weapons and war « nuclear-news

Iran warns that any attack on its nuclear sites would trigger ‘all-out war’.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi tells Al Jazeera that Iran would ‘immediately and decisively’ to an US or Israeli attack.

By Al Jazeera Staff, 31 Jan 202531 Jan 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has told Al Jazeera that any attack by Israel or the United States on Iran’s nuclear facilities would plunge the region into an “all-out war”.

In an interview with Al Jazeera Arabic during a visit to Qatar, Araghchi warned that launching a military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be “one of the biggest historical mistakes the US could make”.

He said Iran would respond “immediately and decisively” to any attack and that it would lead to an “all-out war in the region”.

Concerns have grown in Iran that US President Donald Trump might empower Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iran’s nuclear sites while further tightening US sanctions during his second term in office.

Araghchi said he met Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani in Doha to discuss key regional issues.

“We highly commend Qatar’s mediation role in reaching the ceasefire in Gaza,” Araghchi said in an interview broadcast on Friday. “I hope all other issues will be ironed out.”………………………… more https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/31/iran-fm-abbas-araghchi-attack-nuclear-sites-war-us-israel-gaza

February 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel sends missiles to Ukraine – Axios

https://www.rt.com/news/611950-israel-patriot-missiles-ukraine/, 30 Jan 24

Russia had warned against the transfer of Patriot interceptors

About 90 interceptor missiles for Patriot air defense systems have been sent from Israel to Poland, from where they will be forwarded to Ukraine, Axios has reported, citing three anonymous sources.

After Israel Defense Forces (IDF) retired their US-supplied Patriots in April 2024, Kiev asked for the missiles. Moscow warned West Jerusalem of potential consequences at the time, and the idea seemed to have gone nowhere.

“In recent days,” Axios reported this week, several US Air Force C-17 transport planes ferried the missiles from an airbase in southern Israel to the Polish city of Rzeszow, NATO’s logistics hub for supplying Ukraine.

West Jerusalem informed Moscow of the move and said it was “only returning the Patriot system to the US” rather than supplying weapons to Ukraine, Axios reported, citing an anonymous senior Israeli official. The same official claimed this was the same thing as the US transfer of artillery shells from “emergency storage” in Israel to Ukraine two years ago.

Both the Pentagon and the US European Command declined to give Axios a comment for the story. Russia has not officially addressed the matter as of yet.

According to Axios, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to take calls from Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky “for weeks.” The situation changed in late September when Netanyahu needed Zelensky’s permission for Hasidic pilgrims to visit Uman, a town south of Kiev where their movement’s founder, Reb Nachman of Bratslav, is buried. Zelensky refused until Netanyahu approved the Patriot transfer, a Ukrainian official told Axios.

A spokesperson for Netanyahu acknowledged to Axios that a Patriot system has been “returned to the US,” adding that “it is not known to us whether it was delivered to Ukraine.” The spokesperson also denied any connection between the Patriots and the Uman pilgrimage.

The missile delivery is the “most significant” Israeli contribution to Kiev since the Russia-Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022. West Jerusalem has long insisted on providing only humanitarian aid to Kiev, out of concern about retaliation from Moscow in Syria, or through supplying Iran with sophisticated weapons, according to media.

Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, warned Israel in July that arming Kiev would “have certain political consequences,” noting that any weapons sent to Ukraine “will eventually be destroyed,” just like the others.

Moscow has reduced its military presence in Syria after President Bashar Assad’s government in Damascus collapsed under an offensive by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham militants in December. Israel used the upheaval to destroy much of Syria’s military infrastructure and occupy additional territory in the Golan Heights. Earlier this month, Russia concluded a “strategic partnership” agreement with Iran.

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

Do AI and Nukes Mix? Hint: Keep ‘Human Decision in the Loop’

By: Andrew Rice, Jan 31, 2025, https://www.meritalk.com/articles/do-ai-and-nukes-mix-hint-keep-human-decision-in-the-loop/

Federal agencies across the government are increasingly adapting new uses of artificial intelligence to streamline processes, aggregate data, and even complete tasks designed for human resources staff. And while some have openly embraced AI and its uses, others still don’t believe it can be trusted for operations in nuclear controls.

The Department of Defense in its 2022 Nuclear Posture Review outlined efforts to implement AI with department data and software. Since then, AI has rapidly developed and brought along with that many questions about its future use.

In October, U.S. Strategic Command General Anthony Cotton said implementing AI in Nuclear Command, Controls and Communications (NC3) helps to make those more resilient to adversarial threats and increases decision making capabilities.

“Advanced AI and robust data analytics capabilities provide decision advantage and improve our deterrence posture,” Cotton said, adding that NC3 must maintain “human decision in the loop” to “maximize the adoption of these capabilities and maintain our edge over our adversaries.”

Cotton’s comments have prompted much discussion about AI’s role in nuclear command and controls. The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted a debate on AI’s role in nuclear command and controls on Jan. 24 as part of its Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) debate series.

Sarah Mineiro, senior associate at the Aerospace Security Project, and Paul Scharre, executive vice president and director of studies at the Center for a New American Security, debated the question: “Should the United States increase its reliance on artificial intelligence to enhance resilient decision-making in its NC3 systems to prevent inadvertent escalation?”

Mineiro argued for increased reliance on AI except for its use in nuclear weapons deployment whereas Scharre argued against all uses of AI in nuclear command and controls.

Mineiro pointed to the various use cases of AI in NC3 including designing and engineering CPUs and GPUs, image and signal processing, nuclear attack assessment algorithms, and modeling nuclear weapons use scenarios. She said she would never want AI to be involved in nuclear weapons deployment.

“I think we need everything, every tool that American innovation can give us to preserve our security,” she said. “I think AI in NC3 is an appropriate use.”

Scharre said AI cannot be trusted in nuclear command controls because it lacks the novelty of human judgment, it can be hacked or manipulated, and it cannot handle zero tolerance mistake policies.

“It will degrade our decision making, make the risk of inadvertent installation more likely, and undermine nuclear stability,” Scharre said.

Scharre continued and pointed out that AI can be used in tasks which are more repeatable – such as taking off or landing an airplane – but cannot be trusted in nuclear command and controls scenarios.

“We never want a situation where there is an accidental or unauthorized use, and there is just no way AI is good enough to meet that correction,” Scharre said.

Mineiro agreed with Scharre that zero risk tolerance within nuclear command and controls should be kept in place. She pointed out, however, the various other operations AI can be reliably used for which do not include nuclear weapons release.

Mineiro said she is “optimistic” about the Pentagon’s ability to balance integrating emerging technology to boost the American economy and national security while also strictly adhering to nuclear peace agreements.

“I’m a relatively risk tolerant person,” Mineiro said. “The one area I will never choose to accept risk is nuclear command and control.”

The two debaters ultimately came to agree that safeguards must be implemented when integrating AI into NC3 because AI cannot replace human thinking, as much as it may appear to do so.

“Even if the outputs sort of look like humans, that’s what it’s designed to do,” Scharre said. “What’s going on under the hood is not and that’s what we need to be conscious of when we’re using this technology.”

February 1, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | technology, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Drones, Nukes, and the Myth of Reactor Safety

The advent of drone warfare has taken the always-present danger of nuclear power plant catastrophe to a terrifying new level.

by Harvey Wasserman , January 29, 2025 https://progressive.org/latest/drones-nukes-and-the-myth-of-reactor-safety-wasserman-20250129/

Recent events on the Ukraine-Russia war front have drawn widespread attention to a terrifying new reality: According to a dispatch from C.J. Chivers published by The New York Times Magazine in December, remote drone operators can now overcome virtually any defensive barrier or evasive maneuver, fundamentally altering the nature of warfare between the two countries and raising new concerns about nuclear reactor safety in the region.

From safe bunkers that are sometimes as far as miles away, Ukrainian operators have begun sending small unmanned devices that cost as little as US $400 to destroy tanks and heavy artillery pieces worth millions. While militaries have traditionally relied on larger, “purpose-built” drones in the past, fighters in Ukraine have recently turned to small, relatively inexpensive hobbyist drones used around the world for everything from firefighting to aerial photography. Many of the drone operators are young and not extensively trained. But their work has allowed the vastly outnumbered Ukrainian fighters to overcome highly complex, sophisticated defensive barriers, and inflict brutal, lethal, and enormously expensive damage with shocking ease.

This new turn in weaponized drone use bears startling implications in relation to nuclear reactor safety. There are eight atomic power plants in the Russo-Ukrainian war zone—six at the Zaporizhzhia site in Ukraine, and two at Kursk in Russia—whose security is continually threatened by the ongoing conflict and by a lack of skilled, reliable operators in the area. If severely damaged, deprived of cooling water, or cut off from back-up power supplies, any one of these plants could melt or explode. Such an event could blanket large swaths of the planet and many of Europe and Asia’s largest cities with deadly radiation, inflicting tremendous human suffering as well as permanent ecological devastation. The damage could exceed that of the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl Unit Four, which contained significantly less core radiation than at Zaporizhzhia and Kursk, both of which have operated far longer.

Reactor containment domes are often constructed with thick, reinforced concrete. But they are far from invulnerable. The routes to major catastrophe—from loss of coolant and back-up power to operator error and structural defects—are too numerous to delineate or discount. A combination of these risks plagues each of the more than 400 nuclear power plants licensed worldwide, including the more than ninety in the United States.

Another recent Times report warns that weaponized drones have become part of a “hybrid” global conflict operating in an amorphous “Gray Zone.” The ability of these drones to wreak lethal and exorbitantly expensive havoc is virtually unlimited. With easily deployed drones like those now ravaging Eastern Europe, hostile nations, rogue armies, small terror groups, or even a lone psychopath could handily turn any number of commercial reactors into lethal engines of a radioactive apocalypse.

Atomic technology has been in civilian use since the 1957 opening of Pennsylvania’s Shippingport reactor. The U.S. Congress at the time promised the public that the “Peaceful Atom” would have comprehensive liability insurance within fifteen years. But nearly seven decades later, no commercial U.S. atomic power plant has blanket private accident insurance against a major catastrophe. Homeowners policies nationwide specifically exempt a nuclear disaster: When push comes to shove, homeowners will pay for their own irradiation.

All atomic power plants cause environmental damage on both the local and global level. They emit radioactive Carbon-14, expand global CO2 levels in the mining and fuel fabrication process, burn at 540-plus degrees Fahrenheit that heats the atmosphere and nearby bodies of water, bathe their neighborhoods in “low level” radiation, and create unmanageable wastes. What’s more, they cost far more than renewables by factors of 2 to 400 percent, while producing inflexible “baseload” power that clogs the grid.

Atomic power plants have always been vulnerable to explosion due to natural disasters such as the one at Fukushima in 2011, systemic mismanagement such as that at Chernobyl, or military and terror attacks. The advent of drone warfare in addition to all of this has raised the threat level to a terrifying new height. But in spite of this, Congress approved a forty-year extension of the original federal insurance exemption in 2024. This means that by the 2060s, the industry may have operated an entire century without ever obtaining the basic private insurance necessary to protect the public from a major radiation release.

A new level of terror is now being inflicted in the Ukraine-Russian war zone by drones once considered to be harmless, frivolous techno-gadgets. The nuclear industry’s insistence that we have nothing to fear from military or terror attacks on its uninsured fleet has lost any residual credibility. Given the horrific new reality of drone warfare, generating hyper-expensive radioactive power and waste from hot, dirty, decrepit reactors is less defensible than ever.

January 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, technology, weapons and war | Leave a comment

An “American Iron Dome”: Perhaps the Most Ridiculous Trump Idea Yet

The Iron Dome’s functionality depends on Israel’s comparatively miniscule size and proximity to enemies. This makes it particularly hard to imagine a similar setup in the US, which is over 400 times the geographical size of Israel. Such an apparatus, national security analyst Joseph Cirincione estimated, would cost about 2.5 trillion dollars. That’s over three times the country’s entire projected military budget for 2025.

A central campaign promise, the proposed $2 trillion-plus missile shield is, to experts, silly.

Sophie Hurwitz, September 27, 2024

Donald Trump’s Republican Party platform, released in July, contains little in terms of tangible policy proposals.

But one of the few concrete ideas is a call to (apologies for the capitalization) “PREVENT WORLD WORLD III” by building “A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY”—a plan that experts say is nearly impossible to execute, unnecessary, and hard to even comprehend.

Trump has vowed to build this Iron Dome in multiple speeches. It is among his campaign’s 20 core promises. The former president has said that the missile shield would be “MADE IN AMERICA,” creating jobs, as well as stopping foreign attacks.

While it might sound nice to talk of building the “greatest dome of them all,” as Trump recently said, Jeffrey Lewis, a missile expert at the Middlebury’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, says such a plan is ridiculous.

“It’s dramatically unclear to me what any of this means,” Lewis said of the Iron Dome idea, “other than just treating it like the insane ramblings of a senile old person.”

It may be more useful to consider an American Iron Dome as a bombastic businessman’s branding exercise, rather than a viable policy position, said Lewis: “The Iron Dome here has just become a kind of brand name, like Xerox or Kleenex for missile defense.”

The Iron Dome, a short-range missile defense system created by Israeli state-owned company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and American weapons manufacturer Raytheon, has been a prized part of the country’s military arsenal since it became operational in 2011. It is not, as the name suggests, an impenetrable shield. It’s more mobile: when a short-range missile reaches Israel’s airspace, “interceptor missiles” are launched to blow them up before they can touch the ground.

uch a system would also be unnecessary. As of now, there are no armed groups sending missiles toward the United States from within a theoretical Iron Dome’s 40-mile interception range. Such a system “couldn’t even protect Mar-a-Lago from missiles fired from the Bahamas, some 80 miles away,” Cirincione wrote in late July.

America’s pre-existent missile defense network, which has been in place since the Bush administration, is currently made up of 44 interceptors based in California and Alaska, geared towards longer-range missiles, such as those that could be fired from North Korea. But the system has performed abysmally in tests, despite Republicans generally claiming “it works,” said Lewis. (Groups like the right-wing Heritage Foundation have been calling for increased missile defense funding since at least the 1990s.)

“This is why it’s so hard to make heads or tails of what Trump is saying,” Lewis continued. “Is Trump saying the system in Alaska doesn’t work? Is Trump saying that Canada is going to develop artillery rockets to use against North Dakota?”

January 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Closer than ever: It is now 89 seconds to midnight

Science and Security Board
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Editor, John Mecklin, January 28, 2025

In 2024, humanity edged ever closer to catastrophe. Trends that have deeply concerned the Science and Security Board continued, and despite unmistakable signs of danger, national leaders and their societies have failed to do what is needed to change course. Consequently, we now move the Doomsday Clock from 90 seconds to 89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to catastrophe. Our fervent hope is that leaders will recognize the world’s existential predicament and take bold action to reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons, climate change, and the potential misuse of biological science and a variety of emerging technologies.

In setting the Clock one second closer to midnight, we send a stark signal: Because the world is already perilously close to the precipice, a move of even a single second should be taken as an indication of extreme danger and an unmistakable warning that every second of delay in reversing course increases the probability of global disaster.

In regard to nuclear risk, the war in Ukraine, now in its third year, looms over the world; the conflict could become nuclear at any moment because of a rash decision or through accident or miscalculation. Conflict in the Middle East threatens to spiral out of control into a wider war without warning. The countries that possess nuclear weapons are increasing the size and role of their arsenals, investing hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons that can destroy civilization. The nuclear arms control process is collapsing, and high-level contacts among nuclear powers are totally inadequate given the danger at hand. Alarmingly, it is no longer unusual for countries without nuclear weapons to consider developing arsenals of their own—actions that would undermine longstanding nonproliferation efforts and increase the ways in which nuclear war could start.

The impacts of climate change increased in the last year as myriad indicators, including sea-level rise and global surface temperature, surpassed previous records. The global greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change continued to rise. Extreme weather and other climate change-influenced events—floods, tropical cyclones, heat waves, drought, and wildfires—affected every continent. The long-term prognosis for the world’s attempts to deal with climate change remains poor, as most governments fail to enact the financing and policy initiatives necessary to halt global warming. Growth in solar and wind energy has been impressive but remains insufficient to stabilize the climate. Judging from recent electoral campaigns, climate change is viewed as a low priority in the United States and many other countries…………………………………………………………………….. more https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/2025-statement/

January 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump orders ‘Iron Dome for America’ in sweeping missile defense push

The order’s most contentious element directs the Department of Defense to pursue space-based interceptors — weapons positioned in orbit to destroy incoming missiles. While proponents argue these could provide global coverage and early intercept capabilities, critics warn they could trigger an arms race and undermine existing treaties.

The order sets a bold agenda to address emerging threats, including hypersonic missiles, through advanced technological solutions, including space-based interceptors.

by Sandra Erwin, January 28, 2025, https://spacenews.com/trump-orders-iron-dome-for-america-in-sweeping-missile-defense-push/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Iron%20Dome%20for%20America&utm_campaign=FIRST%20UP%202025-01-28

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Jan. 27 that calls for the development of a sweeping new missile defense system for the United States, including controversial space-based interceptors.

The Pentagon must submit within 60 days a proposed architecture for the system, including plans to accelerate the Missile Defense Agency’s ongoing Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor program and develop a “custody layer” within the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture — a planned constellation of military satellites currently being acquired by the U.S. Space Force’s Space Development Agency.

The executive order also emphasizes securing the defense industrial base, requiring “next-generation security features” for the supply chain as the U.S. races to build advanced interceptors and tracking systems.

The “Iron Dome for America” order, which invokes Israel’s successful rocket defense system, directs the Pentagon to accelerate development of defenses against hypersonic weapons and other advanced aerial threats that Trump’s order describes as “the most catastrophic threat facing the United States.”

While drawing inspiration from Israel’s Iron Dome system, the U.S. initiative would need to be dramatically different in scale and capability to defend the continent-spanning American territory against sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missiles, rather than the short-range rockets that threaten Israel.

The U.S. has collaborated with Israel on missile defense technology since the 1980s, including support for the Iron Dome system, which has intercepted thousands of incoming rockets since its 2011 deployment. Unlike Israel’s system, which defends a territory roughly the size of New Jersey, a U.S. continental defense system would need to protect an area nearly 500 times larger against more sophisticated threats such as Chinese hypersonic glide vehicles.

Unlike traditional ground- or sea-based systems, the envisioned architecture leans on space-based solutions, which have long been controversial.

January 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

General in Charge of Nuclear Weapons Says Heck, Let’s Add Some AI

10.30.24, by Victor Tangermann https://futurism.com/the-byte/general-nuclear-weapons-add-ai?fbclid=IwY2xjawICdxRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQVK6Dhf2RcZ8r9FlwBSZ7lEckVE5JvyMBu3NDqof8fQ2nUSnIuRRRNKCA_aem_sEXPy0BsSMOZ6wpMMcRzAQ

What could go wrong?

Air Force general Anthony Cotton, the man in charge of the United States stockpile of nuclear missiles, says the Pentagon is doubling down on artificial intelligence — an alarming sign that the hype surrounding the tech has infiltrated even the highest ranks of the US military.

As Air and Space Forces Magazine reports, Cotton made the comments during the 2024 Department of Defense Intelligence Information System Conference earlier this month.

Fortunately, Cotton stopped short of promising to hand over the nuclear codes to a potentially malicious AI.

“AI will enhance our decision-making capabilities,” he said. “But we must never allow artificial intelligence to make those decisions for us.”

Algorithmic Deterrence

The US military is planning to spend a whopping $1.7 trillion to bring its nuclear arsenal up to date. Cotton revealed that AI systems could be part of this upgrade.

However, the general remained pointedly vague about how exactly the tech would be integrated.

“Advanced AI and robust data analytics capabilities provide decision advantage and improve our deterrence poster,” he added. “IT and AI superiority allows for a more effective integration of conventional and nuclear capabilities, strengthening deterrence.”

Vagueness aside, nuclear secrecy expert and Stevens Institute of Technology expert Alex Wellerstein told 404 Media that “I think it’s safe to say that they aren’t talking about Skynet, here,” referring to the fictional AI featured in the sci-fi blockbuster “Terminator” franchise.

“He’s being very clear that he is talking about systems that will analyze and give information, not launch missiles,” he added. “If we take him at his word on that, then we can disregard the more common fears of an AI that is making nuclear targeting decisions.”

Nonetheless, there’s something disconcerting about Cotton’s suggestion that an AI could influence a decision of whether to launch a nuclear weapon.

Case in point, earlier this year, a team of Stanford researchers tasked an unmodified version of OpenAI’s GPT-4 large language model to make high-stakes, society-level decisions in a series of wargame simulations.

Terrifyingly, the AI model seemed mysteriously itchy to kick off a nuclear war.

January 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear Proliferation and the “Nth Country Experiment”

“Do-it-yourself” Project Produced “Credible Nuclear Weapon” Design from Open Sources

Experimenters Developed a Plutonium Weapon Design with Potential for High Explosive Yield.

NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, Washington, D.C., January 23, 2025 – Today, the National Security Archive publishesnewly declassified information on a secret mid-1960s project in which a handful of young physicists at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory produced a design for a “credible nuclear weapon” based only on unclassified, open-source information and in just three years. One of the participants described the experiment as “truly a do-it-yourself project,” according to one of the recently declassified records. Begun in the spring of 1964, before China had conducted its first bomb test, the “Nth Country Experiment” concluded that a government with nuclear-weapons aspirations and limited resources could develop a “credible” weapon.

This new Electronic Briefing Book includes the relatively limited declassified literature on the project, including the 1967 “Summary Report on the Nth Country Experiment,” a document first released to the National Security Archive in the 1990s and that was the subject of an Archive press release in 2003. Today’s posting also includes a recently declassified, if massively redacted, Livermore report on “Postshot Activities of the Nth Country Experiment” that summarized classified briefings that two of the participants in the Experiment gave around the country to U.S. government officials. Also included is a State Department internal announcement of a forthcoming briefing on the “Nth Country Experiment” noting that “three young PhD physicists, working part-time, succeeded in achieving a workable nuclear weapons design in a period of about three years.”

……………………………….When the Experiment began in 1964, U.S. intelligence had been analyzing the problem of the potential spread of nuclear weapons capabilities for years. Before the term “nuclear proliferation” became widely used during the 1960s, however, analysts with the CIA and other intelligence organizations had thought in terms of a “4^th country” problem: Which country was likely to join the U.S., the U.K., and the Soviet Union as the fourth country with nuclear weapons capabilities? After France tested its first bomb in early 1960 and became the fourth country, analysts began to think in terms of the “Nth country problem”—that some indeterminate number of countries might develop nuclear weapons capabilities. What concerned think tankers and academic experts was that Nth countries would create a more unstable and perilous world where the United States would have less influence and its interests would be under greater threat.[1] Consistent with this, during a 1963 press conference, President John F. Kennedy warned of the possibility of a world where, by the 1970s, there were 15 or 20 nuclear powers that posed the “greatest possible danger and hazard.”[2]

………………………………………..The Department of Energy’s reviewers massively excised the two reports on the Experiment on the grounds that they include “restricted data” (RD) relating to the design of nuclear weapons. The Experiment involved RD from the beginning, with the junior physicists involved receiving Q clearances; any nuclear weapons design information they created would, under the law, be considered secret and “born classified.” Thus, the DOE reviewers completely withheld all discussion and bibliographical entries related to the unclassified and open-source publications that the Experimenters consulted.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Future declassifications by the Department of Energy may lead to the release of more information about the “Nth Country Experiment” and its inception.

The Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

January 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Anti nuclear activists celebrate fourth banniversary of nuclear weapons

Half of the world’s nations, representing 2.5 billion people, have now signed and / or ratified the Ban Treaty. There are now 94 States Parties to the treaty and 73 have ratified their absolute adherence to it.

NFLA 22nd Jan 2025

Today (22^nd January) is the banniversary, the fourth anniversary of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons[i] entering into international law at the UN.

This treaty, usually called the Ban Treaty, is the first piece of international legislation to outlaw the production, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

In the world today we have nine confirmed or acknowledged nuclear weapons states, the USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, with an estimated 12,121 nuclear weapons in January 2024[ii].

In 2023, these states were estimated to have spent $91.4 billion maintaining and enhancing their nuclear arsenals.

Nuclear proliferation has been restrained because of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty[iii] which was first signed by the USA, USSR and UK in 1968 and has almost universal acceptance in the world community. Signatory nations without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire them, whilst retaining the right to employ nuclear power for energy, whilst the five nuclear weapon states, the USA, Russia, UK, France and China, which have signed it have agreed not to deploy nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states. Furthermore, under Article 6 they have committed to: pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament’.

The Ban Treaty came to pass because global civil society, particularly in nations whose people suffered greatly from post-war atomic and nuclear bomb testing, such as Australia, the Pacific Islands, Algeria, and Kazakhstan, became increasingly frustrated by the failure of these nuclear nations to conduct any negotiations in ‘good faith’, despite the passage of over 60 years. Civic society groups, scientists, physicians and the Hibakusha pushed back by establishing an International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) to bring about the world’s first definitive legislation to outlaw nuclear weapons.[iv]

In doing so they were following the example set by worldwide campaigners opposed to anti-personnel landmines, whose campaign led to the passage of the Ottawa Convention or the Anti-Personnel Land Mine Ban Convention.[v] This became law in 1997. Later that year the International Campaign to Ban Landmines won the Novel Peace Prize.

The new campaign aimed to bring in similar legislation to that which previously banned other weapons of mass destruction, namely chemical, biological and bacteriological weapons.

Lawyers from civil society groups and supportive nations drew up the legislation. Several years were spent by campaigners in international shuttle diplomacy, with private meetings and various regional conferences held across the world to build support amongst United Nations member states…………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities and Mayors for Peace are both established partners in ICAN.

Interestingly in both organisations are member authorities in the Republic of Ireland and the UK. The Republic is a neutral and non-nuclear weapon state that has signed and ratified the Ban Treaty. The UK is a NATO and nuclear weapon state which is refusing to engage with the treaty. This creates a dichotomy.

What then will the UK/Ireland NFLAs and Mayors for Peace Chapter be doing in 2025 to build support for the treaty and the communities affected by nuclear weapons and testing?

Richard Outram, explains:

The big challenge here is getting any British Government, whatever its political persuasion, which remains wedded to nuclear weapons and is a member of a nuclear weapons alliance with a first use policy, to get on board with the Treaty.

“2025 will be an especially significant year in the history of nuclear weapons, being the 80^th anniversary of the tragic atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it will be important to have a focused plan with positive actions.”

Richard intends to:

Ask the Labour Government to send an official observer to the next conference of the Ban Treaty to join signatory states and civil society groups. This will be held in New York in March.
Lobby the Government to acknowledge the moral imperative for the UK to provide reparations and practical support for the communities, generally Indigenous, impacted by British atomic and nuclear weapons, as per the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 in the Ban Treaty.
Continue to work for justice and compensation for Britain’s atomic and nuclear test veteran community and their families. The NFLAs have been a major player in lobbying politicians at all levels in both Conservative and Labour governments, and has appointed a former British Army veteran, Councillor Tommy Judge, to be its spokesperson on these issues.
Ask Mayors for Peace to follow Manchester’s example in passing resolutions in support of the ICAN Cities Appeal calling on the British Government to sign the Treaty.
Write to parliamentarians at Holyrood in support of a resolution just tabled before the Scottish Government favouring nuclear disarmament and a nuclear free Scotland.
Support any move to lobby local government pension funds to divest from nuclear weapons.
Continue to work building up the number of our member authorities and to strengthen their capacity to act for peace in this 80^th anniversary year of the atom bombings. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/anti-nuclear-activists-celebrate-fourth-banniversary-of-nuclear-weapons/

January 25, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Memo to Trump: Cancel US Air Force’s Sentinel ICBM program

Bulletin, By Mackenzie Knight | January 17, 2025

Mr. President, the extreme cost and schedule overruns of the United States Air Force’s new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program highlight the need to address the future of our country’s ICBM force and present an opportunity for curtailing wasteful spending.

Background

In 2016, an Air Force cost analysis concluded that replacing the existing force of Minuteman III ICBMs would be cheaper than a life-extension program. But the Air Force program to develop the new Sentinel ICBM is vastly over budget and significantly behind schedule. The Air Force notified Congress in January 2024 that the program was in critical breach of the Nunn-McCurdy Act, with a 37 percent cost overrun and a two-year schedule delay.

The situation had worsened as of July 2024 when, upon certifying the Sentinel program to continue after its Nunn-McCurdy breach, the Defense Department announced a new cost estimate of $140.9 billion—constituting an 81 percent increase since the previous estimate—and a three-year schedule delay. Flawed assumptions, program mismanagement, and the awarding of an unprecedented sole-source contract for a program of this size have worked together to create this problem.

The struggling Sentinel program is on track to become one of the most expensive nuclear modernization programs ever in the United States. But there is still time to put a check on some of this wasteful spending while maintaining strategic security.

Options

The following options are presented in order of the level they deviate from the current program of record, from lowest to highest.

……………………………………………………………………….. — Option 3: Cancel the Sentinel ICBM program

This option would reduce the number of deployed ICBMs to 300, life-extend Minuteman III ICBMs, and cancel the Sentinel program. This would save a significant amount of money. In 2012, it was estimated to cost $7 billion to turn Minuteman III ICBMs into what the Air Force called “basically new missiles except for the shell.” Even if a new life-extension program were more expensive than this estimate, it is unlikely that the cost would even remotely approach Sentinel’s projected $141 billion—and growing—price tag.

………………………………………………………. Recommended course of action

I recommend Option 3 at this time. Reviews by military officials and experts support a reduction in the number of deployed ICBMs. The Sentinel program’s cost and schedule challenges have become untenable and unacceptable for US taxpayers, particularly for a program that is not necessary for national security. We must prioritize government efficiency by slashing wasteful spending, streamlining modernization programs, and not allowing the legislative branch alone to dictate the US nuclear posture. This can best be achieved by reducing ICBM numbers and life-extending the current missile force. Option 1 would further delay ICBM modernization and would not guarantee lower costs. Option 4 is likely politically infeasible at this time and would incur significant costs and logistical requirements to dismantle the entire ICBM infrastructure and warheads. https://thebulletin.org/2025/01/memo-to-trump-cancel-us-air-forces-sentinel-icbm-program/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Memos%20to%20Trump%20%28he%20might%20actually%20like%29&utm_campaign=20250120%20Monday%20Newsletter

January 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Memo to Trump: Cancel the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile

Bulletin, By David Kearn | January 17, 2025

Mr. President, we urge the cancellation of the SLCM-N program. It is unnecessary, costly, and makes the job of rebuilding our military more difficult.

As you know, the SLCM-N program was initiated during your first term. It was canceled by the Biden administration, but Congress allocated funds to revive the program in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. However, with the benefit of study and analysis, the Navy has signaled opposition to the program, viewing it as costly distraction from pressing modernization priorities, a strain on the already struggling defense industrial base, and an unnecessary complication of the missions of the fast attack submarine fleet.

…………………………………………………….. Redundancy

The United States already deploys significant conventional military assets in key regions and can quickly augment them by moving in nuclear weapons as needed to signal to adversaries that transgressions will have severe consequences. First, the Long-Range Standoff Missile (LRSO) deployed on either B-52 or B-21 bombers—while not technically classified as a “tactical weapon”—will possess the range, penetrability, and single-kiloton yield to provide the United States with the flexibility to respond to the threatened or actual use of nuclear weapons by an adversary in a proportional way without resorting larger strategic systems. Second, the B61-12 gravity bomb provides a low-yield munition that can be delivered by bomber and strike aircraft. Finally, thanks to your leadership during the first administration, the United States also possesses a low-yield variant of the Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). In short, the United States possesses adequate nuclear capabilities to provide limited, flexible options if you or a successor would ever need them.

Costs

The expected costs of the SLCM-N—initially estimated at $10 billion but likely to be higher—are significant. The Navy will do its best to implement your preferred policies, but the SLCM-N program will require an “entirely new workforce and industrial base” to deliver this single system. The new missile cannot simply utilize an existing conventional Tomahawk cruise missile fitted with a nuclear warhead, as advocates initially assumed.

Beyond program costs, the Navy’s Strategic Systems Program office already has a “very full plate” of other programs, including upgrading the Trident II D-5 SLBM, as well as the new Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile to be deployed on destroyers and attack submarines. A new program devoted exclusively to SLCM-N would divert workforce and resources away from these important programs at a time when industrial capacity and budgets are already stretched thin.

………………………………… Recommended course of action

We urge that you work with Congress to cancel the SLCM-N program. In doing so, you may prefer to recommend that the allocated funds be devoted to existing conventional Navy programs or toward further investment in flexible nuclear programs, such as the long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missile…………. more https://thebulletin.org/2025/01/memo-to-trump-cancel-the-sea-launched-nuclear-cruise-missile/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Memos%20to%20Trump%20%28he%20might%20actually%20like%29&utm_campaign=20250120%20Monday%20Newsletter

January 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is ‘Israel’ using small nuclear weapons in Gaza and South Lebanon?

Robert Daly, Christopher Busby, Source: Al Mayadeen English, 6 Sep 2024, https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/is–israel–using-small-nuclear-weapons-in-gaza-and-south-le

Dr. Christopher Busby is part a mixed crew of investigative reporters and commentators from Lebanon and some film-makers investigating “Israel’s” use of enriched uranium in strikes on Gaza on Lebanon, and aim to follow up on the strange illnesses that are appearing on the battlefield.

The American Peace Information Council (APIC) and Green Audit (UK) are conducting an investigation of “Israel’s” possible use of small nuclear weapons in Gaza and South Lebanon. Dr. Christopher Busby—Scientific Secretary, European Committee on Radiation Risk; once Member, UK Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters; once Member, UK Ministry of Defence Depleted Uranium Oversight Board—presents the scientific and social background of the case below.

APIC and Green Audit ask people who drive ambulances down in the South, or live there, to come forward with engine air filters from ambulances driven in bombed areas, samples of long hair (at least 10 cm in length) if they live in bombed areas, and Geiger counter readings and soil samples from bomb craters. Please send these samples and evidence to Al Mayadeen who will forward them to us. One would think that the easiest way to obtain ambulance air filters would be from the Lebanese Red Cross, but its General Secretary, Mr. Georges Kitanneh, refuses to assist this investigation.

‘Israel’ in Gaza: Red Mercury.

Dr. Christopher Busby

In 2021, a scientific report in the prestigious journal Nature confirmed what I had been saying since 2006. “Israel” has, since its attacks on Lebanon in 2006 and those on Gaza in 2008 and 2014, used a new nuclear weapon, one which kills with a high temperature radiation flash and with neutrons. This weapon, which leaves an identification footprint, but no fission products like Caesium-137, we now know was also employed by the USA in Fallujah, Iraq in 2003, and previously in Kosovo also.

The residues, inhalable Uranium aerosol dust, together with the neutron damage to tissues, cause a range of serious and often fatal health effects that puzzle doctors and defy treatment. Without knowing what caused such effects, which often mimic other illnesses or result in fungal infections that kill, doctors are powerless to help and just watch the exposed individuals die.

In the cases of direct exposures to the flash, parts of the body, arms, legs, places that were not behind significant shielding are burned to blackened sticks. The aerosol Uranium dust is inhaled, destroys the lungs through fibrosis, is translocated to the lymphatic system, and later causes cancers, not only lymphomas and leukemias, but pretty much any cancer as a result of localisation of the Uranium particle in the organ, for example the breast, which has extensive lymphatic vessels. If the particle is coughed up and swallowed, it can end up immobilised in the colon and cause cancer there.

Downstream results in exposed populations include genetic effects, unexplained infant mortality, congenital malformations, miscarriages, sex ratio perturbations at birth, and fertility loss, all of which were found in epidemiological studies I helped carry out in Fallujah from 2010-2011.

This is not science fiction or arm-waving. I have acted as an expert witness in two successful legal cases, one in England and one in Australia, where the judge and coroner court concluded that the particles caused colon cancer. I am helping a US DU veteran at the moment in his case against the military. He has a pituitary tumour (the small gland is located behind the nose where the particles lodge).

I began this investigation in 2006 when an article appeared in a Lebanese newspaper reporting that an Israeli bomb crater in Khiam was radioactive. A Dr. Ali Khobeisi had taken a Geiger counter to the crater and found a 20-times background radiation level in the crater relative to nearby. By 2006, I had become something of an alternative authority on Depleted Uranium weapons (DU). I had given evidence to the US Congressional Committee on Veterans Affairs on the effects of DU and Gulf War syndrome, I had visited Iraq and also Kosovo, and I was a member of the UK government Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (DUOB); I had written articles, including for the United Nations, I had given evidence to the Royal Society.

I asked a colleague to go to Lebanon and get samples from the crater, and also an ambulance air filter. When they were analysed, using two separate methods, they showed the presence not of Depleted Uranium, but of Enriched Uranium (EU). Now this is impossible, unless the weapon was made from EU or created EU from neutron irradiation of U-234 and U-238.

To follow the explanation of the problem, you need some science. Natural Uranium, as mined, has three isotopes, U-238 U-234 and U-235. Most of this Uranium by mass is U-238 (99.7%). The 0.3% of U-235 is important for nuclear bombs and nuclear energy and is extracted in various ways to make EU. What is left behind is less radioactive U-238, and this is what is termed Depleted Uranium (DU).

When U-238 decays, it changes into Thorium-234, which rapidly changes into Protoactinium-234 and this turns into Uranium-234. Then you get a long list of progeny, but these do not concern us. All this happens quite quickly, and the process releases some gamma rays which make DU a gamma radiation hazard, contrary to the statements of the military that DU is not a handling hazard. It is. But this is not important in this story.

The main issue here is this. Was the enriched Uranium in the Lebanon bomb a real finding? Could it have been a laboratory error? The answer is No. We used two different laboratories and two different Uranium analysis methods, ICPMS and alpha spectrometry.

What we found was picked up by the reporter Robert Fisk, who put the story into The Independent in October 2006: The Mystery of “Israel’s” Secret Uranium Bomb.

Until we found EU, I had focused on the health effects of DU. Everyone did. But in 2006 I was contacted by an eminent Italian nuclear physicist, Emilio Del Guidice. I met him in London, where he told me that the source of the EU was a new weapon which used Hydrogen or heavy hydrogen, Deuterium dissolved in Uranium and when this warhead, as small as a baseball, was fired at a solid object, the hydrogen suffered Cold Fusion to form Helium with the emission of a powerful gamma ray which cause the U238 to convert to an unstable U-239 which decayed to U-235 and a neutron.

I am not a nuclear physicist, though I have my own ideas about this explanation but at that time I accepted that he knew what he was talking about. At least it explained the source of the enrichment.

In 2008 I was approached by some doctors in Egypt who wondered if the Israelis were bombing Gaza with DU. With some difficulty, I obtained samples from Gaza, again soil samples and an air filter, and analysis showed the presence of EU. In 2010, as part of our study of the congenital malformations in Fallujah, we analysed the hair of the mothers for 52 elements to try and identify the cause of the birth defects. We found EU in the mothers’ hair.

Further support for the existence of an EU-containing or EU-producing weapon came from a study of a Kosovo war Veteran whose mysterious illnesses were investigated thoroughly by some doctors in Liverpool and Manchester. The man’s kidneys contained Enriched Uranium.

Emilio del Guidice had not stood still in this Sherlock Holmes investigation. Together with reporters from Italian TV (Rai News) he had visited the father of Cold Fusion, Prof Martin Fleischmann, whom I had also previously worked with when I was at the University of Kent in 1980. Fleishmann added to the intriguing scientific puzzle, but was unwilling to get involved. It seemed that scientists looking at cold fusion were dying under suspicious circumstances. Fleischmann himself had seemingly been poisoned with something that caused multi-site cancer and passed away on August 3, 2012. A cold fusion colleague developed the same multi-site cancer and didn’t survive.

Del Guidice and the Rai News producer following up the story wrote a book: The Secret of the Three Bullets, published in 2014. It is still in print and contains their side of the story. I am in the book under various names. But a few months before its publication, del Guidice unexpectedly died when alone in his house.

I am told that the Rai News co-author editor of the book, Maurizio Torrealta has gone into hiding after having been posted three real bullets in an envelope.

Fast forward to 2021. The Nature paper gave the results of analyses of 65 samples of soil, sand, cement, and building materials from Gaza. Using gamma spectrometry (where you use the whole sample and look at the identifiable peaks from U-235 and Th-234 = U238) the authors identified some significantly high levels of Enriched Uranium in all the samples, but mostly in the soil samples. The levels of enrichment had become greater than those that we found in our earlier studies. The natural isotope mass ratio in nature (U238/U235) is 138. In Lebanon we found 116. In Gaza 108. The 2021 paper found about 85. Since this was before the recent bombing, this contamination must date to the 2014 Israeli bombing. What should we expect to find now?

In March of this year, I wrote to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the official UN watchdogs for the use of nuclear weapons. My colleague from Fallujah, Dr. Mohamad Al-Darraji also sent my letter under his name. Nothing happened. No reply. He was to organise a Press Conference in Vienna to draw attention to the use of this weapon in Fallujah, and the cover up of the residual high levels of radiation by the Iraqi Ministry of Science. I made a video to be presented at this conference (it is online). But he couldn’t get a venue.

I followed the letter up with a second version in July, demanding that the IAEA respond. I wrote a paper about the issue and submitted it to two journals, putting the pre-print online. It was rejected on the basis that the reviewers didn’t believe the Nature analysis results. Eventually, Al-Darraji got a reply from the IAEA (naturally, I didn’t). The IAEA didn’t believe the Nature results. Nothing to investigate. No problem.

The UK Green Party House of Lords member, Baroness Jenny Jones (who I know) asked a question in UK Parliament. The government said they didn’t have anything to say about it. About the high level of Enriched Uranium in Gaza.

So that’s it. What can we do? “Israel” and the USA (at least) have developed what is almost certainly a mini-neutron bomb. “Israel” is using it in Gaza. And may be using it in Lebanon (again). In fact, there is evidence for the development of such a bomb having been tested as long ago as October 1962, in the final US atmospheric test in the Dominic series in the Pacific. This was the test named “Housatonic” which achieved 9.96Mt yield but reportedly had zero fallout. That means it had no fission primer in the first stage, a necessary requirement for all the hydrogen bombs before it.

The significance of this appears to have been overlooked, but, astonishingly, you can find details on Wikipedia. The UK government put all that stuff under the Official Secrets Act and when I was representing the Test Veterans in the Royal Courts of Justice from 2010 to 2016, I was refused access to these details. The new bomb was successfully detonated just before the Kennedy Kruschev test ban, and just before Kennedy was assassinated. Could there be a link?

I have joined a mixed crew of investigative reporters and commentators from Lebanon and some film-makers to seek out the solution to this conundrum. We aim to follow up on the strange illnesses that are appearing on the battlefield. We aim to look for Enriched Uranium and also neutron activation products like Cobalt-60, Tritium and Carbon-14. In a new development, the laboratories that I used to examine the earlier samples have all suddenly closed their doors. One of them was shut down altogether after the first Gaza analysis. One of them was threatened. But we can do a lot with what we have.

What we want is for people to obtain Geiger Counters to check out the impact sites soon after the explosion, and if it is radioactive to get us samples of dust and dirt. We want women’s hair samples, especially long hair, cut from the nape of the neck, from women who were near or lived in areas that were bombed. You can buy a simple Geiger Counter now for about 60 euros. You can even get a low-resolution portable gamma spectrometer for about 350 euros.

We would like anyone with comments or information to contact us. This is a big deal.

The weapon will certainly be used in future exchanges, and will make local nuclear war possible, since the scary scenarios involving fallout may not materialise. I have named the device Red Mercury because that is what it probably is (remember the red mercury story: written off officially by science (haha) as a fraud, as a phony). Red Mercury was Stalin’s code for Enriched Uranium. Clearly, from the Dominic Housatonic test, the USA also developed the weapon. Since it kills without leaving fission products, it is invisible to the global nuclear explosion detection systems and the IAEA watchdogs.

But there is no doubt the IAEA know about it. Their latest report on Uranium in the Environment completely ignores Enriched Uranium. When I asked one of the report authors why, I was told they were short of money. They only had enough to look at Depleted Uranium. Can you believe this stuff?

January 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Are AI defense firms about to eat the Pentagon?

Competitors are becoming collaborators in the industry’s hottest segment.

Defense One, Patrick Tucker, 15 Dec 24

In an unprecedented wave of collaboration, leading AI firms are teaming up—sometimes with rivals—to serve a Pentagon and Congress determined to put AI to military use. Their growing alignment may herald an era in which software firms seize the influence now held by old-line defense contractors.

“There’s an old saying that software eats the world,” Byron Callan, managing director at Capital Alpha Partners, told Investors Business Daily on Wednesday. “It’s going to eat the military too.”

Over the last week, Palantir, Anduril, Shield AI, OpenAI, Booz Allen, and Oracle announced various partnerships to develop products tailored to defense needs. Meanwhile, the House passed the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act with provisions that push the Defense Department to work more closely with tech firms on AI, and DOD announced yet another office intended to foster AI adoption.

Perhaps the most significant partnership is between Palantir and Anduril, two companies that offer somewhat competing capabilities related to battlefield data integration. Palantir holds the contract for the Maven program, the seminal Defense Department AI effort to derive intelligence from vast amounts of data provided by satellites, drones, and other sensors. Anduril offers a mesh-networking product called Lattice for rapid collection and analysis of battlefield data for drone swarming and other operations. …………………………………………………………………

Congress gets behind AI firms

On Wednesday, the House approved a 2025 defense authorization bill that includes several provisions intended to spur military adoption of AI. The bill puts a big emphasis on building out data and cloud computing resources to enable much faster adoption of AI and AI-enabled weapons, areas where companies like Anduril, Palantir, Booz Allen, and Shield AI excel.

One of the most ambitious is Section 1532, which mandates the expansion of secure, high-performance computing infrastructure to support AI training and development.

This infrastructure, which will include partnerships with commercial and hybrid cloud providers, is critical for developing scalable AI models capable of adapting to evolving mission requirements………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/12/are-ai-defense-firms-about-eat-pentagon/401673/?oref=d1-author-river

January 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Virginia, we have a problem

14 Jan 2025, |Peter Briggs, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/virginia-we-have-a-problem/

Australia’s plan to acquire Virginia-class submarines from the United State is looking increasingly improbable. The US building program is slipping too badly.

This heightens the need for Australia to begin looking at other options, including acquiring Suffren-class nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) from France.

The Covid-19 pandemic dramatically disrupted work at the two shipyards that build Virginias, General Dynamics Electric Boat at Groton, Connecticut, and Huntington Ingalls Industries’ yard at Newport News, Virginia. It badly hindered output at many companies in the supply chain, too. With too few workers, the industry has built up a backlog, and yards are filling with incomplete submarines.

Within six years, the US must decide whether to proceed with sale of the first of at least three and possibly five Virginias to Australia, a boat that will be transferred from the US Navy’s fleet.

Nine months before the transfer goes ahead, the president of the day must certify that it will not diminish USN undersea capability. This certification is unlikely if the industry has not by then cleared its backlog and achieved a production rate of 2.3 a year—the long-term building rate of two a year for the USN plus about one every three years to cover Australia’s requirement.

The chance of meeting that condition is vanishingly small.

The situation in the shipyards is stark. The industry laid down only one SSN in 2021. It delivered none from April 2020 to May 2022. The USN has requested funding for only one Virginia in fiscal year 2025, breaking the two-a-year drumbeat, ‘due to limits on Navy’s budget topline and the growing Virginia class production backlog’.

As of January 2025, five of 10 Block IV Virginias ordered are in the yards, as are five of 12 Block Vs for which acquisition has been announced. (Work has not begun on the other seven Block Vs.)

The building time from laying down until delivery has increased from between 3 and 3.5 years before the pandemic to more than 5 years. The tempo is still slowing: the next Virginia, USS Iowa, is due to be delivered on 5 April 2025, 5.8 years after it was laid down.

On the original, pre-pandemic schedule, all the Block IVs could probably have been delivered to the USN by now. This is a gap that cannot be recovered in a few years, despite all the expensive manpower training and retention programs in hand.

Exacerbating the problem for the yards, the Block V submarines are 30 percent larger, and more complex to build, making a return to shorter build times unlikely. Speaking to their shareholders in October, the chief executives of Huntington Ingalls and General Dynamics blamed their slowing delivery tempo on supply chain and workforce issues. HII says it is renegotiating contracts for 17 Block IV and Block V Virginias.

Furthermore, Electric Boat has diverted its most experienced workers to avoid further slippage in building the first two ballistic missile submarines of the Columbia class, the USN’s highest priority shipbuilding program, in which the Newport News yard also participates.

It gets worse. Many USN SSNs that have joined the US fleet over the past few decades are unavailable for service, awaiting maintenance. The pandemic similarly disrupted shipyards that maintain the SSNs of the Los Angeles and Virginia classes. In September 2022, 18 of the 50 SSNs in commission were awaiting maintenance. The Congressional Budget Office reports lack of spending on spare parts is also forcing cannibalisation and impacting the availability of Virginia class SSNs.

Australia’s SSN plan must worsen the US’s challenge in recovering from this situation, adding to the congestion in shipyards and further over loading supply chains already struggling to deliver SSNs to the USN.

A US decision not to sell SSNs to Australia is inevitable, and on current planning we will have no stopgap to cover withdrawal of our six diesel submarines of the Collins class, the oldest of which has already served for 28 years.

In the end, Australia’s unwise reliance on the US will have weakened the combined capability of the alliance. And Australia’s independent capacity for deterrence will be weakened, too.

As I wrote in December, it is time to look for another solution. One is ordering SSNs of the French Suffren class. The design is in production, with three of six planned boats delivered. It is optimised for anti-submarine warfare, with good anti-surface, land-strike, special-forces and mining capability. It is a smaller design, less capable than the Virginia, but should be cheaper and is a better fit for Australia’s requirements.

Importantly, it requires only half the crew of a Virginia, and we should be able to afford and crew the minimum viable force of 12 SSNs.

Let’s build on the good progress in training, industry and facility preparations for supporting US and British SSNs in Australia, all of which should continue, and find a way to add to the alliance’s overall submarine capability, not reduce it.

January 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »