How civilisation could end – an all-too-possible nuclear scenario
By Richard Broinowski, Sep 30, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/how-civilisation-could-end-an-all-too-possible-nuclear-scenario/
On 12 September, Vladimir Putin threatened retaliation, not excluding nuclear, against NATO countries if Washington allows Ukraine to attack targets inside Russia with US missiles. President Joe Biden backed off – for the moment. But the doomsday clock of the Atomic Scientists now stands at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to signalling Armageddon.
In a chillingly relevant book Nuclear War – A Scenario, (Transworld Publishers 2024), New York Times journalist Annie Jacobsen predicts what could occur. Interviews with nearly 40 US authorities, all having held positions in the US Nuclear Command and Control structure, add authority to her narrative.
Jacobsen names North Korea as the ignition point of a nuclear war. Without warning, Kim Jong-un launches a Hwasong-17 ICBM at Washington. Within four minutes, it is identified and tracked in Washington. But contrary to repeated public assurances that an ICBM can be intercepted, it is almost impossible to do so after the initial boost phase.
There is massive confusion in Washington between protocol and speed of action. While a national security adviser tries unsuccessfully to get a North Korean official on the phone, the president, in the White House dining room, is hustled by his security detail to a bunker under the West Wing. After several panicked relocations, and only after he has authorised nuclear retaliation against Pyongyang, he ends up bleeding and broken in a field somewhere in Maryland after the electronics on his fleeing helicopter, Marine One, are fried by a massive electro-magnetic pulse from a nuclear device detonated on a North Korean geo-stationary satellite hovering over the US.
Meanwhile, the North Korean ICBM hits the Pentagon. The explosion creates soft X-ray light with a very short wavelength, superheating the air to millions of degrees, instantly carbonising most of Washington’s inhabitants. In the aftermath, just as in Hiroshima 79 years earlier, decomposing bodies soon choke Washington waterways and any hospital that still functions after the atomic blast is completely overwhelmed by burned supplicants seeking relief or merciful death.
Kim follows up with a second nuclear strike – on the existing nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon on the Californian coast between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The strike melts down fuel rods in the twin 1100MW pressurised water reactors, rendering a vast area of California uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
Things get rapidly out of control. Under America’s highly classified Operational Plan, 1,770 US nuclear weapons are cleared for launch, including single hydrogen bombs on land-based Minutemen missiles buried in silos around the US mid-west, multiple-headed sea-launched ballistic missiles aboard Ohio-class “boomer” submarines under the Pacific, and on piloted B-52 and B-2 bombers, the third leg of America’s nuclear triad.
A disproportionately extravagant nuclear salvo (use ‘em or lose ‘em) aimed at North Korea must fly over eastern Russia before entering Korean air space. It is mistakenly assumed by Moscow to be targeting Russia. In the absence of any urgent correcting phone call from Washington (which has ceased to exist), Russia launches its own onslaught against the US, as well as against NATO bases in Europe known to keep US nuclear weapons and delivery systems on standby. Too late for a pre-emptive strike, US commanders in military bases strung around the US mid-west give nuclear launching codes to commanding officers at all US nuclear bases including submarines, to strike hundreds of designated targets in Russia.
The dreadful situation worsens as China, seeing nuclear death and destruction engulf cities near its border with North Korea, launches its own nuclear weapons on the United States.
Jacobsen doesn’t spare us the details of what happens after the bombing stops. Across the northern hemisphere everything burns unchecked – cities, towns, suburbs, villages, roads and forests. Black powdery soot blocks the sun, first across the northern hemisphere, then the south. As predicted as early as October 1983 by Carl Sagan, one of the world’s most respected scientists, nuclear winter steps in. Crops can’t grow without sun. Nor can life. Mass extinction of humans and animals from radiation, and then starvation, follows.
Sagan’s theory was initially scorned as Soviet propaganda, but as computers developed, his theory gained validity, then acceptance. Sixty-six million years ago, an asteroid struck Earth and 70% of all species perished. Jacobsen correctly says that nuclear war would cause many of the same phenomena.
Where Jacobsen can be questioned, however, is on her assumptions that Kim Jong-un would ignite the war. Why he would do such a reckless and foolish thing, she claims she simply “doesn’t know”. But she apparently doesn’t remember how in 1945 the United States, without seeking any opinion from Koreans, divided Korea at the 38th parallel to stop the Soviet Union occupying the whole peninsula; and how General Curtis LeMay saturation bombed North Korea during the Korean War as revenge for Chinese troops comprehensively defeating panicking American forces and forcing them back across the 38th parallel in 1950. So the animus is there.
But Kim Jong-un is neither mad nor stupid. Why would he court certain nuclear destruction of his small country by the United States? A much more likely ignition point is currently unfurling in the Middle East, where Israel seems to be bent on provoking a war with Iran, into which US forces would inevitably be drawn with uncertain, but highly dangerous consequences.
Public scrutiny of UK-US nuclear pact is essential
“Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating on further advancing their respective nuclear arsenals” – Carol Turner
The Agreement facilitates the development of Britain’s nuclear weapon technology and supports building the Trident replacement. This is in direct contradiction to Britain’s legal obligation under the NPT and CTBT to the disarm.
Vice Chair of CND, Carol Turner, writes on the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement, and what it spells for the so-called independence of Britain’s foreign policy. 29 Sept 24
One of the Prime Minister’s first foreign policy initiatives after taking office in July was an amendment to the Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes. Never heard of it? That could be just what Labour is hoping for.
The Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) is a bilateral nuclear pact between the USA and Britain. The United States provides the UK with nuclear technology and know-how in exchange for access to British intelligence facilities. Since it was first signed in secret in 1958, the MDA has been brought before parliament for approval every 10 years. This has been a formal process, with no vote and negligible scrutiny.
After the MDA is signed by the end of this year, not even the formality of approval will be required in future. Defence Secretary John Healey laid an amendment to the MDA before parliament on 25 July – three weeks after Labour took office, just five days before the summer recess – which removes all mentions of renewal. When the pact is signed this year, it becomes permanent. No parliamentary debate and no change in the law is needed for this. As CND General Secretary Kate Hudon observes ‘this spells farewell to even the smallest notion of parliamentary responsibility’ for Britain’s foreign policy.
What’s on offer for Britain and the US
The agreement enables both countries to exchange classified information allowing them to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems. The MDA is essential to the replacement of Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system. The current UK warhead is a copy of the US warhead; some components are bought from the US. Inevitably, the United States leverage over Britain’s foreign and security policy will to be enhanced by the MDA amendment.
In an explanatory memorandum to parliament which accompanied the proposed changes to the agreement, Healey explained the MDA ‘provides the necessary requirements for the control and transmission of submarine nuclear propulsion technology, atomic information and material between the UK and US, and the transfer of non-nuclear components to the UK’.
Healey neglects to point out that control and transmission of Trident nuclear weapons is indispensable to Britain’s ability to use them. Being able to deliver a nuclear bomb to its target, is every bit as essential as the nuclear warhead itself. As Richard Norton Taylor rightly points out, the MDA ‘gives the lie to persistent claims by the Ministry of Defence that Britain’s submarine-launched nuclear arsenal is operationally independent’.
In exchange for this, Britain provides the US with intelligence facilities. The Menwith Hill listening post in Yorkshire makes signals intelligence available to the US from across the northern hemisphere, intercepting both military and commercial electronic communications. Fylingdales radar station, also in Yorkshire, is one of three bases that comprise the USA’s Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. Information from these bases initiates a nuclear response from the US or Britain to a perceived threat.
Agreement breaches Britain’s international obligations
Healey’s memorandum claims the MDA ‘is consistent with the UK’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and commitments under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty’. It does not provide for ‘the transfer of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices’.
The Agreement facilitates the development of Britain’s nuclear weapon technology and supports building the Trident replacement. This is in direct contradiction to Britain’s legal obligation under the NPT and CTBT to the disarm. The NPT states that countries should undertake ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament’. Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating on further advancing their respective nuclear arsenals.
A 2004 legal advice paper from Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded it is ‘strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’. This is because it implies ‘continuation and indeed enhancement of the nuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation’.
What parliament can do
When the MDA was first introduced, parliament was powerless to oppose renewal. However, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act of 2010, now provides an opportunity for parliament to oppose ratification. The House of Commons could block the MDA indefinitely if MPs so decided.
The government is not obliged to hold a debate or vote, however, the onus is on MPs. Before the MDA was renewed in 2014, Jeremy Corbyn MP tabled Early Day Motion 153 calling for a debate. It was supported by LibDem, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Green, as well as Labour MPs.
The need for an open and transparent debate is crucial this year, before the Agreement becomes permanent. At the very least, Labour should be made to answer why they are they are contravening their legal obligation to work towards disarmament and instead renewing an agreement designed to maintain US and UK nuclear weapons production capabilities.
and why MPs should do it
The world is moving closer to war in Europe between nuclear armed antagonists. Extending the Mutual Defence Agreement indefinitely:
- is a further step in perpetuating Britain’s nuclear arsenal
- encourages nuclear proliferation, and
- makes Britain a key target in the event of war.
This change to the MDA should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. It’s time that MPs challenged the Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes.
Nuclear Weapons and the U.S. Presidential Elections
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/09/29/nuclear-weapons-and-the-u-s-presidential-elections/
Whoever becomes the next US president, we’ll need to redouble our efforts for nuclear abolition, writes Jackie Cabasso
Nuclear weapons policy is not an issue in the presidential election. In fact, U.S. foreign policy, with the exception of some controversy over ongoing U.S. arms provisions to Israel, is barely an issue. Even though nuclear weapons are in the media more than they have been for many years—due mainly to the Russian government’s nuclear threats, and to some extent, North Korea’s, there is basically no public discussion or political debate about nuclear weapons in the United States.
The political situation in the U.S. is more volatile and uncertain than at any time in my life. Predicting who is going to be elected president in November is impossible. In the short weeks since President Biden withdrew from the campaign and threw his support behind his vice president Kamala Harris, there has been an extraordinary outpouring of enthusiasm for her campaign, especially among young people and people of color, and a massive surge of financial support from a wide range of constituencies. But at this point, the outcome of the presidential election is too close to call.
What I can say is that U.S. national security policy has been remarkably consistent in the post-World War II and post-Cold War eras. “Deterrence” – the threatened use of nuclear weapons – has been reaffirmed as the “cornerstone” of U.S. national security policy by every president, Republican or Democrat, since 1945, when President Harry Truman, a Democrat, oversaw the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If Kamala Harris is elected in 2024, we can expect more of the same. As confirmed in an August 20, 2024, New York Times story that attracted some notice, an initiative is quietly underway by the Biden administration to beef up the U.S. nuclear arsenal. As reported by the Times, in March, President Biden approved a highly classified “Nuclear Employment Guidance” plan that seeks to prepare the United States for possible coordinated nuclear challenges from China, Russia and North Korea. This comes as the Pentagon believes China’s nuclear arsenal will rival the size and diversity of the U.S.’ and Russia’s over the next decade.
This plan was hinted at by Vipin Narang, a top Department of Defense nuclear policy official, who recently stated that, while current modernization plans — estimated to cost at least $350 billion over the next two decades — are “necessary,” they “may well be insufficient” to meet current and future threats. According to Narang, in the face of growing threats from Russia, China and North Korea, “We have begun exploring options to increase future launcher capacity or additional deployed warheads on the land, sea and air legs that could offer national leadership increased flexibility, if desired, and executed.”
According to the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Jill Hruby, the U.S. is launching a new nuclear arms race to catch up with and outsmart Russia and China. “We now have seven systems that should be developed and put into production by the mid-2030s. This program is not only a major modernization of all three components of the nuclear triad, but also adds new deterrence capabilities that do not currently exist,” she said.
Donald Trump’s likely nuclear policy is spelled out in a manifesto by Project 2025, a coalition of far-right groups led by the Heritage Foundation. Its 900-page book, “Mandate for Leadership,” is a blueprint for the most dramatic takeover and transformation of U.S. democracy in history and is widely seen as the playbook for a possible second Trump administration.
Trump himself, and a number of Republican members of Congress, have attempted to distance themselves from Project 2025, in some cases, claiming they haven’t even heard of it. This is not plausible. Speaking at a 2022 Heritage Foundation event, Donald Trump declared, “[T]his is a great group. And they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America and that’s coming.”
Project 2025 proposes that a second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads, and prepare to test new nuclear weapons.
Separately, Robert O’Brien, an ex-adviser to former President Trump, has written that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.
While she did not mention nuclear weapons in her presidential nomination acceptance speech, Kamala Harris chillingly pledged, “As Commander-in-Chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” A Harris administration would undoubtedly be far more progressive on domestic issues, but whoever wins the U.S. presidency, our redoubled efforts to press for nuclear abolition will remain an urgent necessity.
Japan’s new Prime Minister calls for deployment of US nuclear weapons
MILITARNYI 29 Sept 24
Japan’s new Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba considers it necessary to discuss the prospect of deploying US nuclear weapons.
The deployment of nuclear weapons in the Asia-Pacific region should be discussed during the revision of the agreement on the status of the US contingent in Japan.
He also called for the creation of the country’s own nuclear arsenal to strengthen national security. According to Mr. Ishiba, the absence of a collective self-defense system similar to that of NATO in Asia creates a risk of new military conflicts in the region.
In particular, he expressed concern about China’s growing military activity around the Japanese islands…………………………….
The Asian version of NATO should specifically consider the joint use of nuclear weapons with the United States or the introduction of nuclear weapons into the region.
Officially, Shigeru Ishiba will become the new Prime Minister of Japan on October 1 after being approved by the parliament.
Since the 1990s, the politician has been actively involved in defense issues. He has consistently advocated for expanding the use of the Japan Self-Defense Forces and revising the pacifist provisions of the postwar Constitution………………..
In September, it was reported that the United States expressed an interest in deploying its MRC Typhon medium-range missile system with Tomahawk missiles to Japan…………………………….. more https://mil.in.ua/en/news/japan-s-new-prime-minister-calls-for-deployment-of-us-nuclear-weapons/
Ukraine army attacks nuclear plant substation: Russia
Canberra Times, September 30 2024
The management of the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station says Ukrainian forces have launched a new attack on a nearby electricity substation, destroying a transformer.
The Zaporizhzhia station, Europe’s largest with six reactors, was seized by Russian forces in the early days of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Each side regularly accuses the other of attacking or plotting to attack the plant.
The plant’s management, writing on Telegram, said an artillery strike had hit the transformer at the “Raduga” substation in the town of Enerhodar in southeastern Ukraine.
It described the incident as “yet another terrorist act aimed at destabilising the situation in the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant’s satellite city”.
Also posted was a photograph showing smoke billowing from the top of a building.
It said power supplies to Enerhodar had not been interrupted.
The plant’s management accused the Ukrainian military on September 20 of attacking a second substation in Enerhodar.
The following day, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha accused Russia of planning strikes on Ukrainian nuclear facilities before the winter.
He provided no detailed explanation.
Power lines to the Zaporizhzia plant have been cut on several occasions, increasing the chance of a blackout that could cause a nuclear accident.
The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has stationed monitors permanently at the plant and urged both sides to refrain from all attacks on it…………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8777883/ukraine-army-attacks-nuclear-plant-substation-russia/
The Illusion of a Solution: Killing Hassan Nasrallah
Australian Independent Media, September 29, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark,
The ongoing Israeli operation against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia group so dominant in Lebanon, is following a standard pattern. Ignore base causes. Ignore context. Target leaders, and target personnel. See matters in conventional terms of civilisational warrior against barbarian despot. Israel, the valiant and bold, fighting the forces of darkness.
The entire blood woven tapestry of the Middle East offers uncomfortable explanations. The region has seen false political boundaries sketched and pronounced by foreign powers, fictional countries proclaimed, and entities brought into being on the pure interests of powers in Europe. These empires produced shoddy cartography in the name of the nation state and plundering self-interest, leaving aside the complexities of ethnic belonging and tribal dispositions. Tragically, such cartographic fictions tended to keep company with crime, dispossession, displacement, ethnic cleansing and enthusiastic hatreds.
……………………………………………………… The Israeli strategy in this latest phase was made all too apparent by the number of military commanders and high-ranking operatives in Hezbollah the IDF has targeted. Added to this the pager-walkie talkie killings as a prelude to a likely ground invasion of Lebanon, it was clear that Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, figured as an exemplary target.
……………………..Israeli officials have been prematurely thrilled. Like deluded scientists obsessed with eliminating a symptom, they ignore the disease with habitual obsession. “Most of the senior leaders of Hezbollah have been eliminated,” claimed a triumphant Israeli military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani.
Defence Minister Yoav Gallant called the measure “the most significant strike since the founding of the State of Israel.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated with simplicity that killing Nasrallah was necessary to “changing the balance of power in the region for years to come” and enable displaced Israelis to return to their homes in the north.
Various reports swallowed the Israeli narrative…………………………………………………………………………………..
Ibrahim Al-Marashi of California State University, San Marcos, summarises the efforts of Israel’s high-profile killing strategy as shortsighted feats of miscalculation. “History shows every single Israeli assassination of a high-profile political or military operator, even after being initially hailed as a game-changing victory, eventually led to the killed leader being replaced by someone more determined, adept and hawkish.” Another Nasrallah is bound to be in tow, with several others in incubation. https://theaimn.com/the-illusion-of-a-solution-killing-hassan-nasrallah/
After destroying Ukraine and Gaza, Biden seeks a destroyed nation trifecta in Lebanon
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 29 Sept 24
One might surmise that with 2 failed nations on his presidential resume, Joe Biden would cease nation destroying during his last 4 months in office.
But no, he has plunged pell-mell into full support of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s pager terrorist attack on Lebanese civilians and a massive bombing campaign also mainly killing civilians there.
Of course Biden pays lip service to peace, requesting Netanyahu immediately implement a 21 day ceasefire in his Lebanon bombing campaign. But Netanyahu essentially told Biden to go straight to Hell with his emphatic rejection.
“The report about a ceasefire is incorrect. This is an American-French proposal that the Prime Minister has not even responded to. The report about the purported directive to ease up on the fighting in the north is the opposite of the truth. The Prime Minister has directed the IDF to continue fighting with full force, according to the plan that was presented to him. The fighting in Gaza will also continue until all the objectives of the war have been achieved.”
But while once again trashing Biden’s latest peace proposal, Netanyahu was gobbling up another $8.7 billion in US military assistance to continue his devastating bombing of Lebanon along with his near total destruction of Gaza as a habitable land. Biden trotted out his Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to defend US nation destroying with this doublespeak: “We’ve been committed from the very beginning to help Israel, provide the things that are necessary for them to be able to protect their sovereign territory and that hasn’t changed and won’t change in the future.”
Israel’s ‘sovereign territory’? Apparently Joe Biden believes Israeli sovereign territory includes all of Gaza, the West Bank and possibly even southern Lebanon as well.
The most plausible explanation of Israel’s self-destructive warfare in Gaza and Lebanon is expand the war to Iran which could draw in the US. Without direct US participation, Israel will fail to achieve any of its multi war objectives. If that occurs, President Biden may move beyond destroying 3 countries by adding Iran to his ignominious failed state hit list.
Say it ain’t so, Joe.
The Israeli nuclear risk no one is talking about
Israel’s ability to build and deploy nuclear weapons, while never officially acknowledged, remains at the heart of its security doctrine
September 27, 2024 https://inews.co.uk/news/world/what-happens-us-stops-supporting-israel-3296914
A tenuous and inherently unstable military stand-off between Israel and Hezbollah – has finally shattered.
The latest outbreak in fighting is certain to result in increasing civilian casualties as Israel and Hezbollah exchange fire across the border.
As Israel faces numerous threats its possession of nuclear bombs lurk behind the growing debate over arms supplies to the nation.
Israel’s use of US-supplied weapons in Gaza in the past year has already forced the Biden administration to address the option of limiting the supply of US arms if US officials determine that Israel has committed gross human rights violations or blocked the movement of humanitarian assistance.
In addition, Senator Bernie Sanders is preparing several resolutions that would affect more than $20bn (£15bn) in US arms sales to Israel.
There is no chance that such measures will pass, but that is not the point. As an AP report noted, “the move is designed to send a message to the Netanyahu regime that its war effort is eroding the US’s long-time bipartisan support for Israel.”
Indeed, Washington and Jerusalem must face the unwelcome fact that such actions by Congress or the White House, however symbolic, may well undermine the longstanding bargain that not only keeps Israel’s conventional arsenals full … but also ensures that its nuclear bombs stay in the basement – undeclared and shrouded in a veil of ambiguity.
The Jewish state has long enjoyed a nuclear weapons monopoly in the region, and its ability to build and deploy nuclear weapons, while never officially acknowledged, remains at the heart of its security doctrine.
In the first days of the October 1973 “Yom Kippur” War, for example, Israel is believed to have placed a small number of nuclear warheads on alert and may have considered their deployment to stop a Syrian tank advance into Israel’s heartland.
It is no accident that Israel has never acknowledged having nuclear weapons. US policies developed in the aftermath of the June 1967 Six Day War have played a critical role in shaping Israel’s conventional and nuclear superiority.
Washington did oppose Israel’s nuclear weapons activities in the 50s and 60s. In the wake of the June 1967 war, however, a quid pro quo with Israel was established.
In return for Israel maintaining a policy of nuclear weapons ambiguity, Washington would guarantee what was termed Israel’s “qualitative military edge” – QME. That is, Washington will ensure that as long as Israel keeps its “bombs in the basement” – undeclared, unacknowledged, and unused – Washington will guarantee Israel the conventional weapons arsenal necessary to defeat any combination of regional enemies.
In the decades since, every change in US political or defence policy, every diplomatic or military engagement with Israel, has featured a ritualistic reaffirmation of Washington’s commitment to maintain Israel’s QME. See for example, the Democrats’ election platform, which declares that “our commitment to Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge, its right to defend itself … is ironclad.”
Indeed, the State Department recently reaffirmed that “the US is by statute mandated … to guarantee that … Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement, and it is one that we are committed to.,, There is also an important deterrent effect to the United States continuing to send a message to Israel’s adversaries that if they attack Israel, we will defend it. And that’s a message that we will continue to send loud and clear.”
Since Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, Iran under the rule of the ayatollahs has been deemed the biggest challenge to Israel’s regional hegemony in both the conventional and nuclear realms. and the biggest test of “ironclad” US support for QME.
Notwithstanding an officially declared intention to refrain from creating a nuclear weapons option, Iran’s production of highly enriched uranium continues.
Iran’s stock of uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride enriched to up to 60 per cent purity, close to the roughly 90 per cent of weapons grade, grew an estimated 22.6kg to 164.7kg, according to a confidential quarterly International Atomic Energy Agency report recently sent to member states. According to an IAEA yardstick, that is 2kg short of being enough, in theory, if enriched further, for four nuclear bombs.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken observed in July that “instead of being at least a year away from having the breakout capacity of producing fissile material for a nuclear weapon, (Iran) is now probably one or two weeks away from doing that… what we’ve seen in the last weeks and months is an Iran that’s actually moving forward” with its nuclear programme.
One might think that the prospect of a nuclear stand-off in the Middle East might arouse an international chorus of concern, especially since Blinken’s plaintive warning about a nuclear Iran is part and parcel of the metastasizing failure of US led effort to stabilise the cascading crises already consuming the heart of the Middle East.
Iran has declared its opposition to the development of a nuclear weapons capability and has shown no progress in integrating such a capability as part of its strategic doctrine.
Nevertheless, as Blinken’s remarks illustrate, Iran is proceeding with developing critical constituent parts necessary to achieve a weapons capability while retaining a veil of ambiguity about its intentions.
In the wake of the demise of the JCPOA, Iran’s cultivation of nuclear ambiguity has established a new policy framework for its continuing nuclear programme and tested the continuing relevance of Washington’s commitment to QME.
The blowback from the Gaza war, has had an unexpected and unwelcome impact on this long-held policy.
National Security Memorandum, NSM-20 requires US military aid recipients to provide “credible and reliable assurances” that they will abide by international law when using the weapons or risk losing access to US arms. Israel, it is argued, has violated laws prohibiting the transfer of American military aid to governments that have committed gross human rights violations or blocked the movement of humanitarian assistance.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants Washington to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. “Give us the tools faster,” he advised Congress, “and we’ll finish the job faster.”
A US decision to withhold arms for Gaza won’t affect the course of the war and it is in any scenario unlikely.
But any US action along such lines, however symbolic, will no doubt test Israel’s confidence in the continuing US commitment to the broader security assurances at the heart of QME, which, like it or not, has succeeded over the decades in restraining the nuclear weaponisation of the entire region and preserved Israel’s nuclear weapons monopoly.
Indeed, the current crisis creates an opportunity for Israel to exploit the relative freedom enabled by Washington’s ineffectual Gaza diplomacy and to test its support for QME to destroy two threats at the heart of Israel’s security doctrine – to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and to defeat the Iran-led axis now active along Israel’s frontiers.
Should Washington fail the QME test in Israel’s eyes, it might well precipitate a dramatic change in Israel’s nuclear doctrine – ending the thin veil of ambiguity about Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal and sparking a regional nuclear arms race.
Policies that make sense in Jerusalem, however, may not survive scrutiny in Washington. The Biden administration continues to give its “partner” Israel an unprecedented free hand in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon.
And it is taking extraordinary pains to demonstrate its “ironclad” commitment to QME, and thus keep the lid on a potential slide towards the nuclearisation of the crisis and an explicit change in Israel’s nuclear deployment and war fighting doctrine.
President Biden strives to contain rather than confront. He has no interest in prompting a crisis of confidence between Washington and Jerusalem that raises questions about Washington’s commitment to QME and its unwritten support for Israel’s nuclear monopoly. So he is deploying unprecedented military and diplomatic resources, so far without success, to prevent a hot war that has the potential to define the region and perhaps beyond for generations.
Geoffrey Aronson writes about Middle East affairs. He consults with a variety of public and private institutions dealing with regional political, security, and development issues. He has advised the World Bank on Israel’s disengagement and has worked for the European Union Coordinating Office for the Palestinian Police Support mission to the West Bank and Gaza
The Looming Catastrophe in the Middle East (w/ Gideon Levy) | The Chris Hedges Report
September 28, 2024
It has become quite rare to hear any meaningful accountability for Israel’s actions from Israeli citizens themselves. Israeli journalist Gideon Levy is an anomaly in Israel by today’s standards, as for his entire career he has challenged the apartheid and occupation of the Israeli state. On today’s episode of The Chris Hedges Report, Levy joins host Chris Hedges to discuss his book, The Killing of Gaza: Reports on a Catastrophe, and explain the spiritual destruction, both of Israel and Palestine, that the current genocide in Gaza is causing as well as the implications of new military operations in Lebanon.
The worst change, according to Levy, is that Israel has lost its humanity. “Everything is acceptable,” Levy tells Hedges as he describes the ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, the brutal killing of prisoners, the censorship at the hands of the state and the overall indifference to it all.
“There is practically only one camp in Israel, the camp which supports apartheid and occupation,” Levy says.
There isn’t even any room left for empathy of the innocent victims in Gaza, according to Levy. Teachers have been subject to interrogation and termination because they “express[ed] empathy with the children of Gaza, with the victims of Gaza. Even this is not legitimate anymore in Israeli society 2024,” Levy contends.
Although the horrors following October 7 are devastatingly unprecedented, Levy asserts that this entire catastrophe was years in the making and the meaningless gestures of advocating for a two-state solution, for example, will perpetuate it further.
In the first years following the war in 1967, the occupation of Palestinians as a way of life quickly became normalized, according to Levy. “[Palestinians] clean our streets, they build our buildings, they pave our roads and they will never have citizenship. The only people in the world without any citizenship of any state,” Levy says.
As Israeli society attempts to continue this way of living, only disruptive movements and moments, such as the First Intifada, the Yom Kippur war and now October 7, will bring meaningful attention to the Palestinian struggle most of the world is okay with ignoring.
As Levi writes in his book,
“The way of terror is the only way open to the Palestinians to fight for their future. The way of terror is the only way for them to remind Israel, the Arab states and the world, of their existence. They have no other way. Israel has taught them this. If they don’t use violence, everyone will forget about them, and then a little later, only through terrorism will they be remembered. Only through terrorism will they possibly attain something. One thing is certain, if they put down their weapons, they are doomed.”
Levy says that history has told the Palestinians and the world something crucial about Israel: “the message is, if you want to achieve anything from us, only by force. And the message for the world is the same, if you want the world to care about you, raising your voice is not enough. You have to take measures. You have to take actions, and unfortunately, many times violent ones, aggressive ones, and many times even barbarian ones, like on the seventh of October.”……………………………………………more https://scheerpost.com/2024/09/28/the-looming-catastrophe-in-the-middle-east-w-gideon-levy-the-chris-hedges-report/
Ukraine’s Zelensky arriving in US….to pitch WWIII.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 26 September 24
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has long been the most dangerous man in the world.
Since the US provoked Russian invasion of Ukraine 31 months ago, he’s been begging, cajoling, indeed demanding the US and UK allow him to attack deep into Russia with US and UK long range missiles. He’s got both in his weapons arsenal to which the US and UK still have strings attached tying them to Russian targets in Ukraine. Russian President Putin has made it abundantly clear that strikes deep into Russia signal the West is at war with Russia, requiring swift, military response.
But Zelensky remains unconcerned that his war strategy may get him incinerated along with the rest of us if a single nuke goes off from his deranged escalation plan.
Astonishingly, Zelensky has already got newbie UK PM Keir Starmer on board in. Starmer traveled to the US recently to pitch Zelensky’s plan to use the UK Storm Shadow missiles. Starmer needs US approval since his Storm Shadows contain US components and require US guidance data to hit choice Russian targets.
To his credit, Biden publicly rebuffed Starmer’s pitch even before their September 13 talks were concluded. Starmer scurried back to Downing Street disappointed.
But undaunted, Ukraine’s Mr. ‘Let’s Provoke WWIII’ is traveling 4,668 miles from Kyiv to New York to continue lobbying Biden for their use at the UN’s 79th General Assembly meeting this week.
In a bizarre twist, Biden’s State Department is ready to sign off, possibly on their own demise, while Defense has demurred. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has publicly advised that long range missile strikes will not achieve any strategic benefit, especially since Russia has already moved over 90% of prime targets beyond range of even the long range UK Storm Shadows and US ATACMS.
Austin knows the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is lost so why risk WWIII. Somehow, top diplomat Tony Blinken remains in denial.
Let’s hope President Biden doesn’t weaver in his sensible pushback to all out war with Russia. A dwindling number of we Americans still recall hoping to survive the angst of living thru the Missiles of October during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sixty-two years later, we inexplicably must deal with the angst of surviving the Missiles of September.
US Gives Israel $8.7 Billion in Military Aid for Operations in Gaza and Lebanon
The new aid comes as the US claims it’s pushing for a ceasefire in Lebanon
by Dave DeCamp September 26, 2024. https://news.antiwar.com/2024/09/26/us-gives-israel-8-7-billion-in-military-aid-for-operations-in-gaza-and-lebanon/#gsc.tab=0
On Thursday, the Israeli Defense Ministry announced that it secured $8.7 billion in military aid from the US to support its “ongoing military efforts,” meaning the genocidal slaughter in Gaza and Israel’s dramatic escalation in Lebanon.
The ministry said in a statement that its director-general, Maj. Gen. Eyal Zamir, concluded negotiations in Washington to secure the military aid. It said the package includes $3.5 billion for “essential wartime procurement” that has already been sent to Israel and a $5.2 billion grant for air defenses.
The ministry said the $5.2 billion for air defenses “will significantly strengthen critical systems such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling while supporting the continued development of an advanced high-powered laser defense system currently in its later stages of development.”
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin vowed Thursday that the US would continue arming Israel and brushed off the idea of the US setting red lines. “We’ve been committed from the very beginning to help Israel, provide the things that are necessary for them to be able to protect their sovereign territory and that hasn’t changed and won’t change in the future,” he said.
So far, the US has not announced the details of the $8.7 billion weapons package, but the funds are likely being pulled from the $17 billion in new military aid for Israel that was included in the $95 billion foreign military aid bill President Biden signed into law back in April. Israel also receives $3.8 billion from the US in annual military aid.
News of the new US support for Israel comes as the Biden administration claims it’s pushing for a ceasefire in Lebanon. But the US has not altered its support of full-throated support for Israel, and the military aid and pledges to defend Israel if the situation escalates have only emboldened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who rejected the US calls for a truce on Thursday.
European Union morphs into NATO’s financial war machine
SOTT, Finian Cunningham, Strategic Culture Foundation Tue, 24 Sep 2024,
Two key posts – in foreign and defense policy – reveal the militarist and anti-Russia direction of the European Union.
Ursula Von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission – which works as the executive branch of the European Union – announced her new team of commissioners for the next five years.
Taking over as foreign affairs minister for the 27-nation bloc is Kaja Kallas who is a staunch Russophobe and vigorous supporter of Ukraine. Kallas has called for more EU and NATO military funding for Ukraine to “defeat Russia” and the break up of the Russian Federation.
The former Estonian prime minister has led the movement to destroy Soviet Red Army monuments across the Baltic states. (This is while her investor husband continues to profit from doing business with Russia.)
Working closely alongside Kallas will be another rabid Russophobe, the former Lithuanian prime minister Andrius Kubilius, who is taking up a newly created EU post as defense commissioner. The creation of that post is an alarming sign of how the EU bloc has transitioned from a trade and political union to a military organization.
But what’s even more alarming is the assigning of such an anti-Russia hawk as Kubilius to oversee military policy.
At a time when relations between the EU and Russia have become so fraught with tensions, the European bloc is giving politicians from hostile Baltic states a driving seat to push relations even further towards conflict.
Indeed, the first announcement Kubilius made as the prospective new defense commissioner was that the European Union would likely be at war with Russia in the next six to eight years. That assessment is shared by Kaja Kallas.
Kubilius said the sole focus during his tenure is ramping up military spending by the EU nations to boost NATO and aid Ukraine. He said that he will be working closely with foreign policy chief Kallas to tap funds.
What this means is that the European Union is moving towards making it mandatory for national budgets to allocate more to military procurement. That’s a breakthrough for all the worst reasons.…………………………………………………………………………
This is an astounding transformation of the European Union. The organization has its roots in the 1950s as a loose trade federation of Western European nations – principally France and the Federal Republic of Germany – which proclaimed that lessons of the Second World War had been learned and would never be repeated because of commitments to good neighborliness and commercial partnership. In its earlier incarnations, the European bloc sought out friendly relations with the Soviet Union, primarily with energy trade being a cornerstone of cooperation.
NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is the continuation of Western imperialist designs on subjugating Russian territory that was previously pursued by Nazi Germany.
The European Union has subverted its earlier ideals of pacifism and cooperation to become part of NATO’s war machine. Crucially, what the EU brings to the war machine is legalized enforced funding, even for nations that are not part of NATO.
Added to that is the EU is being directed by people who drool about war with Russia: Von der Leyen, the former German defense minister and descendant of Nazi ideologues, is aided and abetted by Kaja Kallas and Andrius Kubilius who cannot think of Russia without fantasizing about its “defeat”.
The Nazi specter is resurrected in NATO and its EU financial wing. https://www.sott.net/article/495026-European-Union-morphs-into-NATOs-financial-war-machine
Putin outlines new rules for Russian use of vast nuclear arsenal
Comments appear to significantly lower the threshold for Russia to use nuclear weapons and come as Western allies consider allowing Ukraine to use weapons inside Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons if it were attacked with conventional arms in the latest changes to the country’s nuclear doctrine.
In a televised meeting of Russia’s Security Council, Putin announced that under the planned revisions, an attack against the country by a non-nuclear power with the “participation or support of a nuclear power” would be seen as a “joint attack on the Russian Federation”.
Putin emphasised that Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that posed a “critical threat to our sovereignty”, a vague formulation that leaves broad room for interpretation.
The Russian president is the primary decision-maker on Russia’s nuclear arsenal and needs to give his final approval to the text.
The change appears to significantly lower the threshold for Russia to use atomic weapons and comes as Ukraine’s Western allies consider whether to allow Kyiv to use longer-range weapons to strike military targets deep inside Russia, and a month after Kyiv launched a surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region.
Putin did not refer to Ukraine directly, but said the revisions to the doctrine were necessary in view of a swiftly changing global landscape that had created new threats and risks for Russia.
Russia is making slow but incremental gains in Ukraine since it launched its full-scale invasion of the country two and a half years ago and is trying to dissuade Kyiv’s Western allies from strengthening their support.
Putin has made several implicit threats of nuclear attack since launching his war and has suspended Russian participation in the the New START treaty with the US, which limits the number of nuclear warheads each side can deploy……………………………………..
‘Never good’
Russia’s existing nuclear doctrine, set out in a 2020 decree, says Moscow could use its nuclear arsenal in case of a nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack “when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy”.
Russia’s hawks have been calling for toughening the doctrine for months, claiming the current version is too vague and leaves the impression that Moscow would not ever resort to using nuclear weapons…………………………………………………..
The current version of the document states Russia would use its nuclear arsenal if its receives “reliable information is received about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting the territory of Russia or its allies”……………………. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/26/putin-outlines-new-rules-for-russian-use-of-vast-nuclear-arsenal
Israel: ‘Escalate to De-escalate’
By Ray McGovern and Robert Scheer / ScheerPost Staff Writers, 24 Sept 24 https://scheerpost.com/2024/09/23/israel-escalate-to-de-escalate/
In this week’s episode of “Playing President,” Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA veteran and briefer of five presidents, continues to make sense of the world to “President” Scheer, who prepared for this role through his decades as a journalist, including in-depth interviews with five presidents from Nixon to Clinton. In the universe of “Playing President,” however, Scheer is not a journalist, but instead plays the President of the United States attempting to navigate the geopolitical landscape of governance and media with the help of his trusty daily briefer from the CIA, Ray McGovern.
This week, McGovern updates the president on the major escalations going on in Lebanon via massive Israeli bombing.
War Forever, Everywhere, War Doesn’t End When It “Ends”
Unexploded Ordnance and the Weaponry We Leave Behind
Tom Dispatch, By Andrea Mazzarino, September 22, 2024
Count on one thing: armed conflict lasts for decades after battles end and its effects ripple thousands of miles beyond actual battlefields. This has been true of America’s post-9/11 forever wars that, in some minimalist fashion, continue in all too many countries around the world. Yet those wars, which we ignited in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, are hardly the first to offer such lessons. Prior wars left us plenty to learn from that could have led this country to respond differently after that September day when terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Instead, we ignored history and, as a result, among so many other horrific things, left our weaponry — explosives, small arms, you name it — in war zones to kill and maim yet more people there for generations to come.
Case in point: We Americans tend to disregard the possibility (however modest) that weapons of war could even destroy our own lives here at home, despite how many of us own destructive weaponry. A few years ago, my military spouse and I were looking for a house for our family to settle in after over a decade of moving from military post to military post. We very nearly bought an old farmhouse owned by a combat veteran who mentioned his deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq. We felt uncertain about the structure of his house, so we arranged to return with our children to take another look after he had moved out. The moment we entered the garage with our two toddlers in tow, we noticed a semi-automatic rifle leaning against the wall, its barrel pointing up. Had we not grabbed our son by the hand, he might have run over to touch it and, had it been loaded, the unthinkable might have occurred. Anyone who has raised young children knows that a single item in an empty room, especially one as storied as a gun (in today’s age of constant school shootings and lockdowns) could be a temptation too great to resist.
That incident haunts me still. The combat vet, who thought to remove every item from his home but a rifle, left on display for us, was at best careless, at worst provocative, and definitely weird in the most modern meaning of that word. Given the high rates of gun ownership among today’s veterans, it’s not a coincidence that he had one, nor would it have been unknown for a child (in this case mine) to be wounded or die from an accidental gunshot. Many times more kids here die that way, whether accidentally or all too often purposely, than do our police or military in combat. Boys and men especially tend to be tactile learners. Those of them in our former war zones are also the ones still most likely to fall victim to mines and unexploded ordnance left behind, just as they’re more likely to die here from accidental wounds.
Scenes not that different from the one I described have been happening in nearly 70 countries on a regular basis, only with deadlier endings. …………………………………………………………………………………………..
After the international Cluster Munitions Convention took effect in 2010, 124 countries committed to retiring their stockpiles. But neither the U.S., Russia, nor Ukraine, among other countries, signed that document, although our government did promise to try to replace the Pentagon’s cluster munitions with variants that supposedly have lower “dud” rates. (The U.S. military has not explained how they determined that was so.)
Our involvement in the Ukraine war marked a turning point. In mid-2023, the Biden administration ordered the transfer of cluster munitions from its outdated stockpile, sidestepping federal rules limiting such transfers of weapons with high dud rates. As a result, we added to the barrage of Russian cluster-munition attacks on Ukrainian towns. New cluster-munition attacks initiated in Ukraine have created what can only be seen as a deadly kind of time bomb. If it can be said that the U.S. and Russia in any way acted together, it was in placing millions of new time bombs in Ukrainian soil in their quest to take or protect territory there, ensuring a future of mortal danger for so many Ukrainians, no matter who wins the present war.
Afghanistan, Every Step You Take
At the Costs of War Project, which I helped found at Brown University in 2010, a key goal continues to be to show how armed conflict disrupts human lives, undermining so much of what people need to do to work, travel, study, or even go to the doctor. Afghanistan is a case in point: An area roughly 10 times the size of Washington, D.C., is now thoroughly contaminated by mines and unexploded ordnance………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://tomdispatch.com/war-forever-everywhere/
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (79)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 