Ukrainian Tipping Points: UPDATE

by Gordonhahn September 3, 2024 https://gordonhahn.com/2024/09/03/ukrainian-tipping-points-update/
Rueters reports US is just about se to send long-range missiles to Ukraine for attacks deep inside Russia:
US close to agreeing on long-range missiles for Ukraine; delivery to take months
Summary
-Stealthy JASSM weapons have range to hit targets inside Russia
-Decision expected in autumn, U.S. officials say
-Pentagon trying to integrate JASSMs on Soviet-era Ukrainian jets
WASHINGTON, Sept 3 (Reuters) – The U.S. is close to an agreement to give Ukraine long-range cruise missiles that could reach deep into Russia, but Kyiv would need to wait several months as the U.S. works through technical issues ahead of any shipment, U.S. officials said. The inclusion of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) in a weapons package is expected to be announced this autumn, three sources said, though a final decision has not been made (https://www.reuters.com/world/us-close-agreeing-long-range-missiles-ukraine-delivery-take-months-2024-09-03/).
#NoWar2024 Conference To Address USA’s Military Base Empire

2 20 -22 September #NoWar2024 Conference: Resisting the USA’s Military Empire
A global hybrid conference from September 20-22 will bring together activists from dozens of countries worldwide to examine the impacts of the USA’s network of foreign military bases, which provoke war, pollute communities, and steal land from Indigenous peoples.
WHEN: Friday, September 20 – Sunday, September 22, 2024, in honor of the International Day of Peace (September 21)
WHERE: Online on Zoom and live in 4 locations: Sydney, Australia; Wanfried, Germany; Bogotá, Colombia; and Washington, DC, USA
This September 20-22, in honor of the International Day of Peace, World BEYOND War is organizing its annual global #NoWar2024 Conference focused on the theme of the U.S. military base empire — its impacts and the solutions.
The United States of America, unlike any other nation, maintains a massive network of foreign military bases around the world, over 900 bases in 90 countries. These bases perpetuate war-making, pollute waterways, and cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $80 billion a year.
The permanent stationing of more than 220,000 U.S. troops, weapons arsenals, and thousands of aircraft, tanks, and ships in every corner of the globe makes the logistics for U.S. aggression, and that of its allies, quicker and more efficient. Bases also facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, with the United States keeping nuclear bombs in five NATO member countries, and nuclear-capable planes, ships, and missile launchers in many others.
Furthermore, the U.S.’s network of foreign military bases perpetuates empire — an ongoing form of colonialism that robs Indigenous people of their lands. From Guam to Puerto Rico to Okinawa to dozens of other locations across the world, the military has taken valuable land from local populations, often pushing out Indigenous people in the process, without their consent and without reparations.
Each base has its own story of injustice and destruction, impacting the local economy, community, and environment. The U.S. military has a notorious legacy of sexual violence, including kidnapping, rape, and murders of women and girls. Yet U.S. troops abroad are often afforded impunity for their crimes due to Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) with the so-called “host” country.
Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) also often exempt U.S. foreign military bases from adhering to local environmental regulations. The construction of bases has caused irreparable ecological damage, such as the destruction of coral reefs and the environment for endangered species in Henoko, Okinawa. Furthermore, it is well documented at hundreds of sites around the world that military bases leach toxic so-called “forever chemicals” into local water supplies, which has had devastating health consequences for nearby communities.
Over 40 speakers from around the world will address the social, ecological, economic, and geopolitical impacts of U.S. military bases in their regions, plus the powerful stories of nonviolent resistance to prevent, close, and convert bases to peacetime uses.
The #NoWar2024 Conference is being organized by World BEYOND War and has been sponsored or endorsed by over 60 organizations. More information at https://worldbeyondwar.org/nowar2024/. A conference promotional video is available on Twitter (X),
Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Tiktok.
Israeli Official: Without US Aid, Israel Couldn’t Sustain Gaza Operations for More Than a Few Months

The US has sent over 50,000 tons of weapons to Israel since the genocidal war began and increased shipments over the past month
by Dave DeCamp September 3, 2024 , https://news.antiwar.com/2024/09/03/israeli-official-without-us-aid-israel-couldnt-sustain-gaza-operations-for-more-than-a-few-months/
A senior Israeli Air Force official has told Haaretz that without US military aid, Israel would not have been able to sustain military operations in Gaza for more than a few months, demonstrating how crucial US support is for the genocidal slaughter of Palestinians.
The support is especially crucial for the Israeli Air Force. The report said the US provides the IAF with “all of its fighter planes and some of its bombs, missiles and intelligence equipment.” The US also helps Israel develop “joint weapons systems for all three layers of air defense.”
Since October 7, the US has shipped Israel over 50,000 tons of weapons and other military equipment. Weapons shipments have increased over the past month, with flight tracking data showing that August was the busiest month for US deliveries since October 2023.
President Biden also signed a bill into law that included $17 billion in additional military aid for Israel on top of the $3.8 billion it receives in annual military assistance. The administration recently approved $20 billion in new arms deals for Israel, which includes a new fleet of F-15 fighter jets.
The official speaking to Haaretz said the IAF is crafting a recommendation to increase the domestic production of bombs, missiles, and other ammunition to reduce reliance on the US. But any changes would take years to implement, meaning Israel will continue to be almost entirely reliant on US support.
Israel’s reliance on the US gives the Biden administration enormous leverage over the Israeli government. The administration has refused to use that power to force a ceasefire despite claims that US officials are working for one.
Netanyahu ‘torpedoed’ Palestinian peace talks – CNN

https://www.rt.com/news/603450-netanyahu-derails-gaza-peace-talks/ 3 Sept 24
The Israeli prime minister has insisted on keeping troops in southern Gaza, along the Egyptian border.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining an Israeli military presence in Gaza could undermine ongoing peace talks and jeopardize the release of hostages, CNN reported on Monday.
Officials from the administration of US President Joe Biden have reportedly been discussing ways of pushing the ceasefire and hostage deal forward, the outlet wrote. Peace efforts intensified following the discovery of six bodies, including that of an American-Israeli citizen, in an underground tunnel in the enclave over the weekend.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Biden said his administration was “very close” to proposing a “final” hostage deal to both sides.
In a press conference in Jerusalem on the same day, however, Netanyahu vowed that Israel would not relinquish control over a strategic 14km strip of land along the Gaza-Egyptian border known as the Philadelphi corridor. An Israeli military presence there is vital to ensure victory over Hamas, he claimed.
In reaction to the statement, a source familiar with the discussions in Washington told CNN that “this guy [Netanyahu] torpedoed everything in one speech.”
The Israeli prime minister’s stance on the Philadelphi corridor has emerged as a key obstacle to a ceasefire deal. According to CNN sources familiar with the negotiations, Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining troops in Gaza represents a change in position.
The Israeli proposal for a hostage release and ceasefire deal with Hamas, which was submitted in May and negotiated with the help of Qatar, Egypt and the US, contains no mention of Philadelphi. Israel added its continued presence in the corridor as a “non-negotiable” condition in July.
Hamas has accused the Jewish state of prolonging negotiations by issuing new demands. Lead Hamas negotiator Khalil Al-Hayya told Al Jazeera on Sunday that there would be no deal without the Israeli military withdrawing from the Philadelphi corridor.
Netanyahu’s latest comments also drew ire from the Israeli opposition and the families of the hostages who remain trapped in Gaza.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid dismissed the Israeli leader’s statements as “unfounded political spin,” arguing that Netanyahu’s new condition “has no relation to reality.”
The Hostages Families Forum said the prime minister’s remarks showed “that he does not intend to return the hostages.”
Hostilities between Israel and Hamas flared up when the Palestinian militant group attacked southern Israel on October 7, killing around 1,100 people and taking more than 200 others hostage. Some were later released through prisoner swaps or were rescued by the Israeli army. According to Israel, Hamas is still holding 103 people captive in Gaza.
The massive military retaliation by Israel has claimed nearly 41,000 lives, mostly women and children in the enclave, according to Palestinian health officials.
UK suspends 30 arms exports to Israel over Gaza war crimes concerns
Arms campaigners and human rights groups welcome ban, but say move does not go far enough
MIDDLE EAST EYE, By Dania Akkad and Imran Mulla, 2 September 2024
The UK has suspended 30 arms export licences to Israel following a review under the new Labour government which found that British-made weapons may have been used in the violation of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
Arms campaigners and rights advocates who have pressed for a full suspension of arms sales to Israel for months welcomed the decision, but criticised the continued export of F-35 fighter jet components which one called “a workhorse of Israel’s brutal bombing campaign”.
The suspension, announced by Foreign Secretary David Lammy in parliament on Monday, covers components for other types of military aircraft, including fighter planes, helicopters and drones. Around 320 other licences, including for items for civilian use, remain in place.
Under its arms exporting criteria, the government is obligated to suspend licences for arms exports if it determines that there is a clear risk that British weapons might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law.
“Facing a conflict such as this, it is this government’s legal duty to review export licences,” Lammy told MPs. ………………………………….
Lammy also said the government was “deeply concerned” about reports of mistreatment of Palestinian detainees, which the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been able to investigate after being denied access.
“My predecessor and major allies have raised these concerns,” he said of the detainees. “Regrettably, these have not been addressed satisfactorily.”
He added that Britain would continue to support Israel if it was under attack, particularly from Iran, announcing fresh sanctions against three members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. …………
‘Took too long, not far enough’
The announcement cames hours before two organisations which have challenged the UK government in the High Court over the continued exports were set to pursue fresh legal action in an attempt to force the exports to stop immediately.
Lawyers with the UK-based Global Legan Action Network (Glan) and the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq said they told the government last week of their intent to request an emergency order and had planned to do this at a Tuesday morning hearing.
But late on Monday, the organisations said they would now consider whether the announced ban was “extensive enough to meet the gravity of the situation and assess whether further litigation remains necessary”………………………………………
Without F-35 components included in the ban list, campaigners and human rights groups which have called for a blanket end of UK arms exports to Israel sales for months said the announcement fell short…………………………………………………………………. more https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-suspends-30-arms-exports-israel-over-gaza-war-crimes-concerns
Israel’s nuclear arsenal poses major threat to global peace’

Tehran Times, September 5, 2024
TEHRAN – Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Amir Saied Iravani, has said that the Israeli regime is threatening countries in the West Asia region with “nuclear annihilation”, warning the regime’s nuclear arsenal poses a significant threat to both regional and global peace and security.
Iravani made the comment on Wednesday as he was addressing the UN General Assembly on the International Day Against Nuclear Tests.
The following is the full text of his speech at the UN meeting:
“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… In commemoration of the International Day against Nuclear Tests, Nuclear-Weapon States (NWSs) should be mainly addressed, as they possess the capability to conduct such tests, with approximately 2,000 tests carried out since 1945, including 1,054 by the US alone.
At a time when all nuclear-armed states are planning to modernize, upgrade, or extend the life of their nuclear weapons and facilities, as well as develop new easy-to-use nuclear weapons, ending nuclear weapon testing is of outmost importance………………………………………………………………………………..
Commemoration of this day is also an opportunity for international community to make Israeli regime promptly accede to the NPT without any precondition and to place all of its nuclear facilities under the full-scope IAEA safeguards. The current situation is alarming, as the Israeli regime is threatening other regional countries with nuclear annihilation, and its nuclear arsenal poses a significant threat to both regional and global peace and security.
By observing this day, we should also renew our commitment to the noble goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons- the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of these inhumane weapons.
As a signatory to the CTBT, the Islamic Republic of Iran considers this treaty a step toward nuclear disarmament, and in this context, believes it cannot substitute for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Consequently, nuclear disarmament must remain a top priority for the international community, and all forms of nuclear testing must be unequivocally prohibited. Such tests contradict both the letter and spirit of the CTBT and, more importantly, violate the legal obligations of the Nuclear-Weapon States under Article VI of the NPT. https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/503272/Israel-s-nuclear-arsenal-poses-major-threat-to-global-peace
South Africa halts artillery shells to Poland over fears they will be used against Russia
South Africa has suspended a major arms deal with Poland, leading to Poland canceling the contract
Grzegorz Adamczyk. ReMix, 28 Aug 24
South Africa has withheld the delivery of 155mm artillery shells to Poland, citing concerns that the munitions could be sent to Ukraine, according to Ezra Jele, head of the secretariat of the South African government body overseeing arms contracts. After two years of uncertainty, Poland has canceled the contract.
In early 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Poland, along with several non-NATO countries, placed an order for 55,000 Assegai artillery shells from Denel Munition, a South African company and subsidiary of German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall. At the time, Jan-Patrick Helmsen, managing director of Denel Munition, expressed pride in the deal, noting NATO’s continued trust in their globally recognized technology.
However, later that year, South Africa’s National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) halted the contract’s fulfillment. While export permits to Poland and other countries were not canceled, they were indefinitely suspended, with no clear timeline for resolution, according to Jele………………………………………………… more https://www.sott.net/article/494487-South-Africa-halts-artillery-shells-to-Poland-over-fears-they-will-be-used-against-Russia
A Looming Nuclear Catastrophe

Unfortunately, we’re in an election season with both candidates battling over who would create a more lethal military force and increase military spending, The campaign thus far has featured no reference to arms control and disarmament.
by Melvin Goodman, 30 Aug 24, https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/08/30/a-looming-nuclear-catastrophe-2/
“Escalation dominance defines a situation in which a nation has the military capabilities that can contain or defeat an adversary at all levels of violence with the possible exception of the highest.”
– Reagan Administration’s Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, “Discriminate Deterrence,” 1988.
There is no greater strategic madness than the belief that nuclear superiority must be maintained at each rung of the nuclear ladder in order to maintain deterrence. U.S. weapons technology was a major driver of escalation dominance throughout the 1950s and 1960s along with the belief that the Soviet Union would move to a level of nuclear conflict that the United States could not counter. “Dr. Strangelove or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb” parodied these fears, and the arms control and disarmament developments of the 1970s and 1980s helped to defuse them. Sadly, the Biden administration has taken a step that suggests a return to escalation dominance, which will spiral a Pentagon budget that will soon reach $1 trillion per year.
“Dr. Strangelove” remains the greatest of movie satires for a host of reasons, not least that it hews so closely to the real-life absurdities of two saber-rattling superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—escalating an arms race that could only end in mutual annihilation. Now we have a third superpower—China—that is expanding its nuclear arsenal, and the Biden administration has approved a highly classified nuclear strategic plan—the Nuclear Employment Guidance—that seeks to prepare the United States for possible coordinated nuclear challenges from Russia, China, and North Korea. According to David Sanger in the New York Times, the document is so highly classified that “there are no electronic copies, only a small number of hard copies distributed to a few national security officials and Pentagon commanders.
The importance of escalation dominance in the Cold War was driven by such Cold Warriors as Paul Nitze, who argued that a Soviet nuclear attack would enable the Kremlin to hold the American population hostage and to dictate the terms of peace. Nitze added that the Soviet Union’s “effective civil defense program” would keep Soviet casualties to two to four percent of their population, a cost that Moscow would be willing to pay to achieve “dominance.” These absurd notions encouraged the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s to advise U.S. families to build bomb shelters as protection from atomic fallout in the event of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. President John F. Kennedy said the government would provide such protection for every American; in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan guaranteed protection in the form of his Star Wars missile defense.
Only the United States has spent billions of dollars in the pursuit of a missile defense shield over the entire country. I wrote about this 25 years ago in a book titled “The Phantom Defense: America’s Pursuit of the Star Wars Illusion.” Now, European leaders are talking about a “European Air Shield,” and the Heritage Foundation—Donald Trump’s think tank—favors a missile defense system that would destroy over 100 incoming missiles. Trump’s flawed reference to the success of Israel’s Iron Dome defensive system is also illusory because it intercepts small short-range rockets fired by militants in the region and not ballistic missiles.
The next president will inherit a nuclear landscape that is more threatening and volatile than any other since the dangers of the Cuban missile crisis more than 60 years ago. China is expanding its nuclear arsenal; Russia is threatening the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine and warning about World War III; Iran’s nuclear program is expanding rapidly in size and sophistication; and North Korea reportedly has a nuclear arsenal that rivals three nuclear states that never joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty: Israel, India, and Pakistan.
The close ties between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are feeding Washington’s nuclear paranoia. Washington’s failure to hold substantive discussions with these four countries makes the potential for conflict more real. Our obsession with terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons adds to the exaggeration of the threat and our distorted strategic spending. The fact that Donald Trump may return to the White House, where he once boasted about the size of his nuclear button and promised to return America’s nuclear arsenal to the “top of the pack,” adds to nuclear uncertainty
Russia and China are willing to enter discussions on nuclear matters with the United States, but only as part of a larger strategic discussion on the tensions and challenges that confront Washington’s bilateral policies with both Moscow and Beijing. President Biden’s administration has refused to enter such an expanded dialogue, which is a major failure in its national security strategy. It is essential for the three major nuclear powers to discuss arms control, risk reduction, and the importance of nonproliferation; the United States is primarily responsible for the failure to begin a dialogue. Instead, Biden and his national security team have been preoccupied with ways to interfere in the broader China-Russia relationship, which has never been stronger. In fact, it has been Washington’s opposition to Sino-Russian relations that has led Moscow and Beijing to bolster their ties.
The United States has been lacking serious disarmament specialists at the highest levels of the government since the Obama administration when John Kerry was secretary of state and Rose Gottemoeller was undersecretary for arms control and international security and assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation. Kerry and Gottemoeller were fighting an uphill battle because of President Bill Clinton’s decision in 1997 to abolish the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which seriously weakened the entire arms control community in the United States. ACDA’s demise as an independent voice for arms control weakened national security by narrowing arms control options for presidential decision making.
Unfortunately, we’re in an election season with both candidates battling over who would create a more lethal military force and increase military spending, The campaign thus far has featured no reference to arms control and disarmament. The United States is already responsible for half of the global spending on the military, and is the world’s only country that has power projection capabilities that involve every corner of the globe. Our nuclear inventory contains more warheads than there are strategic targets, and this is certainly true for the other nuclear powers around the world. There is no greater shared irresponsibility in the international community than the secret decisions that led to the overkill capabilities in the nuclear inventories of the nine nuclear powers. It will take a serious act of statesmanship to stop the fear-mongering delusions that could once again shape our nuclear weapons policy.
Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.
An arms embargo on Israel is not a radical idea — it’s the law

In July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest global court, ruled that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza was illegal. The Court held that the regime of segregation that the Palestinian people live under—complete with separate roads, rationed access to water, and a separate legal system based on military law—amounts to apartheid. The Court ordered Israel to withdraw its settlers from the occupied Palestinian territory, pay reparations, and respect the Palestinian right to self-determination.
Halting military aid to Israel is the bare minimum the U.S. can do to stop the Gaza genocide. An arms embargo is not only supported by 80% of Democratic Party voters, it is demanded by international and U.S. law.
By Yoana Tchoukleva August 31, 2024, https://mondoweiss.net/2024/08/an-arms-embargo-on-israel-is-not-a-radical-idea-its-the-law/
As Israel launches its largest military assault in the West Bank in twenty years, I cannot stop thinking about the people I met in the occupied territory. I think of the mother in Jenin who was on the phone with her two sons seconds before their house was burned in an Israeli raid. I think of the wife of a man who was being held in an Israeli prison without charge or trial asking me, “Is there anything you can do? My husband is dying.” I think of the farmer who gifted me a melon even though he could barely put food on his own table and I was there only for a short period of time, traveling and volunteering with Faz3a, an international protective presence organization.
While all eyes have been on Gaza, Palestinians in the West Bank are undergoing what many call a “slow genocide”. Every day, Israeli settlers attack Palestinian families to push them off their private land. They destroy water wells, burn houses, and assault families. Palestinians who remain on their land risk arrest. In the last 10 months, 9,000 Palestinians from the West Bank have been arrested and detained without charge or trial, many experiencing torture.
In July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest global court, ruled that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza was illegal. The Court held that the regime of segregation that the Palestinian people live under—complete with separate roads, rationed access to water, and a separate legal system based on military law—amounts to apartheid. The Court ordered Israel to withdraw its settlers from the occupied Palestinian territory, pay reparations, and respect the Palestinian right to self-determination.
A day later, American friends of mine were violently attacked by settlers in the West Bank. They were accompanying Palestinian farmers to their olive groves when settlers from the nearby Esh Kodesh settlement descended and beat them with metal pipes. This month, another unarmed American volunteer with the international protective presence organization Faz3a was shot in the leg by the Israeli army. The U.S. State Department has remained largely silent.
As the Democratic Party vies for votes, many have demanded the U.S. impose an arms embargo on Israel as a way to signal to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he cannot continue to violate international law with impunity. What few people know is that an arms embargo is not only what 60% of Americans and nearly 80% of Democratic voters want — it is, in fact, already required by law.
U.S. federal law is clear—countries that receive U.S. military funding must meet human rights standards or risk losing their funding.
The Foreign Assistance Act holds that no assistance can be provided to a country “which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” The Leahy Law prohibits the provision of weapons “to any unit […] of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.”
Gross violations include “torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, […] and another flagrant denial of the right to life or liberty”, all acts Israel is found to have committed by the ICJ, United Nations and even Israel’s own human rights experts and courts.
Our U.S. laws, therefore, demand that we pause military funding to Israel until it remedies its human rights record by agreeing to a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and complying with the ICJ order to end the occupation of Palestinian territories.
Such a pause—or an “arms embargo”—is not without precedent. In 2021, the U.S. withheld $225 million in funding from Egypt and paused the sale of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia due to these countries’ human rights violations. So why is the U.S. enforcing its laws selectively?
On February 8, President Biden signed National Security Memorandum 20 which at least gave a nod to our federal laws. The Memorandum required the Secretary of State to obtain “credible and reliable written assurances” from foreign recipients of military aid that they are using U.S. weapons in compliance with international law. Those that fail to provide such assurances, or make claims not backed evidence, should have their aid paused.
In March, the State Department admitted there were “credible reports of alleged human rights abuses by Israeli security forces, including arbitrary or unlawful killings, enforced disappearance, torture, and serious abuses in conflict.” Still, the Department rubber-stamped Israeli government’s “assurances” and the White House continued to approve billions of dollars in weapons transfers despite recognized violations of international law.
According to a recent Israeli Defense Ministry report, the U.S. has sent over 50,000 tons of arms and military equipment to Israel since October 7, an average of 2 arms shipments per day.
All of this would crush me if it weren’t for my Palestinian friends who taught me what unwavering faith and commitment to life look like.
So I ask you, Vice President Harris—if you were elected President, will you “take care” that the laws of the United States “be faithfully executed,” as required by our Constitution? Will you consistently uphold federal laws that ban funding foreign governments that commit human rights violations, regardless of how powerful those governments or their lobbies are? Will you honor your commitment at the Democratic National Convention “to end this war such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to safety, dignity, freedom and self-determination?”
Doing so requires that we walk our walk, not just talk our talk. It requires that we change policy, not just express concerns. Pausing military funding to Israel is the bare minimum needed to stop the bombing of innocent people and to remind ourselves that we are, after all, a nation of laws.
Russia says it will change nuclear doctrine because of Western role in Ukraine

In short:
Russia will make changes to its doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons.
The decision is “connected with the escalation course of our Western adversaries”, Russia’s deputy foreign minister said.
What’s next?
It is not clear when the updated nuclear doctrine will be ready.
Russia will make changes to its doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons in response to what it regards as Western escalation in the war in Ukraine, state media quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying on Sunday.
The existing nuclear doctrine, set out in a decree by President Vladimir Putin in 2020, says Russia may use nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack that threatens the existence of the state.
Some hawks among Russia’s military analysts have urged Mr Putin to lower the threshold for nuclear use in order to “sober up” Russia’s enemies in the West.
Mr Putin said in June that the nuclear doctrine was a “living instrument” that could change, depending on world events.
Mr Ryabkov’s comments on Sunday were the clearest statement yet that changes would indeed be made.
“The work is at an advanced stage, and there is a clear intent to make corrections,” state news agency TASS cited Mr Ryabkov as saying.
He said the decision is “connected with the escalation course of our Western adversaries” in connection with the Ukraine conflict.
Moscow accuses the West of using Ukraine as a proxy to wage war against it, with the aim of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia and breaking it apart.
The United States and its allies deny that, saying they are helping Ukraine defend itself against a colonial-style war of aggression by Russia.
Putin said on day one of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 that anyone who tried to hinder or threaten it would suffer “consequences that you have never faced in your history”.
Since then, he has issued a series of further statements that the West regards as nuclear threats, and announced the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.
That has not deterred the US and its allies from stepping up military aid to Ukraine in ways that were unthinkable when the war started, including by supplying tanks, long-range missiles and F-16 fighter jets.
Ukraine shocked Moscow last month by piercing its western border in an incursion by thousands of troops that Russia is still fighting to repel.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the operation made a mockery of Mr Putin’s “red lines”.
He is also lobbying hard for the US to allow it to use advanced Western weapons to strike targets deep inside Russia.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview published on Sunday that the West was “going too far” and that Russia would do everything to protect its interests.
Mr Ryabkov did not say when the updated nuclear doctrine would be ready.
“The time for completing this work is a rather difficult question, given that we are talking about the most important aspects of ensuring our national security,” he said.
Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other country. Mr Putin said in March that Moscow was ready for the eventuality of a nuclear war “from a military-technical point of view”.
He said, however, that he saw no rush towards nuclear confrontation and that Russia had never faced a need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Ukrainian Tipping Points

Paid liars from Washington, Stanford, London and elsewhere have tried and likely will continue to try to tell you ‘Ukraine is winning’. It is not and cannot do so without a full-scale NATO intervention and a likely resulting World War III.
Russian and Eurasian Politics, Gordonhahn, September 1, 2024
The NATO-Russia Ukrainian war is at a tipping point; one that leads to a Russian march to the Dniepr River and the relocation of what remains of pro-NATO Ukraine’s populace to right bank Ukraine and its Maidan government away from the western banks of the Diner and deeper into western Ukraine, likely Lvov.
Not surprisingly, Kiev therefore is desperate and trying to escalate in ways that implicate or bring deeper, more direct NATO involvement, which has been deep and escalating on NATO’s part for years. For Kiev, ideal would be a full-scale NATO military intervention. The West’s previous strategy of gradual escalation – ‘boiling the frog’ by providing redlined air defense systems, then short-range missile/artillery systems, then tanks, then F-16s – has run its course.
The only options now are permitting Kiev to use Western missiles to hit deep inside Russia and target Russian President Vladimir Putin and other top leaders. Until now neither Kiev nor the West has crossed any Russian or ‘Putin red lines’ because there have not been any Russian-declared ‘red lines’ but Western MSM-set red lines. One would-be hard-pressed to cite even one clearly expressed Putin ‘red line.’
I fear the Western escalation will continue up to crossing an actual ‘red line’ that Russians have indirectly hinted at – Ukraine’s use of long-range Western missiles such as American ATACMs and British Storm Shadows to strike deep into Russia – will be crossed one way or another, likely after the U.S. presidential election on November 5th.
The crossing of all previous red lines drawn largely by Western media produce a demonstration effect of supposed Russian weakness, which many play up in order to also facilitate a NATO decision to cross the long-range missile red line or to intervene overtly and officially on the ground in the war. The latter has been Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s goal since the war began and even before during the Minsk ‘ceasefire’. The repeated targeting of civilian areas in Donbass and now in Russia proper, bombing harvesting combines in Belgorod, and the now failed Kursk invasion itself is of the same genre. This desire, indeed desparate need to draw NATO ‘all in’ stands behind Zelenskiy’s fakes –Bucha, Russia attacked Zaporozhe Nuclear Power Plant Rus controls, a children’s hospital, schools, the Kramatorsk train station, etc., etc. This fakery is all part and parcel of the simulated reality that has been the Maidan and its resulting regime, built on legends of police brutality and mass shooting perpetrated by the Maidanists themselves.
Western propagandists use the alleged ‘failure of Putin to respond’ to Western-created ‘Putin red lines’ and to West-Ukraine provocations in order to give the impression that Russia is a paper bear and beatable, that Ukraine is winning and can win, and that the West and Ukraine should continue escalating and intensify its support and perhaps have NATO intervene full-scale. Zelensky himself – the premier propagandist and stage director in today’s West — has pointed to the mini invasion into Kursk as proof that Moscow’s ‘red lines’ are “illusory” and appealed to the leaders of Britain, France, Germay, and the US to allow the use of long-range missiles to strike air bases on Russian territory (www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/kursk-incursion-proves-putins-red-lines-are-a-bluff-says-zelensky-bdc893ztw).
At the same time, the West has played up ‘Putin’s nuclear threats’ – of whch there have been none. Russia has a clearly stated and codified nuclear use doctrine: nuclear weapons will be used only in the event od an existential threat to the survival of the Russian state……………………………..
So far, Washington has conducted a controlled but likely open-ended escalation until dominance is achieved; hence the relative U.S. restraint and its constraning of the UK, Poland, and others hitherto. But this restraint and constraint should not be overdrawn. The U.S. will escalate as far as is imaginable if it is safe to do so in order to deal a ‘strategic defeat’ to ‘Putin’s Russia.’ …………………………………………
Thus, the defeat of Kiev on the left bank augurs for a long standoff with Western support for continung attacks of various kinds across the Dniepr against Russian-controlled eastern Ukraine that will likely lead to a second phase of the war in right bank Ukraine. The only way to avoid this outcome is by way of a negotiated treaty involving at least Kiev and Moscow; the West is an unlikely partner in a peace endeavor, given the chaos now reigning in Washington. ……………………………..
The threat of such developments is peaking now. Zelenskiy and the Ukrainians are desparate given the not-so-long-coming collapse of Ukraine’s defense across the entire front; hence the desparate throw of the dice that is the Kursk invasion—a last desparate attempt to turn the tables on Moscow……………………
…………………………………………………Paid liars from Washington, Stanford, London and elsewhere have tried and likely will continue to try to tell you ‘Ukraine is winning’. It is not and cannot do so without a full-scale NATO intervention and a likely resulting World War III.
Western ‘experts’ and intel propagandists have failed Ukraine and their own peoples by their ignorance of Russia and their professional malfeasance. They have misunderstood and underestimated Russia for 35 years ………………..
……………. They underestimated how Russia would respond to NATO expansion and the broken promise it entailed, a Western-backed. ………………………….
………………………The grave failure of Western rusology, academia, and government, I suspect, is bringing the world back to schism and nuclear confrontation.
………………………………….. The U.S. Democrat Party-state and the media-academic-military-industrial-congressional complex cannot allow prior to the presidential election neither an obvious Ukrainian collapse to materialize as an ‘October surprise’ nor a a major escalation that brings or clearly risks U.S. troops or the homeland.
But there should be no doubt; there are domestic options of an escalatory nature being examined in Western decisionmaking and research centers. When one of the next Western or Western-backed Ukrainian escalations is enacted – regardless if it is engineered under a Trump or Harris administration or the guise thereof – there will follow, as sure as night follows day, a Russian response targetting not just ruined, disappearing Ukraine but the West. https://gordonhahn.com/2024/09/01/ukrainian-tipping-points/
A Return to Form: Expediting US Arms to Israel

Dr Binoy Kampmark, 1 Sept 24, https://theaimn.com/a-return-to-form-expediting-us-arms-to-israel/
Despite much grandstanding in the Biden administration about halting specific arms shipments to Israel over feigned concerns about how they might be used (inflicting death is the expected form), US military supplies have been restored with barely a murmur. In a report in Haaretz on August 29, a rush of weapons to Israel has been noticed since the end of July.
August proved to be the second busiest month for US arms deliveries to Israel’s Nevatim Airbase since the October 2023 attacks by Hamas. This has taken place alongside an increased concentration of US forces in the region since Israel’s assassinations of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr and Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh at the end of last month. Two aircraft carriers, a guided missile submarine, and deployments of advanced F-22 stealth aircraft in Qatar, have featured in a show intended to deter Tehran from any retaliatory strikes.
After examining open-source aviation data from the end of July, Haaretz concluded that the issue of delayed shipments of US weapons had “been solved.” Dozens of flights by US military transport planes, along with civilian and military Israeli cargo planes, mostly from Qatar and the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, had been noted. Demands by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his July 24 speech to Congress that US military aid be “dramatically” expedited to “end the war in Gaza and help prevent a broader war in the Middle East,” had been heeded.
On August 26, Israel received its 500th aerial shipment of weapons and military supplies from the United States since the latest war’s commencement. The 500 flights have also been supplemented by 107 sea shipments, altogether facilitating the transfer of 50,000 tons of military equipmentin an initiativebetween the US military, Israel’s Defence Ministry’s Directorate of Production and Procurement and Mission to the United States, the IDF’s planning Directorate and the Israeli Air Force.
During the same month, the Democratic National Convention, which saw no debate about the candidature of Kamala Harris as its choice for presidential candidate, had tepidly promised some agitation on continued arms to Israel. Ahead of the event, the Uncommitted movement’s 30 delegates, picked by voters alarmed by US support for Israel’s war machine in Gaza, were hoping to convince the 4,000 pledged delegates Harris had captured to add an arms embargo to its campaign in order to induce a ceasefire.
A petition by the group sought two outcomes: the adding of language to both the party and campaign platform “that unequivocally supports a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a cessation of supplying weapons for Israel’s assault and occupation against Palestinians.”
These wishes proved much too salty for the apparatchiks and party managers. The Democratic Party’s 2024 national platform ironically enough begins with an effusive “land acknowledgment” to “the ancestors and descendants of Tribal Nations” but plays it safe regarding an ally very much the product of territorial seizure, violence and occupation. Despite mutterings in the party room about a split between moderate and progressive members on Israel’s conduct of the war, the topic of a ceasefire never made it to the committee hearings when the document was drafted.
In firmly insisting on continued US support for Israel in its war against Hamas, much is made in the platform about US efforts to forge a way that will see a release of the hostages, “a durable ceasefire”, the easing of “humanitarian suffering in Gaza” and the “possible normalization between Israel and key Arab states, together with meaningful progress and a political horizon for the Palestinian people.” The language is instructive: the Palestinians are objects of pitiful charity, at the mercy of Israel, the US, and various Arab states. Like toddlers, they are to be managed, steered, guided, their political choices forever mediated through the wishes of other powers.
-Advertisement-
With Israel remaining Washington’s paramount ally in the Middle East, that process of steering and managing the unruly Palestinians has been, thus far, lethal. During her first interview given after the convention (she has an aversion to them), Harris scotched any suggestions on going wobbly on Israel. “I’m unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defence and its ability to defend itself, and that’s not going to change,” she told CNN’s Dana Bush. In what has become a standard refrain, Harris lamented that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed” while acknowledging Israel’s right to self-defence.
When asked whether she would alter President Biden’s policy on furnishing military assistance to Israel, “No” came the reply. “We have to get a deal done. The war must end, and we must get a deal that is about getting the hostages out. I’ve met with the families of the American hostages. Let’s get the hostages out. Let’s get the ceasefire done.”
This middle-management lingo says much about Harris’s worldview; in wishing to “get the ceasefire done”, she is encouraging a range of factors that will make sure nothing of the sort will be achieved. The Netanyahu formula has worked its usual black magic. Hence, the lack of an arms embargo, and the continued, generous supply to the IDF from their largest military benefactor.
Ukrainian defense chief visits Pentagon
“Ukraine has been given carte blanche for operations in Russian regions. “
https://www.rt.com/news/603337-ukraine-defense-minister-meets-austin/ 1 Sept 24
Politico reported earlier that Rustem Umerov would try to persuade the US to lift its restrictions on long-range strikes against Russia
Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov has met with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to discuss additional military aid. The visit came amid renewed requests by Kiev for Washington to lift its restrictions on the use of US-supplied weapons for long-range strikes deep inside Russia.
Earlier this week, Politico claimed, citing anonymous sources, that Umerov and Vladimir Zelensky’s chief of staff Andrey Yermak would attempt to persuade their American backers to change their minds.
On Friday, the Pentagon’s Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh announced that “Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III held bilateral talks with Ukrainian Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov today regarding Ukraine’s ongoing operations [and] security assistance priorities.”
The latter include air defense systems, artillery and armored vehicles needed to help Ukraine “build additional combat power.”
Another topic high on the officials’ agenda was the upcoming meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group on September 6. The gathering will see more than 50 of the countries which support Kiev congregate in Ramstein, Germany to deliberate over plans for more military supplies for Ukraine, in order to cover both its immediate and long-term needs.
Austin pledged to “continue to build on the strategic partnership between” the US and Ukraine, Singh concluded.
On Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Major-General Patrick Ryder clarified that Washington’s “policy has not changed,” meaning that Ukraine is allowed to use US-supplied weapons to defend against cross-border attacks, but not for “deep strikes” into what the US recognizes as Russian territory.
Meanwhile, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters on Monday that Washington “will keep the conversations with the Ukrainians going [on the issue], but we are going to keep them private.”
That same day, Zelensky insisted that “there should be no restrictions on the range of weapons for Ukraine.”
Commenting on Kirby’s statement on Friday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that it indicated that “Ukraine has been given carte blanche for operations in Russian regions.”
“The administration of [US President] Joe Biden is obviously getting ready to make new concessions to Zelensky and give him a free hand to use virtually any type of American weapons, including [for attacks] deep into Russian territory,” the diplomat alleged, as quoted by RIA Novosti.
Her remarks echoed those made on Tuesday by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who insisted that the “West does not want to avoid escalation.”
The minister warned that Kiev’s backers would be “playing with fire” if they were to allow Ukraine to use their weapons to conduct long-range strikes deep inside Russia.
Biden’s ‘new’ nuclear strategy and the super-fuse that sets it off.

Although any technically accurate assessment of the physical consequences of the large-scale use of nuclear weapons instantly shows that “winning” a nuclear war has no meaning, the United States has strenuously emphasized the development of nuclear weapons technologies that could only make sense if their intended purpose is for fighting and winning nuclear wars.
The super-fuze is exactly that kind of technology.
The military is already upgrading warheads capable of fighting a war with both China and Russia simultaneously
Theodore Postol, Aug 29, 2024, Responsible Statecraft,
The New York Timesreported last week that President Biden has approved a secret nuclear strategy refocusing on Chinese and Russian nuclear forces.
According to the paper, the new nuclear guidance “reorients America’s deterrent strategy” to meet “the need to deter Russia, the PRC (China) and North Korea simultaneously.”
However, Biden’s approval of this strategy is no more than a tacit acknowledgment of a two-decade-long U.S. technical program that has been more than just a “slight modernization” of weapons components, but a dramatic step towards the capability to fight and win nuclear wars with both China and Russia. In other words, there is nothing really “new” here at all, save the very public nature of the strategy’s acknowledgement.
In the face of all of this, Chinese and Russian leaders will have no choice but to implement countermeasures that further increase the already dangerously high readiness of their nuclear forces. This includes intensified worst-case planning that will increase the chances of nuclear responses to false warnings of attack.
The technical source of this vast improvement in U.S. nuclear firepower is a relatively new super fuse or “super fuze” that is already being fitted onto all U.S. strategic ballistic missiles. This fuse more than doubles the ability of the Trident II Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) carrying W-76 100kt warheads to destroy Chinese and Russian nuclear-tipped Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) in hardened silos.
The currently (not fully loaded) U.S. Trident Submarine force carries about 890 W-76 100kt and 400 W-88 475kt warheads. The 400 W-88 warheads have been outfitted with the super-fuze and were originally supposed to have the combination of accuracy and yield to destroy Russian silo-based ICBMs before they are launched. But there are not enough W-88s to attack both Russian and Chinese silo-based ICBMs before they can be launched.
So, with the fuse upgrade of W-76s, the W-88 warheads are no longer needed for this job. Numerous upgraded W-76 warheads can instead be used for planned missions against silo-based missiles in Russia and China.
Although 890 W-76s are currently on Trident II submarines, the U.S. has 1600 in total, making the W-76 the most numerous warhead in the American arsenal today. In the eventuality that arms control limitations no longer constrain the size of U.S. nuclear forces, these warheads could readily be added to and carried by the already available at-sea Trident II ballistic missiles, each of which can carry up to 12 W-76 warheads.
With such an “uploading,” there would still be more than enough remaining Trident II ballistic missiles on submarines to carry all of the 400 available 475kt W-88 “heavy” warheads as well.
But let’s talk more about the secret super-fuze or Burst Height Compensating Fuse.
Figure 1 [above on original] illustrates how the super-fuze drastically increases the “killing power” of a ballistic missile delivered warhead…………………………………………………………………………..
The super-fuze achieves its fantastic increase in killing efficiency by measuring its altitude at a chosen time while it is still outside the atmosphere but relatively close to its target. …………………………………………………………………………….
The military implications of this “technically sweet” added capability to U.S. ballistic missile warheads has major implications for the war-fighting capabilities of the United States.
Although any technically accurate assessment of the physical consequences of the large-scale use of nuclear weapons instantly shows that “winning” a nuclear war has no meaning, the United States has strenuously emphasized the development of nuclear weapons technologies that could only make sense if their intended purpose is for fighting and winning nuclear wars.
The super-fuze is exactly that kind of technology.
………………………………….Couching the development and deployment of these kinds of preemptive strike technologies in misleading terms like “enhancing deterrence,” does not fool the military and political leadership of Russia and China. It instead leaves them no choice but to consider ways of deterring a dangerous U.S. preemption-oriented nuclear-weaponized nation that is constantly striving for better ways to “disarm” large parts of their nuclear forces.
It is no accident that Russian President Vladimir Putin himself approved the development and revealed the existence of the ultimate doomsday weapon — the Poseidon robot submarine, which can carry a 100Mt warhead into the harbors of U.S., European, and east Asian cities — capable of destroying urban areas to ranges beyond 50 miles (80 km) from its underwater detonation point.
The deployment of the Poseidon system by Russia serves as a warning to those who think they can fight and win nuclear wars by preemptively destroying significant parts of China and Russia’s nuclear retaliation forces. No matter how successful a planned preemptive nuclear attack might look like on paper, the reality of a nuclear war initiated with the delusional belief it could be won will be global destruction so great in scale that the very end of human civilization cannot be ruled out.
This is the real bequest of Biden’s new nuclear strategy and the super-fuze. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/biden-nuclear-strategy/
That time when Canada cancelled its nuclear submarine order

The decision to cut the Australian community out altogether — except where we will be called upon to service the US military as it builds its base in WA — puts us in the relationship of a vassal state, existing only to do the bidding of our powerful friend.
By Julie Macken and Michael Walker, Aug 30, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/that-time-when-canada-cancelled-its-nuclear-submarine-order/
Back in 1987, when no one knew that the Cold War was just about to end, the Canadian Government signed up to build 10 nuclear-powered submarines. That submarine program lasted for all of two years before being cancelled in 1989. No nuclear Canadian sub ever even began construction, let alone getting put in the water.
There is a very real sense of déjà vu when we look at the Canadian experience and the current Australian experience of AUKUS. The good news is that it is not too late to learn the lessons the Canadians learnt for us.
One of the reasons for the Canadian cancellation was the $8 billion price tag, or about $19 billion in today’s money. Two billion dollars per submarine now sounds like a bargain compared to the astronomical $45 billion per submarine under AUKUS. Canada decided it had other priorities where that money could be put to better use.
But before the contract was cancelled in Canada, the ministries involved in its construction became embroiled in conflict, the Government itself was in a cost-of-living-crisis with immediate, real-world needs pressing and the hasty and secretive choice of vessel design came under withering criticism from the Treasury department for poor procurement with the cost expected to blow out to $30 billion ($70 billion today). And finally, media support eroded, with 71% of the population opposed to the project.
Déjà vu much?
On 12 June, the US Congressional Research Document service produced a research and advice document called the Navy Virginia-Class Submarine Program and AUKUS Submarine (Pillar 1) Project: Background and Issues for Congress.
The document points out the AUKUS deal was a three-step process. The first was to establish a US-UK rotational submarine force in Western Australia. The second was that the US would sell us three or five Virginia nuclear powered submarines and the third would be that the UK assists us in building our own AUKUS class nuclear submarines.
But the Congressional report outlines when comparing the “potential benefits, costs, and risks” of the three stage plan, it might just be better for the US to operate more of its own boats out of WA. That is, “procuring up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs that would be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the US and UK SSNs”.
That’s right, why bother with the whole step two and three when the US is best served by simply operating its nuclear-powered attack submarines out of WA?
This is an extraordinary development and one that demands more attention than has been given previously because a number of issues flow from this kind of thinking.
First, this potentially frees up $400 billion that could be put to far better use on a national housing construction program or high-speed rail network running the entire east coast of Australia or other large and much-needed nation-building projects. But not so fast.
The US Congressional Research Document suggests that “those funds (the $400 billion) could be invested in other military capabilities”, such as long-range missiles and bombers, “so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.
The decision to cut the Australian community out altogether — except where we will be called upon to service the US military as it builds its base in WA — puts us in the relationship of a vassal state, existing only to do the bidding of our powerful friend.
The fact that the document only referenced the “potential benefits, costs, and risks” from the US perspective, without any attempt to imagine how Australia may view becoming a life support for a US submarine base, makes the nature of our relationship pretty clear.
Australia’s Government may not consider it necessary to have done its due diligence on AUKUS but the Americans are happy to do that for us and, you guessed it, even though they quietly have doubts about the SSN project, they’ve already thought of plenty of other ways to spend our money on their own defence objectives. Spending it on the well-being and prosperity of our own people didn’t even rate a mention.
-
Archives
- April 2026 (103)
- 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



