nuclear-news

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

Trump says US will ‘take out’ Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain nuclear facility

:by Ellen Mitchell – 07/13/26, https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5966603-trump-threatens-pickaxe-mountain-iran/

President Trump on Monday said the U.S. could soon attack Pickaxe Mountain in Iran as American forces launched a new round of strikes against the country.

“Pickaxe is a possible target for a nice big fat shot right near the front door,” Trump said in an interview on “The Hugh ​Hewitt Show” Monday afternoon. “We’re going to take out Pickaxe Mountain. Tell the Iranians to be ​ready.”

Trump added that while the U.S. sees “no activity” at the heavily fortified site that hosts two deeply buried tunnel complexes, Washington will “probably give Pickaxe a shot relatively soon.”

Located near Iran’s damaged Natanz uranium enrichment facility in the Zagros Mountains, Pickaxe was not among the three nuclear sites targeted by the U.S. military in June 2025. But Trump told show host Hugh Hewitt that the U.S. has “a lot of eyes” on it.

Experts ⁠have assessed, however, that the depth of the facility means America’s most powerful bunker buster bombs are unlikely to penetrate it. The site is buried up to 2,000 feet below granite and is suspected to be housing uranium enrichment capabilities and stockpiles. 

Trump’s threat comes as American forces launched a new round of strikes against Iran at 4:45 p.m. EDT on Monday and hours after the president declared the U.S. Navy would reinstate the naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

“These strikes will continue imposing a heavy cost on Iranian forces and degrade their ability to attack innocent civilians and commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

The strikes mark the third consecutive day of U.S. attacks against Iran, with forces last week conducting four separate rounds of strikes against Tehran in what U.S. officials characterized as retaliation for Iran’s targeting of commercial vessels attempting to transit the vital shipping lane.

“We’re ​going to ⁠hit them very hard tonight, and we’re going to hit them hard tomorrow. And there’s not a damn thing ⁠they ​can do about it,” Trump told Hewitt.

July 16, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is London shifting from nuclear deterrence to war-fighting?

The deployment of high-precision, variable-yield counter-force weapons signals a willingness to carry out retaliatory or pre-emptive nuclear strikes on an adversary.

Bulletin, By S.M. Amadae, Tom Stevenson | Analysis | July 10, 2026

For most of the past three decades, one might almost have said the United Kingdom had a glowing record on nuclear non-proliferation: Britain was the only major nuclear power to operate a minimum deterrent based on a single delivery system; it supported international non-proliferation initiatives; and the UK government had spent 30 years reducing its nuclear stockpile. No more. Instead, London now builds momentum supporting a new wave of nuclear proliferation under the auspices of NATO’s nuclear sharing.

In the last five years, Britain has quietly moved to increase the maximum size of its nuclear stockpile and revise its nuclear doctrine, and it is now acquiring an additional nuclear capability. In concert with the United States, the UK government is expanding the deployment of non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons in a way that could destabilize the strategic balance in Europe.

In doing so, London is reversing decades of gradual progress on disarmament without serious analysis of the strategic implications or public consultation, and at a time when there is less support for nuclear diplomacy than at any point in recent history.

New systems and more weapons. In June 2025, the United Kingdom announced plans to acquire Lockheed Martin F-35As that are the first stealth fighter jets certified to carry variable-yield thermonuclear B61-12 gravity bombs. The 12 F-35As would be ordered in place of F-35B fighter jets, which are designed for use on aircraft carriers but are not nuclear-capable. At the Hague summit last year, the United Kingdom then announced it would be joining NATO’s air-launched nuclear mission and putting those planes to work carrying US nuclear bombs. Though it has still not been officially confirmed, US B61-12s were almost certainly moved to RAF Lakenheath in July 2025.[1] Media briefings at the time suggested the UK government was also in talks with Washington on acquiring non-strategic B61-12 bombs of its own, but no such agreement has publicly emerged yet.

On the surface, the United Kingdom’s decision to acquire tactical nuclear capability appeared to be part of a natural evolution in European strategic planning prompted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But London’s acquisition of F-35As and the deployment of US B61-12s are just the latest examples of a longer trend in the United Kingdom’s nuclear posture. In 2022, RAF Lakenheath had already undergone infrastructure modernization necessary for the return of US nuclear weapons.

Before that, in 2021, the UK government decided to raise the maximum cap on the number of warheads in its arsenal by more than 40 percent. In 2010, the UK government stated that it would continue to reduce its warhead stockpile—at the time numbering 225 warheads—and cap its future arsenal at a maximum of 180 warheads. But in 2021, it suddenly raised the cap to 260 warheads. Despite being a reversal of decades of gradual reductions in the United Kingdom’s projected nuclear stockpile, that decision was slipped onto page 76 of the government’s Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development, and Foreign Policy.

Policy implications. The United Kingdom has also made a quiet change to its nuclear doctrine, introducing a “right to review” the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states under certain circumstances. Together with the decision to raise the warhead cap, this constituted a dramatic strategic change for which there was no discernible democratic mandate and no public discussion.

At the time, even the best-informed commentators on UK nuclear affairs were unaware of the motivation. One argument, put forward by nuclear historian Lawrence Freedman, was that a larger stockpile of 260 warheads might allow the United Kingdom to have two fully armed nuclear submarines (each potentially carrying a maximum of 128 warheads on 16 missiles) on patrol at once. That the increase in stockpile size was motivated by plans for the United Kingdom to have the option of acquiring a non-strategic nuclear capability only emerged later.

The decision to station B61-12s on UK soil amounts to a de facto settlement of the long‑running debate over adopting a doctrine of no‑first‑use or sole‑purpose, and over the future of tactical nuclear weapons in NATO. The deployment of high-precision, variable-yield counter-force weapons signals a willingness to carry out retaliatory or pre-emptive nuclear strikes on an adversary.

Due to their enhanced guidance systems, B61-12 bombs, coupled with the dual-capable stealth F-35A, also have the potential to alter the geopolitical balance in Europe. The UK B61-12 adoption paves the way for further proliferation of these weapons throughout Europe, cements the normalization of nuclear weapons, and challenges the guaranteed second-strike survivability of adversaries’ nuclear command and control and strategic weapons systems.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and, by extension, NATO have become, in the words of the now Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, “accustomed to escalation dominance,” the strategic objective of achieving battlefield superiority on all rungs of escalation. This aim relies on maintaining asymmetrical advantage, which is not a sound doctrine against a nuclear peer competitor: It is destabilizing and stokes further arms races.

The combination of F-35A fighter jets and B61-12 bombs gives NATO a stealth-enabled, precision counterforce tool designed to deter by denial by holding Russian nuclear and nuclear command and control assets at credible risk. In theory, they provide limited escalation-control options, such as pre-emptive or tit-for-tat strikes at tailored yield. These technological developments make Russian nuclear forces and command systems both more vulnerable in crisis and less certain for guaranteeing second-strike capability.

From arms control hero to nuclear war fighter. Until recently, UK efforts on exemplary disarmament were comparatively good. The United Kingdom was the only major nuclear state that had limited itself to a single deterrence system (the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile). The UK government had made incremental reductions in its nuclear stockpile since 1980. With US B61s having returned to the United Kingdom, that record has now been overturned…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

No rationale, real danger. The strategic need for the United Kingdom to operate air-launched tactical nuclear weapons has not been clearly presented either by US officials or the UK government. In addition, these weapons arguably increase the United Kingdom’s reliance on US weapons platforms at a time of transatlantic political divergence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The UK government and the United States should carefully revisit the assumptions that led to this point. There is no justifiable reason for the United Kingdom and NATO to expand non-strategic capabilities while also maintaining a no-first-use doctrine unless they are planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike deep into Russian territory, or the territory of another nuclear weapons state, or against a non-nuclear weapons state. NATO member states, like Finland and Poland, are promoting their participation in nuclear sharing and planning. Both understandably perceive an existential threat from Russia, and they are now also considering hosting US nuclear weapons and joining France’s forward deterrence initiative. But with the United Kingdom having already made that choice, it has the dubious distinction of leading the way in normalizing more first-use tactical nuclear capabilities in Europe without comprehensive analysis of the strategic implications. This nuclear brinkmanship, directly pertinent to the Ukraine war, offers the false promise of security for some at the cost of dooming security for all. https://thebulletin.org/2026/07/is-london-shifting-from-nuclear-deterrence-to-war-fighting/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Is%20London%20shifting%20from%20nuclear%20deterrence%20to%20war-fighting%3F&utm_campaign=20260709%20Thursday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29

July 15, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors

The neglected factor is the military dependence on civil nuclear industries.

By funding civil nuclear projects, taxpayers and consumers cover military uses of nuclear power in subsidies and higher bills – without the added spending appearing in defence budgets

October 28, 2025, Phil Johnstone, Visiting Fellow, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex; University of Tartu; Utrecht University, Andy Stirling, Professor of Science & Technology Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex, https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-military-pressures-behind-the-new-push-for-small-nuclear-reactors-266301

Donald Trump’s recent visit to the UK saw a so-called “landmark partnership” on nuclear energy. London and Washington announced plans to build 20 small modular reactors and also develop microreactor technology – despite the fact no such plants have yet been built commercially anywhere in the world.

The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, promised these plans will deliver a “golden age” of nuclear energy that will also “drive down bills”. Yet the history of nuclear power has been decades of overhype, soaring costs and constant delays. Around the world, the trends point the wrong way.

So why the renewed excitement about going nuclear? The real reasons have less to do with energy security, or climate change – and far more to do with military power.

At first sight, the case may seem obvious. Nuclear supporters frame small modular reactors, or SMRs, as vital for cutting emissions, meeting rising demand for electricity from cars and data centres. With large nuclear plants now prohibitively expensive, smaller reactors are billed as an exciting new alternative.

But these days even the most optimistic industry analyses concede that nuclear – even SMRs – is unlikely to compete with renewables. One analysis in New Civil Engineer published earlier this year concluded that SMRs are “the most expensive source per kilowatt of electricity generated when compared with natural gas, traditional nuclear and renewables”.

Independent assessments – for instance by the formerly pro-nuclear Royal Society – find that 100% renewable systems outperform any energy system including nuclear on cost, flexibility and security. This helps explain why worldwide statistical analysis shows nuclear power is not generally linked to carbon emissions reductions, while renewables are.

Partly, the enthusiasm for SMRs can be explained by the loudest institutional voices tending to have formal pro-nuclear remits or interests: they include the industry itself and its suppliers, nuclear agencies, and governments with entrenched military nuclear programmes. For these interests, the only question is which kinds of nuclear reactors to develop, and how fast. They don’t wonder if we should build reactors in the first place: the need is seen as self-evident.

At least big nuclear reactors have benefited from economies of scale and decades of technological optimisation. Many SMR designs are just “powerpoint reactors”, existing only in slides and feasibility studies. Claims these unbuilt designs “will cost less” are speculative at best.

Investment markets know this. While financiers see SMR hype as a way to profit from billions in government subsidies, their own analyses are less enthusiastic about the technology itself.

So why then, all this attention to nuclear in general and smaller reactors in particular? There is clearly more to this than meets the eye.

The hidden link

The neglected factor is the military dependence on civil nuclear industries. Maintaining a nuclear armed navy or weapons programme requires constant access to generic reactor technologies, skilled workers and special materials. Without a civilian nuclear industry, military nuclear capabilities are significantly more challenging and costly to sustain.

Nuclear submarines are especially important here as they would very likely require national reactor industries and their supply chains even if there was no civil nuclear power. Barely affordable even vessel by vessel, nuclear submarines become even more expensive when the costs of this “submarine industrial base” is factored in.

Rolls-Royce is an important link here, as it already builds the UK’s submarine reactors and is set to build the newly announced civil SMRs. The company said openly in 2017 that a civil SMR programme would “relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability”.

Here, as emphasised by Nuclear Intelligence Weekly in 2020, the Rolls-Royce SMR programme has an important “symbiosis with UK military needs”. It is this dependency that allows military costs (in the words of a former executive with submarine builders BAE Systems), to be “masked” behind civilian programmes.

By funding civil nuclear projects, taxpayers and consumers cover military uses of nuclear power in subsidies and higher bills – without the added spending appearing in defence budgets.

When the UK government funded us to investigate the value of this transfer, we put it at around £5 billion per year in the UK alone. These costs are masked from public view, covered by revenues from higher electricity prices and the budgets of supposedly civilian government agencies.

This is not a conspiracy but a kind of political gravitational field. Once governments see nuclear weapons as a marker of global status, the funding and political support becomes self-perpetuating.

The result is a strange sort of circularity: nuclear power is justified by energy security and cost arguments that don’t stand up, but is in reality sustained for strategic reasons that remain unacknowledged.

A global pattern

The UK is not unique, though other nuclear powers are much more candid. US energy secretary Chris Wright described the US-UK nuclear deal as important for “securing nuclear supply chains across the Atlantic”. Around US$25 billion a year (£18.7 billion) flows from civil to military nuclear activity in the US.

Russia and China are both quite open about their own inseparable civil-military links. French president Emmanuel Macron put it clearly: “Without civilian nuclear, no military nuclear, without military nuclear, no civilian nuclear.”

Across these states, military nuclear capabilities are seen as a way to stay at the world’s “top table”. An end to their civilian programme would threaten not just jobs and energy, but their great power status.

The next frontier

Beyond submarines, the development of “microreactors” is opening up new military uses for nuclear power. Microreactors are even smaller and more experimental than SMRs. Though they can make profits by milking military procurement budgets, they make no sense from a commercial energy standpoint.

However, microreactors are seen as essential in US plans for battlefield power, space infrastructure and new “high energy” anti-drone and missile weaponry. Prepare to see them become ever more prominent in “civil” debates – precisely because they serve military goals.

Whatever view is taken of these military developments, it makes no sense to pretend they are unrelated to the civil nuclear sector. The real drivers of the recent US-UK nuclear agreement lie in military projection of force, not civilian power production. Yet this remains absent from most discussions of energy policy.

It is a crucial matter of democracy that there be honesty about what is really going on.

July 15, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Eight NATO allies to create new satellite mega-constellation

The network will involve Denmark, Canada, Finland, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey.

Breakig Defense, By Theresa Hitchens on July 08,

WASHINGTON ― Eight NATO countries plan to link their military satellites into a “mega-constellation” to enable “high-speed communications, intelligence and missile tracking,” the alliance announced on Tuesday at its Summit Defence Industry Forum in Ankara, in a move that joins a number of other a new initiatives aimed at improving NATO space capabilities.

Connecting multiple national satellites will “overcome the cost, time and coverage limitations of single-nation satellite fleets,” a NATO press release said.

The new network, called the Hybrid Alliance Layered Operations in Space (HALO), initially will involve Denmark, Canada, Finland, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey, a NATO official told Breaking Defense today.

“But we expect more to come,” the official added, explaining that NATO is “in the early stages of the initiative.”………………………………………………………………….

APSS, created in 2023 and formally integrated into NATO in 2024, includes a”virtual” intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) constellation, called Aquila that initially involved 17 allies. Member nations also have pledged to jointly fund commercial imagery and ISR products such as 3D maps.

APSS is supported by the NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCIA), which provides program management, digital infrastructure, data integration and a user interface for allies. Data collected from the network further is funneled into NATO Headquarters via the NATO Intelligence Enterprise. APSS achieved initial operational capability last December…………………………………

Finally, the NATO press release stated that Canada became the 15th member of NATO’s Starlift multinational initiative, “which explores ways to develop a network of launch capabilities that will help Allies launch assets at short notice from spaceports across the Alliance. This will boost NATO’s ability to react more quickly to threats from space.”

Starlift was launched in October 2024 by 14 allies: Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/07/eight-nato-allies-to-create-new-satellite-mega-constellation/

July 15, 2026 Posted by | space travel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Patriot Trap

The goal of the West has always been to trap Russia in an endless conflict that saps the economic, military, and moral strength of the nation and its people.

the economic, military and moral collapse it anticipated isn’t transpiring inside Russia, but rather in Ukraine and its European partners.

Donald Trump has given the thumbs up for the licensed production of Patriot missiles by Ukraine. This is a trap that will not end well for those looking to the Patriot missile for salvation.

Scott Ritter, Jul 10, 2026, https://scottritter.substack.com/p/the-patriot-trap

Persistence pays off, or so it would seem. Less than a week before NATO convened its annual summit in Ankara, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky renewed his call for the establishment of a domestic production facility for Patriot air-defense missiles. Zelensky’s plea came in the aftermath of one of Russia’s largest missile attacks on Kiev. Unlike previous Russian attacks, where the Ukrainian side claimed the vast majority of the Russian missiles had been intercepted by Ukraine’s western-supplied air defenses, this attack exposed the harsh reality that Ukraine had no defensive response to the Russian attacks.

Ukraine was out of missiles.

“To reliably protect lives, we need our own production,” Zelensky said.

The Ukrainian President was echoing a call he had been making for months. In May, Zelensky observed “I asked the previous administration, I am asking todays administration, give Ukraine licenses. We will increase the production of Patriot missiles. It will be very helpful for us, it will be very helpful for the Middle East, for everybody whom the United States will decide to help.”

On July 8, during a meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the Ankara Summit, Zelensky got his wish.

“We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriots,” Trump told a beaming Zelensky. “That’s pretty cool, right? This way you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough.”

Trump noted that he still needed to inform the “company” before adding “but that’ll work out all right.”

Problem solved?

Not even close.

Trump and Zelensky had fallen into what can only be called “The Patriot Trap”—the notion that a singular technology can somehow transform the fate of a nation.

The problem faced by Ukraine and their western sponsors—to include an apparently reinvigorated Trump-led United States—isn’t solved by pouring more resources into a war of attrition that favors Russia. This would imply that Ukraine has the potential of prevailing in the ongoing proxy war being waged between the collective West and Russia.

It doesn’t.

The goal of the West has always been to trap Russia in an endless conflict that saps the economic, military, and moral strength of the nation and its people.

The problem faced by the collective West is that the economic, military and moral collapse it anticipated isn’t transpiring inside Russia, but rather in Ukraine and its European partners.

And the other problem is that the United States is more than willing to allow both Ukraine and Europe to further deplete what remains of their respective strength on a gamble that Russia is somehow even more depleted.

A massive information warfare campaign has been underway concurrent with the Zelensky plea for the right to produce Patriot missiles. Centered on a drone-based offensive which has targeted critical Russian infrastructure, this campaign has been paired with a propaganda effort without precedent, designed to transform pleasing visuals of burning Russian oil infrastructure, destroyed trucks, and long-lines at gas stations into an endless thematic declaring Russia unable to defend itself and, as such, the Russian leadership weakened and desperate for an off-ramp to a war which cannot be won.

The purpose of this campaign is straightforward—arm Ukraine.

Give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself.

Ignore the costs accrued by Ukraine to date in terms of lost lives and squandered resources.

Ignore the fact that Russia maintains the strategic advantage across the broad spectrum of issues that define this conflict—on the battlefield, in the defense factories, in the boardroom of companies, and in the hallways of global decision making—Russia is dominating across the board.

Ignore the reality that neither Ukraine nor its western sponsors can win this war.

Just create the perception that they can.

Because perception creates its own reality.

Especially if Russia falls victim to this information warfare campaign, and starts doubting itself.

The problem is that, at least when it comes to the issue of Ukrainian production of the Patriot missile, the perception the perpetrators of this scheme are seeking to manufacture has zero chance of manifesting itself.

It is doomed by the very ineptitude of those who have hatched this scheme to begin with.

Given the realities associated with Patriot production today, the most likely candidate for Ukrainian licensed production is the MIM-104F Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T) interceptors. Under normal conditions, a GEM-T interceptor costs $3-4 million each to manufacture. Accelerated production costs could raise the per-unit cost to between $6–7 million. Licensed production, requiring new facilities, could raise the costs to over $10 million per missile.

A missile which is not designed to shoot down the modern threats posed by Russia, such as the Iskander-M, the Kinzhal, the Zircon, or the Oreshnik.

Which means from the start, the US-Ukrainian license deal is designed not to actually improve the ability of Ukraine to defend itself, but create the impression among those susceptible to such flights of fantasy that Ukraine could actually accomplish this.

If only they were given the resources to to so.

The Ukrainian license will likely closely track with existing licensed production of the GGEM-T by Germany, where a new GEM-T production facility was built in the city of Schrobenhausen. The facility is operated by COMLOG, a joint venture between Raytheon and MBDA Deutschland. COMLOG is designed to handle the production and modernization of Patriot PAC-2 GEM-T missiles for European users, including Ukraine.

It is highly likely that the Ukrainian license will be an extension of the existing German license Such an arrangement would streamline many export control issues.

GEM-T interceptors contain guidance electronics, propulsion components, warhead assemblies, and launcher interface equipment that are sourced from a network of suppliers that already exist when it comes to the German license. Lead times on some of these components exceed six months.

The Schrobenhausen facility broke ground in 2022. The plan was to build six new buildings at the site by 2026: an assembly building, warehouse, combustion chamber preparation, technical center, extension of the existing technical service building and a new office wing. According to MBDA, a usable area of ​​6500 square meters will have been created. The Schrobenhausen facility is strictly an assembly facility; over 50 Bavarian and German suppliers are involved in the qualification and series production phase of all of the components used to produce the final product. Among the subcontractors is Bayern-Chemie, whose Aschau, Germany facility has been tasked to produce solid motors for the GEM-T interceptors. Bayern-Chemie produced Patriot motors between 1987 and 1996, and has the infrastructure conducive to resumption of its past work.

The rudder control system of the GEM-T missiles manufactured in Germany will no longer be hydraulic, but electro-mechanical. Modifications a for the upper part of the rocket, the so-called forebody, as well as the installation of a new computer, which will come from Europe, underscore the reality that the German GEM-T is a standalone product, not influenced by the availability of US components—another reason why a modification of the COMLOG license is the most likely path the US will take regarding Ukraine.

But all of this is part of the hype that such a deal is feasible, that there is hope for Ukraine once these Ukrainian-produced missiles start rolling off the production line.

Under ideal conditions, a Ukrainian assembled GEM-T could not manifest itself in reality until 2028 at the earliest.

This is assuming Congress permits this transfer to take place.

But this would require one to believe that Russia would stand by idly while Ukraine builds from scratch a new 6500 square meter facility, or modifies existing facilities to take on the task of assembling GEM-T Patriots.

That Russia would neither identify or seek to violently interdict this assembly facility, or the numerous supporting facilities involved in supporting the importation and/or manufacture of subcomponents.

Russia, simply put, will not be idle.

And any GEM-T production facility built on Ukrainian soil would have a lifetime measured in days—weeks at best.

The Ukrainian GEM-T Patriot will never see the light of day.

And anyone selling this fantasy—including Zelensky and Trump—know this to be true.

The Ukrainian GEM-T is a myth—a chimera—designed to break the spirit of the Russian nation by propagating the myth of a never-ending conflict.

But this is a trap neither the Russian people or their leadership will fall into.

Sadly, the same cannot be said about either Zelensky or Trump.

And the price for their error will be measured in the blood of both Russian and Ukrainian victims.

July 14, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump Says He Supports Ukraine’s Long-Range Attacks Inside Russia, Will Allow Ukraine To Produce Patriot Missiles

by Dave DeCamp | July 8, 2026 , https://news.antiwar.com/2026/07/08/trump-says-he-supports-ukraines-long-range-attacks-inside-russia-will-allow-ukraine-to-produce-patriot-missiles/

President Trump heaped praise on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the NATO summit in Ankara on Wednesday, expressed support for Ukraine’s long-range attacks inside Russia, and said he would allow Ukraine to produce Patriot missile interceptors.

When asked about Ukraine’s strikes on Russian oil refineries, the president said, “It’s an escalation, but it’s also an escalation that could help lead to an end.”

Ukraine’s long-range drone attacks rely on intelligence provided by the US, and Ukrainian officials told The Financial Times this week that the Ukrainian military was able to strike multiple Russian oil refineries recently because US intelligence has allowed it to find the optimal flight path for its drones to get through Russia’s air defenses.

On top of Ukraine’s success in striking Russian oil refineries, there has also been a significant spike in Russian civilian casualties in Ukraine’s drone attacks. Russian officials have cited the civilian deaths when justifying Russia’s ramped-up bombardments of Ukrainian cities, which have led to an increase in Ukrainian civilian casualties.

Discussing the Patriot missiles, Trump told Zelensky, “We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriot missiles. That’s pretty cool. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough. I said, ‘Make them yourself.’ We haven’t informed the company of that yet, but that’ll work out all right.”

Trump’s approval of Ukraine manufacturing Patriots marks another escalation of US support for Ukraine, and Russia will almost certainly attempt to target any Patriot factories that are established on Ukrainian territory.

Overall, Trump spoke very highly of Zelensky, a reversal from the start of his administration when the two clashed during a contentious Oval Office meeting. “We’ve actually developed a good relationship. It’s hard to believe,” Trump said, adding that Zelensky has “done an amazing job” and “been very effective” in the war.

July 14, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

America’s AI War Has No Civilian Stop Rule

 July 10, 2026, Brian Hudson Foreign Policy in Focus, https://www.juancole.com/2026/07/americas-civilian-stop.html

When the Pentagon made Palantir’s Maven Smart System a formal “program of record” in March, it did more than approve software. It gave long-term status to a platform that analyzes data from satellites, drones, radars, sensors, and intelligence reports to identify potential targets. Maven supported almost all of the 13,500 U.S. strikes in Iran. The designation is meant to secure funding and extend its use across the military.

That decision came while the United States was still investigating the February 28 strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school in Minab, Iran. An initial U.S. military inquiry found that U.S. forces were likely responsible, but the Pentagon has not released a final public conclusion. Iranian authorities have reported between 155 and more than 175 deaths, most of them students and teachers. The question is why a military system designed to move faster from information to action has no equally clear public requirement to slow down after grave civilian harm.

In software engineering, an “error budget” is meant to protect users. When a service exceeds an agreed level of failure, new releases stop until the problem is understood and fixed. War is obviously not software. But in Washington’s AI-assisted operations, civilian deaths do not automatically trigger a temporary suspension of the relevant tools, an independent review of the data, or a public account of the decisions that led to the strike.

Advocates of military AI argue that better data and faster analysis can make attacks more precise. That is possible in principle. But precision is not something software simply possesses. It depends on the quality and age of the data, what a system treats as suspicious, and whether people have enough time to challenge its output.

AI does not turn stale or biased information into truth. It can make bad information travel faster. Human Rights Watch has warned that Israeli digital tools used in Gaza relied on incomplete data and inexact estimates that could raise the risk of civilian harm. The lesson is not that every use of AI is unlawful. It is that speed can magnify the consequences of a bad premise before anyone can catch it.

The familiar assurance that a “human remains in the loop” does not solve this problem. A person who sees only a final recommendation, cannot inspect the data trail, and has seconds rather than hours to decide is not exercising meaningful independent judgment. AI can shape lethal force without pulling a trigger. It can determine what appears urgent, which people or places rise to the top of a list, and which facts never appear at all.

The Iran campaign makes this concern immediate. Maven and Anthropic’s Claude were used to process classified intelligence, suggest coordinates, rank targets, and turn planning that once took weeks into real-time operations. That does not establish that AI independently chose every target or that every AI-supported strike was unlawful. Reuters later reported that Palantir faced the task of removing Anthropic technology from Maven. But the larger point remains: the Pentagon is institutionalizing systems built to compress the time for human deliberation before force is used.

The Minab tragedy represents the human cost of treating speed as a virtue in itself. The school had a public website, posted student photographs, and was visible in satellite imagery. It also reported that targeting officials appeared to have used outdated intelligence. The exact role of AI in the strike has not been disclosed. But information apparently did not distinguish the school clearly enough from the adjacent military compound, and the Pentagon has not publicly explained how that failure traveled through the targeting process. That is an accountability problem, not just a technical one.

Congress should establish a civilian stop rule for AI-assisted targeting. Credible evidence of grave civilian harm should trigger a temporary suspension of the relevant system in comparable missions, an independent review of the data and approval process, and a public explanation of the system’s role. This would not treat every civilian casualty as proof of a crime or ban every military use of AI. It would mean families do not have to wait through months of secrecy to learn whether a database, a contractor, or a command decision helped turn a civilian site into a target.

Congress has begun to consider broader guardrails. The House Armed Services Committee’s FY2027 defense bill would direct the Pentagon to extend its AI policy to systems that support or materially influence operational planning, target development, weaponeering, and engagement recommendations. That is a start. But it is not a civilian stop rule. It does not automatically pause a system after a devastating incident or guarantee a public answer.

Such a rule would reinforce the law of war. Customary international humanitarian law requires militaries to take all feasible precautions to verify targets and reduce foreseeable civilian harm. It also requires them to cancel or suspend attacks when it becomes clear that a target is not military or an attack would be unlawful. The Red Cross has recommended after-action reviews and re-testing or suspending AI systems when reliability, safety, or legal compliance concerns emerge. Recent scholarship points in the same direction. Renato Wolf emphasizes precaution throughout AI-assisted target verification, while Jessica Dorsey warns that over-reliance on computational systems can weaken the human judgment needed to protect civilians. If an AI-enabled process makes verification harder because it rewards speed, the problem is a failure to meet an existing legal duty.

Palantir can say it supplies the platform. The Pentagon can say software only supports decisions. An operator can say the data arrived already ranked.

But people grieving outside a destroyed school are left with no clear answer about who is accountable. Until Washington creates a publicly disclosed civilian stop rule, “precision warfare” will remain a technical phrase that conceals a political choice: to accelerate force without a meaningful way to stop, inspect, and answer for its failures.

July 14, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

North Korea vows boost to nuclear buildup, military intelligence

 North Korea will strengthen its nuclear force “both in quality and
quantity” and expand the role of its military intelligence agency focused
on South Korea, state media said Friday.

Pyongyang is under widespread
sanctions over its nuclear programme, and the two Koreas remain technically
at war as their 1950-53 conflict ended without a peace treaty.

The announcement comes after North Korea has repeatedly spurned South Korean
President Lee Jae Myung’s dovish overtures, labelling Seoul its “most
hostile” enemy and declaring itself an “irreversible” nuclear state.

 Daily Mail 10th July 2026,
https://www.dailymail.com/wires/afp/article-15967405/North-Korea-vows-boost-nuclear-buildup-military-intelligence.html

July 14, 2026 Posted by | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran war takes terrifying turn, missiles bombard NUCLEAR plant

Daily Mail, By PHILLIP NIETO, US POLITICAL REPORTER, , 10 July 2026

Donald Trump‘s war has escalated after Tehran retaliated by firing missiles and drones at war-weary US allies in the Middle East, while American strikes bombarded an Iranian nuclear plant.

A day after the President declared the ceasefire ‘over’ and struck more than 170 regime targets, Kuwait and Bahrain faced fresh Iranian attacks on Thursday morning.

Jordan, a US ally, said five Iranian ballistic missiles were fired from northwestern Iran toward an air base in the country, delaying flights across the region. 

Sirens could be heard blasting for civilians to take cover as all Iranian missiles were intercepted, the government says.

Iranian officials claimed that US military strikes sent shrapnel and projectiles slamming into the perimeter of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran.

US strikes on Iran over the last 48 hours have targeted Iran’s military assets near the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway responsible for one-fifth of the world’s oil supply. 

Various Iranian air defense systems, drones, regime speed boats, and missile storage sites have been destroyed, according to US Central Command. US officials claim that the strikes are designed to stop Iran from attacking commercial shipping vessels crossing the strait.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard claims it has successfully struck US military bases near the Persian Gulf. The Daily Mail has contacted the Pentagon for comment. ………………………………………………………………

Explosions were also reported in several Gulf nations on Wednesday night, as Iran claimed it attacked US bases in neighboring countries in retaliation.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15965221/Iran-war-takes-terrifying-turn-missiles-bombard-NUCLEAR-plant-flights-thrown-chaos.html

July 14, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. launches ‘powerful strikes’ on Iran after tanker attacks in Strait of Hormuz

[your]NEWS, Tue, 07 Jul 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/507318-US-launches-powerful-strikes-on-Iran-after-tanker-attacks-in-Strait-of-Hormuz

U.S. Central Command said American forces began “powerful strikes” against Iran after three commercial vessels were attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. forces began launching strikes against Iran on Tuesday after Tehran attacked commercial ships moving through the Strait of Hormuz, according to U.S. Central Command.

CENTCOM announced the military action in a post on X, saying the strikes were aimed at imposing costs on Iran for targeting civilian-crewed commercial vessels in an international waterway.

“U.S. Central Command forces have begun launching a series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway,” the command wrote. “The U.S. strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz.”

CENTCOM said Iran’s actions violated the ceasefire and created a dangerous escalation in one of the world’s most important shipping corridors.

“Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire.”

Reuters reported that the strikes came after the vessel attacks, citing Central Command’s statement that the U.S. response was tied to Iranian targeting of commercial shipping in the strategic waterway.

Iran responded by saying it would take all necessary measures to protect its security and interests. The Iranian Foreign Ministry blamed the United States for any violations of the truce agreement and pointed to Washington’s revival of oil sanctions Tuesday as a breach of the agreement.

The confrontation came after maritime security warnings intensified around the Strait of Hormuz. CNBC reported Tuesday that the threat level near the waterway had been raised to “severe” after Iran attacked tankers traveling on a route protected by the U.S. Navy.

The Strait of Hormuz sits between Iran and Oman and serves as a critical passage for global energy shipments. A significant share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas moves through the narrow waterway, making disruptions there a major concern for energy markets and international shipping.

The military strikes also came as the Trump administration continued its broader pressure campaign against Tehran. That effort includes restrictions on Iran’s ability to generate revenue from oil exports.

The administration recently moved to end a waiver that had allowed certain countries to continue purchasing Iranian oil despite U.S. sanctions. The waiver had permitted limited transactions involving Iranian crude exports, and ending those exemptions was intended to further restrict Tehran’s access to oil income.

The Trump administration has argued that cutting off Iranian oil revenue is a key part of pressuring Tehran over its nuclear program and regional activities.

Iran has repeatedly warned that efforts to limit its energy exports could lead to retaliation, including actions affecting commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

The latest tanker attacks and U.S. strikes have increased concerns that shipping through Hormuz could face further disruption. Any prolonged threat to traffic through the waterway could affect oil prices and raise costs for consumers.

Tuesday’s strikes mark another escalation between Washington and Tehran as tensions continue over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, regional conduct and oil revenue.

July 13, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hawaii Bearing Huge Brunt of U.S. Military Buildup Directed Against China

Hawai’i functions as head of a vast Pacific network of bases and surveillance systems

Jeremy Kuzmarov, CovertAction Magazine Jul 08, 2026 -[ RICHLY ILLUSTRATED]

Hawai’i functions as head of a vast Pacific network of bases and surveillance systems, though expiration of military base leases in 2029 offers an opportunity to convert its land to more sustainable uses

n December 2025, Hawaiian Congressman Ed Case (D) issued a press release announcing his support for the $900 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which included $1 billion for military construction projects in Hawai’i.

The projects included a new drydock for the Pearl Harbor naval shipyard, ship support upgrades at the Pearl Harbor-Hickham Base, replacement of the main gate at Marine Corps Base Hawai’i and airfield improvement at the Pacific Missile Range facility.

Case gave a speech before Congress last year asserting that Chinese Premier Xi Jinping was cheering on Republicans who voted against funding the Ukraine War because they were supposedly playing into Xi’s ambitions to establish Chinese global domination—enabled by an isolationist U.S.

Case’s use of Sinophobic rhetoric to justify an expansion of the U.S. military presence in Hawai’i is matched by Hawai’i’s other Democratic Party congresswoman, Jill Tokuda, who sits on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a fear-mongering body that has spread alarmist rhetoric and false accusations directed against China reminiscent of the McCarthy era.[1]

In late May, the Institute for Policy Studies issued a report—co-sponsored by two human rights NGOs (Āina Aloha Economic Futures and Īlioʻulaokalani Coalition), the Hawai’i Sierra Club and Cost of War Project at Brown University—showing the harrowing cost of the U.S. military presence in Hawai’i that is being accelerated because of the New Cold War.

Entitled The True Cost of the U.S. Military in Hawai’i, the report makes clear Hawai’i’s function as a “central node” in U.S. Indo-Pacific war planning dating back to the U.S. government’s illegal overthrow of Queen Lili’uokalani and the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893.

President Grover Cleveland described the 1893 U.S. Hawaiian coup as “an act of war…committed…without authority of Congress.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The U.S. military currently has more than 107,000 soldiers stationed in Hawai’i and controls an estimated 133 sites, totaling 254,225 acres, plus another 1,017 acres operated by the Hawai’i National Guard……………

The U.S. Pacific Fleet (PACFLT), headquartered at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH), is the largest naval command in the world, responsible for miles of ocean, nearly 200 ships, 1,700 aircraft and more than 225,000 sailors and Marines.

Additional key military/intelligence facilities include:

  1. the Air Force Maui Optical and Supercomputing Site on Haleakalā;
  2. the Ka’ena Point Space Force Station on O’ahu;
  3. Navy tracking facilities associated with the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on Kaua’I;
  4. a Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station (NCTAMS); and
  5. a National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) regional signals intelligence center where Edward Snowden worked.[4]

Kyle Kajihiro[5] and Neta Crawford[6] reported in January that the U.S. Navy proposed an increase in bombing of Ka’ula (an island and seabird sanctuary off Ni’ihau), an increase in training at sea around Hawai’i and California, an increase in the use of underwater explosives, and a higher authorized “take” of marine species.

The U.S. Army has further expanded its training with other countries in Hawai’i through the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center.

These initiatives will only compound the already devastating consequences of the U.S. military presence in Hawai’i chronicled in The True Cost of the U.S. Military in Hawai’i, which estimates that the Pentagon owes Hawai’i between $32.8 billion and $133.7 billion in unpaid rent.

Since 1964, the U.S. military has leased tens of thousands of acres of public trust land in Hawai’i for the token fee of $1 per year.

The above estimate does not include billions in additional costs to clean up environmental damage caused by the U.S. military and destruction of cultural and archeological sites……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2026/07/07/hawaii-bearing-huge-brunt-of-u-s-military-buildup-directed-against-china/

July 13, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Cut the Pentagon, Save the Planet: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Solution We Can’t Ignore

Without more money to new bases increasingly encircling China, we could collaborate on green technology instead of starting a new ecocidal cold war, and we could stop trampling on the sovereignty of countries throughout the Asia-Pacific like the Northern Mariana Islands.

July 10, 2026, Aaron Kirshenbaum, https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/10/cut-the-pentagon-save-the-planet-the-1-5-trillion-climate-solution-we-cant-ignore/

Last week, millions of people around the world were subjected to record-breaking heatwaves. At least 25 deaths in the U.S. from this heat dome were reported. The French government also counted over 2,000 excess deaths during the June heatwaves. At the same time, this past weekend, a devastating super typhoon hit the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam, leaving islands like Rota, where 2,000 people live, without running water and most buildings impacted. 

In both cases, the people least responsible for the climate crisis are the most vulnerable to its effects. And in both cases, people’s ability to withstand crises has been made dramatically worse by militarization. Those most threatened by heatwaves are too often in neighborhoods subjected to militarized policing, economic abandonment, and the exploitation of their communities. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are occupied by the U.S. military and subjected to environmentally destructive bases and training exercises. 

These climate disasters are not new, but they are coming at a moment when we have an opportunity to do something about them. Congress will soon vote on the Pentagon budget. This year’s proposed budget is an obscene $1.5 trillion, and the cumulative amount of military spending would be even higher. For the first time in years, there will likely be a notable number of Democratic Party votes against it. Senator Ed Markey has also introduced a bill to cut it in half. Cutting this budget could be one of the only pieces of climate policy that can meet the speed and scale of the climate crisis. Fighting it could open up new organizing terrains and break down movement silos that have prevented traction for so long. 

Even without redistributing that $1.5 trillion, cutting the Pentagon’s budget could do wonders for the planet. The Pentagon is the world’s largest institutional polluter. It has over 800 bases worldwide. Each base acts as part of the permanent enforcement mechanism for the fossil fuel industry, driving ecocidal resource wars and entrenching U.S. corporate dominance in oil- and mineral-rich regions. This budget also opens a direct line of funding for more data centers that poison communities and drive further resource wars to power them  At least $30 billion is requested for direct Department of War-owned data centers, over $58 billion is requested for AI capabilities more broadly, and over half of the proposed budget is going to private weapons contractors whose AI programs are directly supported by the data centers being developed around the country. Companies building these centers, like OpenAI, Meta, and Amazon Web Services, have all passed their own multi-billion-dollar deals with the Pentagon.

What could we do with that money instead? The scale of the Pentagon’s environmental destruction and its financial power is unfathomable; each of those 800 bases has generations of stories of destruction, displacement, and long-term illness. Each transaction covers multiple continents. And so the scale of possibility — what we could do alternatively with these resources — is equally immense. 

According to the National Priorities Project, the current $1 trillion Pentagon budget could fund a year’s solar electricity for 1.92 billion homes, for instance. And according to the Climate and Community Institute (CCI), the proposed $500 billion increase alone could cover 60% of U.S. homes. $500 billion could also end the wildfire crisis in California and restore 100 million acres of forest. Of course, the current oil-motivated wars, like the U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran, are quite costly. The CCI report estimates that as of early April 2026, the $37 billion that the U.S. had spent on the assault on Iran could have paid for pre-k for every four-year-old in the country, green retrofits for 2,000 public schools, and over double the cost of restoring Trump’s cuts to SNAP benefits. 

We can also point to other pathways for addressing the climate crisis: Instead of funding missile development, we could fund clean technology development. The land taken up by massive, sprawling, and toxic bases could be cleaned up and devoted to cultural sites, schools, agro-ecological farms, regenerative production, and the return of land to indigenous sovereignty and stewardship. New jobs and training programs could be created in all of these areas while, of course, avoiding false solutions such as carbon credits, carbon capture technology, and nuclear energy.

Without more money to new bases increasingly encircling China, we could collaborate on green technology instead of starting a new ecocidal cold war, and we could stop trampling on the sovereignty of countries throughout the Asia-Pacific like the Northern Mariana Islands. We could move toward a fossil fuel treaty and work with extremely vulnerable countries being occupied and sanctioned, like Cuba, to move their own holistic climate adaptation plans forward. 

Fossil fuel supply chains are global, as is the impact of the U.S. military. Many states in the Global South continue to be dominant producers of fossil fuels due to debt traps and sanctions. Global climate finance could help alleviate that debt and fund a transition to truly renewable energy, free from the reproduction of violent extraction often enacted through the mining of so-called “critical” minerals (often deemed “critical” for the sake of military usage), also carried out in states like New Mexico and on indigenous territory. 

This is, of course, just a sliver of what is possible, based on projects, blueprints, and visions already developed by those on the front lines of the climate crisis for decades. In recent years, these visions have been defined and revised in the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba, The Red Deal, and A People’s Green New Deal. This year’s People’s Declaration for a Rapid, Just, and Equitable Transition was developed from a global summit made up of 900 civil society organizations in Santa Marta, Colombia. Notably, its 12th principle emphasizes the irreplaceable and central role of dismantling U.S. imperialism and militarism globally within the much larger framework for confronting the climate crisis — we can and should be just as clear-eyed in our organizing. 

When we cut the Pentagon budget, we can be imaginative. We can see a world where the iron claw of extraction is weakened, and we can begin building something new in its place. The Pentagon budget is a clear target, with the potential to address rising environmental, economic, and public health crises globally. At a time when most environmental policy is almost impossible to pass at the federal level, we can fight against this Pentagon budget and choose to breathe new life into our movements and our world.

July 13, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Gaza’s 1000-Day Siege: A Catastrophic Humanitarian Collapse Across Health, Food, and Human Life

Lee Siu Hin – Palestine Watch, Global South News, July 6, 2026

As the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip marks its 1000th day on July 2, 2026, the enclave of over 2.1 million Palestinians stands on the brink of total humanitarian collapse. 70 % The Gaza Strip is under occupation control following the expansion of the “Yellow Line,” amid ongoing displacement of border communities The Israeli Occupied Forces (IOF) siege has systematically dismantled every foundational pillar of human survival: healthcare infrastructure, food security, clean water access, educational systems, and psychological well-being.

Data compiled from the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the World Health Organization (WHO), UN humanitarian bodies, and Medics Worldwide’s periodic reports, compiled by Doban AI analysis, paints a harrowing portrait of sustained destruction, mass mortality, and intergenerational trauma. This article analyzes the multifaceted humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza after 1000 days of siege, integrating empirical statistical data, healthcare operational maps, and crisis trend charts to document the scale of human suffering and structural collapse.

Overall Demographic and Casualty Catastrophe After 1000 Days

The 1000-day IOF genocide and siege has inflicted unprecedented human loss, turning Gaza into a graveyard for ordinary civilians, with women and children bearing the brunt of the violence. According to the 2026 genocide repercussion report, the cumulative death toll since October 2023 has reached 73,066 fatalities, with total injuries soaring to 173,514. Among the victims, civilian children account for the most devastating proportion of casualties, highlighting the targeted destruction of Gaza’s future generations.

Child-specific mortality and injury data reveal a relentless humanitarian tragedy: 21,730 children have been killed, 45,113 children injured, and 59,054 children orphaned over the 1000-day period. On average, one child dies every 52 minutes in Gaza’s ongoing conflict. The crisis has also left permanent physical disabilities on thousands of young lives, with 1,134 children suffering amputations. Alarmingly, 565 infants have been born and killed amid the war, while 1,078 infants under one year old have lost their lives, reflecting the total breakdown of maternal and infant care systems across the strip.

Beyond direct violence, the siege has triggered a public health disaster for women and their reproductive health. Official statistics show the genocide had created 28,224 widows, 57% of pregnant women in Gaza suffer from severe anemia, while over 900 spontaneous abortions are recorded monthly, driven by environmental pollution, rodent infestations, and rampant epidemic outbreaks. The maternal mortality rate has surged dramatically in recent years, rising from 13.5 per 100,000 live births in 2022 to 33.4 per 100,000 live births in 2025, a more than twofold increase that underscores the collapse of reproductive healthcare services.

Systematic Collapse of Gaza’s Healthcare System

After 1000 days of targeted destruction and resource blockade, Gaza’s healthcare system is inches away from total standstill, with systematic attacks on medical infrastructure, severe drug shortages, and massive attrition of medical personnel. IOF have targeted every formal medical facility in the strip, with 40 out of 40 hospitals and 158 out of 158 primary healthcare centers (PHCs) subject to deliberate attacks. Of Gaza’s core medical facilities, only 29 Ministry of Health hospitals remain partially operational, while 11 are completely out of service; 94 PHCs function at reduced capacity, and 64 have been fully disabled.

The scale of medical infrastructure destruction extends far beyond building damage. Official records document 216 targeted attacks on ambulances, 825 overall violations of healthcare facility; 1,723 heath personal were killed, 362 were detained by Israel; and the destruction of critical medical equipment essential for life-saving care. Key destroyed assets include 25 of 35 oxygen stations, 61 of 110 power generators, all 7 MRI machines, and 13 of 17 CT scanners. Compounding equipment losses, the sector faces catastrophic supply shortages: 87% of laboratory consumables and diagnostic assays are completely depleted, eliminating the ability to conduct routine medical testing and disease diagnosis. Zero drug stock, a total depletion of medications for kidney, cancer, and hemophilia patients.

Dire Operational Situation of Gaza’s Regional Medical Facilities (June–July 2026)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Catastrophic Food Insecurity and Malnutrition Crisis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


Environmental Degradation and Public Health Epidemics………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Mental Health Collapse and Lost Generational Futures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Conclusion: A Century of Displacement and Unresolved Human Suffering

Since the October 2023 “ceasefire” agreements—largely unenforced paper promises—1,031 additional martyrs and 3,309 new wounded civilians have been recorded as of late June, proving that temporary truces have failed to curb civilian mortality and medical suffering.

After 1000 days of relentless siege, the Gaza Strip has transitioned from a state of humanitarian crisis to a state of structural societal collapse. The systematic destruction of healthcare, food, water, education, and economic systems has created an intergenerational catastrophe whose impacts will persist for decades. Gaza’s Palestinian refugee crisis, already the longest-running modern displacement crisis, has been exponentially exacerbated: 42% of Palestine’s total population are refugees, with 6.2 million UNRWA-registered Palestinian refugees worldwide, and over 9 million total displaced Palestinians globally.

Every statistical indicator, infrastructure assessment, and human story confirms that Gaza stands inches away from absolute ruin—on the brink of total famine, healthcare shutdown, environmental collapse, and generational psychological destruction. Despite international humanitarian efforts and temporary medical support from regional teams, the ongoing siege, infrastructure destruction, and resource blockades continue to kill civilians, medical staffs, humanitarian workers and journalists dare to speak, daily.

We need more aid, but more important, we need justice: Free Palestine, break the siege and end of the genocide.

Palestine Watch https://www.PalestineWatch.net

Panda Aid https://www.PandaAid.org

Refence:

1) August 22, 2025 IPC: Gaza Strip Acute Food Insecurity Malnutrition July- Sept 2025 Special Snapshot

https://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/Gaza/July2026_1000Days/IPC_Gaza_Strip_Acute_Food_Insecurity_Malnutrition_July_Sept2025_Special_Snapshot(2).pdf

2) July 3 2026: MWW-Periodic Report NO. 35

https://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/Gaza/July2026_1000Days/July_3_26–MWW-Periodic_Report_NO35.pdf

3) July 3 2026: Genocidal repercussions of the Israeli aggression 2026(1000 Day) English

https://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/Gaza/July2026_1000Days/Genocidal_repercussions_of_the_Israeli_aggression_2026(1000_Day)English.pdf

https://www.palestinewatch.net/post/7-6-gaza-s-1000-day-siege-a-catastrophic-humanitarian-collapse-across-health-food-and-human-life

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Gaza, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Zionist Plan for a Concentration Camp in Gaza

Israel moves to intern 600,000 Palestinians in the “most moral concentration camp in the world.”

Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire Jul 10, 2026

Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chełmno. These should be destinations Israeli Jews remember and abhor, and yet we are told, by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (PDF), that a concentration camp in the works on the ethnic cleansed ruin of Rafah is somehow not only moral, but the most moral concentration camp in the world.

The support given by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the criminal plan being promoted by Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, involving the construction of a “humanitarian city” on the ruins of Rafah, which would incarcerate all the enclave’s residents, is a moral and historic nadir for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. No matter how they try in Israel to wrap this move with laundered epithets, they are talking about a concentration camp.

The Zionist state, according to Katz, plans to herd 600,000 Palestinians currently forced to shelter in tents and makeshift homes within the coastal al-Mawasi area of southern Gaza to an area in the ruins of Rafah city. “Eventually, the entire civilian population of over two million in Gaza would be confined to this small ‘city,’” the Middle East Eye reports.

Katz said that once concentrated in the new city, Palestinians would be encouraged to “voluntarily” leave the Gaza Strip for other countries, as part of an “emigration plan” he said “will happen”.

In July, 2025 the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) proposed a “Humanitarian Transit Area” where Gaza residents would “temporarily reside, deradicalise, re-integrate and prepare to relocate if they wish to do so,” Al Jazeera reported. GHF operated food distribution sites outside the United Nations system.

Humanitarian aid organizations and UN-affiliated experts say GHF previously violated humanitarian principles by directing civilians to hazardous militarized aid sites instead of establishing a neutral network. The BBC reported that more than 500 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid since the GHF began operating in May, 2025. Oxfam and Save the Children report Israeli forces and armed groups “routinely” fired on Palestinians seeking aid. GHF ended its operation in late 2025.

In March, the RAND Corporation published Pursuing Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration in Gaza: A Critical Pathway to a Durable Peace. The white paper follows a Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) three-stage strategy used by UN Peacekeeping to transition war-torn societies to peace.

The RAND report does not take into account Israeli policies of settlement expansion, collective punishment, arbitrary imprisonment, and periodically “mowing the grass,” that to say conducting violent raids into Gaza. Decades of Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians naturally perpetuates radicalization and determined resistance.

The Strategic Hamlet Program

In 1962, the administration of Ngo Dinh Diem, in collaboration with the Kennedy administration, initiated the counterinsurgency Strategic Hamlet Program in South Vietnam. This rural pacification initiative involved relocating South Vietnamese villagers into barbed-wired “protected hamlets,”…………………………………

The French constructed “protective villages” in Tonkin, later known as agrovilles,…………

The Malaysian strategic villages were established in the 1950s under the Briggs Plan, a British counterinsurgency population-control and resettlement program……………….

British Concentration Camps in South Africa………………………………

Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz’s “New Rafah” plan is a high-tech version of previous concentration camps. In a similar fashion to the Strategic Hamlet Program and the Boer camps in South Africa, “New Rafah” is primarily intended to separate Palestinian civilians from Hamas and prepare for the forced migration of two million people (despite the fact few if any countries are willing to take ethnically cleansed Palestinians)……………………………………. https://anotherdayintheempire.substack.com/p/the-zionist-plan-for-a-concentration

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza | Leave a comment

Israel isn’t leaving Lebanon and Syria may be next

Israel’s refusal to withdraw, Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm, and new strikes near the Golan Heights point to a conflict that is expanding, not endingPublished 5 Jul, 2026 

By Farhad Ibragimov , 5 July 26, https://www.rt.com/news/642508-israel-isnt-leaving-lebanon/

Israel has no intention of leaving Lebanon. At least, it won’t do so now and on terms that would suit Beirut (not to mention Hezbollah and Tehran). Moreover, in parallel with the Lebanese campaign, West Jerusalem is reactivating operations in Syria: Israeli forces launched an artillery strike on the village of Abidin in the western part of Syria’s Daraa Governorate, and, according to regional sources, Israeli aircraft conducted flights over the rural areas of Daraa and Quneitra governorates near the Golan Heights.

At first glance, it appears that yet another breakthrough has occurred on the Lebanese front. The US, Israel, and Lebanon signed a trilateral framework agreement in Washington (although three agreements have already been reached in the past two months). US Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented it as a step toward the restoration of Lebanon’s sovereignty, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the dismantling of its infrastructure. But upon careful examination of the agreement, it becomes clear that it cannot ensure lasting peace; it only creates a diplomatic pause during which each side will attempt to consolidate its own position.

This is a ‘framework’ agreement – and that says it all. It’s not a full-fledged peace treaty or a final settlement, but a set of principles that have yet to be transformed into a working mechanism. The agreement provides for the gradual restoration of control over the Lebanese army, the start of Hezbollah’s disarmament, and the eventual withdrawal of Israeli troops after the elimination of the threat to Israel. In other words, Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon is not immediate and unconditional, but is tied to a condition that is nearly impossible to fulfill quickly.

This is the crux of the matter. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly stated that Israel will not leave southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remains armed and poses a threat. This effectively means that Israel’s presence is not a temporary measure, but a permanent instrument of pressure. As long as Hezbollah exists, Israel remains in Lebanon; but as long as Israel remains, Hezbollah has a reason not to disarm. It becomes a vicious circle, in which each side justifies its actions by the actions of the other.

Lebanon finds itself in the most difficult position. Formally, Beirut has committed itself to regaining control over southern Lebanon. But Hezbollah is not simply an armed group that can be disarmed by administrative action. It is an independent military-political force that is firmly integrated into the Lebanese system; it has a social base, infrastructure, and external support. Therefore, the demand to disarm Hezbollah may sound good on paper, but in practice, instead of a peace mechanism it could become a pretext for a new internal crisis.

It is no coincidence that Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri, a staunch Hezbollah ally, has already criticized the agreement and stated that it will not be implemented. As expected, Hezbollah rejected the agreement, perceiving it as a form of capitulation. This is the biggest problem: the agreement was signed by three nations, but the main armed player – Hezbollah – which is directly responsible for stabilizing the situation in southern Lebanon, is not a party to the agreement. 

At the same time, Israel is reopening the Syrian front. The attack on Abidin in Daraa Governorate is not a random incident. Southern Syria, Daraa, Quneitra, and the area near the Golan Heights have long been perceived by Israel as a potential threat. Following the weakening of the Syrian state and the shift in the regional balance of power, Israel has changed its defense strategy and is actively forming buffer zones around its borders. West Jerusalem explains its role in maintaining a security zone in southern Syria by the need to prevent attacks by armed groups.

This is why Syria is again becoming part of Israel’s overall strategy. Israel demonstrates that if it is forced to make concessions in Lebanon, it can still  expand pressure along other perimeters – through Syria, the Golan Heights, Daraa, and Quneitra. This is a signal not only to Damascus, but also to Tehran and Hezbollah: Israel will not wait for the threat to fully materialize; it will act preemptively. 

The ultimate goal of all these maneuvers in Lebanon and Syria is to ‘squeeze’ Iran. Having failed to achieve its objectives in 2025 and in the spring of 2026, Israel wants to take revenge presently. According to Tehran, the signed US-Iran memorandum specifically mentions the cessation of military operations, including in Lebanon, and the parties’ commitment to respect Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. For Tehran, this is an attempt to include Lebanon in a broader bargaining process with Washington and to demonstrate that the stabilization of the region is impossible without taking Iranian influence into account.

The situation is complex: The US attempts to portray the agreement as a diplomatic success even though the sides continue to exchange blows and the ceasefire could come to an end at any moment; Israel is given the chance to maintain a military presence in Lebanon until its conditions are fully met; Lebanon receives the promise of restored sovereignty – but with no means of immediate control over Hezbollah, this becomes largely impossible. Meanwhile, Iran attempts to integrate the Lebanese issue into its dialogue with Washington; and Syria is becoming an additional pressure point, playing the role of a ‘whipping boy’.

In such circumstances, peace remains elusive. This is merely a managed tactical pause before the next round of war. Israel will not leave Lebanon because the threat of Hezbollah persists; Hezbollah will not disarm because Israel remains; and Lebanon cannot fully control the south because state institutions are weaker than the Hezbollah movement on the ground. Apparently, the US is trying to freeze the conflict without resolving its main contradiction.

The strike on Abidin, Syria, shows that Israel is not thinking solely in terms of the Lebanese front. It is building a broader security belt from southern Lebanon to southern Syria. And while US President Donald Trump is telling the world about agreements, a completely different reality is taking shape on the ground: a reality of buffer zones, artillery strikes, air patrols, and the constant expectation of a new round of escalation. 

Even if we assume that Trump genuinely seeks to end the war and reach a peace agreement with Iran, including in the context of the Lebanon crisis, he will find this extremely difficult to achieve; the stakes are too high, and in many ways, he was the one who raised them. Therefore, the framework agreement looks less like the beginning of peace and more like an attempt to legally formalize a temporary balance of power. And the longer this temporary balance is presented as a peace settlement, the greater the likelihood that Lebanon will once again become the arena of a major war and a bargaining chip in the struggle between the opposing sides.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »