weapons and war « nuclear-news

Nuclear threat is more real than at any time since second World War

Worldview: Nuclear non-proliferation is moving rapidly backwards. Frank Aiken’s vision and diplomacy are once more desperately needed.

Irish Times, Patrick Smyth, Sat May 03 2025

Last Monday night, the UN Security Council held a private meeting on nuclear non-proliferation. The French presidency warned that efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons are “facing increasingly serious challenges”

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obliges nuclear states not to transfer nuclear weapons to other states, and commits others to not acquiring them. It is arguably Ireland’s most important diplomatic achievement, coming into force 55 years ago after a four-year campaign by late former tánaiste Frank Aiken and the passing of his “Irish resolution”.

Only five states – the US, the Soviet Union, China, Britain and France – were recognised then as having nuclear weapons. Four more – India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea – have since acquired the bomb. Others are lining up.

Aiken saw non-proliferation as an essential complement to the stalled disarmament process – as he put it in a speech to the UN, “to preserve a Pax Atomica while we build a Pax Mundi”. The NPT, he argued, would bridge the gap between states opposed to nuclear weapons and those who saw them as essential to deterrence, including Nato members.

His advocacy of annual “non-dissemination” resolutions, UCC academic Morgan O’Driscoll writes, was inspired by a pragmatic belief that incremental, concrete steps would ease international tensions. Stopping the spread of nukes could help to prevent a runaway arms race……………..

The preoccupations evident at the recent UN meeting were the “ongoing proliferation crises” over North Korea, whose nuclear weapons programme, UN inspectors say, has grown “exponentially”, and Iran, which is in talks with the US on restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action treaty (JCPOA) restricting its nuclear programme, which US president Donald Trump scuppered at the end of his first term.

Notwithstanding these concerns, there is a broader context to the discussion – a growing fear that multilaterally driven disarmament, specifically non-proliferation, is moving rapidly backwards, dangerously undoing decades of important, albeit slow, progress. Trump has a lot to do with it.

“The Trump phenomenon,” says Ankit Panda, author of The New Nuclear Age, “has provided a powerful accelerant for voices in US-allied states who now see nuclear weapons in their own hands as fundamentally solving the problem posed by American unreliability.”

Trust in allies’ promises has been the key cornerstone of the acceptance of non-proliferation commitments

……………………..The promises of mutual support underpinning the constraints of the NPT on acquiring nuclear weapons are seen increasingly as inadequate. Now, states want their own.

Germany and Poland are publicly talking of needing nuclear options, at least by sharing French or UK nuclear deterrents. Support is growing in South Korea, and the long-taboo debate is surfacing even in Japan. In the Middle East, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have signalled they would want to match Iranian capabilities if Tehran obtained a bomb.

After the Cuban missile crisis, Washington assured European and Asian allies that they could rely on the US for their nuclear security. Only after they were convinced of the credibility of guarantees did Germany and Japan forego a national nuclear option to join the new NPT.

French determination in the 1960s to build its own nuclear deterrence, against the wishes of Washington, was born out of Charles de Gaulle’s conviction that Washington‘s promises were unreliable. Would the US really risk a nuclear attack on Washington if Paris was hit?

And China, in a similar calculation regarding Moscow, followed suit after its split with the USSR in the 1960s.

Trump’s unwillingness to unequivocally endorse Nato‘s Article 5 mutual defence pledge has profoundly undermined trust at the core of the alliance, just as his reluctance to do the same in respect of Ukraine has led Kyiv to discuss nuclear rearmament.

Ukraine, Poland and South Korea are all believed to possess the technology to build nuclear weapons. Japan, the only state to have suffered a nuclear attack, and whose population remains deeply opposed to nuclear weapons, was an early signatory to the NPT, but as North Korea became a nuclear power, and China more militarily assertive, what was seen as impossible is being discussed.

Aiken‘s vision and passionate diplomacy are once more desperately needed to save the NPT and the parlous multilateral disarmament process from its continuing downward spiral. That should be the central focus of Ireland’s diplomacy. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2025/05/03/threat-of-a-nuclear-exchange-is-more-real-than-at-any-time-since-second-world-war/

May 6, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Shut down Elbit Systems everywhere!

Bruce K. Gagnon, Organizing Notes, May 03, 2025

Elbit Systems is an Israeli military corporation making weapons for its current multiple wars as the zionists attempt to build ‘Greater Israel’ and take over the region from indigenous populations.

They are the world’s leading terrorists.

Elbit builds weapon production plants in nations around the globe in order to ‘buy support’ for its colonizing agenda.

Check around and you will likely find one near your community.

Congrats to the movement in Boston for forcing MIT, thru organizing pressure, to cut links with Elbit. Activists in the UK have shut down a couple Elbit facilities and forced some of their other corporate links to be severed such as with insurance companies and the like.

The Elbit facility in nearby Merrimack, New Hampshire has also drawn important protests in recent years. I was involved in one where I got arrested for serving as the police liaison. ……………………………………… https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2025/05/shut-down-elbit-systems-everywhere.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

May 6, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Need to use nuclear weapons has not arisen in Ukraine, says Putin

Russian leader says he hopes nuclear strikes ‘will not be required’ in state TV film about his 25 years in power.

Angelique Chrisafis and agencies, 5 May 25, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/04/need-to-use-use-nuclear-weapons-has-not-arisen-in-ukraine-says-putin

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said in comments broadcast on Sunday said that the need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine had not arisen, and that he hoped it would not.

Speaking in a film by Russian state television about his 25 years in power, Putin said that Russia has the strength and the means to bring the conflict in Ukraine to what he called a “logical conclusion”.

Responding to a question from a state television reporter about Ukrainian strikes on Russia, Putin said: “There has been no need to use those [nuclear] weapons … and I hope they will not be required.”

Fear of nuclear escalation has been a factor in US officials’ thinking since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. The former CIA director William Burns has said there was a real risk in late 2022 that Russia could use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

In autumn 2022, the US was so concerned about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia that it warned Putin over the consequences of using such weapons, Burns has said. At the same time, the Chinese leader Xi Jinping also warned Putin not to resort to nuclear weapons.

Putin signed a revamped version of Russia’s nuclear doctrine in November 2024, spelling out the circumstances that allow him to use Moscow’s atomic arsenal, the world’s largest. That version lowered the bar, giving him the option of using nuclear weapons in response to even a conventional attack backed by a nuclear power.

The US president, Donald Trump, has said he wants to end the conflict via diplomatic means, raising the question of whether Putin was willing to negotiate a peace settlement. But the Kremlin has rejected calls by Kyiv and Washington for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire.

Putin, in February 2022, ordered tens of thousands of Russian troops to invade Ukraine. Moscow’s forces now control about 20% of Ukraine, including parts of the south and east.

In the carefully choreographed state television film, Putin was shown in his private Kremlin kitchen offering chocolates and a fermented Russian milk drink to the Kremlin correspondent, Pavel Zarubin.

Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel who was handed the presidency on the last day of 1999 by an ailing Boris Yeltsin, is the longest serving Kremlin leader since Joseph Stalin, who ruled for 29 years until his death in 1953.

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How bloody conflict 4,000 miles away could spark nuclear Armageddon killing billions

The “Army of the Righteous” terror group has been accused of slaughtering 22 Indian tourists holidaying in the Baisaran valley – which is pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of conflict

12:23, 02 May 2025, Ryan Fahey News Reporter, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/how-bloody-conflict-4000-miles-35158973

While the West is focused on how close Vladimir Putin is to pushing the red button, the real threat of Armageddon could be brewing in South Asia.

In April, suspected Islamist Pakistani militants shot dead 22 Indian tourists holidaying in the Baisaran valley, which is now pushing India and Pakistan – both nuclear-armed countries – to the brink of a nuclear confrontation. The gunmen are said to have prowled through the group of tourists, picking off any individual unable to recite Islamic verses. It’s being viewed by Indians as the worst massacre since the 2008 Mumbai bombings.

India’s security services are also being blamed for failing to realise the looming threat as the public outcry for retribution continues to grow. Indian national identity and foreign policy expert Dr Manali Kumar said the relations between the two countries are at a critically low point and “just short of war”. However, any overt acts of war would see a swift response from Pakistan, which would likely push the two sides into an escalating conflict that would be impossible to reverse once started.

India has an active army of 1.2million, with an additional 250,000 individuals split between the navy and air force, while Pakistan has less than 700,000 – but experts believe the two sides are far more evenly matched than it would seem.

Defence experts say that Pakistan could still “inflict significant damage and cause massive casualties”, according to the MailOnline.

Where the most concerning comparison comes is when looking at the nuclear arsenals of each country. Both Pakistan and India are understood to have around 170 warheads heads each, according to the Arms Control Association. While India has agreed to a “no first use” nuclear pact”, Pakistan does not adhere to the same moral restriction.

And if the apocalypse did happen in South Asia, 125 million people would be dead in a matter of days, researchers warned back in 2019.

India has accused Pakistani nationals – said to be members of the same “Army of the Righteous” terror group responsible for Mumbai – of carrying out the April 22 killing spree. Pakistan has denied involvement, and has already warned it would respond to any military aggression on the basis of “baseless and concocted allegations”.

The reason India has conflated the Pakistani government with the terror group is that they are said to have links to Pakistan’s Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI) agency.

In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 2019, researchers said that there would be “tens of millions” of immediate victims if a nuke was launched in South Asia. It would have devastating environmental impacts, causing famines that could affect billions of people across the world.

“The direct effects of this nuclear exchange would be horrible; the authors estimate that 50 to 125 million people would die, depending on whether the weapons used had yields of 15, 50, or 100 kilotons,” the article read.

“The ramifications for Indian and Pakistani society would be major and long-lasting, with many major cities largely destroyed and uninhabitable.

“Smoke and radioactive particles would ‘spread globally within weeks… cooling the global surface, reducing precipitation and threatening mass starvation.”

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | India, Pakistan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel Bombs Humanitarian Aid Flotilla on Way to Gaza

A similar aid convoy was attacked by Tel Aviv in 2010, killing 10 people and injuring dozens more.

by Will Porter May 2, 2025 , https://news.antiwar.com/2025/05/02/israel-bombs-humanitarian-aid-flotilla-on-way-to-gaza/

A ship carrying supplies bound for the Gaza Strip was attacked by Israeli drones in international waters on Friday, according to the activist group that organized the flotilla. The vessel reportedly took at least one direct hit to its hull and sustained damage from fire, forcing its crew to issue an urgent call for help.

Organizers with the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) said one of their vessels was attacked by an unidentified drone in the early hours of Friday morning, noting the ship was not far off the coast of Malta when it was hit.

“At 00:23 Maltese time, the Conscience, a Freedom Flotilla Coalition ship, came under direct attack in international waters,” the group said in a press release. “Armed drones attacked the front of an unarmed civilian vessel twice, causing a fire and a substantial breach in the hull. [. . .] The drone strike appears to have deliberately targeted the ship’s generator, leaving the crew without power and placing the vessel at great risk of sinking.”

An FFC spokesperson, Caoimhe Butterly, later told Reuters that the ship was struck en route to Malta, where it was scheduled to pick up other activists, among them climate campaigner Greta Thunberg and retired US Army Colonel Mary Ann Wright. The group said it had arranged the aid shipment “under a media black out to avoid any potential sabotage.”

The FFC also shared footage which allegedly shows the aftermath of the strike, with smoke and flames seen on the ship. At one point in the brief video, an apparent explosion can be heard.

In a second press release, the group later shared a photo of the damage sustained in the strike.

Maltese authorities said they received an SOS call from a vessel in international waters soon after midnight local time, adding that a nearby tugboat assisted the ship, according to Reuters. Officials added that the crew of the Conscience declined to board the tugboat, and also confirmed to CNN that the fire on the ship had been extinguished. No casualties have been reported in the attack.

The FFC press release added that “Israeli ambassadors must be summoned and answer to violations of international law, including the ongoing blockade [on Gaza] and the bombing of our civilian vessel in international waters.”

In a social media post early on Friday, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, said she “received a distressed call from the people of the Freedom Flotilla that is carrying essential food and medicine to the starving Gaza population.”

“I call on concerned state authorities, including maritime authorities, to support the ship and its crew as needed. I trust the competent authorities will also ascertain the facts and intervene appropriately,” she added.

The Israeli military has yet to comment on the incident, but said it was looking into reports about the attack, according to the BBC. Israel’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Reuters.

The FFC mission aimed to bring supplies to Gaza some two months into a heightened blockade by Tel Aviv, whose forces have leveled much of the territory in air and ground operations in response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. On Friday, the International Committee of the Red Cross said aid operations in Gaza were on the verge of “total collapse” thanks to the blockade.

In 2010, a similar humanitarian aid flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, a Turkish org, was attacked by Israeli forces in international waters. Nine people were killed in the assault, with another later dying of their injuries, while dozens more were wounded. A UN report later found that all 10 activists had sustained gunshot wounds, and added that “the circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution.”

Will Porter is assistant news editor and book editor at the Libertarian Institute, and a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. Find more of his work at Consortium News and ZeroHedge.

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Atrocities, Israel | Leave a comment

India and Pakistan: Nations on brink of ‘nuclear war’

news.com.au 2 May 25

Two tough-talking leaders. Two nations struggling with internal turmoil. Both armed with nuclear weapons.

It’s quickly adding up to be a zero-sum crisis.

India and Pakistan are again on the brink of war after a terrorist attack in the troubled state of Kashmir killed 26 tourists — mostly Hindu Indians — and triggered a deadly blame game between the disgruntled neighbours.

“India will identify and punish every terrorist and their backers. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth. India’s spirit will never be broken by terrorism. Terrorism will not go unpunished.”

These words, proclaimed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, were spoken in English.

As such, it was a message intended for a global audience.

For its part, Pakistan was dismissive.

“In the absence of any credible investigation and verifiable evidence, attempts to link the Pahalgam attack with Pakistan are frivolous, devoid of rationality and defeat logic,” reads a statement from the Office of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Beneath the bluster, the plight of Kashmir is already being forgotten.

The Hindu-ruled (but mostly Muslim) Principality of Kashmir was given the choice of becoming a semi-independent state of either Pakistan or India by the retreating British Empire in 1947.

It chose India in the face of tribal incursions from Pakistan.

SponsoredNew rules of recruitment in 2025

Two tough-talking leaders. Two nations struggling with internal turmoil. Both armed with nuclear weapons.

It’s quickly adding up to be a zero-sum crisis.

Loaded: 100.00%

Click to unmute

You are watching

Pakistan’s huge nuke call amid crisisContinue watchingSHARE

Pakistan’s huge nuke call amid crisis

Pakistan’s defence minister has addressed…See more

These words, proclaimed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, were spoken in English.

As such, it was a message intended for a global audience.

For its part, Pakistan was dismissive.

Beneath the bluster, the plight of Kashmir is already being forgotten.

The Hindu-ruled (but mostly Muslim) Principality of Kashmir was given the choice of becoming a semi-independent state of either Pakistan or India by the retreating British Empire in 1947.

It chose India in the face of tribal incursions from Pakistan.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said that their ‘spirit will not be broken’ by terrorism.. Picture: Sachin KUMAR / AFP

But Prime Minister Modi has, in recent years, suspended the region’s special freedoms and allowed his Hindu nationalist supporters to impose their ways on the culturally distinct populace.

“India’s hard-line policies under Modi and the imposition of direct central rule on Kashmir have fuelled deep alienation in the Muslim-majority region,” argues Yale University lecturer Sushant Singh.

That backlash, he adds, has triggered much broader tensions that has been simmering beneath the surface for decades.

“With Modi’s rhetoric leaving little room for compromise, Pakistan’s military leadership under pressure to respond forcefully to any Indian strike, and China’s growing involvement in the region, events in Kashmir risk triggering uncontrollable escalation,” he said.

Kashmir Conundrum

“At the heart of the Kashmir crisis is a combustible mix of religious nationalism, authoritarian governance, and unresolved political grievances,” explains Mr Singh.

Mr Modi stripped Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, of its constitutional privileges in 2019.

Local elections have been suspended. Curfews, media controls and political arrests have become commonplace.

“The reality on the ground remains one of pervasive fear and violence,” adds Mr Singh.

“Kashmir has endured recurring militant attacks, including the killing in Pahalgam, and the continued imposition of draconian laws and heavy security deployments.”

Responsibility for the Pahalgam attack has been claimed by a group calling itself The Resistance Front (TRF), which analysts believe to be an offshoot of Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group.

The TRF has accused Indian Hindus of a co-ordinated campaign to establish settlements in Kashmir and overwhelm its indigenous population.

PM Modi has seized on the TRF’s Pakistani ties to label the incident as a cross-border attack backed by Islamabad.

He’s expelled Pakistani diplomats. He’s closed the border. He’s ordered the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty.

ashmir is inseparable from his broader political strategy, in which he projects strength as a Hindu nationalist strongman, promises violent retribution against enemies, and seeks to rally domestic support through exploiting moments of national security crisis,” Mr Singh states.

Pakistan’s Power Plays

Islamabad has condemned suspension of the Indus water agreement as an “act of war”.

It has also closed its airspace to Indian flights and suspended all bilateral treaties, including a 1972 peace treaty that laid out a path towards a normalised relationship between the two nations.

But Pakistan is in the grip of a severe internal crisis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/india-and-pakistan-nations-on-brink-of-nuclear-war/news-story/2f6d318483fdad71eebf466349123137

May 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | India, Pakistan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

India and Pakistan: The nuclear standoff that we really should all be worried about

As tensions between the two countries escalate following a
terrorist attack in Kashmir, Ashis Ray looks at how a conflict could
involve China and America in a war over sovereignty and security.

Independent 30th April 2025 https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-pakistan-kashmir-attack-terrorism-nuclear-b2741719.html

May 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | India, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Republicans Unveil Bill To Bring 2025 Military Budget to Over $1 Trillion

House Republicans unveiled a bill this week that would bring the 2025 US military budget to over $1 trillion.

The legislation would add $150 billion to the budget and includes $25 billion for President Trump’s ‘Iron Dome for America’

by Dave DeCamp, April 29, 2025 , https://news.antiwar.com/2025/04/29/republicans-unveil-bill-to-bring-2025-military-budget-to-over-1-trillion/

House Republicans unveiled a bill this week that would bring the 2025 US military budget to over $1 trillion.

The 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) totaled about $885 billion, and the new supplemental bill drafted by the House and Senate’s armed services committees would add $150 billion, bringing the 2025 military budget to a record-breaking $1.035 trillion.

The bill includes $25 billion for President Trump’s vision to create a new missile defense system for the United States, which he has called the “Iron Dome for America” or the “Golden Dome.” The project would be a boondoggle for US weapons makers and would likely kick off a new global arms race.

According to The Hill, the bill also includes $33.7 billion for shipbuilding, $20.4 billion for munitions, $13.5 billion for “innovation,” $12.9 billion for nuclear deterrence, $11.5 billion for military readiness, $11.1 billion for building up in the Pacific, $7.2 billion for aircraft, $5 billion for the border, $4.5 billion for the B-21 bomber, $2 billion for military intelligence, and $380 million for the Pentagon’s annual audit.

Republicans in the House initially proposed a budget plan to boost military spending by $100 billion, while Senate Republicans pushed for the $150 billion increase.

President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have already said they will seek a more than $1 trillion military budget for 2026, and the White House is expected to make the request for the 2026 NDAA in May.

The US has never officially had a $1 trillion military budget, but the actual cost of US military spending has exceeded $1 trillion for years. According to veteran defense analyst Winslow Wheeler, based on the $895 billion NDAA, US national security spending for 2025 was expected to reach about $1.77 trillion.

Wheeler’s estimate accounts for military-related spending from other government agencies not funded by the NDAA, such as the Department of Veteran Affairs and Homeland Security. It also includes the national security share of the interest accrued on the US debt and other factors.

May 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

For second time in 3 years Zelensky sabotages Ukraine war peace deal.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 30 Apr 25

Does Ukraine President Zelensky enjoy watching his citizens die needlessly in a US provoked war he could have ended twice?

Zelensky helped ensure Russia would invade February 22, 2022 by pushing NATO membership for Ukraine and massing 60,000 elite troops on the Donbas border to finish off the Russian leaning Donbas Ukrainians seeking independence from Kyiv destroying their culture along with their lives.

But Zelensky sensibly negotiated a peace agreement with Russia in the first two months (Istanbul Agreement) that would have ended the war with no loss of Ukraine territory albeit with no Ukraine NATO membership and independence for the beleaguered Donbas Ukrainians. That was statesmanship of the highest order.

But the US and UK saw a golden opportunity to weaken Russia if not change out the Vladimir Putin regime. What to do? Got it. Send US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Kyiv to disabuse Zelensky of making peace. Hey, with a couple of hundred billions in US/NATO weapons but no soldiers, you can win Zelensky and go out the George Washington of Ukraine..

The result? Three years on Ukraine is largely destroyed with millions fled, over a hundred thousand casualties, 45,000 square miles gone forever and a shattered economy.

But new sheriff in town Trump brokered a new peace deal which would have ended the war with no further casualties or lost territory, Astonishingly, Zelensky rejected it again, this time of his own free will. He cited both his desire to require Crimea, lost 5 years before he became president, and his goal of Ukraine joining NATO.

So despite a 3 day Russian truce in in the offing over its May celebration of its WWII victory, the dying soldiers and expanding Russian buffer zone in Ukraine to prevent further long range Ukrainian missile attacks will go on till Ukraine simply collapses.

Maybe Zelensky has a nationwide death wish. Maybe he’s delusional or too stupid to realize his leading Ukraine to certain destruction. Or maybe it’s simply his way of telling the US and UK that he’s capable of blowing up a sensible peace agreement all by himself.

May 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Europe is drilling for World War III

NATO is conducting exercises for “a broad offensive from Vilnius to Odessa” at “a scale unseen in decades.”

Alex Krainer, May 01, 2025

[Originally published at I-System TrendCompass] Russia’s military victory over Ukraine has been a near-certainty for months now. Ukraine’s total defeat is only a matter of time, but as that time approaches, European powers have been increasingly determined not to let the war die and are now actively preparing to take it up where Ukraine stumbles. Our liberal democracies are as precious as they are fragile and every precaution must be taken to defend them from the Asiatic hordes gathering in the east.

While our valiant bankers are arranging to allocate trillions of euros of our children’s and grandchildren’s wealth for defense spending, our militaries are diligently exercising and preparing for war, hidden from ordinary Europeans who aren’t exactly enthused about World War 3. But the Russians have noticed: presidential aide and former National Security Adviser Nikolai Patrushev recently stated that, for a second consecutive year, NATO has been

“conducting exercises at our borders at a scale unseen in decades. … They are training for conducting a broad offensive from Vilnius to Odessa, seizing Kaliningrad region, imposing a naval blockade in the Baltic and the Black Seas and executing preventive strikes on the staging locations of Russian nuclear deterrence forces.”

If Mr. Patrushev is correct, it would appear that London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels are actively preparing for war against Russia. But his statement that the exercises are “at a scale unseen in decades,” needs to be put in context.

NATO’s provocations far predate Ukraine war

NATO has been involved in increasingly aggressive military maneuvers at Russia’s doorstep for many years now, especially after the 2014 Euromaidan coup in Kiev. During that time, NATO forces have been conducting as many as 40 major military exercises per year along Russia’s borders.

Movement of their military assets evolved from purely reconnaissance hardware to battle ready ships and aircraft equipped with precision munitions and cruise missiles which would frequently approach Russian territory to as close as 15 km (9.3 miles). On these occasions, they often activated their missiles in repeated mock attacks on Russian targets. In September 2020, chief of operations of Russia’s high command, General Sergey Rudskoi stated that NATO was staging between 33 and 40 such flight approaches per week using fighter jets from Sweden, Germany, Ukraine and Italy.

This suggests that the exercises Mr. Patrushev referred to aren’t Europe’s reaction to Russia’s aggressiveness but a continuation of policy that far predates the Ukraine war. In June 2021, still more than six months before Ukraine war, NATO’s then Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg boasted that,

“Perhaps the most important thing we have done is that for the first time in NATO’s history, we have combat-ready troops in the eastern part of the Alliance. New battle groups are deployed to the Baltic countries and Poland, we have tripled the size of the NATO readiness force.”

In a 2016 radio-interview with John Bachelor, late professor Stephen Cohen noted that,

“NATO has decided to quadruple its military forces on Russia’s borders or near Russia’s borders… The last time there was this kind of Western hostile military force on Russia’s borders was when Nazis invaded Russia in 1941. There has never been anything like this. During the 40-year Cold War there was this vast buffer zone that ran from the Soviet borders all the way to Berlin. There were no NATO or American troops there. This is a very radical departure on the part of the [Obama] administration. … Russia is not threatening any country on its border.”

$75 trillion worth of democracy and freedom

Professor Cohen was right. Russia really wasn’t threatening any of its neighbors, and no Russian leader has either explicitly or implicitly expressed any territorial pretentions against any European nation. The deranged claims that once they are done with Ukraine, the Russians will continue on to Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and then, who knows, perhaps Paris and London, are based on nothing but European leaders reckless fear mongering, aimed at justifying NATO’s continuing preparations for war.

The ultimate reason isn’t the belief that Russia will launch a medieval invasion of Europe and deprive us of our democracy and freedom, but the certain knowledge that Russia is sitting on an estimated $75 trillion of our freedom and democracy. Those precious resources are utterly wasted on the unworthy Russians. Here’s what the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher once said (video at this link):

“If you were to make a table of countries in proportion to the natural resources they have, the top one would almost certainly be Russia. She has everything. Oil, gas, diamonds, platinum, gold, silver, all the industrial metals, marvelous standing timber, a wonderfully rich soil. But countries are not rich in proportion to their natural resources. Countries are rich whose governments have policies which encourage essential creativity, initiative and enterprise of man and recognize his desire to do better for his family.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/europe-is-drilling-for-world-war?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1063805&post_id=162553198&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

May 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts US nuclear weapons will cost nearly a trillion dollars over the coming decade.

Greg Mello, Los Alamos Study Group, 30 Apr 25

Albuquerque, NM — Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its latest biennial estimate of the costs of nuclear weapons over the coming decade (2025-2034).

CBO’s nuclear weapons cost estimates are built from the budget projections of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), as well as CBO’s own estimates of likely cost increases for these programs over the period in question, based on CBO’s historical records for comparable programs.

CBO estimates that nuclear weapons will cost a total of $946 billion (B) over the coming decade, an average of about $95 B per year. This is $190 B (25%) higher than CBO’s estimate from two years ago.

Albuquerque, NM — Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its latest biennial estimate of the costs of nuclear weapons over the coming decade (2025-2034).

In the case of the Sentinel silo-based missile system, CBO’s estimates explicitly “do not include all of the cost growth that the program is likely to experience” (pp. 6-7). In other words, CBO knows its estimate is too low but cannot provide a defensible better one, because it would only be a guess at this point. In other words, neither DoD nor CBO have any real idea what Sentinel will cost.

Many nuclear weapons-related costs, such as DOE environmental cleanup, are not included.

The report breaks down its findings in several ways, all clearly presented. Year-by-year estimates are not provided.

CBO’s findings include these items of particular interest regarding NNSA:

NNSA’s facility modernization plans are likely to cost $72 B over the coming decade, out of a total of $110 B that NNSA will spend on facilities over this period (p. 5). NNSA’s facilities will thus cost much more than the $16 B earmarked for “stockpile services” (NNSA’s part in maintaining existing weapons), or the $67 B to be spent on “other stewardship and support activities” (p. 4).
“CBO projects that the costs of nuclear acquisition programs would represent 11.8 percent of DoD’s total planned acquisition costs over the next decade as outlined in the 2025 budget submission…Competition for funding among
acquisition programs will force DoD to make difficult choices about which programs to pursue.” (pp. 5-6).
NNSA’s projected total 10-year costs have increased by 27% over just the past two years. Some 85% ($45 B / $83 B) of these costs are not associated with any particular warhead but are rather expenses associated with NNSA’s capabilities overall (p. 10). CBO believes NNSA’s programs will cost an extra $11 B over the decade beyond NNSA’s projections, a little more than $1 B per year.
Regarding NNSA’s cost increase, “[a]bout 60 percent of the total increase comes from higher expected costs for operation and modernization of infrastructure, including establishing and operating new pit production facilities, secondary production facilities, tritium production facilities, and domestic uranium enrichment facilities. About 30 percent comes from support programs, such as scientific research to improve the weapon production and sustainment process, and federal employee oversight of contractors operating laboratories.” The balance of the NNSA increase comes from new programs and projects, leading to higher annual spending in the 2032-2034 years than in 2023-2024 years, which are now in the rear-view mirror.
“CBO’s estimates come with substantial uncertainty stemming mainly from two sources: Future plans may not be achievable, leading to cost growth and delays; and the costs of developing, producing, and operating weapon systems are uncertain even when the plans are fully determined” (p. 8).

Study Group director Greg Mello:

“As CBO notes, most nuclear weapons costs are incurred by modernizing the arsenal and its production facilities, not by deploying and maintaining existing weapons.

“NNSA insists that its entire growing portfolio of projects and programs is necessary. There is no distinction between “needs” and “wants.” NNSA also believes, and has said, it is no longer “cost-constrained” [NNSA: “Evolving the Nuclear Security Enterprise,” Sep 2022, p. 3]. Under these assumptions, NNSA’s costs are certain to continue growing rapidly. If the present growth rate continues, NNSA’s warhead budget will double in less than 8 years.

“There is one high-dollar NNSA infrastructure program that is not generic to all warheads but rather needed solely for just one, namely pit production at LANL. LANL pit production is explicitly directed to the W87-1 warhead for the Sentinel missile and is unlikely to be sustainable beyond the needs of that program, if indeed it can be established at all. The jury is still out on whether LANL pit production will be possible, or stable and if so, for how long.

“NNSA will not be able to operate two pit facilities, even if it can set one up at LANL. Once the pit facility at the Savannah River Site begins production, every budget hawk on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon will eye LANL’s gerry-rigged pit program for closure, assuming it operates at all.

“As CBO notes, there will be increased competition for defense dollars as nuclear weapons programs grow. The huge expenses tallied in this report were not anticipated at the outset of the nuclear modernization program. Since 2015, and with every report, estimated nuclear weapons costs have increased beyond prior predictions, from $348 B in 2015 to $946 B today. The opportunity costs are staggering.

“CBO devotes two big text boxes to the troubled Sentinel program — why they can’t estimate its cost, etc. The buzzards are circling. The coming year will bring more revelations about Sentinel and they won’t be good. The White House and Congress should pull the plug on Sentinel now, however difficult that would be.

“In every report since 2015, CBO has revised its estimate of future cost overruns. This year’s prediction will also be too low, especially for Sentinel and NNSA.

“The problems faced by nuclear weapons programs cannot all be fixed by pouring in more money. There are very real material and human limitations involved. There will be no return to the ‘heroic mode of production’ for nuclear weapons. Even if Congress dumped $100 or $200 billion more on nuclear weapons, the system that produces them would not ‘jump to the task’ for years, if at all. The people, the skills, the facilities, the motivation — none of these are in place for a nuclear arms race, especially if the U.S. is going to build its manufacturing back and repair its sorry civilian infrastructure. The neocons who want to ramp up nuclear production are ignorant about what that would really entail. They are going to be sorely disappointed.

“Practical problems aside, ‘peace through strength’ is a mistaken idea in this place and time, especially as regards nuclear weapons. No thoughtful strategy supports the proliferation of US nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary — present policies are driven by organized greed and fear. US nuclear weapons policies, and as we see here their costs, are out of control.”

May 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

As US military prepares for war on China, Silicon Valley tech oligarchs are profiting

Hegseth is a far-right theocratic extremist. He published a book in 2020 called “American Crusade”, in which he proudly declared that the US right is in a “holy war” against the international left, China, and Islam.

Hegseth revealed that the US military is making “real war plans” for China, over Taiwan.

The US military is preparing for war on China. It has missile systems in the Philippines aimed at major Chinese cities. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says the USA is turning “Japan into a war-fighting headquarters”. Silicon Valley Big Tech oligarchs are making hugely profitable investments.

By Ben Norton, https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/04/28/us-military-war-china-silicon-valley/

Evidence grows showing that the US military is setting the stage for war on China.

A leaked memo obtained by the Washington Post reveals that the US Department of Defense has made preparing for war with China into its top priority, giving it precedence over all other issues.

The Pentagon is concentrating its resources in the Asia-Pacific region as it anticipates fighting China in an attempt to exert US control over Taiwan.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a fundamentalist self-declared “crusader” who called for overthrowing the Chinese government, took a trip in March to Japan and the Philippines, where he repeatedly threatened Beijing and boasted of US “war-fighting” preparations and “real war plans”.

In 2024, the US military installed its Typhon missile system in the northern Philippines. This has a range of 1,240 miles (roughly 2,000 kilometers), and can hit most major cities on the Chinese mainland.

The United States has access to at least nine military bases in the Philippines.

The Wall Street Journal reported that this “new U.S. missile system deployed in the Philippines puts key Chinese military and commercial hubs within striking distance”.

The newspaper added that it “is the first time since the Cold War that the U.S. military has deployed a land-based launching system with such a long range outside its borders”.

This blatant US provocation has caused outrage in Beijing, which sees the Pentagon’s move as a significant escalation of Washington’s new cold war on China.

Cold War Two

Cold War Two has more and more parallels to Cold War One.

Students in US schools are often taught that the Soviet Union’s deployment of nuclear weapons to Cuba in the 1962 missile crisis was an act of “aggression”. Their classes usually omit the fact the United States first put nuclear weapons in NATO member Turkey in 1959, provoking Moscow.

Today, Washington is provoking Beijing in many domains.

Donald Trump launched a unilateral, aggressive trade war on China in 2018, during his first term.

Trump’s Democratic successor, Joe Biden, not only continued this trade war but expanded it further, adding more tariffs and export restrictions in an attempt to strangle China’s high-tech sector.

Now in his second term, Trump has waged a nuclear trade war on China, threatening tariffs of 245%.

This new cold war has become a lucrative enterprise for some US oligarchs.

Silicon Valley oligarchs hope to profit from US war on China

Big Tech capitalists in Silicon Valley have poured money into new weapons systems, hoping to profit off of war on China.

The Wall Street Journal published an article in 2024 titled “Tech Bros Are Betting They Can Help Win a War With China”. It featured an interview with right-wing billionaire Palmer Luckey, a former Facebook executive who founded the arms manufacturer Anduril Industries.

Anduril has established itself as a significant Pentagon contractor, with its work developing advanced autonomous weapons.

The Wall Street Journal wrote (emphasis added):

These weapons, Luckey argues, are needed for a potential conflict with China, which the Pentagon two years ago announced is the greatest danger to U.S. security. The U.S. military, Luckey and others say, needs large numbers of cheaper and more intelligent systems that can be effective over long stretches of ocean and against a manufacturing and technological power like China.

Anduril is so focused on a conflict with Beijing, Luckey says, that many teams inside the company are building only weapons that can be completed by 2027—the year Chinese President Xi Jinping has said his country should be prepared to invade Taiwan. The fictional sword for which Anduril is named [from the Lord of the Rings] is also called the “Flame of the West.”

“We keep our eyes on the prize, which is great-power conflict in the Pacific,” Luckey said.

The newspaper highlighted how the US military-industrial complex has become increasingly privatized.

There has been a rapid influx of venture capital funds into weapons corporations in recent years. The Wall Street Journal reported (emphasis added):

Anduril is part of one of the largest shifts to take place in the defense sector since World War II: the flow of venture-capital funding into defense-technology companies.

For decades, the U.S. government funded defense companies, like Lockheed Martin, to develop new weapons, ranging from stealth aircraft to spy satellites. But as the private-sector money available for research and development has outstripped federal-government spending, particularly in areas like AI, a new cohort of defense startups is using private capital to develop technology for the Pentagon.

The amount of private capital flowing into the venture-backed defense-tech industry has ballooned, with investors spending at least 70% more on the sector each of the past three years than any prior year. From 2021 through mid-June 2024, venture capitalists invested a total of $130 billion in defense-tech startups, according to data firm PitchBook. The Pentagon spends about $90 billion on R&D annually.

A major investor in Anduril is Founders Fund, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm co-founded by Peter Thiel.

Thiel is a far-right billionaire oligarch who has strongly supported Donald Trump and has funded Republican politicians. He even previously employed US Vice President JD Vance, and bankrolled his successful 2022 Senate campaign.

A former FBI informant, Thiel co-founded another major Pentagon contractor, Palantir, which the CIA helped to fund.

Thiel is also an extreme anti-China hawk. He openly defends monopolies, arguing “competition is for losers”, and wants to ban Chinese competitors to US Big Tech monopolies.

Like Thiel, Anduril founder Palmer Luckey is staunchly pro-Trump. He is from the same community of far-right Silicon Valley oligarchs.

The Financial Times reported that Thiel’s Palantir, Luckey’s Anduril, and Elon Musk’s SpaceX sought to create a “consortium” — or, rather, a cartel — to jointly bid for US government contractors.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wages “holy war” on China, from Japan and the Philippines

Trump has surrounded himself with a team of war hawks, including neoconservative Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth personally signed the Pentagon document obtained by the Washington Post that showed that the number one priority of the US military is preparing for war with China over Taiwan.

In this memo, which is officially known as the “Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance”, the Pentagon wrote, “China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario”.

The Washington Post revealed that several parts of this document were copied word-for-word from a vehemently anti-China report published by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing Washington, DC-based think tank that is funded by large corporations and conservative billionaires.

The oligarch-backed Heritage Foundation organized the notorious Project 2025, which crafted a detailed policy program for the Trump administration to implement.

“Communist China will fall—and lick its wounds for another two hundred years”, Hegseth pledged in the book. He wrote, “If we don’t stand up to communist China now, we will be standing for the Chinese anthem someday”.

In March 2025, Hegseth traveled to Asia to pressure US allies to join Washington in its new cold war on China. The Wall Street Journal summarized his trip with the headline “Hegseth Tells Asian Allies: We’re With You Against China”.

When he spoke in Japan, Hegseth vowed to “strengthen our bilateral bonds and deepen our operational cooperation” against Beijing.

The US defense secretary stated that the Pentagon is turning “Japan into a war-fighting headquarters”.

Japan previously colonized China. The Japanese empire, which later allied with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, killed tens of millions of people in China and other parts of Asia in the 1930s and ’40s.

“America and Japan stand firmly together in the face of aggressive and coercive actions by the Communist Chinese”, Hegseth asserted, fearmongering about “the severe nature of the threat”.

“Those who long for peace must prepare for war”, the US defense secretary said. “We must be prepared. We look forward to working closely together as we improve our war-fighting capabilities, our lethality, and our readiness”.

Hegseth articulated “three pillars” of the Trump administration’s Pentagon strategy: “Reviving the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military, and restoring deterrence”.

The US defense secretary made similarly aggressive comments in the Philippines, blasting what he called “communist China’s aggression in the region”.

Hegseth revealed that the US military is making “real war plans” for China, over Taiwan.

At a press conference in the Philippines, Hegseth spoke of Admiral Samuel Paparo, the commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command. He said (emphasis added):

It’s not my job to determine where the Seventh Fleet goes. I defer to Admiral Paparo and his war plans. Real war plans. Admiral Paparo understands the situation, understands the geographic significance, understands the urgency, and is prepared to work with those in the region to ensure we are leaning forward in our posture. Not waiting for events to develop, not retrograding to places further from the front, but deploying capabilities forward, posturing and creating dynamics and strategic dilemmas for the Communist Chinese, that help them reconsider whether or not violence or action is something they want to undertake.

During the first cold war, the US hosted a military base on Taiwan, where it stored nuclear weapons.

In the second Taiwan Strait crisis in 1958, top US military officials wanted to attack the Chinese mainland with nuclear bombs, but President Dwight D. Eisenhower preferred conventional weapons.

May 1, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The ICJ, Israel and the Gaza Blockade

“The humanitarian aid system is facing total collapse. This collapse is by design.”

April 30, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark , https://theaimn.net/the-icj-israel-and-the-gaza-blockade/

The murder and starvation of populations in real time, subject to rolling coverage and commentary, is not usually the done thing. These are the sorts of activities kept quiet and secluded in their vicious execution. In the Gaza Strip, these actions are taking place with a confident, almost brazen assuredness.

Israel has the means, the weapons and the sheer gumption to do so, and Palestinians in Gaza find themselves with few options for survival. The strategic objectives of the Jewish state, involving, for instance, the elimination of Hamas, have been shown to be nonsensically irrelevant, given that they are unattainable. Failed policies of de facto annexation and occupation are re-entering the national security argot.

In yet another round of proceedings, this time initiated by a UN General Assembly resolution, the International Court of Justice is hearing from an array of nations and bodies (40 states and four international organisations) regarding Israel’s complete blockade of Gaza since March 2. Also featuring prominently are Israel’s efforts to attack the United Nations itself, notably UNRWA, the relief agency charged with aiding Palestinians.

As counsel for the Palestinians, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh outlined the central grievances. The restrictions on “the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, [Israel’s] attacks on the United Nations and on UN officials, property and premises, its deliberate obstruction of the organisation’s work and its attempt to destroy an entire UN subsidiary organ” lacked precedent “in the history of the organisation.” Being not only “antithetical to a peace-loving state”, such actions were “a fundamental repudiation by Israel of its charter obligations owed both to the organisation and to all UN members and of the international rule of law.

Israel had further closed all relevant crossings into the Strip and seemingly planned “to annex 75 square kilometres of Rafah, one-fifth of Gaza, to [its] so-called buffer zone, permanently. This, together with Israel’s continuing maritime blockade, cuts Gaza and its people off from direct aid and assistance and from the rest of the world.”

The submission by Ní Ghrálaigh went on to document the plight of Palestinian children, 15,600 of whom had perished, with tens of thousands more injured, missing or traumatised. Gaza had become “home to the largest cohort of child amputees in the world, the largest orphan crisis in modern history, and a whole generation in danger of suffering from stunting, causing irreparable physical and cognitive impairments.”

South Africa, which already has an application before the Court accusing Israel of violating the UN Genocide Convention, pointed to the international prohibition against “starvation as a method of warfare, including under siege or blockade.” Its representative Jaymion Hendricks insisted that Israel had “deployed the full range of techniques of hunger and starvation” against “the protected Palestinian population, which it holds under unlawful occupation.” The decision to expel UNRWA and relevant UN agencies should be reversed, and access to food, medicine and humanitarian aid resumed.

In a chilling submission to the Court, Zane Dangor, director general of South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation, detected a scheme in the cruelty. “The humanitarian aid system is facing total collapse. This collapse is by design.”

Israel’s response, one increasingly rabid to the obligations of humanitarian and international law, was best stated by its Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar. In announcing that Israel would not participate in oral proceedings derided as a “circus”, he restated the long held position that UNRWA was “an organisation infiltrated beyond repair by terrorism.” Courts were once again being abused “to try and force Israel to cooperate with an organisation that is infested with Hamas terrorists, and it won’t happen.”

Then came an agitated flurry of accusations shamelessly evoking the message from Émile Zola’s “J’Accuse” note of 1898, penned during the convulsions of the Dreyfus Affair: “I accuse UNRWA. I accuse the UN. I accuse the Secretary General, I accuse all those that weaponize international law and its institutions in order to deprive the most attacked country in the world, Israel, of its most basic right to defend itself.”

The continuing blackening of UNRWA was also assured by Amir Weissbrod of Israel’s foreign ministry, who reiterated the claims that the organisation had employed 1,400 Palestinians with militant links. Furthermore, some had taken part in Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel. That such a small number had participated was itself striking and should have spared the organisation the savaging it received. But Israel has longed for the expulsion of an entity that is an accusing reminder of an ongoing, profane policy of oppression and dispossession.

In her moving address to the Court, Ní Ghrálaigh urged the justices to direct Israel to allow aid to enter Gaza and re–engage the offices of UNRWA. Doing so might permit the re-mooring of international law, a ship increasingly put off course by the savage war in Gaza. The cold, somewhat fanatical reaction to these proceedings in The Hague by Israel’s officials suggest that anchoring international obligations, notably concerning Palestinian civilians, is off the list.

May 1, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Atrocities, Legal | Leave a comment

Why Military Neutrality is a Must for Australia

Embrace military neutrality. Australia faces a choice: join declining empires or lead in peace. Discover why neutrality is the way forward in a multipolar world.

April 30, 2025 , By Denis Hay, Australian Independent Media

Introduction: A Nation at the Crossroads

Picture this: It’s 2030. Australian submarines sail under U.S. command in the Taiwan Strait. Canberra receives intelligence briefings written in Washington. The media frames any dissent as disloyalty. Ordinary Australians ask: “How did we get dragged into another war we never voted for?”

Rewind to 2025: our foreign policy is shaped not by peace or diplomacy, but by deals like AUKUS, designed to entrench Australia within the military-industrial interests of a declining superpower. Meanwhile, the world is shifting. BRICS is rising. The U.S. is losing credibility. And Australia must decide: Will we continue to act as a pawn, or will we embrace military neutrality and sovereignty through peace?

The Global Realignment: The World Beyond the U.S.

U.S. Decline and the Rise of Multipolarity

In 2015, analysts inside global financial circles began quietly withdrawing from the U.S. The reasons were clear:

• America’s fertility rate had fallen to 1.8 (below replacement).

• Civil unrest, mass shootings, and institutional collapse painted a picture of chaos.

• Trust in government and media plummeted (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2021).

Meanwhile, the BRICS+ bloc was expanding rapidly. By 2024, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Iran had joined, and member nations began transacting in local currencies. The world was no longer unipolar—and Australia must adapt.

The BRICS+ Bloc and the Global South

The global South is now:

• Home to the largest youth populations (India, Nigeria, Indonesia)

• Receiving billions in tech investment (e.g., Microsoft’s $1B in African AI infrastructure)

• Transitioning to local currency trade

Australia can no longer afford to cling to outdated alliances that tie us to declining powers.

Why Australia Must Reassess Its Strategic Alliances

The Cost of U.S. Dependence

Our military is deeply entwined with U.S. command structures:

• AUKUS submarine deal: $368 billion to be tied into U.S. war planning

• Hosting U.S. troops, ships, and bombers in the Northern Territory

The Failure of U.S. Militarism

• Iraq and Afghanistan: trillions spent, no peace achieved

• Ukraine: Proxy war fuelled by NATO expansion and U.S. arms interests

Quote from the video: “America is being phased out… not because they hate it, but because it’s obsolete.”

What the OCGFC Knows – And Why We Should Listen

The Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital (OCGFC) have already moved on from America. They’re investing in the South. Australia should follow their strategy—but for peace, not profit.

The Case for Military Neutrality

What Is Military Neutrality?

Military neutrality means:

• No participation in military blocs

• No hosting of foreign military bases

• No involvement in foreign wars

Example of military neutrality: Switzerland has remained neutral for over 200 years. Reference: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/neutral-countries

Benefits of Military Neutrality for Australia

• Enhanced sovereignty: Canberra decides, not Washington

• Improved regional trust

• Reduced risk of becoming a target in U.S.-China conflict

Strategic Independence……………………………………………………………………………….

Australia is now home to:

The Pine Gap spy base, integral to U.S. drone warfare and nuclear targeting

Rotational deployments of U.S. marines and bombers in the Northern Territory

Massive investment under AUKUS, where Australia receives nuclear-powered submarines it will not command independently

Growing integration into U.S. war planning around China and the South China Sea

The Quiet Absorption of Sovereignty

These developments raise serious questions:

If we cannot deny access to foreign troops on our soil, are we still sovereign?

If our military relies on foreign command systems, do we retain independent defence?

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is creeping dependency. Sovereignty is rarely lost overnight. It is eroded decision by decision, treaty by treaty, base by base—until there is nothing left to reclaim.

The Choice Before Us

We must confront an uncomfortable possibility: Australia is at risk of becoming a de facto 51st state – not through constitutional change, but through military submission.

The warning signs are clear. If we continue down this path unquestionably, we may find ourselves unable to make decisions without a nod from Washington.

Neutrality offers a way out. …………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/why-military-neutrality-is-a-must-for-australia/

May 1, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Danger of an India-Pakistan war and Canada’s Reactors

Normand Lester, Journal de Montréal, 27 avril 2025, https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/04/27/danger-de-guerre-indo-pakistanaise-et-nos-candu

An individual with dual Canadian and Pakistani citizenship has just been arrested in the USA for attempting to acquire technology for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and smuggle it through Canada.
The case comes to light as tension mounts between India and Pakistan following the massacre of 26 Indian tourists in the disputed region of Kashmir. New Delhi accuses Pakistan of being responsible. The latter denies being behind the attack. India has annexed Muslim-majority Kashmir, which is claimed by Pakistan. China is a major ally of Pakistan, while India has close defense ties with the United States.

Clashes between the two armies increased, raising fears of a large-scale military conflict. Peace has never really been restored since 1947, when the British Indian Empire was violently partitioned into two independent states: Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. The war of religious partition is thought to have claimed between one and two million lives, and led to the massive displacement of between 12 and 20 million people.

A-bomb: thanks to Canada
India and Pakistan have already fought two major wars, in 1965 and 1971, before acquiring nuclear weapons… with the help of Canada. Any war between them could therefore turn into a nuclear exchange.
Since then, India and Pakistan have experienced a major border skirmish in 1999, which left at least 1,000 people dead.

After donating one nuclear reactor to India in 1956, Ottawa heavily subsidized the purchase of another by India in 1963. As part of this purchase, Canada trained 271 Indian scientists, engineers and technicians, who went on to develop New Delhi’s atomic bomb.

In 1971, Canada built a 137-megawatt CANDU nuclear reactor in Karachi, Pakistan. The contract also included a heavy water production facility. Three years later, in 1974, India detonated its first nuclear device, dubbed the “Smiling Buddha”, using plutonium from the reactor donated by Ottawa in 1956.

According to experts, Canadian reactors are ideal for producing weapons-grade plutonium, and Ottawa hasn’t even asked India to comply with the safeguards required by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Canada sneaks away
U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger then roundly criticized Canada, telling the media that the Indian nuclear explosion had been carried out using material diverted from a Canadian reactor lacking the appropriate safeguards.

With its guilt exposed, Canada quietly withdrew from the Indian CANDU project. It also stopped supplying uranium to Karachi, and withdrew from the Pakistani project. This did not prevent it from carrying out its first nuclear test in 1998.
If India and Pakistan ever wage nuclear war on each other, Canada will have to assume – in part – the moral responsibility.

May 1, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, India, Pakistan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »