Secret Underground Nuclear City In The Arctic | A Potential Threat
WW3 FEARS: Pentagon’s secret underground tunnels of MOBILE NUCLEAR bases REVEALED THE US government built a fully-functioning mobile nuclear base below the ice ofGreenland in preparation for war, it was revealed during a documentary. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1084951/ww3-fears-pentagon-mobile-nuclear-base-greenland-sptIn 1960, the United States ran a highly publicised project known as Camp Century on the island to study the feasibility of working below the ice. However, declassified files show it was actually a cover-up for a top-secret Cold War programme. Project Iceworm was the code name for the United States Army’s mission to build a network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites.
The ultimate objective was to place medium-range missiles under the ice — close enough to strike targets within the Soviet Union.
YouTube series “The Real Secrets of Antarctica” revealed how the project came to light in January 1995.
The 2017 documentary detailed: “Some very interesting disclosures were declassified about US military installations in Greenland which took place in the 1960s.
“They fed the American people a highly publicised story about advances in research and building an underground city below Greenland called Camp Century.
Only later did the truth about Project Iceworm surface.
“The Pentagon was attempting to put in place mobile nuclear launching sites to utilise thousands of miles of tunnels.”
Project Iceworm was to be a system of tunnels 2,500 miles in length, used to deploy up to 600 nuclear missiles, that would be able to reach the Soviet Union in case of nuclear war.
The missile locations would be under the cover of Greenland’s ice sheet and were supposed to be periodically changed.
A total of 21 trenches were cut and covered with arched roofs within which prefabricated buildings were erected.
These tunnels also contained a hospital, a shop, a theatre, and a church and the total number of inhabitants was around 200.
From 1960 until 1963 the electricity supply was provided by means of the world’s first mobile nuclear reactor, named PM-2A.
Water was supplied by melting glaciers and tested to determine whether germs were present, including tests for the plague virus.
However, just three years after it was built, ice core samples taken by geologists demonstrated that the glacier was moving much faster than anticipated and would destroy the tunnels and planned launch stations in about two years.
The facility was evacuated in 1965, and the nuclear generator removed.
Project Iceworm was canceled, and Camp Century closed in 1966.
Bill Kidd will be at the Global Peace Forum in Pyeongchang to renew calls for Scotland to become a nuclear-free zone.
He will be among parliamentarians, anti-nuclear campaigners and experts in the field from the USA, Belgium, Japan and the Philippines, who are joining together to discuss the development of the UN’s Agenda for Disarmament by 2030.
Mr Kidd, co-president of the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament group in Scotland, said: “At a time of such grave uncertainty across the world, Scotland is a leading voice on nuclear disarmament – leaving the UK looking badly out-of-touch with the vast majority of nations.
“The SNP, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland firmly reject the hosting of weapons of mass destruction on Scottish soil, and Westminster should heed those calls.
“By taking a stand on immoral nuclear weapons, we can set a powerful example to the world, influence others and help shape the global agenda.”
He added that in an independent Scotland the SNP would remove all nuclear weapons “as quickly and safely as possible”.
WW3: France to build ‘unstoppable’ HYPERSONIC NUKES to replace ageing nuclear armoury
FRANCE is set to build a state-of-the-art armoury of hypersonic weapons capable of travelling more than 3,800mph, in a bid to upgrade their ageing nuclear arsenal as they fall behind other world military powers., By THOMAS MACKIE, Express UK :11, Sat, Feb 9, 2019The French Defence Ministry has promised to test a prototype hypersonic glider missile device in just two years time. “We have decided to issue a contract for a hypersonic glider demonstrator,” Defense Minister Florence Parly said during the unveiling of the V-MaX project. France has already carried out studies on propulsion systems for hypersonic flights as part of a £32 billion overhaul of its nuclear arsenal.
Hypersonic gliders would be carried to the edge of the earth’s atmosphere by a launch vehicle and would then “glide” back to a target on the ground.
France’s main nuclear-tipped air-to-surface cruise missile, the ASMP, is capable of flying up to Mach 3, which is 2,300 mph.
To be deemed hypersonic, the new device must be capable of flying at least five times the speed of sound (3,800mph).
However many hypersonic weapons can travel much faster, with Russia’s latest glider reaching speeds of 20,700mph.
The French Directorate General of Armaments (DGA) admitted the country had “relatively little experience” in the hypersonic field.
Hypersonic weaponry is fast becoming the nuclear weapon of choice among the world superpowers.
In March last year Russia unveiled a new range of weapons, including two hypersonic devices, the Kinzhal air-launched missile and the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle.
The threat of nuclear war fills people with fear. Yet the increasingly blurred line between nuclear and conventional weapons is heightening the danger.
Nuclear and non-nuclear weapons have never been entirely separate from each other.
Seventy-four years later, nine countries now possess thousands of nuclear weapons, which are becoming increasingly entangled with non-nuclear weapons.
The global stockpile of nuclear weapons is down from an all-time high of about 64,000 in 1986 – but some contemporary weapons are about 300 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Apart from the UK, all nuclear-armed states possess dual-use weapons that can be used to deliver nuclear or conventional warheads.
These include missiles of ever-longer ranges.
Russia, for example, has recently deployed a new ground-launched cruise missile, the 9M729.
Capable of travelling more than 2,500km (1,553 miles), it appears to be the world’s longest range dual-use missile capable of a precision strike.
There are a number of scenarios in which such missiles could inadvertently increase the chance of a nuclear war.
The most obvious is that in a conflict, they might be launched with conventional warheads but mistaken for nuclear weapons.
This ambiguity could prompt the adversary to launch an immediate nuclear response.
It is difficult to know whether it would choose this course of action – or wait until the weapons had detonated and it became clear how they were armed.
In practice, the greatest danger with dual-use missiles may lie elsewhere: misidentification before they have even been launched.
Imagine that China dispersed lorry-mounted DF-26 missiles loaded with nuclear warheads around its territory.
The US, wrongly believing them to be conventionally armed, might decide to try to destroy them.
By attacking them, it could inadvertently provoke China into launching those nuclear weapons it still had before they could be destroyed.
Satellite systems
Dual-use missiles are not the only way in which nuclear and non-nuclear weapons are increasingly entangled.
For example, all nuclear forces need a communication system – which could include satellites.
But, increasingly, these nuclear command-and-control systems are also being used to support non-nuclear operations.
The US, for example, operates satellites to provide warning of attacks with nuclear-armed or conventionally armed ballistic missiles.
If this strategy was successful, Russia could decide to attack the US early-warning satellites in response.
But blinding US early-warning satellites would not simply undermine its ability to spot conventionally armed missiles.
It would also compromise the ability of the US to detect nuclear-armed ballistic missiles and could raise fears that Russia was planning a nuclear attack on the US.
Indeed, the latest US Nuclear Posture Review – the key official statement of US nuclear policy – explicitly threatens to consider the use of nuclear weapons against any state that attacks its nuclear command-and-control systems.
This threat applies whether or not that state has used nuclear weapons first.
Weapons ban
The governments of nuclear-armed states are presumably aware of the growing entanglement between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons.
They are also aware of at least some of the associated dangers.
However, working to reduce these risks does not seem to be a priority.
The focus remains on enhancing their military capabilities, to deter one another.
One option could be for countries to try to agree a ban on weapons that could threaten nuclear command-and-control satellites.
But for the moment, governments of nuclear-armed states are reluctant to sit around the same table.
As a result, the prospects of such cooperation appear to be bleak.
Brazil to start detail phase on first nuclear-powered submarine, Victor Barreira, Lisbon – Jane’s Defence Weekly, 07 February 2019The Brazilian Navy is scheduled on 11 February to begin initial detailing activity, or Phase C, of its first nuclear-powered submarine, SN Álvaro Alberto , the service told Jane’s .A preliminary adjustment document between the General-Coordination of the Nuclear-Propelled Submarine Development Program (COGESN) and Naval Group was signed on 14 December 2018, the navy confirmed to Jane’s on 31 January. Work will be undertaken by the Submarines Development Center (CDS).
Russia is open to considering new proposals for a broader treaty including other countries to replace a suspended Cold War-era nuclear pact with the US. Russia says it would be prepared to consider new proposals from the United States to replace a suspended Cold War-era nuclear pact with a broader treaty that includes more countries.Russia suspended the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty at the weekend after Washington announced it would withdraw in six months unless Russia ends what it says are violations of the pact, allegations rejected by Moscow.
The 1987 treaty eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, but leaves other countries free to produce and deploy them.
US President Donald Trump last week said he would like to hold talks aimed at creating a new arms control treaty.
“We of course saw the reference in president Trump’s statement to the possibility of a new treaty that could be signed in a beautiful room and that this treaty should also include other countries as its participants,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday.
“We look forward to this proposal being made concrete and put on paper or by other means…” Ryabkov said at a news conference in Moscow.
Ryabkov said the US had not sent Moscow any concrete proposals for a new pact.
Across this nuclear triad, the takeaway for investors is, there’s a lot of money on the table up for grabs………Definitely going to be a bullish sign for these defense contractors going forward.
The $500 Billion Push to Modernize the Nuclear Triad, Cold War-era technology is due for replacement, but the cost is out of this world.,Motley Fool Staff, (the_motley_fool), Feb 5, 2019 .
On this segment of Industry Focus: Energy,The Motley Fool’s Nick Sciple and Fool.com contributor Lou Whiteman discuss a Congressional Budget Office report that estimates the U.S. needs to invest nearly $500 billion to modernize its nuclear weapon systems. That includes new submarines, bombers, and rockets, as well as the systems that support them.
A full transcript follows the video…..
Lou Whiteman “……..The CBO just updated a study on the triad. They determined almost $500 billion, $494 billion, needs to be spent in the next 10 years on nuclear triad modernization. That’s up considerably, 20% or more, from their 2017 estimate. Part of that is, we have a road map for some of this spending. Part of it is, now, we’re getting into the years where hopefully, those investments will be made. So, some of that increase was expected. But it’s a massive amount, half $1 trillion is going to go into new bombers, new subs, new rockets, new warheads to put on them, plus all the support. It’s a huge area. The details, some of them have to be worked out, but it’s almost guaranteed revenue for some of these companies, the lucky winners of these, because it’s a huge priority for the United States…….
Sciple: Let’s talk about some of these items. Northrop Grumman is developing a new bomber, the B-21. The number that I saw is, between now and 2028, the Pentagon is expected to spend $49 billion on that program. Can you talk about the significance of that aircraft for Northrop Grumman, as well as for our defense arsenal as a country?
Whiteman: That’s the keystone project for Northrop Grumman. They won that bomber. It’s been a slow road……. This is a huge expense. They’re doing their best to modernize it. It’s replacing an aircraft that isn’t that old…….
Whiteman: Naval is a big part of the bull story on General Dynamics ……….
Whiteman: ………The Minuteman is our go-to rocket. It needs to be replaced. That’s the only part of this triad that we don’t know who the eventual winner is. It’s going to be a big deal for either Northrop or Boeing.
………Sciple: Across this nuclear triad, the takeaway for investors is, there’s a lot of money on the table up for grabs………Definitely going to be a bullish sign for these defense contractors going forward.
The Cost to Clean Up America’s Cold War Nuclear Waste Jumps to $377 Billion, The bill for a half century of nuclear weapons production is growing fast. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26145608/nuclear-waste-cleanup-cost-377-billion/By Kyle Mizokami.Feb 5, 2019. The United States developed and built tens of thousands of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. A new report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates the total cleanup cost for the radioactive contamination incurred by developing and producing these weapons at a staggering $377 billion, a number that jumped by more than $100 billion in just one year.
Most people think of the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and think of oil rigs, coal mines, solar energy panels, and wind farms. While the DoE does handle energy production—including nuclear power—it also handles the destructive side of nuclear energy. A large part of the DoE’s portfolio over the past several decades has been the handling of nuclear weapons research, development, and production. The DoE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for cleaning up radioactive and hazardous waste left over from nuclear weapons production and energy research at DoE facilities.
In 1967 at the height of the U.S.–Soviet nuclear arms race, the U.S. nuclear stockpile totaled 31,255 weapons of all types. Today, that number stands at just 6,550. Although the U.S. has deactivated and destroyed 25,000 nuclear weapons, their legacy is still very much alive. Nuclear weapons were developed and produced at more than one hundred sites during the Cold War. Cleanup began in 1989, and the Office of Environmental Management has completed cleanup at 91 of 107 nuclear sites, Still, according to the GAO, “but 16 remain, some of which are the most challenging to address.” Those sites include Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the Hanford site in Washington, and the Nevada National Security Site.
The Department of Energy’s cleanup responsibilities are a tall order and include, “(1) storing and treating about 90 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste located in nearly 240 large underground tanks at three sites across the country; (2) remediating millions of cubic meters of soil and more than 1 billion gallons of groundwater; (3) preparing and disposing of 2,400 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and about 21 metric tons of surplus highly enriched uranium materials; and (4) deactivating and decommissioning about 1,700 excess facilities, some of which are highly contaminated.”
In 2017, the GAO estimated its Environmental Management office’s “environmental liability” at $268 billion. That number ballooned to $377 billion in 2018. That includes radioactive tank waste treatment, soil and groundwater remediation, the cost of closing and decommissioning older facilities, nuclear waste management, and the cost of disposing of surplus nuclear material—including plutonium, uranium, and spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants.
By far the most expensive site to clean up is the Hanford site, which manufactured nuclear material for use in nuclear weapons during the Cold War. In 2017, the DoE estimated site cleanup costs at $141 billion.
What’s driving cost growth? Cleaning up nuclear weapons and dealing with radioactive materials in particular is extremely complex. Not only is it expensive work to begin with, accidents happen, regulations change, cleanup “remedies” change, project-management issues crop up, and the scope of a project could suddenly grow as officials get a grasp on the problem.
Meanwhile, the Department of Energy is underfunding cleanup operations. Between 2011 and 2017, the Department of Energy spent $41.4 billion on cleanup costs. During that same time, the GAO estimates the EM’s “environmental liability grew by almost $105 billion, from $163 billion to $268 billion.” (That doesn’t even include the $109 billion spike between 2017 and 2018.) That’s the equivalent of taking one step forward and then being pushed seven steps back.
The Department of Energy’s job cleaning up nuclear waste is underfunded and will take decades more to complete. The Hanford site, for example, needs $4 billion a year to hit cleanup milestones but is only receiving $2.5 billion. What’s more, if arms-control treaties continue to unravel, the U.S. could act to boost its nuclear stockpile, adding to the DoE’s environmental woes.
North Korea trying to keep its nuclear missiles safe from US strikes, says UN report, Guardian, Justin McCurry and agencies,5 Feb 2019 Measures said to include using civilian facilities to make and test missiles North Korea is trying to ensure its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities are safe from US military strikes, a UN report has said, as officials from both countries prepared to meet to discuss a second summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.Trump is expected to meet the North Korean leader, possibly in Vietnam, at the end of the month to discuss measures that would lead to Pyongyang giving up its nuclear weapons in return for US security guarantees and other assurances.
But the report, seen by Reuters on Monday, suggested the regime was doing everything possible to protect its nuclear and missile programmes.
My Turn: New Hampshire must say no to nuclear war, https://www.concordmonitor.com/NH-must-say-no-to-nuclear-war-23265489By MINDI MESSMERFor the Monitor 2/6/2019 School children are no longer participating in duck-and-cover drills, but Americans and the public officials who represent them are becoming increasingly aware that the risks of a nuclear war, which could be started intentionally or accidentally, have not gone away.
Events here at home and abroad have brought renewed attention to this issue. Americans have suddenly realized that U.S. presidents have authority to order a nuclear weapon strike without consulting anyone. Just one phone call and hundreds of U.S. nuclear missiles can be launched in less than 10 minutes. Meanwhile, national security experts are speculating about a renewed nuclear arms race as the U.S. and Russia develop new nuclear weapons and the U.S. prepares to withdraw from arms control treaties, including the landmark 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that President Ronald Reagan signed with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Both sides accuse the other of violating the treaty.
Cities and towns across New Hampshire and the country – including Durham and New London, N.H., Baltimore, Los Angeles and Portland, Maine – are passing resolutions calling on the United States to limit the risk of nuclear war by changing U.S. policies. About a dozen other New Hampshire cities are considering following suit. California and the U.S. Conference of Mayors have passed similar resolutions. Organizations including the Unitarian Universalist Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists and Physicians for Social Responsibility have joined the call.
The resolutions recommend a number of steps that would make nuclear war less likely. Most importantly, they call on the U.S. to state that it will never use a nuclear weapon first; no U.S. president should ever start a nuclear war.
The N.H. General Court may be the next to take a position on this issue. The State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee in the N.H. House will hold a hearing today on HCR 7, a resolution introduced by Rep. Chuck Grassie that calls on the U.S. to establish a “no first use” policy.
If enacted, the measure would throw New Hampshire’s support behind legislation, introduced in Congress last week by House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith and Senate Armed Services Committee member Elizabeth Warren, to make it U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first.
As the world’s most powerful country, the only reason the U.S. needs nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack on America or its allies. The threat that the U.S. may use its nuclear weapons first is counterproductive and could prompt a pre-emptive strike from a nuclear-armed adversary if it feared a U.S. nuclear launch was imminent.
Knowing that the U.S. could respond to a nuclear attack with its own nuclear strike, however, is a real deterrent; that is the message a no-first-use policy would send to the rest of the world.
When cities and states enact resolutions like the one before the N.H. Legislature, it sends a strong message to Washington decision-makers, both in Congress and the White House, that they must act for the safety of all Americans.
(Mindi Messmer of Rye is an environmental scientist working with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former N.H. state representative.)
A VETERAN claims Britain sparked an “Armageddon” for the future after running secret nuclear weapons tests between 1957 and 1958. By CALLUM HOARE
Operation Grapple was the name given to a series of four nuclear weapons tests of atomic and hydrogen bombs carried out at Malden Island and Christmas Island. Nine nuclear explosions were initiated, making Britain the third recognised possessor of thermonuclear weapons, and restoring the Nuclear Special Relationship with the US. However, veteran Dave Whyte, 82, who worked on the project, claimed they made a mistake by testing the weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Whyte said he suffered sterility and genetic damage through radiation exposure at the cost of the technology being leaked to other countries.
He exclaimed in 2017: “I witnessed the hydrogen bombs Grapple Y, Flagpole and Halliard and atomic bombs Pennant and Burgee in 1958.
“I found the bombs very interesting, it was wonderful to view two suns shining in the sky at the same time, our usual golden sun and the red glow of fire from the nuclear bombs.
“Great Britain has a nuclear arsenal, but at what cost?”
Mr Whyte went on to claim: “The veterans who helped in the nuclear experiments are cast aside, and are still waiting for a court to hear their case.
“There is a blood test which shows the level of radiation a person has received.
“Nuclear veterans are denied this test, even the offer of paying for the test is denied.
“Documents showing the true levels of radiation individuals received are hidden from view, and directions given by the judge to release them are ignored.”
Mr Whyte also claimed the action of Britain over 60 years ago could now be to blame for the end of the world – should nuclear war break out. He continued: “It is said, by many, that nuclear bombs should be abandoned.
“Unfortunately, the technology is now available, and any rogue state can develop their own nuclear weapons.
“North Korea is a good example, they have the weapons now, and will be prepared to use them.
“Sadly, we have nuclear weapons and we cannot dispose of them now. I foresee an Armageddon in the future.”
By chief economics correspondent Emma Alberici Maria Teresa Farci’s legs start to shake as she reads aloud from the diary she kept that describes, in heartbreaking detail, the last moments of her 25-year-old daughter’s tortured life.
Key points:
Eight former commanders of a bombing range are before Italian courts
Locals living near Quirra firing range describe multiple cases of deformities and cancer as “Quirra syndrome”
Italy’s army has dismissed a report linking exposure to Depleted Uranium to disease suffered by the military
“She died in my arms. My whole world collapsed. I knew she was sick, but I wasn’t ready.”
Her daughter, Maria Grazia, was born on the Italian island of Sardinia with part of her brain exposed and a spine so disfigured her mother has never allowed her photo to be published.
This was only one of many mysterious cases of deformity, cancer and environmental destruction that have come to be called the “Quirra syndrome”.
Eight Italian military officers — all former commanders of the bombing range at Quirra in Sardinia — have been hauled before the courts.
It’s unprecedented to see Italian military brass held to account for what many Sardinians say is a scandalous coverup of a major public health disaster with international consequences.
Bombs and birth defects — is there a link?
In the year baby Maria Grazia was born, one in four of the children born in the same town, on the edge of the Quirra firing range, also suffered disabilities.
Some mothers chose to abort rather than give birth to a deformed child.
In her first television interview, Maria Teresa told Foreign Correspondent of hearing bombs exploding at the Quirra firing range when she was pregnant.
Enormous clouds of red dust enveloped her village.
Later, health authorities were called in to study an alarming number of sheep and goats being born with deformities.
Shepherds in the area had routinely grazed their animals on the firing range.
“Lambs were born with eyes in the back of their heads,” said veterinary scientist Giorgio Mellis, one of the research team.
“I had never seen anything like it.”
One farmer told him of his horror: “I was too scared to enter the barn in the mornings … they were monstrosities you didn’t want to see.”
Researchers also found an alarming 65 per cent of the shepherds of Quirra had cancer.
The news hit Sardinia hard. It reinforced their worst fears while also challenging their proud international reputation as a place of unrivalled natural beauty.
The military hit back, with one former commander of the Quirra base saying on Swiss TV that birth defects in animals and children came from inbreeding.
“They marry between cousins, brothers, one another,” General Fabio Molteni claimed, without evidence.
“But you cannot say it or you will offend the Sardinians.”
General Molteni is one of the former commanders now on trial.
Years of investigation and legal inquiry led to the six generals and two colonels being charged with breaching their duty of care for the health and safety of soldiers and civilians.
After repeated attempts, Foreign Correspondent was refused interviews with senior Italian military officials and the Defence Minister.
Governments earning money by renting out ranges
Sardinia has hosted the war games of armed forces from the west and other countries since sizable areas of its territory were sectioned off after World War II.
Rome is reported to make around $64,000 an hour from renting out the ranges to NATO countries and others including Israel.
Getting precise information about what has been blown up, tested or fired at the military sites and by which countries is almost impossible, according to Gianpiero Scanu, the head of a parliamentary inquiry that reported last year.
Many, including current Defence Minister Elisabetta Trenta, have previously accused the Italian military of maintaining a “veil of silence”.
Speaking exclusively to the ABC, chief prosecutor for the region, Biagio Mazzeo, said he is “convinced” of a direct link between the cancer clusters at Quirra and the toxicity of the elements being blown up at the defence base.
But prosecuting the case against the military comes up against a major hurdle.
“Unfortunately, proving what we call a causality link — that is, a link between a specific incident and specific consequences — is extremely difficult,” Mr Mazzeo said.
What is being used on the bases?
A recent parliamentary inquiry revealed that 1,187 French-made MILAN missiles had been fired at Quirra.
This has focussed attention on radioactive thorium as a suspect in the health crisis.
It’s used in the anti-tank missiles’ guidance systems. Inhaling thorium dust is known to increase the risk of lung and pancreatic cancer.
Another suspect is depleted uranium. The Italian military has denied using this controversial material, which increases the armour-piercing capability of weapons.
But that’s a fudge, according to Osservatorio Militare, which campaigns for the wellbeing of Italian soldiers.
“The firing ranges of Sardinia are international,” said Domenico Leggiero, the research centre’s head and former air force pilot.
Whatever is blown up on the island’s firing ranges, it’s the fine particles a thousand times smaller than a red blood cell that are being blamed for making people sick.
These so-called “nanoparticles” are a new frontier in scientific research.
They’ve been shown to penetrate through the lung and into a human body with ease.
Italian biomedical engineer Dr Antonietta Gatti gave evidence to four parliamentary inquiries.
She has suggested a possible link between disease and industrial exposure to nanoparticles of certain heavy metals.
The World Health Organisation says a causal link is yet to be conclusively established and more scientific research needs to be done.
Dr Gatti said armaments had the potential to generate dangerous nanoparticles in fine dust because they are routinely exploded or fired at more than 3,000 degrees Celsius.
Inquiry confirms causal links
In what was labelled a “milestone”, a two-year parliamentary investigation into the health of the armed forces overseas and at the firing ranges made a breakthrough finding.
“We have confirmed the causal link between the unequivocal exposure to depleted uranium and diseases suffered by the military,” the inquiry’s head, then centre-left government MP Gianpiero Scanu, announced.
The Italian military brass dismissed the report but are now fighting for their international reputation in the court at Quirra where the eight senior officers are now on trial.
The ABC understands commanders responsible for another firing range in Sardinia’s south at Teulada could soon also face charges of negligence as police conclude a two-year investigation.
Until now the military has been accused of acting with impunity.
US Navy awards $15.2bn to build two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers Naval Technology, 4 Feb 19, The US Navy has awarded a $15.2bn contract modification to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News Shipbuilding division to build two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.
The multi-ship contract comes after the US Navy expressed its intention to pursue a block-purchase of two Ford-class aircraft carriers in a bid to save money.
According to the Navy, the deal is expected to deliver savings of more than $4bn to the government.
Under the contract, HII will provide the detail design and construct the Gerald R Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers Enterprise (CVN 80) and CVN 81.
Newport News Shipbuilding president Jennifer Boykin said: “Today’s announcement is a triumphant step toward returning to a 12-ship aircraft carrier fleet and building the 355-ship Navy our nation needs.
Russia will start work on new missiles, including hypersonic ones
US and Russia both allege the other has violated the INF treaty
China urges dialogue amid fears of nuclear arms race
The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty prevents the two superpowers from possessing, producing or test-flying ground-launched nuclear cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres.
The United States announced it will withdraw from the INF treaty in six months unless Moscow ends what it says are violations of the pact, but Russia denied violating the treaty.
“The American partners have declared that they suspend their participation in the deal, we suspend it as well,” Mr Putin said during a televised meeting with foreign and defence ministers.
Mr Putin said Russia will start work on creating new missiles, including hypersonic ones, and told ministers not to initiate disarmament talks with Washington, accusing the United States of being slow to respond to such moves.
“We have repeatedly, during a number of years, and constantly raised a question about substantiative talks on the disarmament issue,” Mr Putin said.
“We see that in the past few years the partners have not supported our initiatives.”
The US alleges a new Russian cruise missile violates the important pact, signed by former leaders Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987.
The missile, the Novator 9M729, is known as the SSC-8 by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
Russia said the missile’s range put it outside the treaty, and accused the US of inventing a false pretext to exit a treaty it wants to leave anyway so it can develop new missiles.
Russia also rejected the demand to destroy the new missile.
During the meeting with Mr Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the US of violating the INF and other arms deals, including the non-proliferation treaty.
Mr Putin said Russia would not deploy its weapons in Europe and other regions unless the US did so.
The treaty’s suspension has drawn a strong reaction from Europe and China.
European nations fear the treaty’s collapse could lead to a new arms race with possibly a new generation of US nuclear missiles stationed on the continent.
In a statement, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the bilateral treaty was important to maintain “global strategic balance and stability”.
“China is opposed to US withdrawal action and urges the United States and Russia to handle their differences properly through constructive dialogue,” the statement said, warning that unilateral withdrawal could trigger “negative consequences”.
With Putin and Trump in Charge, the Risk of Nuclear War Returns
You thought the threat of global annihilation was history? Better think again. Hard. Bloomberg, By Peter Coy Jan 31 2018,
While the world’s attention is occupied by Brexit, Venezuela, and a hundred other concerns, an almost forgotten monster is raising its head: the threat of nuclear war.
Nuclear war gets surprisingly little attention considering there are enough nukes to end human civilization in hours. It feels like a relic of another era—of perestroika and glasnost and that famous walk in the woods. We’ve moved on to other concerns. Besides, what can anyone really do?
The reason to pay attention is that arms control—especially between the U.S. and Russia—has broken down. A fresh nuclear arms race appears to be taking shape. As for what anyone can do: Arms control moves forward in response to public pressure, when humanity speaks louder than arms merchants and bellicose world leaders. Sanity can prevail. It’s been more than 70 years since the U.S. detonated the first two atomic weapons in war, and not one has been used in combat since………
The Trump administration’s approach to a warlike Putin is essentially “peace through strength.” The president took the advice of John Bolton, his hawkish national security adviser, when he gave preliminary notice in October of his intent to pull out of the INF Treaty, which bars all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles). ………
The death of arms control would benefit shareholders of Boeing, Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, among others. “Great Power competition should be good for heritage defense contractors,” Byron Callan, an analyst for Capital Alpha Partners, wrote in a Jan. 24 note to clients, while cautioning that “the U.S. defense budget will be fiscally constrained.”
It would be less positive for the general public, of course. For decades, defense contractors and the Pentagon have offered the American people the following weirdly rational deal: You give us trillions of dollars, and we will use the money to build nuclear weapons that will never be used. A single Ohio-class nuclear submarine—a “boomer”—can mete out 2,000 times the destructive power of the A-bombs that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If all goes well, it will prowl beneath the sea for decades and then go to the scrapyard without having fired as much as a harpoon in anger.
Mutual assured destruction—the balance of terror between the U.S. and Russia—kept the peace precisely because it was balanced. Arms control agreements ensured that neither side was able to gain an unbeatable advantage. The demise of arms control could lead not just to more weaponry but to more instability and uncertainty. The less each side knows about the other’s capabilities and intentions, the more likely it is that war will break out by accident. “The situation we face today relative to nuclear dangers is equal to the darkest days of the Cold War, and nobody seems to understand that,” says William Perry, 91, who was secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton. “Our policies don’t reflect it, either in the United States or in Russia.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/with-putin-and-trump-in-charge-the-risk-of-nuclear-war-returns
nuclear-news 