Hiroshima and Nagasaki: There were other choices
IT WAS NOT INEVITABLE None of these factors justifies the bombing as inevitable…..
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: There were other choices , NAPSNet Special Reports, September 28, 2015, http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/hiroshima-and-nagasaki/ Nautilus Institute, by Peter Hayes
INTRODUCTION There is no single compelling factor to justify the bombings as inevitable, argues Peter Hayes. Rather, a series of decisions and events cumulatively drove the bomb forward from development to deployment at Hiroshima. The later nuclear attack on Nagasaki, moreover, was gratuitous. This report was initially published in the Fall 2015 issue of Global Asia. Peter Hayes is Professor at the Centre for International Security Studies, Sydney University, Director of the Nautilus Institute and a Global Asia editorial board member.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: There Were Other Choices
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain within living memory. The mayors of these two cities, the first to be annihilated by nuclear weapons, have invited the Group of 7 leaders to meet with Japanese hibakusha(bomb survivors) after their May 2016 summit in Ise-Shima.
If they go — as they should — the question of whether the bombings were necessary should be uppermost in their mind. “Yes” would mean that nuclear deterrence, and its spawn, nuclear extended deterrence, have historical underpinnings justified in universal morality and international law, starting with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “No” would commit them to abolishing nuclear weapons, however long it takes, as the necessary redemption for needlessly sacrificing these two cities.
Today, this choice is starkly binary, albeit complex. In 1945, the decision to use the bomb was not obvious or even well understood by many of the key players. Continue reading
Shetland Islands Council endorses Mayors for Peace call for nuclear weapons free world
Convener calls time on nuclear weapons http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2015/09/29/convener-calls-time-on-nuclear-weapons 29/09/2015 , by Shetland Times,
The council’s convener has backed international calls for a world free of nuclear weapons.
A joint statement from mayors, religious leaders and parliamentarians from across the world was adopted in Hiroshima in August and presented to the United Nations on Saturday, the international day for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
Malcolm Bell is a member of the Mayors for Peace organisation, which works internationally to raise consciousness around nuclear weapons abolition. It also seeks lasting world peace by working to address starvation, poverty, refugee welfare, human rights abuses and environmental destruction.
Shetland Islands Council is also a member of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities group, which works to increase local accountability over national nuclear policy, identify the impact of that on local communities, and to minimise nuclear hazards and increase public safety.
The statement:
· Highlights the continuing risks of a nuclear catastrophe – whether by accident, miscalculation or intent – and the moral and security imperative to achieve nuclear abolition.
· Notes that ‘mayors are responsible for protecting the safety and welfare of their citizens, as well as for preserving and promoting cultural and environmental values and heritages’.
· Deplores the nuclear weapons budget of ‘$100 billion annually’, and says such funds could be used to reverse climate change, eliminate poverty and address other social and economic needs.
· Affirms ‘UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s description of the abolition of nuclear weapons as a “common good of the highest order”.
Mr Bell said: “I am delighted to have this opportunity to endorse the joint statement of fellow civic heads, religious leaders and parliamentarians which commemorates the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the nuclear age, and the foundation of the United Nations.”
Can Nuclear Power Be Used for Peaceful Purposes?
Cancer, Coverups and Contamination: The Real Cost of Nuclear Energy 27th September 2015Andreas Toupadakis Ph.D Contributing Writer for Wake Up World
“……Recently, the advocates of nuclear energy have been presenting to the people a deceiving choice between nuclear power and global warming. It is basically a form of extortion by the nuclear establishment towards the people and it is in its highest form, especially in the United States today. The alternatives of solar power, wind power, geo-thermal power and conservation are just a few of the safe, non-polluting answers to our energy problem but they are methodologically ignored or undermined. Their development and finally their application will simply not contribute profits to the nuclear empire and those who control it.
Countries like the US and other economically strong countries do not need nuclear energy, like some people advocate. Forward thinking nations such as Denmark are already generating 140% of their electricity needs from wind power alone. So why is the US government still advocating for nuclear energy?
While the nuclear power plant is producing nuclear energy, it is also producing new nuclear waste materials which can be used after some work to manufacture nuclear weapons. In other words, when nuclear reactors produce electricity, they also produce plutonium at the same time, which can be used to make nuclear bombs. That is very important for people to realize. In the United States, the Department of Energy finances and manages the nuclear weapons programs. In reality the Department of Energy is basically the Department of Weapons. The nuclear weapons programs need nuclear materials to make the bombs. Who provides them? The Department of Energy does. The building of nuclear power plants in the U.S. began in 1943 to produce atomic bombs — it was not until 1957 that plants began to produce electricity, providing a continuous supply of plutonium to the nuclear weapons programs.
With the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, official production of nuclear materials solely for weapons use ceased in the United States, however US government policy and funding decisions since that time have actively encouraged the development of greater nuclear energy capacity which, of course, produces more plutonium waste for nuclear weapons development.
In the U.S. today, 70 years since the US atomic bombing of Japan, nuclear weapons development is still on the rise. Currently President Barack Obama is planning to invest a further trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money into the military industry to develop and build more nuclear weaponry, despite the fact that the U.S. is already the most heavily armed nuclear nation in the world.
If someone looks honestly at all of the facts, it is obvious that nuclear power fuels the nuclear bomb, which in turn fuels world domination. It is the weapon of the strong to subdue the weak. The citizens of every country need to closely examine the information that the advocates of the nuclear power are providing to them. They only care for material progress, therefore they close their ears and eyes to anything that has to do with public health. They misinform and disinform the people. The examples are numerous……http://wakeup-world.com/2015/09/27/cancer-coverups-and-contamination-the-real-cost-of-nuclear-energy/
Islamic State might get hold of a nuclear weapon
IS may get hold of nuclear weapon http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/25-09-2015/132133-isis-0/ – Polish web portal Interia analyzed probability of the Islamic State terrorists’ getting hold of nuclear weapons, having surveyed a number of experts.
However, other experts estimated the probable occurrence of a “dirty” bomb in hands of Islamists not so univocally. There are three options of getting nuclear weapon by the Islamic State, these are: purchase abroad, assistance of staff, that guards nuclear sites, or an attack (including a cyber one) against a Nuclear Power Plant.
Yukiya Amano, Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency called to stay alert. There is evidence that terrorists try their best to get access to nuclear weapons, or to data on the creation of a “dirty bomb”. IAEA has registered about 2,800 various incidents related to inadequate control over radioactive materials.
By the way, the US presidential candidate Donald Trump has recently called to attack the IS with a nuclear strike, despite its calling lives of civilians. Trump is going to strike the Syrian city of Al-Raqqah with a nuclear attack, in case he becomes a President.
Pravda.Ru reported that the IS leaders claimed about their intentions to make everything possible to obtain nuclear weapons. Terrorists possess huge funds after selling oil and intent to purchase chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. There have already been cases of chemical weapons employment in Syria by the “opposition”, which tried to perform an act of provocation against Bashar al-Assad.
: http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/25-09-2015/132133-isis-0/#sthash.p0PoEm7E.dpuf-
UK’s Labour and Scottish National Party to join forces opposing Trident nuclear weapons system
Corbyn says Labour and SNP will join forces to oppose nuclear deterrent. Irish Times, 25 Sept 15 Labour leader’s opposition to Trident puts him at odds with many in his own party The British Labour Party will work with the Scottish nationalists to try to block the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent in a parliamentary vote due next year, Labour’s new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said on Friday.
The Conservative government backs the multibillion-pound renewal of Britain’s ageing fleet of nuclear-armed submarines. It has a slim majority in parliament, so some of prime minister David Cameron’s own MPs, as well as other opposition parties, would have to join with Labour and the SNP to defeat the plans.
The Scottish National Party, which won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland in the general election in May, has long opposed renewing the weapons and had called on veteran antiwar campaigner Mr Corbyn to support them.
“My position on Trident has been very clear all of my life. I am opposed to nuclear weapons,” Mr Corbyn, who was elected as Labour’s leader earlier this month, told BBC Scotland.
“Trident should go. I do not believe that it is a form of defence. I do not believe it is something that anyone in their proper mind would ever want to use.”
Labour’s existing position is to back the renewal of Trident, although it has previously suggested reducing the number of submarines to three from four……..http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/corbyn-says-labour-and-snp-will-join-forces-to-oppose-nuclear-deterrent-1.2366935
European countries caught up in America’s nuclear weapons trap
Shocked Into Reality: Europeans Find Themselves Caught in US Nuclear Trap, Sputnik News, Ekaterina Blinova, 2 Sept 15, Washington’s plan to modernize NATO’s nuclear arsenal in Germany has triggered a heated debate across Europe and prompted concerns in Moscow; if the information is confirmed it would “shock Europe into reality,” French journalist and founder of Agora Erasmus political organization Karel Vereycken told Sputnik.“Experts remain skeptical and astonished about such an early timetable, since the upgrade of the weapons was only expected to be ready in 2019. Four years to prepare an airbase for the new weapons seems farfetched and would imply that the B61-12 is scheduled to arrive sooner than expected,” Vereycken told Sputnik.
Earlier this month, Belgian political organization Agora Erasmus drew up a petition against the modernization of NATO’s nuclear weaponry in Belgium. It is worth mentioning that US tactical nuclear armaments are currently stationed in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.
“If the information is confirmed it would shock Europe into reality,” Vereycken underscored.
According to the journalist, the information could have been leaked by US military officials who oppose Barack Obama’s ‘nuclearization’ policy in Europe. Purportedly, those who released the information hoped that the leak would spark public protests in the EU… …….
The irony of the situation is that while Germany’s population remains widely opposed to nuclear power, the country is now being forced by Washington to station new nuclear bombs on its territory.
On the other hand, Washington’s recent saber-rattling and muscle-flexing in Europe have attracted the attention of international observers, who consider the moves a sign of the US’ increasing hostility toward Russia………http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150924/1027482113/us-nuclear-trap-for-europeans.html
Nuclear boys argue about their nuclear toys
US-Russia Nuclear Weapons Standoff: Air Force Won’t Station New Atomic Bombs In Germany Until 2020 http://www.ibtimes.com/us-russia-nuclear-weapons-standoff-air-force-wont-station-new-atomic-bombs-germany-2112791
“The B61-12 won’t reach full production until FY20,” said Shelley Laver, deputy director of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration public affairs department, who spoke with Tass Wednesday. “The articles implying deployment to Europe by the end of the calendar year would be inaccurate.”
The reports were based on an analysis of 2015 U.S. budget documents that said Air Force Tornado jet fighter bombers would be equipped with a new nuclear weapons system in the third quarter of this year.
The U.S. already has nuclear weapons inside Europe as part of a NATO-sharing program. While the countries involved — Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey — are technically non-nuclear states, they store, maintain and provide the means to deliver the weapons on behalf of the U.S. military.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said the German media was mistaken and actually meant that the nuclear project was in the second phase of a much longer project.
“All of these things have been in the books for years,” said Kristensen in the Tass report. “The [U.S.] Air Force has reported about the timelines for when these upgrades of the aircraft were going to be made and NNSA and many other agencies, of course, reported about the plans for the bomb itself.”
Russia to take ‘counter-steps’ if USA upgrades nuclear weapons in Europe
Russia threatens to take nuclear ‘countermeasures’ over reports U.S. plans to upgrade weapons in Europe, National Post, Roland Oliphant, Justin Huggler, Raf Sanchez, The Telegraph |September 24, 2015 Russia has threatened to take “countermeasures” if the United States goes ahead with the deployment of a new type of nuclear weapon in Germany, raising fears of a return to a Cold War arms race in Europe.
The Kremlin said plans reported by German media for the U.S. to upgrade its nuclear weapons arsenal in the country would be “a serious step towards raising tension” in Europe.
“Unfortunately, in the case of these plans – and we can say with certainty that they are moving towards realization – this can lead to a violation of the strategic balance in Europe,” said Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman.
“Therefore, of course, that would require Russia to take counter-steps and countermeasures to restore balance and parity,” he added. The deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe is subject to secrecy. But Washington is reportedly planning to replace 20 nuclear weapons deployed at Buchel airbase in western Germany with a more modern variant, according to ZDF television.
According to media reports, B61 bombs are to be replaced with B61-12s, more accurate and less destructive weapons which can be fired as missiles, as well as dropped from aircraft.
The Kremlin did not say what form the threatened countermeasures might take, but one source said a possible option would be the deployment of nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, Russia’s exclave on the Baltic Sea which borders Poland and Lithuania.
“With the new bombs the boundaries blur between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons,” Hans Kirstensen of the Nuclear Information Project in Washington told ZDF…….. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/russia-threatens-to-take-nuclear-countermeasures-over-reports-u-s-plans-to-upgrade-weapons-in-europe
North Korea’s nuclear belligerence highlights need for diplomacy and global disarmament treaty
The right lessons to take from North Korea’s nuclear belligerence are that nuclear weapons threaten the security of all nations, even those that possess them, and that nuclear double standards are a recipe for proliferation, not disarmament. Continuing to point nuclear weapons at North Korea while asking them not to point them back obviously won’t work.
For biological and chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions, a clear treaty prohibition paved the way for their progressive elimination. Establishing a clear moral, political and legal norm against these indiscriminate and inhumane weapons has drastically reduced their use and influenced even countries not signed up to the relevant treaty. Yet the nuclear-armed states show no intent of fulfilling their legally binding obligation to disarm.
Indeed, all are investing massively in modernising their nuclear arsenals. That is why states without the weapons need to take the lead and start negotiations that are open to all states but blockable by none, for a global treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons and provide for their verifiable elimination from the arsenals of all nations
If we can’t stop an impoverished nation like North Korea making nuclear weapons, our
tactics are clearly wrong The Conversation, Tilman Ruff Associate Professor, International Education and Learning Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 24 Sept 15 The timing of North Korea’s announcement last week that it has resumed “normal operation” of its Yongbyon nuclear reactor – along with a reaffirmation of its belligerent rhetoric against the United States – might be interpreted simply as a response to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s current US state visit.
But that is not to say that it shouldn’t be taken seriously. Continue reading
Pressure on nuclear weapons States to speed up nuclear disarmament process
Austrian ambassador in Scotland: ‘We can speed up nuclear disarmament process’ Alexander Kmentt speaks of growing international action in opposition to weapons of mass destruction, Common Space, 24 Sept 15
PRESSURE is building on nuclear weapons states to speed up their legal commitments to disarm their weapons of mass destruction, according to the Austrian ambassador for disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation.
Alexander Kmentt, speaking at the Scottish Parliament of a growing international movement to ban the weapons, explained to CommonSpace that non-nuclear nations are becoming impatient for change.
“There is a new awareness of a change in the humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons. There is a need to consider security in a broader sense. Consider the threats and risks associated with nuclear weapons. For countries in Africa there is now a growing awareness of how the use of nuclear weapons would impact on issues such as harvests and food security.
“The same is true for issues surrounding health impacts and the environment. Even the countries that do have nuclear weapons concede that the use of nuclear weapons would have a disastrous impact. It’s necessary to talk about nuclear weapons in these broader terms.”
Kmentt was a lead organiser of the third International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, which took place in December 2014 with a record 158 states in attendance.
Over three quarters of the world’s states are now part of a process to eliminate nuclear weapons, and over 100 states have signed a statement led by the Austrian government in favour of abolition.
Increasingly, the UK Government and the other six nuclear powers are isolated within the field of international states and policy makers. ………https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/2496/austrian-ambassador-in-scotland-we-can-speed-up-nuclear-disarmament-process
Pentagon Preparing War Plans for Baltic Battle Against Russia
The Sum of All Fears: Pentagon Preparing War Plans for Baltic Battle Against Russia SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 BY STUART HOOPER 21st Century Wire says… This truly is the sum of all fears.
In an exclusive report, Foreign Policy is breaking the alarming news that the Pentagon is preparing new war plans for battles with Russia in the Baltic. Plans for war with Russia were reportedly shelved after 1991, as the collapse of the Soviet Union pushed Russia into the globalized world where they had no option other than trying to make things work with the West.
Consequently those plans are having to be updated, with a senior defence official saying that “given the security environment, given the actions of Russia, it has become apparent that we need to make sure to update the plans that we have in response to any potential aggression against any NATO allies“……….
The most positive aspect of this report are the words of a State Department official:
“A lot of people at the Pentagon are unhappy about the confrontation. They were very happy with the military-to-military cooperation with Russia. We would like to be partners with Russia. We think that is the preferred course — that it benefits us, it benefits Russia, and it benefits the rest of the world.”
Any and all action that can prevent the outbreak of World War Three, the conclusion of the sum of all fears, will be remembered as a world historic event of the utmost importance. http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/22/the-sum-of-all-fears-pentagon-preparing-war-plans-for-baltic-battle-against-russia/
America’s nuclear lobbyists
Meet the Private Corporations Building Our Nuclear Arsenal, Privatizing our nuclear arsenal development is not only dangerous, but incredibly inefficient, The Nation By Richard Krushnic andJonathan Alan King, 22 Sept 15 “……..THE NUCLEAR LOBBYISTS Federal tax dollars expended on nuclear weapons maintenance and development are a significant component of the federal budget. Although difficult to pin down precisely, the sums run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported that even the Pentagon had no firm numbers when it came to how much the nuclear mission costs, nor is there a standalone nuclear weapons budget of any sort, so overall costs must be estimated. Analyzing the budgets of the Pentagon and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as information gleaned from Congressional testimony, the Center for Nonproliferation Studies suggests that, from 2010-2018, the United States will spend at least $179 billion to maintain the current nuclear triad of missiles, bombers, and submarines, with their associated nuclear weaponry, while beginning the process of developing their next-generation replacements. The Congressional Budget Office projects the cost of nuclear forces for 2015-2024 at $348 billion, or $35 billion annually, of which the Pentagon will spend $227 billion and the Department of Energy $121 billion.
In fact, the price for maintaining and developing the nuclear arsenal is actually far greater than either of those estimates. While those numbers include most of the direct costs of nuclear weapons and strategic launching systems like missiles and submarines, as well as the majority of the costs for the military personnel responsible for maintaining, operating, and executing the missions, they don’t include many other expenses, including the decommissioning process and nuclear-waste disposal issues involved in “retiring” weapons. Nor do they include the pensions and healthcare costs that will go with retiring their human operators.
In 2012, a report from a high-level committee chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright concluded that “no sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face [including] threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare, organized crime, drug trafficking, conflict-driven mass migration of refugees, epidemics, or climate change. In fact, nuclear weapons have on balance arguably become more a part of the problem than any solution.”
Not surprisingly, for the roster of corporations involved in the US nuclear programs, this matters little. They, in fact, maintain elaborate lobbying operations in support of their continuing nuclear weapons contracts. In a 2012 study for the Center for International Policy, “Bombs vs. Budgets: Inside the Nuclear Weapons Lobby,” William Hartung and Christine Anderson reported that, for the elections of that year, the top 14 contractors gave nearly $3 million directly to Congressional legislators. Not surprisingly, half that sum went to members of the four key committees or subcommittees that oversee spending for nuclear arms.
In 2015, the defense industry mobilized a small army of at least 718 lobbyists and doled out more than $67 million dollars pressuring Congress for increased weapons spending generally. Among the largest contributors were corporationswith significant nuclear weapons contracts, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics. Such pro-nuclear lobbying is augmented by contributions and pressure from missile and aircraft companies that are primarily non-nuclear. Some of the systems they produce, however, are potentially dual-use (conventional and nuclear), which means that a robust nuclear weapons program increases their potential market.
The continuing pressure of Congressional Republicans for cuts in domestic social programs are a crucial mechanism that ensures federal tax dollars will be available for lucrative military contracts. In terms of quality of life (and death), this means that underestimating the influence of the nuclear weapons industry is singularly dangerous. For the $35 billion or more the US taxpayer will put into such weaponry annually to support the narrow interests of a modest number of companies, the payback is fear of an apocalyptic future. After all, unlike almost all other corporate lobbies, the nuclear weapons lobby (and so your tax dollars) put life on Earth at risk of rapid extinction, either following the direct destruction of a nuclear holocaust or a radical reduction in sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface that would come from the sort of nuclear winter that would follow almost any nuclear exchange. At the moment, the corporate-nuclear complex is hidden in our midst, its budgets and funds shielded from public scrutiny, its project hardly noticed. It’s a formula for disaster. http://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-private-corporations-building-our-nuclear-arsenal/
USA to bring new nuclear B61, Mod 12 bomb to Germany
US to bring in new advanced nuclear bombs to Germany – report, Rt.com 22 Sep, 2015 Starting third quarter 2015, the US Air Force is starting preparations to bring in new B61 nuclear bombs to Luftwaffe’s Büchel Air Base, according to ZDF TV channel. German parliament previously called for American nukes to be removed.
The base in Rhineland-Palatinate in western Germany hosts German Panavia Tornado multipurpose aircraft that are capable to deploy the USAF nuclear bombs stored there under a nuclear sharing deal. The base is the only location in Germany that has nuclear weapons since 2007 and has 20 of them, according to the Royal United Services Institute.
The US is currently working on a new variant of the B61, Mod 12, which would be more accurate and have smaller yield than modifications 3 and 4 currently deployed in Europe…….https://www.rt.com/news/316186-germany-us-nukes-upgrade/
Russia rattled by USA adding to its nuclear weapons stockpile in Germanay
US Nuclear Weapons In Germany: Russia Concerned By American Plans To Add To Stockpile http://www.ibtimes.com/us-nuclear-weapons-germany-russia-concerned-american-plans-add-stockpile-2108265 By Christopher Harress @Charress c.harress@ibtimes.com on September 22 2015 Russia is concerned about U.S. plans to modernize and station additional nuclear weapons in Germany, according to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who spoke with a German TV channel Tuesday. The channel had reported earlier in the day that the U.S. planned to station 20 nuclear weapons in the European country, as per a line in the 2015 U.S. defense budget.
“We are concerned that these states actually have nuclear weapons as part of the framework of NATO’s nuclear sharing program,” said Zakharova in an interview with Germany’s ZDF television, according to Russian news site Sputnik. Zakharova also said that the move would contravene the Treaty of Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was ratified by 191 nations in 1970 to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
“At the same time in Europe — not just in Germany, but also in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey — U.S. tactical nuclear armaments remain deployed,” said Zakharova, who also claimed that Russia had reduced its own stockpiles fourfold since the 1990s, despite the U.S. keeping its arsenal at strength. “The Americans are modernizing their aerial bombs, and the NATO European members are modernizing their aircraft that carry these weapons,” he said.
The U.S. continues to maintain nuclear carrying facilities in the countries mentioned by Zakharova through a NATO sharing program. As part of nuclear sharing, host countries carry out consultations, make decisions on weapons policy and maintain equipment required for the use of nuclear weapons, including warplanes capable of delivering them. The United Kingdom and France are the only countries in Europe that maintain state-owned nuclear arsenals.
As part of the renewed hostilities between the U.S.-led NATO and Russia, who are clashing over Moscow’s military actions in Ukraine, Russia has threatened to place short- to medium-range nuclear capable missiles in Kaliningrad, an enclave on the Baltic coast controlled by Russia, according to a BBC report. The missiles would have the ability to reach nearly all areas of Europe.
Privatisation of USA’s nuclear arsenal – wasteful, inefficient, irresponsible
the production, maintenance, and modernization of nuclear weapons are sources of super profits for what is, in essence, a cartel.
Many Americans are unaware that much of the responsibility for nuclear weapons development, production, and maintenance lies not with the Pentagon but the Department of Energy (DOE), which spends more on nuclear weapons than it does on developing sustainable energy sources.
Through contracts with URS, Babcock & Wilcox, the University of California, and Bechtel, the nuclear weapons labs are to a significant extent privatized. The LANL contract alone is on the order of $14 billion. Similarly, the Savannah River Nuclear Facility, in Aiken, South Carolina, where nuclear warheads are manufactured, is jointly run by Flour, Honeywell International, and Huntington Ingalls Industries.
One of the reasons nuclear weapons profitability is extremely high is that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the Department of Energy, responsible for the development and operations of the DOE’s nuclear weapons facilities, does not monitor subcontractors, which makes it difficult to monitor prime contractors as well.
Meet the Private Corporations Building Our Nuclear Arsenal, Privatizing our nuclear arsenal development is not only dangerous, but incredibly inefficient, The Nation By Richard Krushnic andJonathan Alan King, 22 Sept 15
Imagine for a moment a genuine absurdity: Somewhere in the United States, the highly profitable operations of a set of corporations were based on the possibility that sooner or later your neighborhood would be destroyed and you and all your neighbors annihilated. And not just you and your neighbors, but others and their neighbors across the planet. What would we think of such companies, of such a project, of the mega-profits made off it?
In fact, such companies do exist. They service the American nuclear weapons industry and the Pentagon’s vast arsenal of potentially world-destroying weaponry. They make massive profits doing so, live comfortable lives in our neighborhoods, and play an active role in Washington politics. Most Americans know little or nothing about their activities and the media seldom bother to report on them or their profits, even though the work they do is in the service of an apocalyptic future almost beyond imagining.
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (190)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
