America Almost Stockpiled Nuclear Weapons In Iceland
|
Secrets Revealed: America Almost Stockpiled Nuclear Weapons In Iceland
Why didn’t it happen? National Interest, by Michael Peck, 29 DEc 19, Key point: We still don’t officially know which nations had U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil.
If Miss Manners were a diplomat, she would tell us how rude it is to place nuclear bombs in the territory of our allies without being invited to.
But it turns out that in the 1950s, the United States considered deploying nuclear weapons in Iceland without telling the Icelanders, according to declassified documents published by the watchdog organization National Security Archive. “At the end of the 1950s the U.S. Navy ordered the construction of a facility for storing nuclear depth bombs, an Advanced Underseas Weapons (AUW) Shop at the outskirts of Keflavik airport,” the National Security Archive wrote. “The AUW facility was built by local Icelandic workers who thought its purpose was to store torpedoes.”…….. the problem is that Iceland didn’t want nukes on its soil, which would have made the little nation a big target in Soviet eyes. In fact, Iceland’s decision to join NATO in 1949 sparked riots in the normally placid country. In 1951 and in 1960, Icelandic officials asked whether the United States had deployed nuclear weapons at its bases in Iceland. The United States never did—or at least as has so far been revealed—store these weapons on Iceland, and told Icelandic officials so. However, National Security Archive researchers believe that in a still-classified letter, the State Department in 1960 told Tyler Thompson, U.S. ambassador to Iceland, that “the U.S. government was free to deploy nuclear weapons in Iceland without securing the agreement of Reykjavik.”
The evidence is in Thompson’s reply to the State Department, in which the name of the nation was redacted by the declassification censors, but whichalmost certainly refers to Iceland. If U.S. policy was never to store nuclear weapons on Canadian soil without Canadian permission, then why should Iceland be treated differently? Thompson asks. “The possibility of [Iceland’s] withdrawal from Nato in protest should not be overlooked,” he added……. we still don’t officially know which nations had U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil. “The U.S. government has not acknowledged the names of a number of other countries which directly participated in the NATO nuclear weapons stockpile program during the Cold War (and later): Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey (only West Germany and the United Kingdom have been officially disclosed),” according to the National Security Archive. Guaranteed that the Russians know, but we don’t. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/secrets-revealed-america-almost-stockpiled-nuclear-weapons-iceland-109321 |
|
Dangers of weapons race, terrorism, disaster, as United Arab Emirates proceeds with nuclear power plan
The UAE has been constructing four nuclear reactors at its upcoming Barakah power plant, the Arab World’s first nuclear power station. The plant is expected to go online in 2020.
Dr. Paul Dorfman of the Nuclear Consulting Group said the UAE may be hoping to use the program to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal. He also warned that Abu Dhabi’s nuclear plants could be a prime target for terrorists
“The motivation for building this may lie hidden in plain sight,” Dorfman said. “They are seriously considering nuclear proliferation.”
The scientist said one threat to safety was regional turmoil that could see enemies launch attacks against the plants, when it was unclear the UAE had sufficient defense capabilities to properly defense against them.
He also cited vulnerability to extreme temperatures and unforeseen effects of climate change.
The Barakah plant is located near the country’s coast, and rising sea levels and storms could potentially hit such locations and destabilize the facilities, he said. He also noted that water in the Persian Gulf is on average higher than elsewhere in the world, and could be less effective as reactor coolant.
Dorfman is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at University College London’s Energy Institute and has advised the British government.
The nuclear plant west of Abu Dhabi is being built by a consortium led by the Korea Electric Power Corporation…..
America’s choice – stop the nuclear weapons obsession, or take the road to extinction
extinction https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/helen-caldicott-our-nuclear-arms-obsession-is-a-countdown-to-extinction,13408, By Helen Caldicott | 14 December 2019 America could lead the way in reallocating its arms budget towards fixing the planet’s problems, writes Dr Helen Caldicott.I WRITE THIS PIECE as a physician expertly trained to make accurate diagnoses to either cure the patient or to alleviate their symptoms.
I, therefore, approach the viability of life on Earth from a similar and honest perspective. Hence, for some, this may be an extremely provocative article but as the planet is in the intensive care unit, we have no time to waste and the startling truth must be accepted.
As TS Elliott wrote so long ago, ‘This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper’.
Will we gradually burn and shrivel the wondrous creation of evolution by emitting the ancient carbon stored over billions of years to drive our cars and to power our industries, or will we end it suddenly with our monstrous weapons within which have captured the energy powering the sun?
Here’s the stark diagnosis from a U.S. perspective.
The Department of Defence has nothing to do with defence, because it is, in effect, the Department of War. Over one trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money is stolen annually to create and build the most hideous weapons of death and destruction, even to launch killing machines from space.
And since 9/11, six trillion dollars have been allotted to the slaughter of over half a million people, almost all of whom were civilians — men, women and children.
Brilliant people, mostly men, are employed by the massive military-industrial corporations – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE, United Technologies, to name a few – deploying their brainpower to devise better and more hideous ways of killing.
From an unbiased perspective, the only true terrorists today are Russia and the United States of America, both of which have several thousand hydrogen bombs larger by orders of magnitude than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched with a press of a button in the U.S. by the President.
This so-called nuclear “exchange” would take little over one hour to complete. As in Japan, people would be seared to bundles of smoking char as their internal organs boiled away and, over time, the global environment would be plunged into another ice age called “nuclear winter”, annihilating almost all living organisms over time, including ourselves.
But the stark truth is that the United States of America has no enemies. Russia, once a sworn communist power is now a major capitalist country and the so-called “war on terror” is just an excuse to keep this massive killing enterprise alive and well.
Donald Trump is right when he says we need to make friends with the Russians because it’s the Russian bombs that could and might annihilate America. Indeed, we need to foster friendship with all nations throughout the planet and reinvest the billions and trillions of dollars spent on war, killing and death to saving the ecosphere by powering the world with renewable energy including solar, wind and geothermal and planting trillions of trees.
Such a move would also free up billions of dollars to be reallocated to life such as free medical care for all U.S. citizens, free education for all, to house the homeless, to hospitalise the mentally sick, to register all citizens to vote and to invest in the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The United States of America urgently needs to rise to its full moral and spiritual height and lead the world to sanity and survival. I know this is possible because, in the 1980s, millions of wonderful people rose up nationally and internationally to end the nuclear arms race and to end the Cold War.
This, then, is the sound template upon which we must act. You can follow Dr Caldicott on Twitter @DrHCaldicott. Click here for Dr Caldicott’s complete curriculum vitae.
U.S. Congress Demands Investigation Into the U.S.’s Nuclear Coffin, The Runit Dome
|
Congress Demands Investigation Into the U.S.’s Nuclear Coffin, The Runit Dome is leaking radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30338371/congress-investigation-runit-dome-nuclear-waste/
Dec 27, 2019
|
|
Russia deploys first hypersonic missiles
Russia has deployed its first hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles, with Vladimir Putin boasting that it puts his country in a class of its own.
The president described the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which can fly at 27 times the speed of sound, as a technological breakthrough comparable to the 1957 Soviet launch of the first satellite.
Putin has said Russia’s new generation of nuclear weapons can hit almost any point in the world and evade a US-built missile shield, though some western experts have questioned how advanced some of the weapons programmes are.
The Avangard is launched on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile, but, unlike a regular missile warhead, which follows a predictable path after separation, it can make sharp manoeuvres en route to its target, making it harder to intercept……. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/27/russia-deploys-first-hypersonic-missiles-nuclear-capable
U.S. Congress votes $billions of tax-payers’ money for a new nuclear weapon for Trump
 Congress’s Christmas gift to Trump: A new nuclear weapon, The Hill
BY JOHN TIERNEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/24/19 In reaction to the Trump administration’s inept negotiating process on denuclearization, the North Koreans have threatened to send an ominous “Christmas gift.” Unfortunately, Americans are already certain to get a different nightmarish present, compliments of the U.S. Congress.
Absent convincing logic or reason, and against the House of Representative’s inclinations, legislators overwhelmingly decided to provide President Donald Trump with a new nuclear warhead — one that his administration thinks is “more usable.” Indeed, upon signing the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, this president — only the third in U.S. history to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors — will be in the position to gain control over the new nuclear weapon he first requested in 2018, a submarine-launched “low-yield” warhead. The United States has the most sophisticated conventional and nuclear arsenals in the world, with capabilities to respond to any limited use of nuclear weapons in multiple ways, including a thousand existing low-yield options that can be delivered by air. In fact, Congress and the last two administrations have already devoted billions of dollars to ensure these assets can effectively penetrate the most advanced air defenses. Based on existing bipartisan-supported plans, those investments are sure to continue. The Trump Administration has never given a convincing explanation why current bloated investments in upgrades to the U.S. nuclear deterrent are insufficient or why the deployment of the new warhead would make any real change in our current deterrent forces. Their half-hearted case for this new warhead is fragile, bordering on specious. It contends that Russia has a doctrine whereby it would employ nuclear weapons on a limited basis to end a conventional conflict with NATO. But there is scant evidence of this doctrine’s existence and the question remains: If the current and planned air-launched options cannot properly respond to any such Russian action, why are American taxpayers being asked to spend billions of dollars on those systems? Moreover, while the yield of this “low-yield” nuclear weapon is estimated to be roughly one-third to one-half of the yield of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima and killed approximately 80,000 people, this is still a weapon that could kill tens of thousands of people in seconds. Launching even a “low-yield” nuclear weapon off a submarine greatly increases the chances of nuclear miscalculation. How would an adversary know the size of the weapon being launched at them? They would not, and would likely respond as if the worst-case scenario was occurring, exponentially increasing the risk of nuclear escalation. …….. https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/475794-congresss-christmas-gift-to-trump-a-new-nuclear-weapon |
|
Kim Jong Un refers to North Korea being ‘prepared’ for war, hinting at nuclear capabilities
|
Kim Jong Un stresses nuclear capabilities during meeting https://www.dailynk.com/english/kim-jong-un-stresses-nuclear-capabilities-during-meeting/The Third Expanded Meeting of the Central Military Commission was held on Sunday, according to Rodong Shinmun, By Lee Sang Yong, 2019.12.27 North Korean leader Kim Jong Un recently presided over an expanded meeting of the Central Military Commission of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK). At the meeting, Kim made references to readying North Korea’s nuclear capabilities for war, Daily NK has learned.
Although Kim did not explicitly say so, his remarks on “launchers,” the reorganization of the military, as well as his emphasis on self-reliant defense capabilities, can all be seen as a roundabout reference to the country’s nuclear capabilities. NO EXPLICIT MENTION OF NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES AT MEETING At the meeting, Kim stressed that rockets (missiles) and artillery capabilities should be strengthened, according to a high-ranking North Korean source speaking to Daily NK on Monday. These are the “decisions on organizational matters” alluded to in the North Korean media, which were also presumably the main issues of the meeting. “They say that Kim Jong Un issued a direct order calling for the reinforcement of military divisions where relevant to rocket and artillery capabilities,” a source in North Korea told Daily NK. “This essentially translates to an order to improve every aspect related to the strengthening of rocket and artillery capabilities, and can be seen as very relevant to ensuring nuclear weapons are battle-ready.” ”There was no explicit mention of nuclear weapons, but those present understood the order to mean that Kim Jong Un should be able to launch whatever he makes up his mind to launch, should he decide to do so,” continued the source. “Thus, whether it’s rockets or weapons of mass destruction, we must be prepared for every possibility.” In this context, “rocket” is a catch-all term that refers to both short-range and long-range missiles. Since Kim Jong Un came into power, North Korea has invested in the operational capabilities of various missiles, such that a dedicated branch was formed, called the Strategic Rocket Forces (currently Strategic Forces Command). The Strategic Forces Command reportedly consists of three divisions: the Scud missile division, the Rodong missile division, and the Musudan missile division. The announcement that there is to be a new division in addition to these three can be read as a move to create a separate division for strategic weapons, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) like the Hwasong-15. A MOVE TOWARD MORE CONFRONTATION WITH SOUTH KOREA? North Korea also recently conducted a series of tests at the Sohae Satellite Launch Site in Dongchang-ri, Cholsan County in North Pyongan Province. The tests involved a new solid-fuel engine for its ICBMs as well as a stability test. This has led to speculation over whether this is an indicator of North Korea’s determination to construct a system with the ability to stealthily launch both short- and long-range missiles at any hour of the day. “It’s been made clear that North Korean rockets must be shown as a force to be contended with,” said a source. “Apparently there was considerable emphasis on the sanctions against North Korea, and the fact that the military must take the lead in developing a self-reliant defense system.” “The order to strengthen artillery capabilities seems to indicate that they’re more interested in a confrontation with South Korea, rather than dialogue,” continued the source. “Given the emphasis on being prepared for every possibility in a fight, it seems they will continue to conduct tests with the aim of improving the relevant technologies.” On Sunday, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had presided over the Third Expanded Meeting of the Seventh WPK Central Military Commission and discussed issues pertaining to the strengthening of “self-reliant defense capabilities.” This meeting is presumed to have taken place on Saturday, given that top military officials assembled in Pyongyang on Friday morning. *Translated by Violet Kim Please direct any comments or questions about this article to dailynkenglish@uni-media.net. |
|
Faith leaders, heed pope’s call on nuclear weapons
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/commentary-faith-leaders-heed-popes-call-on-nuclear-weapons/ Washington state’s legacy is tied to nuclear weapons; its religious leaders have a duty to oppose them. Sunday, December 22, 2019 By Carly Brook / For The Herald
Just a few weeks ago, Pope Francis called for the global abolition of nuclear weapons while paying homage to the victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan. Nagasaki was destroyed by atomic weapons with plutonium produced in Washington state’s Catholic Diocese.
The Holy Father declared: “With deep conviction I wish once more to declare that the use of atomic energy for purposes of war is today, more than ever, a crime not only against the dignity of human beings but against any possible future for our common home. The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possessing of nuclear weapons is immoral, as I already said two years ago. We will be judged on this. Future generations will rise to condemn our failure if we spoke of peace but did not act to bring it about among the peoples of the earth. How can we speak of peace even as we build terrifying new weapons of war?”
Washington state has the largest collection of deployed nuclear weapons in the Western Hemisphere at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor on Hood Canal, just 20 miles from Seattle. This nuclear weapons installation, added to Washington state’s large city centers and many other military installations, makes our state a primary target in the event of a nuclear exchange.
Washington state is also home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the most contaminated nuclear site in the Western Hemisphere, and the Midnite Mine, a former nuclear weapons uranium mine located on the Spokane Tribe of Indians Reservation, and it hosts one of the largest communities of Marshall Islanders in the United States, whose home was the site of67 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests during the Cold War.
The legacy of nuclear weapons and their production in Washington has — and continues to — disproportionately affect communities of color and indigenous people, none of whom has been adequately compensated for the environmental and health consequences of nuclear weapons activities pursued by the United States government during the 50 years of the Cold War.
Congress recently approved funding to deploy a new kind of nuclear weapon: the W76-2 warhead. This gateway nuke, which is being called “useable” will be deployed on Trident nuclear submarines just 20 miles from Seattle in the coming months.
As a person of faith, and coordinator of the Washington Against Nuclear Weapons Coalition, we call on religious leaders in Seattle, especially the Seattle Archbishop, to heed the words of Pope Francis in Nagasaki. We call on faith leaders to join other faith-based members of the Washington Against Nuclear Weapons Coalition and actively preach to your congregants that the continuing possession and so-called modernization of nuclear weapons is immoral.
As the pope said, “Future generations will rise to condemn our failure if we spoke of peace but did not act to bring it about among the peoples of the earth.” I respectfully suggest that Seattle Archbishop Paul Etinne and other faith leaders should act accordingly.
Carly Brook is a member of the Washington Against Nuclear Weapons Coalition
USA House Democrats let Jared Kushner suck them in to a very bad space weapons deal
|
The Very Bad Space Force Deal, https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/18/the-very-bad-space-force-deal/ by KARL GROSSMAN Unless grassroots action somehow stops it, it looks likely that the Trump scheme for a Space Force, a sixth branch of United States armed forces, will happen. The U.S. House of Representatives last week passed the $738 billion military policy bill that gives Trump his sought-for Space Force as he moves for what he terms “American dominance in space.”The vote for what is titled the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2020 was 377 to 48. Some 189 Republicans and 188 Democrats voted for it. Six Republican House members voted no, along with 41 Democrats and one independent. The large Democratic yes vote came as a result of a trade-off for 12 weeks of paid parental leave for civilian federal employees. The New York The U.S. Senate now will consider the measure and pass it considering the Trump-controlled majority in the Senate, and Trump will sign it. Indeed, last week Trump tweeted: “Wow! All our priorities have made it into the final NDAA: Pay Raises for our Troops, Rebuilding our Military, Paid Parental Leave, Border Security, and Space Force!” Establishment of a U.S. Space Force would come despite the landmark Outer Space Treaty of 1967, put together by the U.S., then Soviet Union and the U.K., designating space as a global commons to be used for peaceful purposes. The U.S. move to negate the intent of the Outer Space Treaty will cause Russia and China to respond in kind—especially considering Trump’s declaration that “it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space.” This will lead to an arms race in space. The Trump administration and the U.S. military have been claiming that a Space Force is necessary because of Russia and China moving into space militarily but, in fact, Russia and China and U.S. neighbor Canada have been leaders for decades in pushing for an expansion of the Outer Space Treaty. It bans weapons of mass destruction in space. The Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) treaty that the three nations have sought to expand would prohibit the placement of any weapons in space. The U.S.—under both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations—has opposed the PAROS treaty and effectively vetoed its enactment at the United Nations. The leading organization internationally in opposing the plan for a U.S. Space Force has been the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space (www.space4peace.org). Commenting on the House vote, Bruce Gagnon, the network’s coordinator, said: “It is not surprise, but still disheartening, to see that 188 Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the NDAA bill in the House.” He noted that “the Democrats were led by Rep. Adam Smith from the Seattle area which means that the aerospace giant Boeing Corp., which stands to make a gold mine off Space Force, clearly pulls Mr. Smith’s chain.” (Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the bill “the most progressive defense bill we have passed in decades.”) Gagnon continued: “Another Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper from Tennessee chimed in saying, ‘Trump’s belated support for a Space Force does not make this a Republican idea.’ Cooper chairs the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee and clearly is trying to stake out Democratic Party ‘bragging rights’ on passage of this proposal to move warfare into the heavens.” Gagnon said, “About three-dozen progressive and anti-war groups worked hard to stop this NDAA and called the Democrats support for it ‘near complete capitulation.’” “With this newly enshrined Space Force—the NDAA will easily pass in the Senate—Trump will now be poised to tweet that Washington will be able to ‘control and dominate’ space on behalf of corporate interests,” Gagnon stated. “With technology now nearly in place to allow ‘mining the sky’ for precious minerals on planetary bodies, the Space Force fits in nicely with the long-planned Pentagon ability to control which nations, corporations and wealthy individuals will be able to venture into space and which will not. The idea was spelled out in a 1989 Congressional study called ‘Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years.’” “Thus, Space Force would have two primary missions—give the Pentagon full control of the Earth and control the pathway on and off the Earth—both on behalf of corporate interests,” he said. “These provocative, expensive and destabilizing plans to control space will not be taken lightly by the rest of the world’s space faring nations. Even the Pentagon has lately been predicting the inevitability of war in the heavens.” Gagnon recounted: “In 1989 at a protest I organized at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the moon [who took part in the protest] told the assembled that any war in space would be the one and only. By destroying satellites in space massive amounts of space debris would be created that would cause a cascading effect and even the billion-dollar International Space Station would likely be broken into tiny bits. So much space junk would be created, Mitchell told us, that we’d never be able to get a rocket off the planet again because of the mine field of debris orbiting the Earth at 15,000 mph.” “That would mean,” said Gagnon, “activity on Earth below would immediately shut down—cell phones, ATM machines, cable TV, traffic lights, weather prediction and more—all hooked up to satellites, would be lost. Modern society would go dark.” “The aerospace industry has long claimed that Star Wars would be the largest industrial project in the history of our planet,” said Gagnon. “So much money would be needed that the industry has identified the ‘entitlement programs’ for defunding to pay for ‘everything space.’ That means Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the remaining tattered social safety net would be cut to pay for Space Force.” “Everything has an Achilles heel,” said Gagnon. He said that “if you want to help defeat plans for Space Force, fight for social and environmental progress. Demand that the compromised Congress not fund this disastrous plan to move the arms race into space. It is going to cost all of us dearly.” A return in many respects to President Reagan’s “Star Wars” scheme of the 1980s, the Space Force notion “started as a joke,” National Public radio reported in August in a report by correspondent Claudia Grisales titled, “With Congressional Blessing, Space Force Is Closer to Launch.” She related: “Early last year President Trump riffed on an idea he called ‘Space Force’ before a crowd of Marines in San Diego. It drew laughs, but the moment was a breakthrough for a plan that had languished for nearly 20 years.” She continued: “’I said maybe we need a new force, we’ll call it the Space Force,’ Trump said at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in March 2018. ‘And I was not really serious. Then I said, ‘What a great idea, maybe we’ll have to do that.’” The Outer Space Treaty was spurred, as Craig Eisendrath, involved as a U.S. State Department officer in its creation, by the Soviet Union launching the first space satellite, Sputnik, in 1957, as he noted in the 2001 TV documentary that I wrote and narrate, “Star Wars Returns.” Eisendrath said “we sought to de-weaponize space before it got weaponized…to keep war out of space.” The Reagan “Star Wars” program also used a defense rationale—it was formally called the Strategic Defense Initiative. It was based on orbiting battle platforms with nuclear reactors or “super” plutonium systems on board providing the power for hypervelocity guns, particle beams and laser weapons. Despite its claim of being defensive, it was criticized for being offensive and a major element in what the U.S. military documents then and since have described as “full spectrum dominance” over the Earth below which the U.S. has been seeking by taking the “ultimate high ground” of space. Among those voting against the NDAA bill last week were Representatives Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee which has just approved articles of impeachment against Trump; Alexander Ocasio-Cortez; Tulsi Gabbard; and Ro Khanna, who earlier, with Senator Bernard Sanders, issued a joint statement decrying it as a “bill of astonishing moral cowardice.” Meanwhile, the U.S. military is gearing up for a selling campaign for a Space Force. On a website called “Space War Your World At War” , Barbara Barrett, Air Force secretary, is quoted as saying that the Air Force has come up with a “strategy to find support among not just U.S. lawmakers, but also among the public for Trump’s new branch of the country’s armed forces, the Space Force. She opined that this could clarify to the broader public what the U.S. is doing in this domain and why exactly it needs a separate force for operations in space, as well as funding. More articles by:KARL GROSSMAN
Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion. |
|
Risks in incorporating artificial intelligence into nuclear weapons systems
|
As the US, China, and Russia build new nuclear weapons systems, how will AI be built in? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Matt Field, December 20, 2019 Researchers in the United States and elsewhere are paying a lot of attention to the prospect that in the coming years new nuclear weapons—and the infrastructure built to operate them—will include greater levels of artificial intelligence and automation. Earlier this month, three prominent US defense experts published a comprehensive analysis of how automation is already involved in nuclear command and control systems and of what could go wrong if countries implement even riskier forms of it.
The working paper “A Stable Nuclear Future? The Impact of Autonomous Systems and Artificial Intelligence” by the team of Michael Horowitz, Paul Scharre, and Alexander Velez-Green comes on the heels of other scholarly takes on the impact artificial intelligence (AI) will have on strategies around using nuclear weapons. All this research reflects the fact that militaries around the world are incorporating more artificial intelligence into non-nuclear weaponry—and that several countries are overhauling their nuclear weapons programs. “We wanted to better understand both the potentially stabilizing and destabilizing effects of automation on nuclear stability,” Scharre, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told the Bulletin. “In particular, as we see nations modernize their nuclear arsenals, there is both a risk and an opportunity in how they use automation in their nuclear operations.” The report notes that nuclear weapons systems already include some automated functionality: For example, warning systems automatically alert nuclear weapons operators of an attack. After the Cold War, Russian missiles were programmed to automatically retarget themselves to hit US targets if they were launched without a flight plan. For its part, the United States at one point designed its entire missile arsenal so that it could be retargeted in seconds from its peacetime default of flying into the ocean. Even these forms of automation are risky as an accidental launch could “spark a nuclear war,” the report says. But some countries, the report warns, might resort to riskier types of automation. Those risks could come from a variety of different sources. Countries could develop unmanned vehicles carrying nuclear weapons; with no one on board and responsible for deploying a nuclear weapon, the systems could be hacked or otherwise “slip out of control,” the authors say. In fact, the report notes, Russia is already reportedly developing an autonomous nuclear torpedo. Horowitz, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor, told the Bulletin that the weapon, called Poseidon or Status-6, could be the start of a trend, though it’s not yet clear how or if AI will be included. “While so much about it is uncertain, Russia’s willingness to explore the notion of a long-duration, underwater, uninhabited nuclear delivery vehicle in Status-6 shows that fear of conventional or nuclear inferiority could create some incentives to pursue greater autonomy,” Horowitz said. Countries might also build more artificial intelligence into the so-called early warning systems that indicate whether a nuclear attack is underway, or insert more powerful AI into the strategic decision support systems they use to keep tabs on other militaries and nuclear forces. Even simple forms of automation in such systems have, in the past, exacerbated nuclear tensions. The report cites a famous 1983 incident where a Soviet officer, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, had to disregard automated audible and visual warnings that US nuclear missiles were inbound. Fortunately, Petrov chose not to trust what his systems were telling him and defied the powerful cognitive phenomenon known as automation bias. Another problematic form of early automation was the Soviet strategic decision support system known as VYRAN. It was a computer program in place to warn Soviet leaders when the United States had achieved a level of military superiority that required Moscow to launch a nuclear attack. But Soviet intelligence agents were inputting information that often confirmed their pre-existing beliefs about US intentions. “This feedback loop amplified and intensified those perceived threats, rather than providing Soviet leaders with a clearer understanding of US intentions,” the report notes. There is evidence that countries including Russia and China are placing more emphasis on developing these sorts of so-called computational models for analyzing threats. Despite all these drawbacks, however, the report’s authors believe there could be reasons to implement more AI and automation into nuclear weapons systems. They note how artificial intelligence systems could process more data and allow officials in charge of nuclear weapons greater situational awareness. Automation could also be useful in communicating commands in “highly contested electromagnetic environments,” as the report dryly puts it—perhaps, say, during a war. But, the report says, “many of these ways that autonomous systems could increase the resiliency and accuracy of [nuclear command and control systems] are speculative.” ……… Horowitz believes that incorporating artificial intelligence in nuclear weapons systems themselves poses mostly low probability risks. In fact, what concerns him most is how AI in non-nuclear military systems could affect nuclear weapons’ policies. “The risk I worry most about is how conventional military applications of AI, by increasing the speed of war, could place pressure on the early warning and launch doctrines of nuclear weapons states that fear decapitation in conventional war,” Horowitz told the Bulletin. Or, as the report puts it, AI-induced time pressure could lead to a chain of decision-making that, in the worst cases, could result in a country launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack. “Fear of losing quickly could create incentives for more rapid escalation to the nuclear level.”……… https://thebulletin.org/2019/12/as-the-us-china-and-russia-build-new-nuclear-weapons-systems-how-will-ai-be-built-in/ |
|
The Human Side of Nuclear Weapons Issues in the FY20 Defense Bill
|
The Human Side of Nuclear Weapons Issues in the FY20 Defense Bill HTTPS://ALLTHINGSNUCLEAR.ORG/GUEST-COMMENTARY/THE-HUMAN-SIDE-OF-NUCLEAR-WEAPONS-ISSUES-IN-THE-FY20-DEFENSE-BILL LILLY ADAMS , UCS | DECEMBER 20, 2019, Tonight, President Trump is expected to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) at Joint Base Andrews, a defense budget bill totaling a stunning $738 billion. Much attention has been given to the many ways that Democrats lost out on progressive priorities in this bill. The nuclear arms control and disarmament community lost hard-fought battles over issues like the low-yield warhead, and overall spending levels on nuclear weapons systems.
UCS’s President Ken Kimmel put out an important statement on these issues, urging members of Congress to vote “no” on this dangerous bill. But many nuclear weapons-related issues have been flying under the radar, especially those relating to the communities directly impacted by nuclear weapons production and testing. Here’s a run-down of the issues nuclear policy wonks might have missed in their analysis of the NDAA.
Study on Runit Dome in the Marshall IslandsThe House version of the NDAA included a call for the Secretary of Energy to produce a comprehensive report on the health and environmental impacts of Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands: a massive unlined pit on Runit Island that holds waste and debris from 67 US nuclear tests on the islands, covered by a cracking, leaking concrete dome. The LA Times offers an excellent analysis of this issue. The required elements of the report largely made it through the conference process intact, but the Senate removed some of the more sweeping provisions. These include a study of the physical health impacts on Pacific Islanders resulting from US nuclear testing activities in the Marshall Islands, and a call for a plan to remove the radioactive contaminants from the dome and relocate them to a more stable location. For the Marshallese, who for decades have been fighting for proper recognition of the harms to their country and population, as well as adequate compensation, clean-up, and health care access, the call for a comprehensive study as outlined in the original House version would have been a step in the right direction. But the Republic of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission stated: “given the Senate-amended version of the bill, it’s difficult to see how the report would produce any new and useful information beyond what has already been done by the DOE, which has fallen short of satisfying Marshallese concerns.” In addition to working to prevent radiation leaks from the dome, the Marshallese are also fighting for, among other things, adequate studies and clean-up of other islands, proper compensation for health and environmental consequences and tests, and improved access to health care. So the dome itself is really just the tip of the radioactive iceberg. Much more work needs to be done by the US government to address their assault on the Marshallese people with these nuclear tests. Medal of Recognition to Atomic VeteransAtomic Veterans are the soldiers that were present at the US’s nearly 200 atmospheric tests in the Marshall Islands and Nevada, as well as those that had to clean up the waste left behind from tests. The House version of the NDAA included a provision to create a Medal of Recognition to Atomic Veterans. The provision was taken out in conference and did not make it through to the final bill. This is a terrible shame and, in my opinion, a great sign of disrespect to the thousands of surviving atomic veterans. In response to this decision, Keith Kiefer, National Commander of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, stated:
The most current Atomic Veteran count from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) sits at 550,000 individuals. Until 1996 these individuals were under an oath of secrecy, not being able to talk with their doctor or family members without risking imprisonment and/or civil fines. These individuals were left to suffer in silence. The Atomic Veteran was used in various roles of support, study of the physical, psychological and readiness effect(s) when using nuclear weapons. None of these men were given informed consent while participating in these activities. If nuclear weapons were like conventional weapons, many of these veterans would have had evidence of physical injury and be eligible for a purple heart medal. Moreover, were it not for the oath of secrecy these veterans would have received service medals while still in the service. Most of these veterans’ longevity and quality of life have been shortened. Creation of and issuing an Atomic Veteran Service Medal would correct the injustice of not recognizing the sacrifice and contributions these veterans have made on behalf of the country. Of equal importance to the families whose veteran is no longer with us, is the recognition that their loved one’s sacrifice and contributions were not in vain. Though Congress created a certificate of recognition for Atomic Veterans, many feel that this simply does not carry the same weight as a medal. In seeking a medal of recognition, Atomic Veterans are asking for parity with other veterans – that they may receive equal recognition for their sacrifices to their country. Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA)Congress established the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) in 1990 and expanded it in 2000 to provide compensation to people harmed by nuclear atmospheric testing (“Downwinders” and Atomic Veterans) and uranium workers (miners, millers, core drillers, ore transporters, and remediation workers). Though an important program overall, RECA is severely flawed, largely because many communities directly impacted by testing and uranium mining are left out of the program and therefore ineligible for compensation. These include many regions affected by testing, the veterans who cleaned up atomic waste after tests, and uranium industry employees who worked in facilities after 1971. Legislation has been introduced to address this (H.R. 3783 and S. 947), which many activists in these communities are working hard to support. The NDAA sought to begin addressing these concerns in two ways:
Currently RECA is set to expire in 2022. H.R. 3783 and S. 947 would extend RECA until 2045; that additional time is sorely needed. Tina Cordova shares: “Imagine – the Downwinders of New Mexico have been denied access to RECA and the much needed health care coverage for 29 years and now we are facing a sunset provision. Bills have been introduced for 9 years to amend RECA to include the New Mexico Downwinders and yet not a single hearing in the House.” Nuclear policy groups should pay attention to this upcoming deadline and support the communities advocating for these bills. Nuclear Waste Clean-Up BudgetThis NDAA authorized roughly $5.5 billion for “Defense Environmental Cleanup” of nuclear weapons waste sites like Hanford, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge Reservation. This is a roughly $100 million reduction from FY19 NDAA authorization levels. Clean-up budgets should be increasing, not decreasing, because the longer it takes to clean-up these sites, the longer workers and nearby residents are being exposed to dangerous nuclear and hazardous material. The good news is that the Energy + Water Appropriations bills allocate $6.255 billion for Defense Environmental cleanup, well above FY2019 levels. What’s also notable here is that the $5.5 billion for clean-up represents nearly a quarter of the NDAA’s whole discretionary budget for “Atomic Energy Defense Activities,” including all of weapons activities and non-proliferation. As the United States continues to increase spending on nuclear weapons, it should not forget that cleaning up the waste from the long history of producing weapons remains an extremely costly problem with no reasonable solution in sight, while communities and the environment continue to be poisoned by radioactive, toxic and hazardous pollutants. Don Hancock notes that “the NDAA does include new Senate language to require submission to Congress with the annual Budget Request a report on the costs of meeting legal agreement milestones at sites. The Request never includes sufficient funding, but activists have long advocated for DOE to have to admit to the significant shortfalls in the request.” Oversight of Nuclear FacilitiesCongress established the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) in 1988 to provide independent oversight for Department of Energy nuclear facilities to ensure their safety, as well as the safety of the public and workers. Watchdog and grassroots activist groups near nuclear sites have been fighting for over a year to ensure that the DNFSB retains its oversight capabilities. In 2018, the Department of Energy issued Order 140.1, which has the potential to “severely constrain the Safety Board’s access to information, facilities, documents and personnel.” Activists were glad to see a House provision largely remain in the final bill, which ensures the DNFSB has the full access they need. This is an important win for workers and nearby residents, allowing the Board to carry out its responsibilities to monitor nuclear sites and ensure public safety. Plutonium Pit ProductionThe nuclear policy community is also concerned about the requirement for the NNSA to produce 80 new plutonium pits per year starting in 2030, a significant increase over the current production capacity at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. The new production would take place at expanded LANL facilities and at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. In addition to posing an arms control problem by supporting the production of new warheads in addition to refurbishing existing ones, these programs pose potential risks to the workers and nearby communities. LANL’s pit production program has been shut down many times, most recently from 2013 to 2016, over chronic safety concerns. Even after re-opening, an April 2019 report from the DOE and a November 2019 letter from the DNFSB highlight continuing major safety concerns. Savannah River Site poses novel risks, as the site has never before produced pits, and is now being required to do so on a very expedited schedule, requiring the repurposing of the partially constructed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, at which there were many construction problems. The combination of these issues (not even taking into account clean-up currently taking place at SRS) is a recipe for mistakes and accidents that could put people in harm’s way. A recent Institute for Defense Analyses report states that the current plan to produce 80 pits per year in the given timeline is extremely challenging, if not impossible, and poses many risks. In fact, they state “No available option can be expected to provide 80 ppy [pits per year] by 2030.” The DOE has not indicated how it will address this. This piece was reviewed and in some cases contributed to by the advocates and experts listed under each section. My sincere thanks to each of them for their help with this piece.For more information on Runit Dome, please contact Rhea Moss-Christian, Chair of the Republic of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission (NNC). |
|
Pentagon goes ahead with ballistic missile test, bringing on deadly arms race
US shuns treaty, sends chilling nuclear message In the second test since the US pulled out of the INF treaty, the prototype ballistic missile flew more than 500km before crashing into the ocean, Asia Times, By DAVE MAKICHUK 16 Dec 19, In a sobering doomsday signal to Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang, the Pentagon again showed it plans to leave the INF treaty behind and boldly risk sparking a new arms race by launching a prototype ballistic missile that blew past the old pact’s range limits, Breaking Defense reported.In the second test of its kind since the US pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty in August, the prototype ballistic missile flew more than 500 km before crashing into the ocean, as planned, while “data collected and lessons learned from this test will inform the Department of Defense’s development of future intermediate-range capabilities,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Robert Carver said in a statement.
In a previous test conducted just two weeks after withdrawing from the treaty, the Navy launched a Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile from an island off the California coast, marking the first time a missile breached the 500-5,000km range barred by the treaty, putting competitors on notice that the US was ready to push ahead quickly, the report said.
That does not bar prototypes or other research and development work. The Pentagon can keep working on them for the next year, but must submit a report to Congress with an Analysis of Alternatives for a future INF-busting missile.
Lawmakers also want more information on potential basing options in Europe and a rundown of what conversations the Pentagon has had with allies about plans for basing and deployment locations in the future…… https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/12/article/us-shuns-treaty-sends-deadly-nuclear-message/
Maryland’s Back From the Brink” resolution to support the U.N. Nuclear Ban Treaty
The Montgomery County Council has joined Baltimore and Washington, D.C. with its own “Back From the Brink” resolution to support the U.N. Nuclear Ban Treaty, alongside the U.S. Conference of Mayors and 40 municipalities and state legislatures from California to Maine calling on the Trump Administration and Congress to exercise global leadership in preventing nuclear war by:
- Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first;
- Ending the President’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack;
- Taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert;
- Canceling the the $1.7 trillion dollar plan to replace the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons;
- Supporting the U.S. entry into the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; and
- Requiring the U.S. to pursue a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
The U.N. treaty is two-thirds of the way toward the 50 ratifying nations needed to make it operational, whereupon nuclear weapons will be prohibited, stigmatized and eventually eliminated.
Maryland jurisidictions join “back from the brink” nuclear war movement Baltimore Sun, By DAVID GROSSO, BILL HENRY and TOM HUCKER, BALTIMORE SUN |, DEC 16, 2019 “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
— President Ronald Reagan in his 1984 State of the Union address
U.S. presidents have always understood the calamitous power of nuclear weapons. They held the fate of our planet and human civilization in their hands with sole authority to launch a nuclear warhead that could not be recalled.
Under President Donald Trump, the danger of putting planetary fate of the world in the hands of one person has never been clearer. He refuses to listen to, or abide by, the advice of our career military and diplomatic experts. His ill-advised and impetuous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria is only the most recent example. Since taking office, President Trump has abandoned the multilateral agreement that constrained Iran’s nuclear program. He also announced plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which for more than 30 years banned intermediate range missiles and has contributed to stability in Europe.
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: “The INF treaty’s potential death foreshadows a new competition to deploy weapons long banned. Continue reading
USA rejects North Korea’s ‘hostile’ deadline over nuclear talks
|
Top US diplomat rejects North Korea’s ‘hostile’ deadline over nuclear talks and says Washington will not bow to Pyongyang’s ominous threat of a ‘Christmas Gift’ provocation,
By ROSS IBBETSON FOR MAILONLINE and AFP 17 Dec 19, A senior US diplomat has today slammed North Korea for making ‘hostile demands’ over nuclear talks and warned Kim Jong-un against his planned ‘Christmas Gift’ provocation. US special representative Stephen Biegun told reporters in Seoul that Washington would not bow to Pyongyang’s increasingly strident demands for concessions by 2020. ‘Let me be absolutely clear: The United States does not have a deadline. We are fully aware of the strong potential for North Korea to conduct a major provocation in the days ahead,’ Biegun said. ‘To say the least, such an action will be most unhelpful in achieving lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.’….. Pyongyang has said that if Washington fails to make it an acceptable offer, it will adopt a so far unspecified ‘new way’. It has carried out a series of static tests at its Sohae rocket facility this month, after a number of weapons launches in recent weeks, some of them described as ballistic missiles by Japan and others – which Pyongyang is banned from testing under UN sanctions……Pyongyang has said that if Washington fails to make it an acceptable offer, it will adopt a so far unspecified ‘new way’. It has carried out a series of static tests at its Sohae rocket facility this month, after a number of weapons launches in recent weeks, some of them described as ballistic missiles by Japan and others – which Pyongyang is banned from testing under UN sanctions…https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7797205/Top-diplomat-rejects-North-Koreas-deadline-says-Washington-not-bow-threats.html |
|
|
Turkey may shut US nuclear weapons base over sanctions threat
|
Turkey may shut US nuclear weapons base over sanctions threat
The Turkey-US row is partly over Ankara’s military offensive in Syria targeting American-backed Kurdish forces. Sky News Sunday 15 December 2019 Turkey’s leader says his country could close two military installations where American troops are stationed “if necessary”. One of the sites, called the Incirlik air base, is where some US nuclear warheads are kept. The other is the Kurecik radar station.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke in response to a threat of American sanctions over Ankara’s military offensive in Syria targeting US-backed Kurdish forces. His comments also followed a US senate resolution over Armenian claims about mass killings a century ago – a move which has further increased tensions between Ankara and Washington……. The Incirlik air base, located about 100 miles from Turkey’s border with Syria, is often referred to as one of the major strategically located US military bases. The Kurecik radar station hosts NATO’s early-warning radar systems against ballistic missile attacks. https://news.sky.com/story/turkey-may-shut-us-nuclear-weapons-base-over-sanctions-threat-11887811 |
|
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (81)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 