The Top 10 Reasons to Reduce the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War, Huffington Post, 02/26/2016 Max Tegmark MIT physicist, author of “Our Mathematical Universe”
What’s the number one military threat to the U.S.?
- Terrorism
- A deliberate nuclear attack
- Accidental nuclear war with Russia
Based on the recent political debates, you’d think it would be 1 or 2, but if you do the numbers, 3 wins hands down. Here’s why. Let’s compare the expected number of Americans killed during the year ahead, i.e., the number of Americans who’d get killed if the threat comes true times the probability of this happening during the coming year. For terrorism, one of the worst-case scenarios is a nuclear explosion in downtown New York killing millions of people. If we very pessimistically multiply this by a 10% chance of happening in 2016 (it’s probably much less likely), the expected number of casualties is a few hundred thousand per year.
For an all-out nuclear war with Russia, there’s a huge uncertainty in casualties. If nuclear winter is as severe as some modern forecasts and ruins global food production with freezing summers for years, then it’s plausible that over 5 billion of the 7.4 people on Earth will perish. If for some poorly understood reason there’s no nuclear winter at all, we can use a 1979 report by the U.S. Government from before nuclear winter was discovered, estimating that 28%-88% of Americans and 22%-50% of Soviets (150-450 million people with today’s populations) would die.
What’s the chance of this happening during the year ahead? Before answering, please check out this timeline of near-misses when it almost happened by mistake (highlights below). John F. Kennedy estimated the probability of the Cuban Missile Crisis escalating to nuclear war between 33% and 50%, and near-misses keep occurring regularly. Even if the risk of accidental nuclear war is as low at 1% per year, the expected deaths are 1.5-50 million people per year depending on your nuclear winter assumptions, way more than for terrorism. It’s likely that the chance of a deliberate unprovoked all-out nuclear attack by the U.S. or Russia is much smaller than 1%, given that this entails national suicide with over 7,000 nuclear weapons on the opposing side, many on hair-trigger alert.
A robust defense against terrorism and belligerent adversaries is clearly crucial, but U.S. military strategy can’t afford to be soft against the greatest threat of all: accidental nuclear war. When you hear about the U.S. plan to spend about $1 trillion modernizing and upgrading our nuclear arsenal, it at first sounds like a step in the right direction, reducing this risk. Unfortunately, looking at what the money is actually for reveals that it instead increases the risk. Please check out the disturbing incidents below: Which of these risks would be reduced by the planned more accurate missile targeting, improving first-strike incentive? By the new nuclear-tipped cruise missile? By the new gravity bomb? None! We’re spending money to make ourselves less safe by fueling a destabilizing arms race. We’ll be safer if those 1 trillion dollars were spent on non-nuclear parts of the U.S. military and on strengthening our society in other ways.
Top-10 list of near-misses
(Sources and more incidents here.)
10) January 1, 1961: H-bombs Dropped on North Carolina……..
9) October 24, 1962: Soviet Satellite Explodes During Cuban Missile Crisis………
8) January 25 1995: Norwegian Rocket Mistaken for ICBM…….
7) October 26, 1962: US F102A Fighters vs. Soviet MIG interceptors……
6) June 6, 1980: Faulty Chip Signals Soviet Attack……..
5) November 11, 1983: Soviets Misinterpret U.S. Nuclear War Games ……..
4) November 9, 1979: Simulated Soviet Attack Mistaken for Real…….
3) September 9, 1983: Soviet Union Detects Incoming Missiles……
2) October 27, 1962: Soviet Sub Captain Decides to Fire Nuclear Torpedo During Cuban Missile Crisis……..
1) The incidents that keep happening
These are only a sample of over two dozen close calls that we’ve catalogued in this timeline, and there are almost certainly more, since some have been revealed only decades later. Also, although most nuclear incidents were reported by U.S. sources, there’s no reason to believe that the opposing superpower had fewer incidents, or that there have been zero incidents in China, the UK, France, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea. Moreover, near-misses keep happening. Although some argue that the superpowers should keep their current nuclear arsenals forever, simple mathematics shows that nuclear deterrence isn’t a viable long-term strategy unless the risk of accidental nuclear war can be reduced to zero: Even if the annual risk of global nuclear war is as low as 1%, we’ll probably have one within a century and almost certainly within a few hundred years. This future nuclear war would almost certainly take more lives than nuclear deterrence ever saved. If you want to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war, please help raise awareness by sharing this timeline.
February 27, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, Reference, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
U.S. conducts nuclear missile test amid N. Korea tensions, CBS News, February 26, 2016, VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, California — Like a giant pen stroke in the sky, an unarmed Minuteman 3 nuclear missile roared out of its underground bunker on the California coastline Thursday and soared over the Pacific, inscribing the signature of American power amid growing worry about North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capable of reaching U.S. soil.
February 27, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
India close to first nuclear-armed submarine, SMH, February 27, 2016 N.C. BipindraNew Delhi: India is close to becoming the world’s sixth country to put a nuclear-armed attack submarine into operation, a move that would give it a leg up on neighbouring Pakistan and intensify a race for more underwater weapons in Asia.
The 6000-tonne Arihant, developed over the past three decades under a secret government program, is completing its final trials in the Bay of Bengal, according to a senior navy officer who declined to be identified because he’s not authorised to speak about the program. The vessel will be operated by the navy yet remain under the direct control of India’s Nuclear Command Authority headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The deployment would complete India’s nuclear triad, allowing it to deliver atomic weapons from land, sea and air. Only the US and Russia are considered full-fledged nuclear triad powers now, with China and India’s capabilities still largely untested……… http://www.smh.com.au/world/india-close-to-first-nucleararmed-submarine-20160226-gn54ja.html#
February 27, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
India, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
South Korea on Tuesday rejected public calls for the country’s own nuclear armament, saying it remains firmly committed to the global nonproliferation regime. – Korea Times, 23 Feb 16
|
February 25, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
South Korea, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Stigmatize and Prohibit: New UN Talks on Nuclear Weapons Start Today http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/beatrice-fihn/stigmatize-and-prohibit-n_b_9287144.html Beatrice FihnExecutive Director, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
When North Korea tested a nuclear weapon in January, condemnation from all around the world flowed within minutes. A week later, the United States carried out a mock nuclear weapons test of a new type of “more usable” warhead in the Nevada desert. Aside from a small number of civil society organizations, the international community was silent.
Just two weeks ago, North Korea carried out a rocket launch and thereby tested the capability to launch long-range missiles, capable of delivering nuclear weapons on targets far, far away. The world once again rose up and criticized this, with statements by the United Nations Security Council and condemnations from Foreign Ministers all around the world.
Early this morning, the United States tested its Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, a missile that is intended for launching nuclear bombs on Russia or any other target on the other side of the world. Again, few seem to care.
The United Nations Secretary-General has said, “There are no right hands for the wrong weapon”. But many in the international community often act with implicit acceptance of American, British, French, Russian, and Chinese nuclear weapons.
The “Humanitarian Initiative”, however, is challenging this implicit acceptance. Through a series of international conferences on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and a formal pledge to “fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons” endorsed by 123 governments, non-nuclear weapon states are working to stigmatize, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.
By stigmatizing nuclear weapons — declaring them unacceptable and immoral for all — the international community can start demanding and pressuring the nuclear-armed states and their military alliances to deliver what they’ve actually promised: a world free of nuclear weapons.
Negotiating a new international treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, even without the participation of nuclear-armed states, would be one of the most effective toolsfor achieving such stigmatization.
And that work starts now. Far removed from headlines regarding North Korea’s recent tests or other non-proliferation issues like the Iran deal, a new UN Working Group in Geneva, Switzerland, will start today.
In true UN-style, the Working Group has a blurry and bureaucratic mandate, wrapped inside a Resolution of several pages from the UN General Assembly. However, its task is to work on new legal measures for nuclear disarmament.
Through this Working Group, the 123 states that have endorsed the humanitarian pledge to “fill the legal gap” have an opportunity to start work on a new, legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons.
The Working Group might not cause big headlines like the Iran deal, but judging by the strong reaction from the nuclear weapon states and those under the nuclear umbrella, it is clear that they do not see it as just another talking shop.
The nuclear weapon states seem genuinely dismayed about the efforts to stigmatize and prohibit nuclear weapons. They are all boycotting the Working Group and are strong-arming allied states under the US nuclear umbrella and NATO members into representing their interests whilst pretending to be disengaged.
The nuclear weapon states are doing everything they can to stop the process to stigmatize and prohibit nuclear weapons – as they know it will challenge their self-proclaimed right to keep these weapons of mass destruction around for as long as they wish.
70 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it’s time to see nuclear weapons for what they really are. Not a sign of power and prestige. But as a weapon created to ensure as much destruction and human suffering as possible.
The use of nuclear weapons would cause an instant vaporization of huge numbers of civilians, followed by an even larger number of excruciatingly painful death caused by fires, blasts and immediate radiation. First responders and medical personnel — if they survive the immediate, devastating impact – would be unable to provide adequate relief to survivors. Those that despite this would survive would be faced with the medium and long-term consequences of radioactive fallout, contamination, and environmental devastation.
No matter which country possess them, be it North Korea, United States, Russia, Pakistan or the United Kingdom – nuclear weapons are inhumane, indiscriminate, and should be unacceptable for any state to possess.
It’s time to start working on an international prohibition of nuclear weapons.
February 25, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
United Nations Working on Legalisation of Absolute Nuclear Disarmament http://www.australianetworknews.com/united-nations-working-on-legalization-of-absolute-nuclear-disarmament/United Nations is fighting its way to legalise absolute nuclear disarmament. The decision was made after North Korea’s nuclear weapon test in January, as well as the United States’ mock test for more usable nuclear weapons.
A rocket launch was carried out by North Korea in the first part of February. They allegedly tested the capability of their long-range missiles. The intercontinental ballistic missile of USA named Minuteman III has also been tested out on Feb. 21, Sunday. In response to this, a small fraction of the international community rose up to express their sentiments on the issue.
While the UN’s Secretary-General commented that wrong weapons would always be wrong, regardless who uses it, the rest of the international community has already shown acceptance of the idea that nuclear weapons can be used to defend a territory.
Despite the acceptance of the major countries of the world, United Nations continues to stigmatize nuclear weapons. The international organization does this by declaring the weapons as unacceptable and immoral,Huffington Post reported.
United Nations is also working on negotiating an international treaty that will prohibit the use of nuclear weapons and they are planning to push through with the idea whether or not the nuclear-armed states approve it. They intend to do this to show other nations that they are making a bold point on the issue.
The nuclear weapon disarmament work starts now as there are more and more headlines regarding the recent tests of North Korea. They have designated a new working group based in Geneva to work separately with this problem,ICANW reported.
United Nations is investing its time and resources in creating legal measures that can legalize nuclear disarmament. They are doing their best to stigmatize nuclear weapons while the nuclear states continue to counter the UN’s strategies.
UN aims to make a nuclear weapon free community by reminding people of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 70 years ago. They aim to show people that this is what nuclear weapons symbolize.
February 25, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
The US Defense Department has declassified the fact that US nuclear weapons were deployed on Okinawa before the island prefecture was returned to Japanese administration in 1972.
The National Security Archive at George Washington University published on its website on Friday 3 photographs taken of nuclear weapons in Okinawa along with the declassified documents. The institute welcomed the declassification.One photo shows US military personnel working on a Mark-7 atomic bomb at US Kadena Airbase on October 23rd, 1962.
The second photo shows a Mark 28 nuclear weapon before being loaded onto a US Air Force plane.
The third photo shows a Mace B cruise missile loaded with a nuclear weapon. It was deployed in Okinawa from 1961 until 1970. See more at: http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/115407.php#sthash.qsfupVq5.dpuf
February 22, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
history, Japan, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Earlier this week a Saudi political analyst told RT’s Arab network the kingdom has a nuclear weapon. Dahham Al-‘Anzi made the claim while saying Saudi Arabia is engaged in an effort to “minimize the Iranian threat in the Levant and Syria.”
Although Saudi Arabia has officially denied it has a nuclear weapons program and has publicly stated it opposes nuclear weapons in the Middle East, it has funded a military nuclear program and received scientific assistance from the United States and Pakistan.
Despite this cooperation, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Saudis in January there would be “all kinds of NPT consequences” if Riyadh received a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.
The Saudis began financing Pakistan’s atomic weapons project in 1974. “Our achievements are yours,” the Pakistani president, General Zia-ul-Haq, told the Saudis in the 1980s.
In the late 1980s the Saudis secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China. The CSS-2, also known as the Dong Feng, is based on the Russian 9K720 Iskander missile. The intercontinental ballistic missile is designed to carry a 3 megaton nuclear warhead to a distance up to 12,000 kilometers.
I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan,” said Gary Samore, Obama’s former counter-proliferation adviser.
In 2013 a senior NATO spokesman told the BBC nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are ready to be delivered. In 2009 King Abdullah warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross Saudi Arabia “will get nuclear weapons” if Iran pursued a nuclear weapons program.
Following the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, the Saudis reasserted their desire to obtain a nuclear weapon.
“I think Saudi Arabia would seriously try to get the bomb if Iran did. It’s just like India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis said for years they didn’t want one, but when India got it, so did they,”said Jamal Khashoggi, the head of a Saudi news channel owned by the Saudi royal family.
February 22, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Saudi Arabia, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
“Fact of” Nuclear Weapons on Okinawa Declassified http://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2016/02/okinawa-nuclear/ Feb.19, 2016 The Department of Defense revealed this week that “The fact that U.S. nuclear weapons were deployed on Okinawa prior to Okinawa’s reversion to Japan on May 15, 1972” has been declassified.
While this is indeed news concerning classification policy, it does not represent new information about Okinawa.
According to an existing Wikipedia entry, “Between 1954 and 1972, 19 different types of nuclear weapons were deployed in Okinawa, but with fewer than around 1,000 warheads at any one time” (citing research by Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin and William Burr that was published in 1999 in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). As often seems to be the case, declassification here followed disclosure, not the other way around.
If there is any revelation in the new DoD announcement, it is that this half-century-old historical information was still considered classified until now. As such, it has been an ongoing obstacle to the public release of records concerning the history of Okinawa and US-Japan relations.
Because this information had been classified as “Formerly Restricted Data” under the Atomic Energy Act rather than by executive order, its declassification required the concurrence of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and (in this case) the Department of State. Any one of those agencies had the power to veto the decision to declassify, or to stymie it by simply refusing to participate.
Instead, the information was declassified as a result of a new procedure adopted by the Obama Administration to coordinate the review of nuclear weapons-related historical material that is no longer sensitive but that has remained classified under the Atomic Energy Act by default. The new procedure had been recommended by a 2012 report from the Public Interest Declassification Board, and was adopted by the White House-led Classification Reform Committee.
Also newly declassified and affirmed this week was “The fact that prior to the reversion of Okinawa to Japan that the U.S. Government conducted internal discussion, and discussions with Japanese government officials regarding the possible re-introduction of nuclear weapons onto Okinawa in the event of an emergency or crisis situation.”
Such individual declassification actions could go on indefinitely, since there are innumerable other “facts” whose continued classification cannot reasonably be justified by current circumstances. A more systemic effort to recalibrate national security classification policy government-wide is to be performed over the coming year
Update: The National Security Archive posted the first officially declassified document on nuclear weapons in Okinawa, which was released in response to its request. See Nuclear Weapons on Okinawa Declassified, February 19, 201
February 20, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
OCEANIA, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
The whole nuclear weapons industry, the flaccid phallic posturing, the stern, brow-furrowing arguments for maintaining it – all are a con of epic proportions. We, the public, are being deceived left, right and centre into allowing fraudulent governments to squander our money on something which merely serves to inflate the wealth of those involved.
Trident: How the banks have their fingers on the button https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3468/trident-how-the-banks-have-their-fingers-on-the-button CommonSpace columnist Steve Topple investigates the finance behind nuclear weapons
THE debate surrounding the renewal of the Trident nuclear ‘deterrent’ is a perpetual one that never appears to be out of the news in some way. Take last week. On Monday, Labour went into (another) nuclear-grade meltdown over the ‘thorny’ issue (pun intended) of the party’s stance on the matter, with the GMB Union wading into the debate on Tuesday.
Thursday saw Whitehall sources suggest David Cameron will be delaying the vote on its renewal until after the EU referendum, and on Saturday the US defence secretary blundered in, urging the UK to renew the programme to keep its “outsized” role in the world, like our country was some sort of fast-food meal deal you only get in America.
How much do we really know about the detail of the finance behind Trident and the networks of power?
The UK’s Trident system consists of four submarines, each capable of carrying 16 missiles (but in line with government policy only ever carry eight). These in turn carry up to 12 warheads each (although again, policy deems a maximum of 40). One is on constant patrol, while another is under maintenance and two are either in training or in port.
The cost of the Trident renewal programme is, as is always the case, subjective. The government claims it will be £31bn (up from £25bn last year); activists claim the figure will be a lot higher, and the top-end amount quoted was by Reuters, estimating that over its lifetime the system will cost £167bn.
But how much do we really know about the detail of the finance behind Trident and the networks of power? I delved deeper into the murky waters of vested and financial interests that surround the world’s nuclear weapons – and the results were telling.
To understand why the current UK Government and its predecessors are just so keen on keeping our ‘deterrent’ – ignoring the advice of so many independent bodies – as always the first place to begin is the House of Lords.
Lord Hollick, who was a member of the select committee on economic affairs which gave evidence against Scottish independence, is also a director of a company called Honeywell, which has a contract with the government to develop systems to extend the life cycle of Trident.
I delved deeper into the murky waters of vested and financial interests that surround the world’s nuclear weapons – and the results were telling.
Lord Hague, director of Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (a company which deals in the trading of stocks and shares, including defence) is also chair of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which advises government on defence policy.
Meanwhile, Lord Hutton, adviser to nuclear weapons site security firm Bechtel Corporation, consultant for big-name weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin and chair of the Nuclear Industries Association, was until last year chair of RUSI.
By my calculations (checking every member’s interests against those companies involved with the Trident), over 15 per cent have what can be deemed as ‘vested interests’ in either the corporations involved in the programme or the institutions that finance them, and this is just for our nuclear capability – one suspects the percentage for defence in general would be higher.
While we’re on the subject of RUSI, on 4 February this year Malcolm Chalmers, director of research there, participated in a debate on Newsnight where he asserted it was “most unlikely that [Trident] will be phased out … I see no evidence for that”, while promoting the myth that the main argument against nuclear weapons was a “moral” one – because we couldn’t spend £167bn in a better way, obviously…
This stance from Chalmers on Trident (and RUSI’s previous proposals of merely scaling back the programme) is unsurprising when you consider the links to the House of Lords I mention above – even less so when you take into account that RUSI is sponsored byfour companies directly involved in Trident – Babcock, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Rolls Royce.
The rot surrounding the rabid disease of cronyistic, chumocratical influence in Westminster putridly festers in the banks.
But there’s more. The rot surrounding the rabid disease of cronyistic, chumocratical influence in Westminster also putridly festers in the banks. A report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (iCan) cited 41 UK-based financial institutions that invested directly in the nuclear weapons industry (including Labour Party bankrollers the Cooperative); institutions which can be found splattered across the House of Lords register, riddling the government external appointments list (note HSBC’s former directors Lord Green, Rona Fairhead of the BBC Trust and Ruth Kelly of the FCA); and on the headers of numerous political party consultations.
But, here’s the real crux of the matter regarding financial institutions and the system as a whole’s involvement in the nuclear weapons industry – they don’t just bat for ‘our team’.
Almaz-Antey is a state-owned Russian defence industry manufacturer, responsible for at least 26 sub-operators, which predominantly develops anti-aircraft defence systems. It gained notoriety after it was suggested that it was one of its BUK surface-to-air missiles that shot down flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014.
Funding for Almaz-Antey generally comes from either the Russian Government directly, or via the state-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB) development bank – for example, in 2012 Almaz received RUB 35bn from the Defence Ministry and 25bn from VEB to develop the S-500 Prometey air and missile defence system – touted to be the most advanced on the planet.
Being ‘state-owned’, however, doesn’t always mean state-funded, as an archived press release from 2011 shows. In April of that year VEB signed an agreement for a syndicated loan worth $2.4bn, from 19 banks – and they were all outside of Russia.
UK institutions included Barclays and HSBC, and other prominent contributors were JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse – five of the very same banks that were also listed on iCan’s report as funding/investing in Western nuclear programmes.
This example is not, however, some fluke. Uralvagonzavod, which develops Russia’s anti-aircraft tanks, deals with the country’s Sberbank. It, in turn, is 43 per cent retained by ‘international legal investors’ (the detail of which I cannot find), and owns £87bn of assets across the OECD countries. Furthermore, Barclays is also involved, having bid forthe contract to supply the bank with an RUB 3.5bn credit line.
Rostec State Corporation (an umbrella company for 663 other organisations, mostly relating to the military) owns and is part-financed by Novikombank – which in turn is financed by Deutsch Bank, Credit Suisse and – yes, you guessed it – Barclays.
Note also that the latter runs investment operations in the country, and has been assisting the Russian Government with the privatisation of state assets. But perhaps the most disturbing part of this is who finances Russia’s Trident equivalent – the Dolgorukiy class submarine programme.
Manufactured by a company called Sevmash, it receives its financing from the state-owned VEB bank. So yes, correct – Barclays and HSBC, both UK banks, are both directly funding Trident via investment and financing arrangements with Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and Babcock in the UK, while also indirectly funding the equivalent nuclear deterrent of UK ‘enemy’ Russia.
Get it yet?
Multinational corporate banks are playing one big chess game – except it’s all make-believe and there will never be a checkmate, because that would be unprofitable. Governments willingly participate – those in charge are invariably shareholders in weapons manufacturing companies or their financiers.
We are not living in some Sean Connery-era James Bond film. The world is intrinsically too financially entwined for either the East or West to ever press ‘the button’ – and to believe they would is, in my opinion, deluded.
You want a comparison of the current state of the planet and a Bond film? Try Spectre. A group of unelected corporate terrorists pulling the strings of government – or the‘military industrial complex’ if you prefer (although Eisenhower’s theory now pales in comparison with the reality).
Perhaps what sticks in the throat the most, however, is one bank I haven’t mentioned: the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The bank that we, the public, hold an 84 per cent stake in after the 2008 financial crash. A bank that invests not only in 10 companies that are involved in Trident, but is also a financier of Russia’s VEB bank. So therefore a bank which invests in Russia’s nuclear deterrent, as well as ours.
We are fundamentally providing the money to pay for both the East and the West’s nuclear weapons – and then to add insult to injury we pay for our own, again, via taxation.
The whole nuclear weapons industry, the flaccid phallic posturing, the stern, brow-furrowing arguments for maintaining it – all are a con of epic proportions. We, the public, are being deceived left, right and centre into allowing fraudulent governments to squander our money on something which merely serves to inflate the wealth of those involved.
There is no threat – except from our own foolhardiness for sleep-walking for decades and allowing this to continue happening.
The sooner we wake up, the better.
February 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Security firms deny responsibility for stolen nuclear material in Iraq, Islamic State dirty bomb fears linger , ABC News 19 Feb 16 Swiss inspections group SGS has denied any responsibility for security at the site in southern Iraq where radioactive material disappeared from last year, prompting fears it could be acquired by Islamic State militants……
Reuters released an exclusive report showing that Iraq is searching for “highly dangerous” radioactive material which the theft of has raised fears among Iraqi officials that it could be used to make a dirty bomb if acquired by IS militants.
A dirty bomb combines nuclear material with conventional explosives to contaminate an area with radiation, in contrast to a nuclear weapon, which uses nuclear fission to trigger a vastly more powerful blast.
“We are afraid the radioactive element will fall into the hands of Daesh,” a senior security official with knowledge of the theft, using an Arabic acronym for IS militants, said.
“They could simply attach it to explosives to make a dirty bomb.”……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-19/sgs-denies-responsibility-for-missing-nuclear-material-in-iraq/7182482
February 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Iraq, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
There are hundreds of secret nuclear bunkers in Britain ready and waiting for WW3
RUSSIA has announced that we are in a new Cold War after the relationship between the West and them have become more and more strained. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/494567/cold-war-nuclear-apocalypse-world-war-three-how-could-you-survive-russia-north-korea-bomb By Helen Whitehouse [Good Photos] 14th February 2016 Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said: “One could go so far as to say we have slid back to a new Cold War” after describing NATO’s policies towards Russia as “unfriendly and opaque”.
The biggest ever bombing raid is currently taking place in Syria, pounding anti-Assad rebels.
But the US, Britain and France claim that air strikes against the rebels are helping ISIS, causing tensions to rise between them and Russia.
The last Cold War, spanning from the 1960s right to the 1990s saw the UK bracing for a nuclear attack – and this could be looking likely once again.
The doomsday clock is set very close to midnight, North Korea have recently announced they successfully tested the H-Bomb and Russia are claiming a new Cold War.
Should the UK be preparing for the nuclear apocalypse?
If that is the case, luckily there could be a specially re-enforced concrete bunker to protect you from atomic attack within minutes of your front door.
Thousands of bunkers were built in the last Cold War when nuclear attack seemed more a likelihood than a possibility.
And a lot of these structures still remain dotted around the English countryside – but the bad news is you would never be able to use them.
Instead of offering protection to normal people, these would be manned by teams of specially trained officers sending vital information across the country.
And although in the event of another nuclear war we might be able to use the remaining bunkers as protection, less than 1% of the general population would be able to seek shelter.
The biggest UK shelter in Burlington, Wilts, potentially had space for 100,000 people but only a fraction of that would be housed in the event of an attack.
In the last Cold War, those really desperate for a safe spot could volunteer at one of the 1,500 small boltholes dotted within ten miles of every home.These were manned by four members of the public who would gather information on what the world was looking like after the attack and send it into the bigger bunkers for officials to process.
People did volunteer for these positions – but if a bomb did go off, it would have meant leaving family behind.
One of the remaining sites is a bunker in York which gives an insight of what might go on as the UK braces for war.
It once would have housed staff and officials monitoring the dire situation on the outside – and had supplies and equipment stockpiled in the event of an attack.
It is open to the public and still in working order as it was in the 80s when tensions over nuclear war were last at the highest.
Rachael Bowers, English Heritage site manager said: “When a nuclear bomb explodes, it generates heat, blast and radiation – all of which are harmful to humans.
“The thick concrete walls of the bunker are covered with a layer of brick, three layers of asphalt to make it watertight and almost a metre of soil.”
She added that, like the other bunkers in the UK, all the doors are fitted with a seal to keep radioactive material out and the bunker would be pressurised – meaning no dust particles could end up inside.
In the event of a nuclear attack, radiation sickness would kill of those not immediately obliterated by the blast.
It would be a long, painful way to go – so in the event of a bomb, it’s important to have systems in place to keep people safe from the radiation.
The prospect of this was so terrifying in the last Cold War that police would have manned the bunker door if a bomb went off to stop general people attempting to rush inside.
There would be enough supplies stockpiled inside for occupants to survive 30 days, the most harmful period after a nuclear bomb hit.
There are still hundreds of these concrete shells around the UK. But if we came under threat of a nuclear attack, could we run and hide in these safe rooms?
Nick Catford, author of Cold War Bunkers, says the shelters were designed only to provide a place for officials to work safely through the crisis.
He says that the concrete shells could be used as protection against the aftermath of the bomb but would need kitting out with more up-to-date tech.
He also added that no bunker could ever take a direct hit from a weapon and survive especially with the stronger, more sophisticated bombs we have today.
“None of the shelters were designed to take a direct hit. Many of them would survive a near miss and those that are still in use would continue to function. The problem with the old bunkers is that all the life support plant, if it is still there, will no longer be operational so if any are to be brought back into use they would have to be completely refurbished and probably refitted.
“If we refurbished some of our old bunkers they would really only be any uses as fallout shelters as they equipment they were designed for would be totally obsolete.”
During the Cold War members of the public were advised to build their own shelters in their homes.Advice was to stock up on food, re-enforce the walls with sandbags and even paint windows white to reflect heat.
Whereas the specially built bunkers had air conditioning and sealed doors, the general public was encouraged to use sandbags and heavy objects to re-enforce walls and stop as much radiation seeping through as possible.
No nuclear weapon ever went off in the UK, so it was never tested how successful this advice would be.
200 of the shelters are still left in tact and dotted around the country but it would never ever be an option for civilians to use them as protection.
So anyone concerned about the Cold War heating up this time best get building their own bomb shelter.
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
How the Soviet Union and China Almost Started World War III The National Interest, Robert Farley 9 Feb 16 Americans tend to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis as the most dangerous moment in Cold War brinksmanship. Despite some tense moments, Washington and Moscow resolved that crisis with only the death of U.S. Air Force pilot Maj. Rudolph Anderson Jr.
Seven years later, in March 1969, a contingent of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers raided a Soviet border outpost on Zhenbao Island, killing dozens and injuring scores. The incident brought Russia and China to the brink of war, a conflict that might have led to the use of nuclear weapons. But after two weeks of clashes, the conflict trailed off.
What if the brief 1969 conflict between China and the Soviet Union had escalated?…….http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-the-soviet-union-china-almost-started-world-war-iii-15152
February 12, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
history, politics international, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
The Trident nuclear weapons system could become obsolete during its lifetime, Labour warns The shadow defence secretary says new technologies are being developed to expose submarines, Independent Jon Stone @joncstone 9 Feb 16 The Trident nuclear weapons system could become technologically obsolete within its lifetime, Labour’s shadow defence secretary has warned.
Emily Thornberry said that emerging technologies could render Trident ineffective as a nuclear deterrent during its 30-year lifetime. She said the development of under-sea drones and other technologies on the horizon might make a long-term lifetime spending commitment of between £100 billion and £160 billion unwise.
“The idea of the Trident replacement is that it can hide in the sea – if technology is moving faster than that then it may well be that Trident is not able to hide,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “If that’s right and we are to bet everything on mutually assured destruction then we have to be assured that it’s going to work. If it can’t hide any more that is a problem.
“It is right for the opposition to make sure that it works before voting for a commitment that according to Crispin Blunt would cost £167 billion.”
The shadow defence secretary is currently leading a review of Labour’s policy on nuclear weapons………
The independent Trident Commission estimated that the system would cost £100 billion over its lifetime, though estimates compiled by Reuters with the help of Tory MP Crispin Blunt and official Ministry of Defence statistics suggest the cost could be as high as £167 billion http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-labour-policy-nuclear-weapons-deterrent-obsolete-emily-thornberry-a6862501.html
February 10, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
The UN Security Council has strongly condemned North Korea’s rocket launch, saying it will speed up work on a sanctions resolution “in response to these dangerous and serious violations”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-08/un-security-council-condemns-north-korea-missile-launch/7147354
February 10, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 