nuclear-news

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

USA puts pressure on Japan to not attend nuclear ban treaty meeting, not even as an observer

U.S. urges Japan not to join nuclear ban treaty meeting: sources  KYODO NEWS 20 Dec 21, The United States has urged Japan not to attend as an observer the first meeting of signatories to a U.N. treaty banning nuclear weapons, according to U.S. government sources, reflecting Washington’s opposition to the pact.The Japanese government has suggested it will come into line with the United States and take a cautious approach to the issue, the sources said. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told a parliamentary committee on Thursday that Tokyo has no “concrete plans” to attend the meeting as an observer.

The sources said the U.S. administration of President Joe Biden made the request to Japan through diplomatic channels after German political parties announced Nov. 24 that the deal for the new ruling coalition included taking part as an observer at the meeting scheduled for March in Vienna.

Maybe because of the request, Kishida also suggested last week that participation in the meeting would be premature “before building a relationship of trust with President Biden.”

Germany’s move has put Japan — which has stated it aspires to a world free of nuclear weapons as the only country to have suffered the devastation of atomic bombings — in the spotlight. Both countries are key U.S. allies that rely on American nuclear forces for protection.

The U.S. government has maintained its opposition to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in January this year, even as Biden has pledged to strive for a world without nuclear weapons………..

The U.S. government is also calling on the new three-party German government, launched in December, to give up on the idea of taking part in the March 22-24 meeting in Vienna, according to the sources.

The new U.N. treaty completely outlaws the development, testing, possession and use of nuclear weapons. It only binds states that have formally signed and ratified it.

More than 50 countries, including Austria, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa and Vietnam, have ratified the pact, according to the website of the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs.

But nuclear weapon states, including the United States, Russia and China, are not signatories. Japan has also refrained from signing the pact in consideration of its long-standing security alliance with the United States.  https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/12/54ab486540a3-us-urges-japan-not-to-join-nuclear-ban-treaty-meeting-sources.html

December 21, 2021 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Report:  “Moving Beyond Missile Defense and Space Weapons”

Report of the International Working Group “Moving Beyond Missile Defense and Space Weapons”http://inesglobal.net/MBMDS-report/

Read the executive summary of the report: Executive Summary MDMDS-Report.

On November 20, 2000, the U.N. General Assembly, by a vote of 97 to 0 with 65 abstentions, adopted a resolution demanding a comprehensive approach to missiles that would “contribute to international peace and security.” The resolution gave impetus to civil society to take up the issue. One such initiative was a project by the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP)1. They produced a report called Beyond Missile Defense by an international team of scientists and policy analysts. Jayantha Dhanapala, then U.N. Under-Secretary General for Disarmament, forwarded the report to the U.N. General Assembly in 2002. They made a number of far-reaching recommendations, summarized later, to develop a verifiable global treaty to ban the development, testing, proliferation, and the acquisition of missiles.

It has been two decades since the above-mentioned U.N. resolution and the publication of the INESAP report. During this time there has been little or no action toward controlling missiles and missile defense systems. On the contrary, a signal event took place within a short time after the U.N. resolution. It was the U.S. unilateral withdrawal on July 1, 2002 from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which served for thirty years as a landmark in the history of arms control agreements. In the post-ABM treaty years, there has been proliferation of both missiles and missile defense systems. Our focus for this report is global missile defense systems, because of their adverse impact on strategic stability.

Similar to the previous effort, INES organized anew an international working group in the summer of 2016 to study the consequences for international peace and security resulting from both the ongoing development and deployment of missile defense systems globally as well as the programs to develop weapons in space. From the start, the group reached a conclusion that, as desirable as it might be, it would not be practical to advocate a global missile ban in the present internationa

l situation. The focus instead should be on banning missile defense systems and space weapons. In a nutshell, this report focuses on two subject areas, namely, missile defense and the weaponization of space. It explores the linkages between the two in the larger context of nuclear arms control and disarmament.

The membership of the working group is described elsewhere. It is important to note that the membership represents a broad spectrum of people who are individually affiliated to civil society organizations and universities. Some are former government officials and others are independent analysts.

Because of unforeseen circumstances, the work of the group could not proceed as planned. The present report is the product of mostly individual efforts in writing specific sections. In addition to the members of the original group, who contributed to the report, we invited several scholars outside the group to contribute. While we generally agree on the broad parameters of our analysis, it is by no means a consensus document. Therefore, the views expressed in the articles are solely those of the respective authors.

Download the Sections of the Report

  1. The 2001-2006 INESAP project Moving Beyond Missile Defense
    A brief summary – Jürgen Scheffran
  2. The U.S. missile defense systems – history, politics, waste, and fraud
    1. Why does Missile Defense Still Enjoy Bipartisan Support in Congress? – Subrata Ghoshroy
    2. The Price for Blowing the Whistle – Subrata Ghoshroy
  3. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
    The impact of the ABM treaty on the nuclear arms race – Claus Montonen
  4. The U.S. missile defense programs
    The status of the U.S. missile defense programs – Christian Alwardt
  5. European and NATO Missile Defense Programs
    The Deployment of missile defense systems and its implications for European Security and Nuclear Disarmament – Götz Neuneck

  1. Missile proliferation and missile defense systems in East Asia
    Missile Proliferation and the Security Dilemma in East Asia – Masako Ikegami
  2. A critical examination of the U.S. missile defense program: a view from Moscow
    Evolution of the U.S, Missile Defense Systems: a Russian Perspective – Vladimir Kozin
  3. Ballistic Missile and Missile Defense programs in India
    Ballistic Missile and Ballistic Missile Defense capability in India – Rajaram Nagappa
  4. The evolution of the public perception of space as a battleground
    Public Acceptance of Space as a Battleground – Monica Zoppe
  5. Preventing weaponization and an arms race in outer space
    Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space: obstacles and options – Dave Webb and Jürgen Scheffran
  6. Weaponization of space: a view from India
    India and weaponization of space – Rajaram Nagappa
  7. The interchangeability of antisatellite and missile defense systems
    Anti-Satellite Weapons and Ballistic Missile Defense: the Siamese Twins? – Dave Webb and Jürgen Scheffran
  8. Weaponization of space: a Russian view
    The United States seeks domination in space – Vladimir Kozin
  9. Nuclear weapons, disarmament, and missile defense: a Chinese perspective
    China’s nuclear weapons strategy and modernization program – Hui Zhang
  10. The Pentagon’s secret X-37B space plane program tocdevelop space weapons technology
    X-37B: Backdoor weaponization of space? – Subrata Ghoshroy
  11. International Control of Delivery Systems: Towards a Ballistic Missile Ban
    Jürgen Scheffran

Do you want to have printed copies of the executive summary of the report?

Please contact us at lucas.wirl@inesglobal.net.

December 21, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran holds air defence drill near Bushehr nuclear plant

Iran holds air defence drill near Bushehr nuclear plant

Drill comes days after latest round of talks in Vienna to restore Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers ended without an agreement.  Aljazeera,  Maziar Motamedi 20 Dec 2021

Tehran, Iran – Iran has held an air defence drill in the vicinity of its southwestern Bushehr nuclear power plant amid ongoing tensions over the country’s nuclear programme.

State media reported that the drill was conducted in the early hours of Monday to the south of the Bushehr province and also over parts of the Persian Gulf.

The drill comes days after the latest round of talks in Vienna to restore Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers which ended with some modest gains but no agreement.

Israel has opposed efforts to revive the 2015 deal, which lifted sanctions on Tehran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme and has continued to threaten direct military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Nournews, a media outlet close to Iran’s security forces, reported last week that security forces assess there may be a credible possibility Israel would launch an attack in an effort to thwart the talks in Vienna.

On Monday, it quoted Gholamali Rashid, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Khatam al-Anbiya military base, as also mentioning the Vienna talks, and adding that any potential Israeli attack

would not be possible without the US giving its approval………..

The Natanz facilities were the target of two main sabotage attacks, which Iran blamed on Israel, in 2020 and 2021. There was also another sabotage attack in June, also blamed on Israel, on a centrifuge parts assembly workshop in Karaj near capital Tehran.

The seventh round of nuclear talks in Vienna between Iran and the world powers party to the accord the US abandoned in 2018 closed with modest progress on Friday. Talks are expected to resume in the coming days before the end of the current year.

Iran and Western powers have so far been at odds in the talks over which sanctions need to be lifted, and what measures Iran needs to take to scale back down its advancing nuclear programme. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/20/iran-holds-air-defence-drill-over-bushehr-nuclear-plant

December 21, 2021 Posted by | Iran, safety, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons: Assessing Risks

Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons: Assessing Risks, Insights from Herbert Lin. The Diplomat By Mercy A. Kuo, December 20, 2021   Trans-Pacific View author Mercy Kuo regularly engages subject-matter experts, policy practitioners, and strategic thinkers across the globe for their diverse insights into U.S. Asia policy. This conversation with Dr. Herbert S. Lin – senior research scholar for cyber policy and security at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and Hank J. Holland Fellow in Cyber Policy and Security at the Hoover Institution, both at Stanford University, and author of newly published “Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons” (Stanford University Press, 2021)  ̶  is the 301st in “The Trans-Pacific View Insight Series.”

Define key elements of the U.S. nuclear enterprise.

The nuclear enterprise consists of everything that touches nuclear weapons issues, including nuclear weapons design and stewardship; nuclear delivery systems (e.g., missiles, submarines, bombers); nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3); nuclear planning and decision-making; and nuclear operations. Information technologies (also known as computing and communications technologies) are critical for all of these elements of the nuclear enterprise.

Identify plausible cyber risk scenarios of the U.S. nuclear enterprise. irst, an adversary may conduct a deliberate cyberattack against some element(s) of the U.S. nuclear enterprise that could compromise the U.S. ability to use its nuclear weapons when appropriate (e.g., in retaliation). A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office probed cyber vulnerabilities in U.S. weapons systems (including some nuclear systems), noting that the Department of Defense routinely finds mission-critical cyber vulnerabilities during operational testing of weapons systems that are under development, pointing out that “using relatively simple tools and techniques, testers were able to take control of systems and largely operate undetected.” Exploitation of such vulnerabilities could cripple nuclear weapons delivery systems on the ground or in flight.

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review also identifies adversary offensive cyber capabilities as creating new challenges and potential vulnerabilities for U.S. NC3, calling out challenges to network defense, authentication, data integrity, and secure, assured, and reliable information flow. Compromises to NC3 could disconnect the National Command Authority from U.S. nuclear forces, fail to provide warning of incoming nuclear attack, or falsely signal the existence of a nuclear attack.

A second type of cyber risk arises from the integration of nuclear and nonnuclear capabilities, which is often enabled by computing and communications technology. Such integration likely raises the risk of inadvertent nuclear escalation in times of conflict. For example, integrating nuclear and conventional systems confers operational advantages in warfighting, and is also generally less expensive than acquiring separate nuclear and conventional systems. But such advantages trade off against an increased possibility that cyberattacks directed against a dual-purpose system for non-nuclear reasons could be interpreted by U.S. decision-makers as an attack on U.S. nuclear capabilities, especially if those cyberattacks are coming from another nuclear power. Thus, they may feel more pressure to escalate up the nuclear ladder.

A second scenario is based on the fact that cyberattacks and cyber espionage/intelligence gathering use the same penetration techniques and differ only in what they seek to accomplish. Thus, any given cyber penetration carries with it an unknown potential for attack, for intelligence gathering, or both. A cyber penetration from China or Russia detected in U.S. NC3 system could be part of a relatively benign attempt to gather intelligence, or it could be the start of a serious cyberattack that is intended to degrade NC3. But it is impossible for U.S. decision-makers to know China’s or Russia’s intention before we observe the actual results of the penetration. If the United States detects a cyber penetration of its NC3 during a crisis or during the initial phases of a kinetic conflict, U.S. decision-makers may jump to a worst-case assessment.

Analyze the capabilities of China and North Korea in generating cyber nuclear risks.

Chinese and North Korean capabilities to generate cyber risks to the U.S. nuclear enterprise are not known in the unclassified literature. However, it is known that Chinese offensive cyber capabilities are world-class, and North Korea’s capabilities are substantial, even if not necessarily on a par with China’s at every level and for every contingency.

Furthermore, certain operational scenarios involving China in particular implicate a number of dual-purpose systems. ……………. https://thediplomat.com/2021/12/cyber-threats-and-nuclear-weapons-assessing-risks/

December 21, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, safety, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Archbishop calls for nuclear disarmament

Archbishop calls for nuclear disarming, Santa fe New Mexican By Robert Nott rnott@sfnewmexican.com, Dec 20 , 2021   

Looking up at the sky as a young teen one day in Daly City, Calif., Archbishop John C. Wester had one thought as he saw military planes overheard.

Were they ours, or were they Russian planes?

The year was 1962, perhaps the first time nuclear war between the two superpowers seemed likely to erupt as the Cuban Missile Crisis played out and students were taught to prepare for an atomic attack by diving under their desks at schools.

“I don’t think going under our desks was very helpful,” Wester said Sunday in Santa Fe, moments before issuing a call for the world to rid itself its nuclear weapons.

Now, some 60 years later, he said he wants to do more to end the threat of an atomic war. Wester spoke and prayed during a 30-minute prayer service and ceremony at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe before he unveiled a sign bearing an image of Pope Francis and a quote uttered by the pope in Hiroshima in 2020: “The possession of nuclear arms is immoral.”

Wester said “our archdiocese needs to be facilitating, encouraging an ongoing conversation” about nuclear disarmament.

He urged people to “pray for God’s intervention” to keep that conversation going.

At least 125 people were present for the service, many bearing roses in honor of the Lady of Guadalupe. Among them was Karen Weber, who said it’s “highly symbolic” for Wester to speak out on the “abolishment of nuclear weapons.”

The shrine is across the street from the Firestone building at West Alameda and Guadalupe streets in downtown Santa Fe, where Los Alamos National Laboratory recently opened a small office. The proximity of the two locales was not lost on Mary Riseley, who described herself as a Quaker and an Episcopalian and who handed out roses to participants in Sunday’s event.

Calling Wester a “prophet in the Catholic Church,” she said it’s important for him to stand up “for peace and understanding” during these times of turmoil.

In his comments, Wester alluded to the growing tension around the Russia-Ukraine border and said there are at least “40 active conflicts in the world.”

“We need to be instruments of peace,” he said, especially as we head into the Christmas season, a “season of peace.”

The current arms race, he said “is more ominous” than any that came before……..   https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/archbishop-calls-for-nuclear-disarming/article_0aabf9f0-60e8-11ec-9e5f-5f7820707fca.html

December 21, 2021 Posted by | Religion and ethics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. congressional delegation arrives in Ukraine to discuss threat of war with Russia — Anti-bellum

US Congress delegation arrives in Ukraine to discuss threat of war with RussiaA group of congressmen announced Washington’s readiness to take tough measures in response to any encroachment on sovereign Ukrainian territory *** “Representative Jason Crow led a U.S. Congressional delegation to Kyiv to discuss Russia’s aggressive military buildup in and around Ukraine and hear […]

U.S. congressional delegation arrives in Ukraine to discuss threat of war with Russia — Anti-bellum

December 21, 2021 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How to keep US-China rivalry from starting a nuclear arms race

The US needs to understand the Chinese government’s deeply anxious view of its own nuclear and wider geostrategic vulnerability.

China’s strategic culture is deeply realist. Moral appeals to China about doing the right thing will not get American negotiators anywhere, but cold, pragmatic arguments can.

The deepening US-China rivalry might itself create an incentive for Beijing to come to the table. That is provided the US can convince China it would be less vulnerable with an arms-control agreement than without one.


How to keep US-China rivalry from starting a nuclear arms race,   https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3159963/how-keep-us-china-rivalry-starting-nuclear-arms-race

With tensions threatening to undermine strategic nuclear stability, talks are urgently needed to prevent the situation from spinning out of controlEven if the relationship is destined to be marked by mutual suspicion, establishing strategic transparency is still possible  Kevin Rudd

19 Dec, 2021  China’s recently reported tests of a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile in July and August, though officially denied, are threatening to undermine strategic nuclear stability. They have already added to escalating tensions between the United States and China.

Throughout the summer, satellite images revealed that China was in the process of building as many as 300 new missile silos in its northern deserts. Some of these silos are likely to be used merely as empty decoys. But, if even half of them become sites for nuclear-armed missiles, it would represent a near-tripling of China’s nuclear arsenal.

China’s recently reported tests of a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile in July and August, though officially denied, are threatening to undermine strategic nuclear stability. They have already added to escalating tensions between the United States and China.

Following these revelations, the US State Department warned that, “This build-up is concerning. It raises questions about the PRC’s intent … We encourage Beijing to engage with us on practical measures to reduce the risks of destabilising arms races and conflict.”

China’s ambassador for disarmament affairs, Li Song, responded the same day. He described the new Aukus pact between Australia, Britain and the US to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines as a “textbook case” of nuclear proliferation spurring a regional arms race.

Continue reading →

December 20, 2021 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

We the People: What led to the Cold War?

We the People: What led to the Cold War? Fear of nuclear weapons annihilating all life on Earth, for one thing https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/dec/19/we-the-people-what-led-to-the-cold-war-fear-of-nuc/ 19 Dec 21   By Pip CawleyFor The Spokesman-Review

Each week, The Spokesman-Review examines one question from the Naturalization Test immigrants must pass to become United States citizens.

Today’s question: During the Cold War, what was one main concern of the United States?

There are two official answers to this question. One is that the U.S. was concerned about the spread of communism. The other is that the U.S. was concerned with the possibility of nuclear war. The myriad ways the fear of communism influenced the United States are too numerous and complex for this brief article.

Instead, I want to discuss the fear of nuclear war. It is easy to forget that since the invention and proliferation of nuclear weapons, we now have the technology available to exterminate our entire species. The fear of nuclear war was ever-present and influenced every aspect of American life. In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the celebrated author William Faulkner stated, “Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?”

Let’s discuss how we got to this point.

The Cold War, so named because the two major powers, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, never “heated up” or fought open war in Europe, lasted from 1945 to 1990.

Some historians argue the Cold War started during the end of World War II and that the use of the first nuclear weapons on Japan was intended, among other things, to intimidate the Soviets.

The Cold War impacted not just military concerns but was a ubiquitous concern for everyday Americans. A real fear of nuclear war was ever-present in American society. Government-backed films like “The Red Menace” reminded the public of the threat of nuclear war, and families built bomb shelters in their yards and basements.

Schools practiced drills where children were taught to hide under their desks in the case of nuclear war. Obviously, a small desk won’t protect a child from nuclear bombs, but it was part of what is called “security theater.” Security theater is the performance of security or safety measures that realistically do nothing to increase the individual’s safety but give a small sense of control and comfort. They are doing something, and even if what they’re doing is useless, it still helps them feel better.

In reality, there is nothing we could do to protect ourselves from the devastation nuclear weapons bring. Those not killed in the blast instead die of radiation exposure. If enough nuclear weapons are detonated, it will cause a nuclear winter in which the sun’s rays are blocked by clouds of dust and debris. Without warmth from the sun, temperatures on Earth would radically drop, killing all plant and animal life on the planet. This was, and still is, a new and frightening reality.

We arrived at this new reality thanks to what is called the arms race. The U.S. and the USSR sought to get or maintain a technological and tactical advantage over each other. Both countries invested immense amounts of resources to develop new and more powerful weapons. For example, if the U.S. built one aircraft carrier, the USSR would build two, which would prompt the U.S. to build three more even larger aircraft carriers, and so on. The constant one-upmanship of the arms race led to the development of nuclear weapons, first in the U.S. and then in the USSR.

Eventually, these stockpiles of weapons became so large that the two countries each had the capability of destroying all human life on Earth. If one country attacked, the other would retaliate and the conflict could eventually escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, which would then lead to our own extinction.

For that reason, the two countries agreed not to directly attack each other in what is called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Since neither side wanted to end all life on Earth, they agreed not to directly attack each other. This kept an all-out war from breaking out between the two countries.

They did wage proxy wars against each other all over the globe. The U.S. and the USSR demanded that other countries pick a side, theirs or their enemy’s. The USSR expanded its sphere of influence toward Europe, drawing an Iron Curtain across the territory.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and spent 10 years fighting for control of the country. On the other hand, the U.S. invaded Korea and later Vietnam in order to prevent the countries from “falling to communism.” Meanwhile, the push for decolonization in Africa led to armed conflicts, often funded or supplied by one of the major powers. In Iran and several South American countries, clandestine plans and espionage were used to unseat governmental leaders, some of whom were democratically elected, and replace them with new leaders who would be friendly to U.S. interests.

Today, the U.S. and Russia possess the most nuclear weapons, and despite disarmament treaties and downsizing of stockpiles, both still possess enough nuclear devices to destroy the planet several times over. In the years since the Cold War ended, other countries have obtained nuclear capabilities. There are nine countries with nuclear weapons; some others are seeking to obtain their own.

While fear of nuclear war no longer influences our daily lives, as it did during the Cold War, it remains a real concern in international relations.

Pip Cawley received her Ph.D. in political science from Washington State University in Pullman.  This article is part of a Spokesman-Review partnership with the Thomas S. Foley Institute of Public Policy and Public Service at Washington State University

December 20, 2021 Posted by | history, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hundreds of Scientists Ask Biden to Cut the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

Hundreds of Scientists Ask Biden to Cut the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal, New York Times, 

In a letter, the scientists also urged President Biden to declare that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict., By David E. Sanger 17 Dec 21,

WASHINGTON — Nearly 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, asked President Biden on Thursday to use his forthcoming declaration of a new national strategy for managing nuclear weapons as a chance to cut the U.S. arsenal by a third, and to declare, for the first time, that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

The letter to Mr. Biden also urged him to change, for the first time since President Harry S. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, the American practice that gives the commander in chief sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. The issue gained prominence during the Trump administration, and the authors of the letter urged Mr. Biden to make the change as “an important safeguard against a possible future president who is unstable or who orders a reckless attack.”

But while Mr. Biden has often declared that he will be guided by scientific advice alone when it comes to managing the Covid-19 pandemic, he has made no such pledge in the nuclear arena, where strategists, allies protected by the American nuclear umbrella and members of Congress all have views — many of them diametrically opposed to the ones described by scientists…………………..   https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/us/politics/scientists-letter-nuclear-arsenal.html

December 18, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear test veterans ‘were victims of a crime

UK’s nuclear test veterans ‘were victims of a crime’ with one suffering 100 tumours

Many of the 22,000 men who served at nuclear bomb tests carried out by Britain have died from cancers and suffered rare blood disorders – Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram heard their tales of horror Mirror UK,  BySusie Boniface, 15 Dec 2021

Campaigning giants Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram have vowed to win recognition for Britain’s nuclear test veterans, telling them: “You were victims of a crime.”

The two metro mayors likened 70 years of official denials about the Cold War radiation experiments to Hillsborough, forced adoptions and the contaminated blood scandal.

Around 22,000 men served at 45 bomb tests and more than 600 radiation experiments in Australia, America and the South Pacific between 1952 and 1991. Many have died from cancers and suffered rare blood disorders. Their 155,000 descendants show 10 times the usual rate of birth defects, which the government refuses to investigate.

After meeting survivors, Mr Burnham said: “It feels like you were victims of a crime, and that has been passed down through your families.”

Mr Rotheram added: “The pattern of these scandals is the always the same. They deflect the truth, they make it about money, they deny, suppress, cover up, and blame.”

John Morris told them: “I don’t want their money, I just want the damned truth.”

In 1957, aged 20, he was among troops exposed on a beach when the 1.8 megaton Grapple X bomb was exploded 20 miles away. “I wore a shirt, shorts, and sunglasses. The flash was white, the heat like a blowtorch on your back, then we were knocked off our feet,” said John, 84, from Rochdale.

“There were 2,000 men running around, terrified. We couldn’t get in our wagons to get away because the tires had melted. If I told you to stand 20 miles away from the Sun, would you do it?”

After his return home, John was diagnosed with a radiation-related blood disorder. His first-born Steven died in 1962, aged four months, in an unexplained cot death. Daughter Liz Bacon said: “We’re made to feel unreasonable just for questioning it. He didn’t even get the autopsy report until 2018.”

Ex-railway manager Archie Hart, 84, of Warrington, told how he was an 18-year-old stoker on HMS Diana in 1956 when the ship was twice ordered to spend 8 hours in the fallout of atomic bombs in a human experiment designed to test the effect on ship and crew. Archie, wearing just a cotton hood for protection, was on deck throughout, and within two years began developing benign tumours.

“There’s 100 all over my body, some the size of tennis balls,” he told the mayors. “I can’t do the dance of the seven veils anymore, because my body’s an unsightly mess. What they did to us was morally wrong, and their cavalier attitude in the years since is causing problems to this day for the generations that follow.”

Both men have survived cancer, but told the mayors: “We were the lucky ones.”

Alan Owen, whose Royal Navy dad Jesse died aged 52 after witnessing 24 US bomb tests in 78 days in 1962, said: “The Americans compensated my family, but our own governments delay, deny, until we die.”

For more than 30 years the Mirror has campaigned for justice for the brave men who took part in Britain’s nuclear weapons tests.

The Ministry of Defence has fought back every step of the way.

We have told countless heartbreaking stories of grieving mums, children with deformities, men aged before their time and widows struggling to hold their families together, all while campaigning for recognition.

Two years ago we launched an appeal for a medal for the 1,500 survivors.

For the first time we were able to prove some were unwittingly used in experiments.

Our appeal was backed by then-Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson but his review foundered after he lost his job.

……………….. Mr Burnham said: “These are the tactics of the British state: to deflect onto the victims, use a lack of progress to grind people down, and create mental torture so people cannot fight injustice.”………………

Both mayors supported the idea of a medal for its “totemic significance” to veterans, whose average age is now 85, and promised to support a nuclear tests education programme to be rolled out across their regions’ schools, with veterans meeting children to discuss their personal legacy………………………  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/uks-nuclear-test-veterans-were-25708681

December 16, 2021 Posted by | health, UK, weapons and war | 1 Comment

15 minutes to save the world’: a terrifying Virtual Reality journey into the nuclear bunker

15 minutes to save the world’: a terrifying VR journey into the nuclear bunker, Guardian  Julian Borger in WashingtonTue 14 Dec 2021 Nuclear Biscuit, a simulated experience, allows US officials to wargame a missile attack and see the devastating consequences of their choices…………

I was experiencing what a US president would have to do in the event of a nuclear crisis: make a decision that would end many millions of lives – and quite possibly life on the planet – with incomplete information and in less than 15 minutes……………

The VR simulation has been developed by a team from Princeton, American and Hamburg universities, based on extensive research, including interviews with former officials, into what would happen if the US was – or believed itself to be – under nuclear attack. They have called their project the Nuclear Biscuit, after the small card bearing the president’s launch authorization codes.

……………………….. In 1979, the world came within minutes of nuclear war because someone had left a training tape simulating a Russian attack in the early warning system monitors. In September 1983, Russian computers erroneously showed incoming US missiles. Armageddon was only averted because the duty officer, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, went against protocols and decided not to act on the alert because his gut told him it was a glitch……….

…………… The pressure to take one of the options presented by the Pentagon felt almost overwhelming. At one point an aide asked how I would be able to face my country if I failed to respond. The simulation raises the question of who chooses those options in the first place. In the 15 minutes available, it would be impossible to put all feasible alternatives in front of a president, so whoever whittles them down holds a huge amount of power. All we know is that it is someone from the US military. Diplomats, politicians or ethicists are not part of the process.

……………  Shockingly, the researchers found no evidence that any US president except Jimmy Carter, had taken part in realistic drills to practise potentially world-ending decisions. Other presidents occasionally participated in table-top exercises with aides to discuss options but more often sent surrogates in their place.

In January, the research team will take their experiment to Capitol Hill, with the aim of provoking some contemplation about the realities underlying US nuclear planning.

“Hopefully members of Congress will come to experience this and at least see the consequences of the choices they’ve made about nuclear weapons issues,” Weiner said. “They will see everybody in that virtual room is trying to do their job, but it’s an impossible job.”   https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/14/vr-game-simulating-nuclear-attack-tests-decision-making-skills

December 16, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australian taxpayers up for $170 Billion, for American nuclear submarines. No problem?

Australia’s Aukus nuclear submarines could cost as much as $171bn, report finds

Australian Strategic Policy Institute report calls project ‘most complex endeavour Australia has embarked upon’ Guardian, Tory Shepherd, Tue 14 Dec 2021 

Australia’s eight planned nuclear submarines will cost $70bn at an “absolute minimum” and it’s “highly likely” to be more than that, defence analysts say.

With inflation, the cost could be as high as $171bn, according to a new report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

The thinktank’s report contained a series of estimates ranging from low to high and conceded that estimating the final cost of the project is necessarily an “extremely assumption-rich activity”…………

The prime minister, Scott Morrison, has said the planned nuclear-powered submarines, part of the Aukus deal with the United States and the United Kingdom, would likely cost more than the scrapped plan for conventional submarines, which would have cost $90bn……..

Australia will partner with either the US or the UK to buy their boat designs, and a nuclear-powered submarine taskforce is working through the details

“We haven’t determined the specific vessel that we will be building, but that will be done through the rather significant and comprehensive program assessment that will be done with our partners over the next 12 to 18 months,” Morrison said in September.

“Now, that will also inform the costs that relate to this, and they are yet to be determined.”

The authors of the Aspi report, Implementing Australia’s Nuclear Submarine Program, wrote that while the Aukus deal has seemed to move fast, the enterprise would still be “a massive undertaking and probably the largest and most complex endeavour Australia has embarked upon”.

“The challenges, costs and risks will be enormous. It’s likely to be at least two decades and tens of billions of dollars in sunk costs before Australia has a useful nuclear-powered military capability…….

The Aspi report co-author Dr Marcus Hellyer told Guardian Australia the government needed to work out its priorities and would need to balance capability needs, scheduling and the Australian industry content. He emphasised that picking which submarine to build was “secondary” to picking a strategic partner.

The US is building submarines at a rate 10 times higher than the UK, he said……….

The report canvasses other issues that will need to be resolved.

There are likely to be legislative changes needed to allow nuclear reactors in Australia. The government should consider appointing an internal nuclear regulator, an inspector general of nuclear safety, and how it will responsibly dispose of radioactive waste once the reactors that power the submarines reach the end of their useful lives……..https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/14/australias-aukus-nuclear-submarines-estimated-to-cost-at-least-70bn

December 14, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Are We Forever Captives of America’s Forever Wars? This is what needs to be done to finally end our forever wars.

Are We Forever Captives of America’s Forever Wars? This is what needs to be done to finally end our forever wars.
 KAREN GREENBERG December 10, 2021 by TomDispatch   As August ended, American troops completed their withdrawal from Afghanistan almost 20 years after they first arrived. On the formal date of withdrawal, however, President Biden insisted that “over-the-horizon capabilities” (airpower and Special Operations forces, for example) would remain available for use anytime. “[W]e can strike terrorists and targets without American boots on the ground, very few if needed,” he explained, dispensing immediately with any notion of a true peace. But beyond expectations of continued violence in Afghanistan, there was an even greater obstacle to officially ending the war there: the fact that it was part of a never-ending, far larger conflict originally called the Global War on Terror (in caps), then the plain-old lower-cased war on terror, and finally—as public opinion here soured on it—America’s “forever wars.”

As we face the future, it’s time to finally focus on ending, formally and in every other way, that disastrous larger war. It’s time to acknowledge in the most concrete ways imaginable that the post-9/11 war on terror, of which the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan was the opening salvo, warrants a final sunset.

True, security experts like to point out that the threat of global Islamist terrorism is still of pressing—and in many areas, increasing—concern. ISIS and al-Qaeda are reportedly again on the rise in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

Nonetheless, the place where the war on terror truly needs to end is right here in this country. From the beginning, its scope, as defined in Washington, was arguably limitless and the extralegal institutions it helped create, as well as its numerous departures from the rule of law, would prove disastrous for this country. In other words, it’s time for America to withdraw not just from Afghanistan (or Iraq or Syria or Somalia) but, metaphorically speaking at least, from this country, too. It’s time for the war on terror to truly come to an end.

With that goal in mind, three developments could signal that its time has possibly come, even if no formal declaration of such an end is ever made. In all three areas, there have recently been signs of progress (though, sadly, regress as well).

Repeal of the 2001 AUMF

First and foremost, Congress needs to repeal its disastrous 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force (AUMF) passed—with Representative Barbara Lee’s single “no” vote—after the attacks of 9/11. Over the last 20 years, it would prove foundational in allowing the U.S. military to be used globally in essentially any way a president wanted.

That AUMF was written without mention of a specific enemy or geographical specificity of any kind when it came to possible theaters of operation and without the slightest reference to what the end of such hostilities might look like. As a result, it bestowed on the president the power to use force when, where, and however he wanted in fighting the war on terror without the need to further consult Congress. Employed initially to root out al-Qaeda and defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, it has been used over the last two decades to fight in at least 19 countries in the Greater Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Its repeal is almost unimaginably overdue…………….

At the moment, some efforts towards repeal again seem to be gaining momentum, with the focus now on the more modest goal of simply reducing the blanket authority the authorization still allows a president to make war as he pleases, while ensuring that Congress has a say in any future decisions on using force abroad……………..

Closing Gitmo

A second essential act to signal the end of the war on terror would, of course, be the closing of that offshore essence of injustice, the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (aka Gitmo) that the Bush administration set up so long ago. …………

some progress is being made, but as long as Gitmo remains open, our own homemade version of the war on terror will live on.

Redefining the Threat

Another admittedly grim sign that the post-9/11 war on terror could finally fade away is the pivot of attention in this country to other far more pressing threats on a planet in danger and in the midst of a desperate and devastating pandemic. Notably, on the 20th anniversary of those attacks, even former President George W. Bush, whose administration launched the war on terror and its ills, acknowledged a shift in the country’s threat matrix: “[W]e have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within.”

some progress is being made, but as long as Gitmo remains open, our own homemade version of the war on terror will live on.

Redefining the Threat

Another admittedly grim sign that the post-9/11 war on terror could finally fade away is the pivot of attention in this country to other far more pressing threats on a planet in danger and in the midst of a desperate and devastating pandemic. Notably, on the 20th anniversary of those attacks, even former President George W. Bush, whose administration launched the war on terror and its ills, acknowledged a shift in the country’s threat matrix: “[W]e have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within.”

Each of these potential pivots suggest the possible end of a war on terror whose casualties include essential aspects of democracy and on which this country squandered almost inconceivable sums of money while constantly widening the theater for the use of force. It’s time to withdraw the ever-expansive war powers Congress gave the president, end indefinite detention at Gitmo, and acknowledge that a shift in priorities is already occurring right under our noses on an ever more imperiled planet. Perhaps then Americans could turn to short-term and long-term priorities that might truly improve the health and sustainability of this nation. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/12/10/are-we-forever-captives-americas-forever-wars

December 13, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia Arms Sale Is One of Biden’s Many Militaristic Actions in First Year.

Saudi Arabia Arms Sale Is One of Biden’s Many Militaristic Actions in First Year, Khury Petersen-Smith, Truthout, 12 Dec 21,

Given the brutish approach of his predecessor, many expected President Joe Biden to shift away from the worst practices in U.S. foreign policy and at the border in the previous four years. Indeed, in the first weeks of his presidency, the Biden administration signaled changes. In Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s first press briefing, the State Department announced that it was reviewing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — which have led the catastrophic war on Yemen with essential U.S. partnership.

A week later, Biden declared in his first foreign policy address as president that “We are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.”

Regarding its practices at the border, Biden administration officials promised a shift away from Trump’s practices of separating families and caging children, calling them a “moral failing.” He said that the new White House would “deal with immigration comprehensively, fairly, and humanely.”

As 2021 comes to a close, however, we are seeing the latter part of a trajectory that settles into familiar, disastrous militarism.

The U.S. is selling Saudi Arabia $650 million worth of missiles and providing $500 million worth of maintenance for U.S.-made aircraft, training and other support for its military operations.

These arrangements come as Saudi Arabia is escalating its devastating bombing in Yemen. In November, Saudi forces carried out the largest number of air strikes since Trump’s last year in office.

These bookends — Biden’s early announcement of an end to U.S. support for the war in Yemen and his subsequent robust material support of that war — capture the set of practices that the Biden White House is settling into, not only in Yemen, but also in the realm of war and imperialism more broadly.

Consider the White House’s approval of a $23 billion weapons sale to the U.A.E., which provides the Emirates with attack drones and F-35 fighter jets. The arrangement was negotiated under the Trump administration as the prize for the U.A.E.’s role in leading the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and itself, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, despite Israel’s deepening violence against Palestinians.

The Biden administration embraced the normalization agreements, along with Trump’s other actions meant to consolidate U.S. support and extend legitimacy to Israel in a time when Palestinian protest presents a steady challenge to Israeli apartheid, and global Palestine solidarity campaigns have gained more traction than ever……………………. https://truthout.org/articles/saudi-arabia-arms-sale-is-one-of-bidens-many-militaristic-actions-in-first-year/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4190f671-99bd-42a7-a84d-db9a6d698398

December 13, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Push for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East, BUT Israel is the elephant in the room

A Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zone in the Middle East— & the Elephant in the Room  http://www.ipsnews.net/2021/12/nuclear-weapons-free-zone-middle-east-elephant-room/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nuclear-weapons-free-zone-middle-east-elephant-room By Thalif Deen UNITED NATIONS, Dec 8 2021 (IPS) – Israel’s nuclear presence in the Middle East is best characterized as “the elephant in the room” -– an obvious fact intentionally ignored with deafening silence.

A Wall Street Journal cartoon, amplified the idiom, when it depicted a group of animals huddled together in the jungle with the elephant complaining: “I don’t know why they keep ignoring me when I am in the room.”

Nobody wants to openly discuss Israel as a nuclear power because it is a politically-sensitive issue, particularly in the United States.

And Israel has remained tight-lipped in the company of the world’s eight other nuclear powers– US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea— and it has never formally declared itself a nuclear power.

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times last August, Peter Beinart, a Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York, wrote that US attempts at “feigning ignorance about Israeli nuclear weapons makes a mockery of America’s efforts at non-proliferation.”

Last December, President-elect Joe Biden warned that if Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt might go nuclear too — “and the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a build-up of nuclear capability.”

But like most US politicians and presidents, including Barack Obama, Biden too believes that Israel’s nuclear weapons are best ignored—and never challenged in public.

Back in 2009, says Professor Beinart, when Obama was asked by a reporter if he knew of any country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, he said: “I don’t want to speculate.”

It is time for the Biden administration to tell the truth, Beinart wrote.

The nuclear weapons gamesmanship in the militarily and politically volatile Middle East goes in circles and semi-circles reaching a point of no return.

If Israel gets away with its nukes, the Iranians argue, “why shouldn’t we go nuclear too”, while the Saudis, the Egyptians and Turks warn: “If Iran goes nuclear, we will follow too”.

Meanwhile, since 1967, five nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) have been established worldwide — in Latin America and the Caribbean, South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central Asia.

But such a weapons-free zone in the conflict-ridden Middle East continues to remain elusive.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres points out that the established five zones include 60 percent of the UN’s 193 Member States– and cover almost all of the Southern Hemisphere.

Guterres welcomed the successful conclusion of the Second Session of the “Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction,” which took place November 29 to December 3, and congratulated the participating States “on their constructive engagement and the decision to establish a working committee to continue deliberations during the intersessional period”.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs (SPPGA), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS establishing a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East is not only a major challenge but it is also important.

The challenge is primarily due to Israel’s refusal to not just discuss its decades-old nuclear weapons program but even acknowledge it, while at the same time attacking countries like Iran over even its nuclear energy-related programs, he argued.

Being backed by the United States, which adopts one rule for Israel and another rule for other countries, it is very difficult to involve Israel, said Dr Ramana, who is also Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues and the Acting Director of the Centre for India and South Asia Research (CISAR) in the Institute of Asian Research.

The only way to change this state of affairs is for efforts like this to be mounted. Even if they are not successful, they at least raise the issue publicly, Dr Ramana declared.

Hillel Schenker, Co-Editor, Palestine-Israel Journal, told IPS there is no question that a Nuclear and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Free Zone in the Middle East is in the interests of all the peoples of the region.

However, the issue of a WMD Free Zone is simply not on the political or public agenda in Israel, whose leaders and people find it very convenient to be the only presumed nuclear power in the region, he noted.

“And it also doesn’t appear to be on the agenda of the Egyptians who used to be the primary advocates for the Zone.”

Right now, he said, the main possible step to advancing towards this goal is a successful conclusion of the talks being held in Vienna for a revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement with Iran and the Western powers.

Although Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid have expressed opposition to a renewed deal, many senior figures in the Israeli security establishment support it, and believe it was a major mistake for former Prime Minister Netanyahu to have urged former US President Trump to withdraw from the JCPOA, he added.

If the talks are not successful, and Iran moves forward towards becoming a nuclear threshold state, it could produce a very dangerous chain reaction which might motivate Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others to also try to go nuclear, seriously destabilizing the entire region, said Schenker.

Abdulla Shahid of the Maldives, President of the UN General Assembly, said nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regimes remain pivotal in ensuring that such an intolerable reality never manifests. And Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones are crucial to the success of disarmament and non-proliferation regimes, he said.

Like other regions, he argued, the geopolitics of the Middle East are complex. Reaching just settlements that will satisfy all parties requires sound diplomacy and negotiations based on good faith.

The addition of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to the region’s politics will complicate an already challenging process, undermining trust and portending existential consequences.

It was in recognition of this that the General Assembly mandated a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East back in 1974, he said last week.

December 13, 2021 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »