if there is, they are not telling the public. I fear that there too, ignorance and prejudice have taken hold. We are perilously leaving the strategic thinking on Russia to our Big Brother in Washington.

.Tony Kevin is a former Australian senior diplomat, having served as ambassador to Cambodia and Poland, as well as being posted to Australia’s embassy in Moscow. He is the author of six published books on public policy and international relations. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/09/us-russia-talks-may-be-last-chance/

January 10, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

What War With Russia Would Look Like

Consortium News, January 10, 2022   Wendy Sherman thinks her aim in talks with Russian officials starting Monday is to lecture them on the cost of hubris. Instead she’s set to lead the U.S., NATO, and Europe down a path of ruin, warns Scott Ritter.By Scott Ritter


Special to Consortium News If ever a critical diplomatic negotiation was doomed to fail from the start, the discussions between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine and Russian security guarantees is it.

The two sides can’t even agree on an agenda.

From the Russian perspective, the situation is clear: “The Russian side came here [to Geneva] with a clear position that contains a number of elements that, to my mind, are understandable and have been so clearly formulated—including at a high level—that deviating from our approaches simply is not possible,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the press after a pre-meeting dinner on Sunday hosted by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who is leading the U.S. delegation.

Ryabkov was referring Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands to U.S. President Joe Biden in early December regarding Russian security guarantees, which were then laid out by Moscow in detail in the form of two draft treaties, one a Russian-U.S. security treaty, the other a security agreement between Russia and NATO.

The latter would bar Ukraine from joining NATO and rule out any eastward expansion by the trans-Atlantic military alliance. At the time, Ryabkov tersely noted that the U.S. should immediately begin to address the proposed drafts with an eye to finalizing something when the two sides meet. Now, with the meeting beginning on Monday, it doesn’t appear as if the U.S. has done any such thing……….

All the U.S. has been willing to do, it seems, is to remind Russia of so-called “serious consequences” should Russia invade Ukraine, something the U.S. and NATO fear is imminent, given the scope and scale of recent Russian military exercises in the region involving tens of thousands of troops. This threat was made by Biden to Putin on several occasions, including a phone call initiated by Putin last week to help frame the upcoming talks.

Yet on the eve of the Ryabkov-Sherman meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken simply reiterated these threats, declaring that Russia would face “massive consequences” if it invaded Ukraine………..

Lessons of history

It is as if both Biden and Blinken are deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to reading Russia.

Ryabkov has alluded to a fact already made clear by the Russians—there will be no compromise when it comes to Russia’s legitimate national security interests. And if the U.S. cannot understand how the accumulation of military power encompassed in a military alliance which views Russia as a singular, existential threat to its members’ security is seen by Russia as threatening, then there is no comprehension of how the events of June 22, 1941 have shaped the present -day Russian psyche, why Russia will never again allow such a situation to occur, and why the talks are doomed before they even begin.

As for the American threats, Russia has given its response—any effort to sanction Russia would result, as Putin told Biden last month, in a “complete rupture of relations” between Russia and those countries attempting sanctions. One need not be a student of history to comprehend that the next logical step following a “complete rupture of relations” between two parties that are at loggerheads over matters pertaining to existential threats to the national security of one or both is not the peaceful resumption of relations, but war.

There is no mealy-mouthed posturing by Foggy Bottom peacocks taking place in Moscow, but rather a cold, hard, statement of fact—ignore Russia’s demands at you own peril. The U.S., it seems, believes that the worst-case scenario is one where Russia invades Ukraine, only to wilt under the sustained pressure of economic sanctions and military threats.

Russia’s worse-case scenario is one where it engages in armed conflict with NATO……………

The Shape of War  What would a conflict between Russia and NATO look like? In short, not like anything NATO has prepared for. ………………….

Given the overwhelming supremacy Russia has both in terms of the ability to project air power backed by precision missile attacks, a strategic air campaign against Ukraine would accomplish in days what the U.S. took more than a month to do against Iraq in 1991……….

While the U.S., NATO, the EU, and the G7 have all promised “unprecedented sanctions,” sanctions only matter if the other side cares. Russia, by rupturing relations with the West, no longer would care about sanctions. Moreover, it is a simple acknowledgement of reality that Russia can survive being blocked from SWIFT transactions longer than Europe can survive without Russian energy. Any rupturing of relations between Russia and the West will result in the complete embargoing of Russian gas and oil to European customers.

There is no European Plan B. Europe will suffer, and because Europe is composed of erstwhile democracies, politicians will pay the price. All those politicians who followed the U.S. blindly into a confrontation with Russia will now have to answer to their respective constituents why they committed economic suicide on behalf of a Nazi-worshipping, thoroughly corrupt nation (Ukraine) which has nothing in common with the rest of Europe. It will be a short conversation.

NATO’s Fix…………

Russia won’t wait until the U.S. has had time to accumulate sufficient military power, either. Russia will simply destroy the offending party through the combination of an air campaign designed to degrade the economic function of the targeted nation, and a ground campaign designed to annihilate the ability to wage war. Russia does not need to occupy the territory of NATO for any lengthy period—just enough to destroy whatever military power has been accumulated by NATO near its borders.

And—here’s the kicker—short of employing nuclear weapons, there’s nothing NATO can do to prevent this outcome. Militarily, NATO is but a shadow of its former self.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Sherman will face off against Ryabkov in Geneva, with the fate of Europe in her hands. The sad thing is, she doesn’t see it that way. Thanks to Biden, Blinken and the host of Russophobes who populate the U.S. national security state today, Sherman thinks she is there to simply communicate the consequences of diplomatic failure to Russia. To threaten. With mere words……..

One wonders if Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have thought this through. Odds are, they have not, and the consequences for Europe will be dire.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.  https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/10/what-war-with-russia-would-look-like/

January 10, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons states like USA must end the hypocrisy

Simple logic decries the hypocrisy that acknowledges the apocalyptic risk of the very existence of these weapons yet fails to acknowledge the continued pursuit of new and enhanced weapons.

Nuclear weapon states like US must end the hypocrisy   https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/588874-nuclear-weapon-states-like-us-must-end-the-hypocrisyBY ROBERT DODGE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/08/22 

In an open letter to President Biden over 1,000 physicians, health professionals and concerned citizens have called on the president to take bold action toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons in anticipation of his administration’s Nuclear Posture Review expected to be released in the next month.

As first responders dealing with the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic — and recognizing that there is no adequate medical or humanitarian response to nuclear war — they understand the only way to prevent catastrophic consequences is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. 

Their call joins recent initiatives for sensible nuclear policy called for by defense and disarmament experts, U.S. local and state elected officials, and scientists asking the U.S. to take a leadership role in the abolition of nuclear weapons, with immediate steps to defuse the global nuclear tensions that have moved humanity to 100 seconds until midnight, the graphic representation of nuclear Armageddon determined by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

hese immediate steps outlined in the Back from the Brink Coalition include:

  • Actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals
  • Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first
  • Ending the sole, unchecked authority of any U.S. president to launch a nuclear attack
  • Taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
  • Canceling the plan to replace the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons

Knowing the science of the climate devastation that would follow even a limited, regional nuclear war, it must be asked under what circumstances any nation is willing to commit collective suicide by launching a nuclear attack? The country, and indeed the world, awaits President Biden‘s Nuclear Posture Review, at which point the president will take ownership of U.S. nuclear policy and our future.

Thus far, little change is noted from the Trump era nuclear and defense policy. The current fiscal year has seen the United States spend over $74 billion on nuclear weapons programs alone. Initial indications are that the Biden defense budget will see this amount increase — at a time when the world struggles to get the entire planet vaccinated against COVID 19 with an estimated global cost of $50 billion according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

This recent joint statement by the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states on the eve of the COVID-postponed NPT Review Conference on “Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races” acknowledged avoidance of war between nuclear-weapon states and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities, while affirming the “Reagan/Gorbachev” principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. They stated that nuclear weapons exist to deter aggression — when in fact they are the most egregious aggressive threat to all of humanity.

The joint statement expresses the importance of arms control and nonproliferation treaties, including compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while — in fact — each nation is aggressively modernizing and growing their nuclear arsenals, spending billions of dollars in the process. 

Simple logic decries the hypocrisy that acknowledges the apocalyptic risk of the very existence of these weapons yet fails to acknowledge the continued pursuit of new and enhanced weapons.

What will it take to deter these leaders in their false narrative of why these weapons continue to exist? We must demand bold and immediate action to make their closing statement credible: “We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns.”

Their actions alone will demonstrate their commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. 

January 10, 2022 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Six men stood directly under a nuclear explosion test – all got cancer.

Rough Job: A Nuclear Bomb Exploded Over These Six Men

When the AIR-2 Genie was launched at eighteen thousand feet from an F-89J interceptor and detonated over the Yucca Flats in Nevada there were six men directly underneath. They would later grow to develop serious health complications. National Interest by Peter Suciu 9 Jan 22, Here’s What You Need to Remember: Above-ground nuclear tests were finally banned in 1963 as a result of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which limited radiation exposure to test personnel.

Instead of being granted three wishes the five United States Airmen and cameraman who volunteered to stand directly under a nuclear explosion during a test of the Douglas AIR-2 Genie air-to-air rocket in the Nevada desert were eventually “rewarded” with cancer while they were in their 1940s and 1950s. Whether it should be seen as a “successful” test that the AIR-2 Genie could, in fact, be used safely over populated areas remains a matter of debate, but the fact that test was the one and only one of its kind likely answers the question…………What was remarkable about the AIR-2 Genie test wasn’t just that it was the only live demonstration of a U.S. nuclear-tipped air-to-air rocket, but also that when it was launched at eighteen thousand feet from an F-89J interceptor and detonated over the Yucca Flats in Nevada there were six men directly underneath.

And they volunteered to be there. 

As Popular Mechanics reported, five men including Colonel Sidney Bruce, Lt. Col. Frank P. Ball, Major Norman “Bodie” Bodinger, Major John Hughes, and Don Lutrell volunteered to stand directly under the detonation point and stood their ground as the nuclear explosion went off 3.5 miles overhead. One additional man, George Yoshitake didn’t exactly “volunteer” but instead there to operate the camera and capture the moment for posterity.  

……………past nuclear detonations had been witnessed by those just miles away—so much so that Las Vegas actually promoted “atomic tourism” where people were encouraged to travel to “Sin City” and view various atomic tests taking place just outside the city. The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce even issued a calendar for tourists, which listed the schedule times of bomb detonations and the best places to view them—while the Sky Room at the Desert Inn was promoted to be one of the best places to take in the explosions!.

Sadly all six men present under the Genie detonation eventually developed cancer, but whether it was from that one incident is questionable as all the men were present at several nuclear tests. Their respective cancers could have been as much a cumulative effect of several tests as from being exposed to this one bomb.  

Above-ground nuclear tests were finally banned in 1963 as a result of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which limited radiation exposure to test personnel. …………. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/rough-job-nuclear-bomb-exploded-over-these-six-men-199199

January 10, 2022 Posted by | health, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Argentina pressures UK over deployment of nuclear weapons in Malvinas conflict 

Argentina pressures UK over deployment of nuclear weapons in Malvinas conflict   https://batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/argentina-demands-answers-over-uk-deployment-of-nuclear-weapons-in-malvinas-conflict.phtml

Report reveals British warships carried at least 31 nuclear weapons to South Atlantic following invasion of disputed island in 1982.

Argentina’s government has called on the United Kingdom to provide detailed information about the alleged movement and use of nuclear weapons during the 1982 South Atlantic conflict, after a report revealed that as many as 31 depth charges were sent to sea near the disputed Malvinas (Falkland) Islands during the war. 

Last week, the Declassified UK website reported that a number of British warships deployed to the South Atlantic following Argentina’s invasion of the disputed islands were armed with dozens of nuclear depth charges. 

According to the report, aircraft carriers HMS Hermes, HMS Invincible and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, Regent, carried 31 nuclear weapons in total to the region’s seas, though no ship encroached upon the “total exclusion zone” around the islands imposed by the UK government at the time.

The article, written by veteran defence and security journalist and author Richard Norton-Taylor, said that new files released to the National Archives revealed that the presence of nuclear weapons had “caused panic among officials in London” who were concerned by the potential damage the “nuclear depth bombs” could cause if they were “lost or damaged.”

‘Measures’

Responding to the revelations, Argentina’s Foreign Ministry warned this week that if it did not receive answers from the British authorities, it would take “measures” and “raise this situation before the competent international bodies.”

Despite the UK’s reluctance to provide detailed information on the matter, our country has on several occasions expressed its concern before different international fora about the possibility, confirmed in 2003, that the UK had introduced nuclear weapons into the South Atlantic,” said a statement from the Palacio de San Martín.

Raising the possibility that Britain may have breached the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco (which established a nuclear free zone in Latin America and its seas), the Foreign Ministry said that it is essential to “ensure that there are no nuclear weapons anywhere in the South Atlantic, either in sunken ships, on the seabed or under any other form or circumstance.

Argentina and the UK maintain a sovereignty dispute over the islands, over which they fought a war in 1982 that ended 74 days later with the surrender of Argentina, then ruled by a military dictatorship. During the war, 648 Argentines and 255 British died.

January 10, 2022 Posted by | politics international, SOUTH AMERICA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia’s nuclear submarine construction reaches a post-Soviet high.

Russia’s Nuclear Submarine Construction Reaches Post-Soviet High  https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/01/07/russias-nuclear-submarine-construction-reaches-post-soviet-high-a75991 By The Barents Observer, Jan. 7, 2022  

Russia’s Sevmash shipyard, the only one in the country that builds nuclear-powered submarines, saw a record year in 2021. Three subs were handed over to the Navy, two were put on water and construction started on another two.

Not since the late days of the Soviet Union have the workers at the building and repair yard Severodvinsk been busier than now.  Moscow’s modernization program for its Navy over the last decade stands in sharp contrast to considerable neglect in the years after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

2022 marks 10 years since the Russian Navy’s first fourth generation multi-purpose submarine, the Severodvinsk, successfully launched a Kalibr cruise missile from a submerged position in the White Sea. While it took nearly 20 years to complete construction of the Severodvinsk, later Yasen-M class vessels are being built faster.

Construction of the Novosibirsk, which was commissioned for the Navy in late December 2021, took 8 years.   Similar construction times are also being seen for the new ballistic missile submarines of the Borei-A class in the wake of the Yury Dolgoruky, which took 16 years from being laid down in 1996 to commissioning for the Northern Fleet in 2012. The Knyaz Oleg, handed over to the Pacific Fleet just before Christmas last year took 7 years to build.

As of Jan. 1, 2022, 13 nuclear-powered submarines are at different stages of construction at the Sevmash yard and are all expected to be delivered to the navy before 2027.

While high-profile publicity is given to laying-down ceremonies, launching and commissioning of ballistic missile subs and multi-purpose subs, far less is known about special-purpose subs. The Barents Observer has on several occasions reported about the Belgord, the world’s longest submarine built on a modified Oscar-II class hull. The submarine will be the carrier of the new Poseidon nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed drones and likely be based with the Pacific Fleet later this year.

Two other carriers of the Poseidon drone are currently under construction at the Sevmash yard, the Khabarovsk and Ulyanovsk.

Other unconfirmed submarines that might be in the pipeline for construction in years to come are two more Borei-A class vessels, two more Poseidon carriers and one or two special-purpose mini-submarine to sail for GUGI, the Defense Ministry’s Main Directorate for Deep Sea Research.

Design work for fifth generation nuclear-powered submarines, referred to as the Husky class, is said to be underway, but so far no contracts have been signed. 

In addition to new submarines, the Sevmash yard is busy working on repair and modernization of the large nuclear-powered battle cruiser Admiral Nakhimov. Originally commissioned into the Soviet Navy in 1988, the warship was rarely deployed to sea and has been in Severodvinsk for the last 23 years. If no further delays are announced, the battlecruiser will be re-commissioned for the Northern Fleet in 2023. 

January 10, 2022 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Texas residents affected by New Mexico nuclear tests – radioactive fallout ignores state lines

Nuclear fallout ignores state lines: Lon Burnam and Istra Fuhrmann, https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/opinion/2022/01/07/nuclear-fallout-ignores-state-lines-lon-burnam-and-istra-fuhrmann/9122752002/  Early in the morning of July 16, 1945, native El Pasoan Barbara Kent was thrown out of her bunk bed at dance camp.

Just 13 years of age, she had traveled to Ruidoso, New Mexico, to learn ballet, unwittingly only a short distance from the site of the first nuclear weapons test. After the explosion awakened her, she says the camp owner came running in to tell the young girls to head outside, where the sky had turned from dark to blindingly bright.

Barbara Kent describes playing in pleasantly warm snow improbably falling in July, grabbing it in her hands and rubbing it on her face. Decades later, she realized that this “snow” had been radioactive fallout from the atomic blast. Today, she is the only survivor from the camp – all the other girls passed away from cancers before the age of 30.

El Paso is less than 150 miles from the epicenter of the nuclear bomb detonation known as the Trinity Test. While Kent happened to be in New Mexico that day, she was not the only Texan exposed to dangerous radiation levels. According to U.S. Census data, between 100,000-130,000 people lived in El Paso during the blast. Nuclear fallout from the explosion settled over thousands of square miles and exposed locals to radiation levels 10,000 times higher than what is currently allowed.

Unfortunately, many of our state’s lawmakers in Congress do not see radiation exposure as a Texas issue. They have not treated the problem with the urgency it is due. It’s time to acknowledge this historical wrong and compensate Texans and New Mexicans suffering from life-threatening illnesses due to nuclear weapons activities.

Congress has united in compensating nuclear testing survivors in the past. In 1990, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which received strong bipartisan support and was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. Unless Congress acts, this compensation program is set to expire in July 2022. Making matters worse, Texas and New Mexico “downwinders” – locals exposed to nuclear fallout – have never been eligible.

Last month, communities affected by nuclear testing celebrated when the RECA Amendments Act of 2021 was overwhelmingly approved by the House Judiciary Committee. If passed into law, this bill will extend RECA by 19 years and allow New Mexican downwinders to claim compensation for the first time. Importantly, Texan downwinders just across the border are also pushing to be included.

Texas is currently covered in RECA as a uranium mining state that supplied material for America’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Uranium workers employed before 1971 who have developed radiation-related illnesses are eligible to receive a one-time RECA payment of $150,000. Many industry workers came from low-income Native and Hispanic communities and were never informed of deadly radiation exposure.

Greg Harman writes that “after 30 years of heavy [uranium] mining activity, cancer rates in Navajo Country began to shoot upward, doubling by the late ’90s.” RECA does not compensate post-1971 uranium miners, even though mining (and cancer cases) continued past this cutoff date. Texas contained the country’s third-largest uranium reserves and ranked second in the nation in drilling for uranium in 1971. As a result, many Texan uranium miners stand to benefit from the RECA extension, which expands eligibility to include workers in the industry post-1971.

We scored another victory when El Paso’s Congresswomen Veronica Escobar recently cosponsored the RECA Amendments Act. Now it’s time for Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz to cosponsor and endorse the Senate version. This bill ensures that compensation for Texan uranium miners will not expire this summer. Advocates from local groups like the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium ask legislators to amend the bill’s language to include El Paso County.


Nuclear fallout does not respect state lines or dates on the calendar. Perhaps, in this case, neither should Congress. It is long past time to compensate Texans, New Mexicans, and downwinders of the 1945 Trinity Tests.

January 10, 2022 Posted by | health, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

What will happen if Russia and Ukraine go to war in the next year?

  https://antibellum679354512.wordpress.com/2022/01/05/guest-contribution-what-will-happen-if-russia-and-ukraine-go-to-war-in-the-next-year/ Don Hank, MA Russian, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 

The not-so-carefully crafted narrative in the West is that Ukraine is the victim of the cruel aggressive Russian regime that enjoys watching others suffer, like a sadistic boy pulling the legs off grasshoppers and watching them squirm.

The coming war would all be an amusing little computer game except for the fact that the psychopathic US manipulators who indulge in this Russophobic/Sinophobic passtime are gambling with the very future of planet earth. 

These reptilian predators inhabit the rarefied stratosphere of intrigue where reality and fantasy are blurred beyond usefulness. They are so far down the road of believing the product of their own overheated imagination that they have forgotten the simplest of realities, like the fact that millions of people would die instantly and half that many would watch their skin slowly peel off and their hair fall out in thick clumps after a nuclear attack. Major cities would become forests of twisted steel in a desert of glass. Military bases would be gone and aircraft carriers would sink to Davy Jones’ locker. 

The war — all 30 minutes of it — would engulf the entire earth, compromising most of human, animal, plant and even microbial life. At least COVID might be conquered. Should we put that fact on the asset side of the ledger in defense of US foreign policy? Maybe not. 

If the West happened to get the upper hand — killing a billion or so Eastern people (ie, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, for example), and the East killed only a half-billion Westerners, there would not be any certifiably non-radioactive champagne to uncork and sip in celebration of the “victory.” Nor would there be an intact country to host the festivities. 

The sociopathic politicians whose thoughtless words and deeds triggered the conflagration would hardly be congratulated by their peers, who would turn on them with an unquenchable visceral hate. 

People who understand the Kremlin and its designs don’t fall for this malarkey, but there is an army of gullible Westerners who enjoy this sort of fiction and they help perpetuate it. It is on display on these very boards. 

But mercifully, most Washington politicians would not survive because the White House and capitol building would be the first targets of the Russian or Chinese ICBMs. 

Of course, there are many other things that could happen if Ukraine and Russia go to war, but the main thing that the Westerner must know is that, should this happen, Russia will not be the aggressor. 

It never was. The Western aggressor is setting a trap for Russia. But will it like the ending of its narrative?

It’s all explained here: 

Don Hank, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present) 

January 6, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear submarine visiting Gibraltar puts people and the environment in danger


Gibraltar fury erupts as US submarine told to leave Rock over ‘nuclear risk’

A US submarine has been urged to leave Gibraltar in order to stop putting the Rock at “nuclear risk”. Express UK, By MICHAEL CURZON, Tue, Jan 4, 2022.  The USS Albany made a scheduled port visit in Gibraltar on December 30, 2021. Ecological campaigners criticised the visit as putting the Rock at a ”nuclear risk” over the New Year period and demanded the submarine to “leave”.

Spanish non-governmental organisation Verdemar Ecologistas en Acción said the presence of nuclear submarines at the rock puts thousands of people – along with the environment – at risk.

It said: “Campo de Gibraltar does not want to participate in any submarine war.

“We continue to insist that these submarines are floating bombs and put our families and our environment at risk.”

The organisation was equally critical in December following reports of a UK Astute-class vessel docking in Gibraltar. ………….


t also doubled down on its insistence that the submarine “leave and stop putting at nuclear risk” the Cadiz coast of the Strait of Gibraltar.

The USS Albany made a further stop in December off the coast of Limassol, Cyprus and engaged in coordinated operations with NATO.

Additional reporting Maria Ortega.  https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1544360/gibraltar-news-us-submarine-nuclear-risk-uss-albany

January 6, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Falkland Islands in a nuclear-free zone, yet Britain deployed 31nuclear weapons there.

UK Deployed 31 Nuclear Weapons During Falklands War, January 5, 2022  British warships in 1982 were armed with dozens of nuclear depth charges in a nuclear-free zone in Latin America, Richard Norton-Taylor reports. Consortium News, By Richard Norton-Taylor Declassified UK.

The revelation is contained in a new file released to the National Archives. Marked “Top Secret Atomic,” it shows that the presence of the nuclear weapons caused panic among officials in London when they realized the damage, both physical and political, they could have caused.

The military regime in Argentina claimed the Falkland islands and invaded on April 2, 1982. The U.K. government under Margaret Thatcher dispatched a naval task force to the South Atlantic to retake the islands.

A Ministry of Defence (MoD) minute, dated April 6, 1982, referred to “huge concern” that some of the “nuclear depth bombs” could be “lost or damaged and the fact become public.” The minute added: “The international repercussions of such an incident could be very damaging.”

Nuclear depth bombs are deployed from navy ships to attack submerged submarines.

The unidentified official who wrote the minute continued:

“The secretary of state [John Nott] will wish to continue the long-established practice of refusing to comment on the presence or absence of UK nuclear weapons at any given location at any particular time.”

Heated Row

The existence of the weapons provoked a heated row between the MoD and the Foreign Office. The latter asked the MoD to “unship” the weapons. The Navy refused to do so……………………………….

Nuclear Free Zone

The Foreign Office was also anxious about the presence of the nuclear weapons because of the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco. This established a nuclear free zone in Latin America and surrounding waters, including the Falklands.

Although Britain had signed and ratified the treaty’s protocols other countries, including Argentina, had not done so. According to Freedman, Margaret Thatcher insisted that no ship carrying nuclear weapons would enter the three-mile territorial waters around the Falklands which would be a “potential breach” of the Tlatelolco treaty.

The MoD admitted in 2003 that British ships in the task force carried nuclear weapons and that a weapon container had been damaged. But the number of weapons had not been revealed before this document was transferred to the National Archives in Kew, south west London.

But a number of documents from the file have been weeded by the MoD or the Cabinet Office. They include an intriguing note, dated April 11, 1982, beginning “The Chiefs of Staff believe…” What they believed we are not allowed to know.

What About Gibraltar?

Many more documents are missing from a separate file, now declassified, entitled “Gibraltar: Impact of the Falklands Crisis”.

Gibraltarians, like the Falkland Islanders, inhabited a British “Overseas Territory” and were concerned because Spain supported Argentine claims of sovereignty over the islands just as it claimed Gibraltar, the large rock and British base on the southern tip of the Iberian peninsula.

Whitehall weeders have withheld no fewer than 73 documents from the Gibraltar file. They have done so under exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, and, specifically, sections 27(i), 40 (2), and 41.

These cover information whose disclosure might “prejudice” the interest of the U.K. abroad, “personal data” and “information provided in confidence.” Passages in other documents in the file have also been excised.

What has the British government to hide? Documents declassified previously may offer some clues. Thatcher repeatedly expressed concern about the implications of the Falklands crisis for Gibraltar.

Despite the public rhetoric, successive U.K. governments have been prepared to negotiate about sovereignty of the Falklands and sought a joint sovereignty agreement with Spain over Gibraltar in 2000 and again in 2002.  This article is from Declassified UK. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/05/73354/

January 6, 2022 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

What we know about North Korea’s nuclear weapons and their military power


What we know about North Korea’s nuclear weapons and their military power. After talks between the US and North Korea failed in 2019, Kim Jong-un has steadily been growing his military arsenal, but does the nation have any nuclear weapons?.   By Robbie Purves, Birmingham Live, 5 JAN 2022  Kicking off their new year with a bang, North Korea has reportedly launched a ballistic missile, landing it in the East Sea, or Sea of Japan.

Fired from the land, it is suspected to be smaller than previous launches as an attempt to show military might, while avoiding large economic sanctions……..

Not only this, but they have an estimated 40 nuclear warheads. These can be carried by missiles that could reach, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York with ease.

Some military experts have warned they could possess technology to make them manoeuvrable mid-flight and therefore harder to detect.

North Korea blatantly violates UN Security Council resolutions regularly, but has highlighted hypocrisy.

Their neighbours, South Korea, launched a ballistic missiles from a submarine in September 2021, making it the first nation to do so without nuclear weapons.

The South’s president, Moon Jae-in, said the test was “Not a response to North Korea” but noted “the reinforcement of our missile capabilities can be a clear deterrent to North Korea’s provocations.”

South Korea, a long time ally of the US, has the capability to make a nuclear warhead, but has chosen not to do so.

Worryingly for peace in the region, the top People Power Party 2022 presidential candidate Yoon Seok-youl, has stated he would demand the US redeploy tactical nuclear weapons in the South.

After talks between then President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un failed in 2019 despite much promise, tensions have steadily risen.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/world-news/what-know-north-koreas-nuclear-22653340

January 6, 2022 Posted by | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Five world powers vow to prevent spread of nuclear weapons

Five world powers vow to prevent spread of nuclear weapons
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/3/five-world-powers-vow-to-prevent-spread-of-nuclear-weapons

In a joint statement, permanent members of UN Security Council pledge
to ensure a nuclear war is never fought, amid rising world tensions.

Five global nuclear powers have pledged to prevent atomic weapons from
spreading and to ensure a nuclear war is never fought, in a rare joint
statement ahead of a review of a key nuclear treaty later this year.

The statement on Monday said that the United States, United Kingdom,
Russia, China and France – who are the permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council – consider it their primary responsibility to
avoid war between the nuclear states and to reduce strategic risks,
while aiming to work with all countries to create an atmosphere of
security.

“We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be
prevented,” it said, adding, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must
never be fought.”

The Russian-language version of the statement read, “We declare there
could be no winners in a nuclear war, it should never be started.

“As the use of nuclear arms would have far-reaching consequences, we
also confirm that nuclear arms – as long as they exist – should serve
defensive aims, deterrence against aggression and prevention of war.”

Russia hopes the pledge will reduce world tensions, while saying a
summit of permanent UN Security Council members remains necessary.

“We hope that, in the current difficult conditions of international
security, the approval of such a political statement will help reduce
the level of international tensions,” Moscow’s foreign ministry said
in a statement.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the RIA Novosti news agency that
Moscow still considered a summit between the world’s major nuclear
powers to be “necessary”.

The foreign ministry also said it hoped the agreement will “help build
confidence and form the foundations of future control over offensive
and defensive arms”.

France also released the statement, underscoring that the five powers
reiterated their determination for nuclear arms control and
disarmament. They would continue bilateral and multilateral approaches
to nuclear arms control, it said.

China said the pledge will “increase mutual trust” and reduce the risk
of nuclear conflict.

“The joint statement issued by the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon
states will help increase mutual trust and replace competition among
major powers with coordination and cooperation,” the official Xinhua
news agency quoted vice foreign minister Ma Zhaoxu as saying.

Tensions between Russia and the West have sky-rocketed in recent
months over Ukraine, with the US and its allies warning Moscow of a
massive coordinated sanctions response if it invades its ex-Soviet
neighbour.

January 4, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Will Biden stay the course toward nuclear disarmament?

When President Joe Biden took office last year, a historic shift in U.S. nuclear policy seemed likely. Now, with ongoing threats from Russia and China, experts say moving away from nuclear weapons may be more difficult. CS Monitor, By Robert Burns Associated Press, 4 Jan 22,

Joe Biden’s arrival in the White House nearly a year ago seemed to herald a historic shift toward less U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons and possibly a shrinking of their numbers. Even an American “no first use” pledge – a promise to never again be the first to use a nuclear weapon – seemed possible.
The outlook will be clearer when the Biden administration completes its so-called nuclear posture review – an internal relook at the numbers, kinds, and purposes of weapons in the nuclear arsenal, as well as the policies that govern their potential use. The results could be made public as early as January.

The biggest unknown is how forcefully Mr. Biden will weigh in on these questions, based on White House calculations of the political risk. During his years as vice president, Mr. Biden talked of new directions in nuclear policy. But heightened concerns about China and Russia would seem to improve the political leverage of Republicans seeking to portray such change as a gift to nuclear adversaries.

Tom Z. Collina, policy director at Ploughshares Fund, an advocate for nuclear disarmament, says the China and Russia problems complicate the politics of Mr. Biden’s nuclear review but should not stop him from acting to reduce nuclear dangers.

“We do not want a new nuclear arms race with either nation and the only way to prevent that is with diplomacy,” Mr. Collina said. “We must remember the main lesson we learned in the Cold War with Russia – the only way to win an arms race is not to run.”………………………

The Pentagon has not publicly discussed details of the nuclear review, but the administration seems likely to keep the existing contours of the nuclear force – the traditional “triad” of sea-, air-, and land-based weapons, which critics call overkill. It also may embrace a $1 trillion-plus modernization of that force, which was launched by the Obama administration and continued by Mr. Trump.

It’s unclear whether Mr. Biden will approve any significant change in what is called “declaratory policy,” which states the purpose of nuclear weapons and the circumstances under which they might be used.

The Obama administration, with Mr. Biden as vice president, stated in 2010 that it would “only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” It did not define “extreme circumstances.”

Eight years later, the Trump administration restated the Obama policy but got more specific. “Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.”…………… https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2022/0103/Will-Biden-stay-the-course-toward-nuclear-disarmament

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

India  Launches Nuclear Submarine With ‘Vertical Launch System’

Boosting Indian Navy’s Firepower, DRDO Launches Nuclear Submarine With ‘Vertical Launch System’ Eurasian Times, By Shreya Mundhra January 2, 2022

Amid geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, India has quietly launched its third Arihant-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine — the S4 SSBN — at a secretive ship-building center in Visakhapatnam. The development was reported by Janes Defence Weekly, citing satellite imagery.

Arihant-Class Submarines

The Arihant-class, named after the country’s first nuclear-powered submarine — INS Arihant — is a class of Indian nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines that are being built for the Indian Navy.

It was launched at the Indian Navy’s dockyard located in Visakhapatnam, the headquarters of Eastern Naval Command. The project, earlier called the advanced technology vessel (ATV), has been under development since 1998………

Russia’s Role In Indian Project

INS Arihant, which cost $2.9bn, was jointly developed by the Indian Navy, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) at the naval dockyard……………………….

Arihant And Arighat

INS Arihant was launched on July 26, 2009, by then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Four years later, in August 2013, the submarine’s atomic reactor was activated. Three more years down the line, in August 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inducted the submarine into the Navy………………………..

The Latest Addition — S4 SSBN

In its December 29 report, Janes noted that the S4 SSBN was launched on November 23 and had been ‘relocated’ close to the ‘fitting-out wharf’ that was previously occupied by INS Arighat.

According to Janes, satellite imagery had confirmed that the ship being talked about stood at 7,000-tonnes, “slightly larger” than the lead ship in the Arihant class, INS Arihant.

……. The magazine went on to infer that the satellite imagery indicated that the newly launched boats’ increased length “accommodates expansion of the submarine’s vertical launch system”. This system can support eight missile launch tubes, as planned.

This would enable the SSBN to carry eight K-4 SLBMs, or alternately, 24 K-15 SLBMs. The K-4 SLBM is currently under development.  https://eurasiantimes.com/indian-navy-launches-3rd-arihant-class-nuclear-submarine/

January 3, 2022 Posted by | India, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »