nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Mutually assured destruction is an outdated nuclear deterrence doctrine

One of the most significant criticisms of MAD is its moral implications. The doctrine essentially holds entire populations hostage to the threat of annihilation. Critics argue that this strategy represents a form of global extortion, where the safety of millions is leveraged against the threat of total destruction. This ethical dilemma raises profound questions about the value we place on human life and the lengths to which we are willing to go in the name of national security.

As the world commemorates the Hiroshima bombing, it’s time to work toward mutual survival

Syed Munir Khasru, August 6, 2024 ,  https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Mutually-assured-destruction-is-an-outdated-nuclear-deterrence-doctrine

Syed Munir Khasru is chairman of IPAG Asia Pacific, a Melbourne-based think tank. (www.syedmunirkhasru.org).

The Aug. 6 anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima is an annual occasion for somber reflection over the devastating impact of nuclear weapons and the strategies that evolved in the aftermath to prevent them from being used again.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), born in the crucible of the Cold War, has been a cornerstone of nuclear deterrence for decades. At a time of simmering global tensions and technological advancements, it is time to reflect on whether MAD has truly served the world well.

The MAD doctrine, formalized in the 1960s, posits that the threat of complete annihilation prevents nuclear-armed states from engaging in full-scale conflict. It is built on the principle of deterrence through the promise of overwhelming retaliation. In essence, MAD assumes that rational actors will refrain from initiating a nuclear attack, knowing that such an action would trigger a devastating counterattack, leading to the destruction of both parties.

This balance of terror, proponents argue, creates a paradoxical stability in which the very destructive power of nuclear weapons serves to prevent their use through the promise of overwhelming retaliation. This has been the dominant paradigm in international relations since the Cold War. It has shaped military strategies, diplomatic negotiations and the very fabric of the global security architecture.

Perhaps the most iconic example of MAD’s influence is the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. For 13 days, the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war as the U.S. and the Soviet Union engaged in a tense standoff over Soviet missiles in Cuba. According to historian Martin J. Sherwin, “The real possibility of mutual destruction … played a crucial role in the decision-making process of both Kennedy and Khrushchev.” The crisis ultimately ended with a negotiated settlement, demonstrating how the specter of mutual annihilation could drive the political leadership toward a diplomatic settlement.

On the other hand, a major concern with MAD is the potential for accidental nuclear war. False alarms, misinterpreted signals or technical malfunctions could potentially trigger a catastrophic response. The 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, where a Soviet lieutenant colonel correctly identified a system malfunction that had erroneously reported incoming U.S. missiles, underscores this risk.

Throughout the Cold War, the MAD doctrine underpinned arms control agreements like the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. These agreements, while not eliminating nuclear weapons, helped manage the arms race and reduce the risk of accidental war.

Even in the post-Cold War era, MAD’s influence persists. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, despite Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling, the potential for mutual destruction deterred any nuclear escalation. While the risk of nuclear weapons use in the Ukraine conflict remains low, there is growing concern about the erosion of international nuclear arms control agreements. This deterioration of established safeguards could potentially increase global nuclear risks in the long term.

One of the most significant criticisms of MAD is its moral implications. The doctrine essentially holds entire populations hostage to the threat of annihilation. Critics argue that this strategy represents a form of global extortion, where the safety of millions is leveraged against the threat of total destruction. This ethical dilemma raises profound questions about the value we place on human life and the lengths to which we are willing to go in the name of national security.

This ethical quandary becomes even more pronounced when considering the potential for civilian casualties in a nuclear exchange. Experts in disaster response and humanitarian aid consistently warn that the immediate aftermath of a nuclear blast would overwhelm any existing emergency response capabilities. The scale and nature of destruction from such an event would render traditional humanitarian assistance efforts largely ineffective, leaving countless civilians without access to crucial medical care, food or shelter.

The world today is markedly different from the bipolar structure of the Cold War. The proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries like North Korea and the complex dynamics between nuclear powers like India and Pakistan present new challenges to the MAD doctrine.

Emerging technologies such as hypersonic missiles, cyberwarfare capabilities and artificial intelligence are reshaping the nuclear landscape. According to a comprehensive analysis by leading defense strategists, these advanced technologies have the potential to inadvertently escalate nuclear risks. By introducing new variables and uncertainties into strategic calculations, they may erode the stability that has traditionally underpinned nuclear deterrence frameworks like MAD.

As the only nation to have experienced the horrors of nuclear warfare firsthand, Japan occupies a unique position in the global dialogue on nuclear disarmament. This role was highlighted during last year’s Group of Seven summit in Hiroshima, where world leaders confronted the legacy of nuclear weapons.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, whose family hails from Hiroshima, has been a vocal advocate for nuclear disarmament. In his 2022 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Kishida stated, “We must never repeat the devastation of atomic bombings. Japan will continue to uphold the ‘three non-nuclear principles’ and lead the international community’s efforts toward the realization of a world without nuclear weapons.” Japan’s leadership, rooted in its unique historical experience, could be instrumental in forging a path beyond MAD.

While the MAD doctrine has arguably contributed to preventing nuclear conflict for nearly eight decades, its continued relevance in a fast-changing world merits reexamination. The moral implications, the risk of accidental war and the challenges posed by new geopolitical realities and technologies all suggest the need for new approaches to nuclear deterrence and disarmament.

The Hiroshima anniversary is not only a reflection on the past but also a look ahead to the future. The goal of a world free from the threat of nuclear annihilation remains as urgent and vital as ever. In the words of Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow, “Nuclear weapons are not a necessary evil; they are the ultimate evil.”

The time is ripe to move beyond the doctrine of mutual destruction and work toward mutual survival and shared prosperity.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

79 Years After Hiroshima & Nagasaki: A Grim Reminder of Nuclear Annihilation

a group of elderly hibakusha, called Nihon Hidankyo, have dedicated their lives to achieving a non-proliferation treaty, which they hope will ultimately lead to a total ban on nuclear weapons.

By Thalif Deen, UNITED NATIONS, Aug 1 2024 (IPS)   https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/08/79-years-after-hiroshima-nagasaki-a-grim-reminder-of-nuclear-annihilation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=79-years-after-hiroshima-nagasaki-a-grim-reminder-of-nuclear-annihilation– The upcoming 79th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place on August 6 and 9, 1945, remains a grim reminder of the destructive consequences of nuclear weapons.

The US bombings killed an estimated 90,000 to 210,000, with roughly half of the deaths occurring on the first day in Hiroshima.

But despite an intense global campaign for nuclear disarmament, the world has witnessed an increase in the number of nuclear powers from five—the US, UK, France, China and Russia—to nine, including India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

Is the continued worldwide anti-nuclear campaign an exercise in futility? And will the rising trend continue—with countries such as Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and South Korea—as potential nuclear powers of the future?

South Africa is the only country that has voluntarily given up nuclear weapons after developing them. In the 1980s, South Africa produced six nuclear weapons, but dismantled them between 1989 and 1993. A number of factors may have influenced South Africa’s decision, including national security, international relations, and a desire to avoid becoming a pariah state.

But there is an equally valid argument that there have been no nuclear wars—only threats—largely because of the success of the world-wide anti-nuclear campaign, the role of the United Nations and the collective action by most of the 193 member states in adopting several anti-nuclear treaties.

According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), the United Nations has sought to eliminate weapons  of mass destruction (WMDs) ever since the establishment of the world body. The first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1946 established a commission to deal with problems related to the discovery of atomic energy, among others.

The commission was to make proposals for, inter alia, the control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes.

Several multilateral treaties have since been established with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation and testing, while promoting progress in nuclear disarmament.

These include the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, also known as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was signed in 1996 but has yet to enter into force, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California, which monitors and analyzes US nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS: “As we approach the 79th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world is facing a greater danger of nuclear war than at any time since 1945.”

The terrifying doctrine of “nuclear deterrence,” which should long ago have been delegitimized and relegated to the dustbin of history and replaced with multilateral, non-militarized common security, has metastasized into a pathological ideology brandished by nuclear-armed states and their allies to justify the perpetual possession and threatened use—including first use—of nuclear weapons,” she pointed out.

“It is more important than ever that we heed the warnings of the aging hibakusha (A-bomb survivors): What happened to us must never be allowed to happen to anyone again; nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist; no more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis!”

This demands an irreversible process of nuclear disarmament. But to the contrary, all nuclear armed states are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively upgrading their nuclear arsenals and a new multipolar arms race is underway, she noted.

“To achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons and a global society that is more fair, peaceful, and ecologically sustainable, we will need to move from the irrational fear-based ideology of deterrence to the rational fear of an eventual nuclear weapon use, whether by accident, miscalculation, or design.”

“We will also need to stimulate a rational hope that security can be redefined in humanitarian and ecologically sustainable terms that will lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons and dramatic demilitarization, freeing up tremendous resources desperately needed to address universal human needs and protect the environment.”

In this time of multiple global crises, “our work for the elimination of nuclear weapons must take place in a much broader framework, taking into account the interface between nuclear and conventional weapons and militarism in general, the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war, and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy, the rule of law, and human wellbeing,” declared Cabasso.

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS, “The glass is half-full or half-empty depending on how one looks at it.”

“The fact that we have avoided nuclear war since 1945 is also partly due to the persistence of the anti-nuclear movement. Historians like Lawrence Wittner have pointed to the many instances when governments have chosen nuclear restraint instead of unrestrained expansion.”

While South Africa is the only country that dismantled its entire nuclear weapons program, many countries—Sweden, for example—have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons even though they had the technical capacity to do so. They did so in part because of strong public opposition to nuclear weapons, which in turn is due to social movements supporting nuclear disarmament, he pointed out.

Thus, organizing for nuclear disarmament is not futile. Especially as we move into another era of conflicts between major powers, such movements will be critical to our survival, declared Ramana.

According to the UN, a group of elderly hibakusha, called Nihon Hidankyo, have dedicated their lives to achieving a non-proliferation treaty, which they hope will ultimately lead to a total ban on nuclear weapons.

“On an overcrowded train on the Hakushima line, I fainted for a while, holding in my arms my eldest daughter of one year and six months. I regained my senses at her cries and found no one else was on the train,” a 34-year-old woman testifies in the booklet. She was located just two kilometres from the Hiroshima epicenter.

Fleeing to her relatives in Hesaka, at age 24, another woman remembers that “people, with the skin dangling down, were stumbling along. They fell down with a thud and died one after another,” adding, “still now I often have nightmares about this, and people say, ‘it’s neurosis’.”

One man who entered Hiroshima after the bomb recalled in the exhibition “that dreadful scene—I cannot forget even after many decades.”

A woman who was 25 years old at the time said, “When I went outside, it was dark as night. Then it got brighter and brighter, and I could see burnt people crying and running about in utter confusion. It was hell…I found my neighbor trapped under a fallen concrete wall… Only half of his face was showing. He was burned alive”.

The steadfast conviction of the Hidankyo remains: “Nuclear weapons are absolute evil that cannot coexist with humans. There is no choice but to abolish them.”

Addressing the UN Security Council last March, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that with geopolitical tensions escalating the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades, reducing and abolishing nuclear weapons is the only viable path to saving humanity.

“There is one path—and one path only—that will vanquish this senseless and suicidal shadow once and for all.  We need disarmament now,” he said, urging nuclear-weapon States to re-engage to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon, re-affirm moratoria on nuclear testing and “urgently agree that none of them will be the first to use nuclear weapons.”

He called for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons led by the holders of the largest arsenals—the United States and the Russian Federation—to “find a way back to the negotiating table” to fully implement the New Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or START Treaty, and agree on its successor.

“When each country pursues its own security without regard for others, we create global insecurity that threatens us all,” he observed.  Almost eight decades after the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons still represent a clear danger to global peace and security, growing in power, range and stealth.”

“States possessing them are absent from the negotiating table, and some statements have raised the prospect of unleashing nuclear hell—threats that we must all denounce with clarity and force,” he said.  Moreover, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and cyber and outer space domains have created new risks.”

From Pope Francis, who calls the possession of nuclear arms “immoral”, to the hibakusha, the brave survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Hollywood, where Oppenheimer brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world, people are calling for an end to the nuclear madness.  “Humanity cannot survive a sequel to Oppenheimer,” he warned.

When Nagasaki marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city last year, the mayor Shiro Suzuki, urged world powers to abolish nuclear weapons, saying nuclear deterrence also increases risks of nuclear war, according to an Associated Press (AP) report.

He called on the Group of Seven (G7) industrial powers to adopt a separate document on nuclear disarmament that called for using nuclear weapons as deterrence.

“Now is the time to show courage and make the decision to break free from dependence on nuclear deterrence,” Suzuki said in his peace declaration. “As long as states are dependent on nuclear deterrence, we cannot realize a world without nuclear weapons.”

Russia’s nuclear threat has encouraged other nuclear states to accelerate their dependence on nuclear weapons or enhance capabilities, further increasing the risk of nuclear war, and that Russia is not the only one representing the risk of nuclear deterrence, Suzuki said.

Suzuki, whose parents were hibakusha, or survivors of the Nagasaki attack, said knowing the reality of the atomic bombings is the starting point for achieving a world without nuclear weapons. He said the survivors’ testimonies are a true deterrent against nuclear weapons use, the AP report said.

This article is brought to you by IPS Noram, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

How many children were killed?

It is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

According to surveys by the city of Hiroshima, 73,622 children under 10 years of age were exposed to the bombing, of whom 7,907 had died by the end of 1945. Among older children and adolescents, the death toll was thought to be 15,543.

In Nagasaki, authorities estimated that 49,684 children under 10 were exposed to the bombing, of whom 6,349 had died by the end of 1945, with 8,724 older children and adolescents also counted among the dead.

These official estimates, however, do not include the many children who died years after the attacks from cancers and other radiation-related illnesses.

Hiroshima:

Prior to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, around 23,500 babies and children were evacuated from the city due to fears of possible US air raids. Many went to live with relatives in the countryside, which was deemed safer.

But tens of thousands of children remained in the city on the morning of 6 August 1945, including 26,800 students mobilised to perform various tasks, such as creating firebreaks in the city’s centre – a measure aimed at limiting destruction in the event of an air raid.

Of the 8,400 students performing this particular task, around 6,300 were killed. Most were 12 to 14 years old, in junior high school. Hundreds of students who had been mobilised to perform other tasks across the city were also killed. The total death toll for mobilised students was around 7,200.

In the aftermath of the attack, school officials in Hiroshima made earnest efforts to determine which of their students had died and which had survived. The schools closest to the bomb’s hypocentre (ground zero) generally had the highest death tolls.

In 1951, the US government published a multi-volume report on the medical effects of atomic bombs, which included detailed casualty figures for schoolchildren in Hiroshima as of the end of October 1945.

The report grouped the students according to their distance from the hypocentre. For the first group – those less than one kilometre away – 2,579 of the 3,440 students, or roughly three in four, were confirmed dead. A few hundred more were missing but presumed dead.

“In the centre of [Hiroshima] were some 8,400 students from grades seven and eight who had been mobilised from all the high schools in the city to help clear fire lanes … nearly all of them were incinerated and were vaporised without a trace, and more died within days. In this way, my age group in the city was almost wiped out.”

– Setsuko Thurlow, atomic bomb survivor and disarmament advocate

Many of the students close to the hypocentre were outside at the time of the attack, completely unshielded from the bomb’s effects. They stood little chance of survival.

Of the “unshielded” schoolchildren within one kilometre of the hypocentre, 94 per cent were killed, according to the casualty figures published by the US government. For those between one and two kilometres, around 85 per cent were killed. Relatively few students were indoors at the time of the attack.

At some schools close to the hypocentre, there were no known survivors. For example, of the 174 students attending the First Prefectural Girls’ School on the morning of the attack, all 174 were killed.

Around 400 students from the Honkawa Elementary School, a three-storey concrete building just 410 metres from the hypocentre, were killed. One student, 11-year-old Imori Kiyoko, miraculously survived.

At the First Hiroshima Prefectural Junior High School, hundreds of severely burnt students dived into the school’s swimming pool to escape the unbearable heat of the fires engulfing the city and to ease their pain. They died in the water.

While detailed records were made of children attending school on the day of the bombing or those mobilised to perform various tasks across Hiroshima, less is known about the fate of the city’s many children who had not yet attained school age, including babies.

In total, around 340,000 to 350,000 people were in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing, of whom an estimated 140,000 were killed instantly or had died from their injuries by the end of 1945. In addition, thousands succumbed to radiation-related illnesses years later, adding to the complexity of calculating the overall death toll.

Suffice it to say, the number of children killed in Hiroshima – with a single atomic bomb that US officials code-named “Little Boy” – was staggering.

Nagasaki:

For Nagasaki, the population on the day of the atomic bombing (9 August 1945) was around 240,000 people, of whom an estimated 74,000 were killed instantly or had died from their injuries by the end of 1945.

Prior to the attack, approximately 17,000 children and elderly persons had been evacuated from the city. It is thought that a large proportion of these evacuees were children, but there is no official record. Despite the evacuations, tens of thousands of children were still in Nagasaki on the day of the bombing.

The bomb devastated the Urakami district, where Nagasaki’s main residential communities and schools were concentrated.

“A mother cradled her headless infant and wailed … Tiny, barefoot children squatted in the ruins or wandered past corpses, calling out for their mothers and fathers. One woman whose husband had died, and who would soon lose her four daughters and four-year-old son, came to understand that when one of her children stopped asking for water, it meant that she or he had died.”

– Susan Southard, author of Nagasaki: Life After Nuclear War

From the Shiroyama Elementary School, close to the bomb’s hypocentre, over 1,400 students were killed in the attack; from Yamazato Elementary School, 1,300 students perished. Several other schools near ground zero also suffered high death tolls. In total, an estimated 5,500 students and teachers were killed.

As in Hiroshima, thousands of Nagasaki’s students had been mobilised to perform various tasks across the city, but a smaller proportion of them were outdoors at the time of the bombing. Still, many were killed, including 580 at one of the Mitsubishi factories close to the hypocentre.

Workers there expressed great distress that “many persons who were recognised as only very slightly injured at first gradually deteriorated in health and died” from acute radiation illness, and the “victims include many teenage students”.

Even among the mobilised students who were beyond the main zone of destruction – more than 1.5 kilometres from the hypocentre – approximately 680 were killed.

Several years after the attack, when US researchers began studying the impact of the Nagasaki bombing on children, they were able to identify just 134 surviving children who had been within one kilometre of the hypocentre. So many others had perished.

Dead bodies scattered over a playground

Fujio Tsujimoto, five years old, was at a school playground with his grandmother when they heard an aeroplane in the distance over Nagasaki.

I grabbed my grandmother by the hand and ran towards the shelter. “Enemy plane!” yelled the watchman on the roof of the school building as he struck the bell. “Look out!” People on the playground came running straight for the shelter. I was the first to plunge into the deepest part of the shelter. But at that moment – flash! – I was blown against the wall by the force of the explosion.

After a while, I peered out of the shelter. I found people scattered all over the playground. The ground was covered almost entirely with bodies. Most of them looked dead and lay still. Here and there, however, some were thrashing their legs or raising their arms. Those who were able to move came crawling into the shelter. Soon the shelter was crowded with the wounded. Around the school, all the town was on fire.

My brother and sisters were late coming into the shelter, so they were burnt and crying. Half an hour later my mother appeared at last. She was covered with blood. I will never forget how happy I was as I clung to my mother. We waited and waited for Father, but he never appeared.

Even those who had survived died in agony one after another. My younger sister died the next day. My mother, she also died the next day. And then my older brother. I thought I would die, too, because the people around me, lying beside each other in the shelter, were dying one by one. Yet, because my grandmother and I had been in the deepest part of the shelter, we apparently had not been exposed to [as much] radiation and in the end we were saved.

Among the victims of the nuclear attacks were people from outside Japan, including many who were brought to Japan from its colonised areas. This included as many as 70,000 Koreans – many of whom were forced labourers – and people from China and Taiwan. Some were children.

Lee Su-yong, from Korea, survived the attack on Hiroshima as a 15-year-old girl but sustained a permanent foot injury and developed uterine cancer and other illnesses later in life due to her exposure to radiation.

“Everything I could see was destroyed,” she said, describing the immediate aftermath. “Children were crying for their mothers. Charred bodies were strewn all over the city. Many people lost their arms or legs … It was horrendous.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.icanw.org/children?utm_campaign=2024_children_launch_an&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ican#childrenkilled

August 7, 2024 Posted by | history, Reference, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hiroshima marks 79 years since atomic bombing, as nuclear war fears rise

Japan Times, By Kathleen Benoza, STAFF WRITER, 6 Aug 24

Raging conflicts across the globe are “reinforcing the public assumption” that military force — and nuclear deterrence — are needed to solve global issues, a view Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui rejected Tuesday in a speech at a ceremony marking 79 years since Hiroshima was devastated by an atomic bomb.

Citing former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s push to end the Cold War, Matsui stressed the need to “not be resigned to pessimism” amid conflicts such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war, adding that the world must take collective action and show that dialogue can overcome conflict.


“Our unity will move leaders now relying on nuclear deterrence to shift their policies,” he said. “We can make that happen.”

Speaking after Matsui, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida emphasized in his own speech that the suffering that transpired in Hiroshima and Nagasaki “must never be repeated.”

“It is our country’s mission as the only nation to have suffered atomic bombings in war to steadily continue our efforts toward realizing a world without nuclear weapons,” he said…………………………………….

Noting that the number of nuclear weapons could soon increase for the first time since the peak of the Cold War, Kishida stressed the urgency of this effort.

To prevent this, he pledged to continue to promote the passage of the long-stalled Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, which prohibits the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, noting that Japan had established a framework for the FMCT that included both nuclear-armed and non-nuclear-armed states.

“I myself will take the lead and actively participate,” he said.

During the final days of World War II, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945 and again three days later on Nagasaki. The blasts killed hundreds of thousands and left many survivors — known as hibakusha — with lasting injuries and illnesses from radiation exposure.

This year’s ceremony saw the second-largest number of countries participating, with 109 nations involved, according to organizers. Roughly 50,000 people attended the event.

Nine countries currently maintain nuclear arsenals — the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel, according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Japan, despite being the sole country to be attacked with nuclear bombs, has faced criticism from some corners over its effort to rid the world of the weapons.

Critics note that Tokyo has not participated in more ambitious initiatives, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Since 2018, Japan has consistently voted against an annual United Nations General Assembly resolution that supports adoption of the treaty — which would prohibit the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons — due to its reliance on the U.S. nuclear deterrent. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/08/06/japan/hiroshima-bombing-79-anniversary/

August 7, 2024 Posted by | history, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Shin Bet said to prepare bunker for Netanyahu, senior leadership amid Iranian threat

Known as the National Management Center, Jerusalem bunker can reportedly withstand hits from a range of existing weaponry, keep communications open to IDF headquarters

Times of Israel, By ToI Staff, 4 August 2024, 

release hostages in the Gaza Strip, June 8, 2024. (Shin Bet security service)

An underground bunker in Jerusalem where senior leaders can remain for an extended period during a war has been prepared by the Shin Bet security service and is fully operational, the Walla news site reported on Sunday, amid fear of attacks on Israel from Hezbollah and Iran.

The bunker, reportedly built almost 20 years ago, can sustain hits from a range of existing weaponry, has command and control capabilities, and is connected to the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv, the report said.

The bunker, which is also known as the National Management Center, has not been used in the past 10 months of Israel’s war in Gaza.

release hostages in the Gaza Strip, June 8, 2024. (Shin Bet security service)

An underground bunker in Jerusalem where senior leaders can remain for an extended period during a war has been prepared by the Shin Bet security service and is fully operational, the Walla news site reported on Sunday, amid fear of attacks on Israel from Hezbollah and Iran.

The bunker, reportedly built almost 20 years ago, can sustain hits from a range of existing weaponry, has command and control capabilities, and is connected to the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv, the report said.

The bunker, which is also known as the National Management Center, has not been used in the past 10 months of Israel’s war in Gaza.

00:24

02:21Next Video

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.656.2_en.html#goog_623417804

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.656.2_en.html#goog_623417805

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.656.2_en.html#goog_623417806

It has, however, been prepared for use now by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior figures as Israel braces for possible attacks from Iran and Hezbollah amid escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Iran, its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamist terror group Hamas blame Israel for a blast that killed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran last week. His assassination came just hours after a strike claimed by Israel killed Hezbollah’s military chief, Fuad Shukr, on Tuesday evening near Beirut. Israel has claimed responsibility for killing Shukr but has not officially commented on Haniyeh……………………………………………………………

The last time the bunker is known to have been used was in 2018 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered a series of high-level security cabinet meetings to be held there, likely to prevent leaks to the media……………………………….. https://www.timesofisrael.com/shin-bet-said-to-prepare-underground-bunker-for-senior-leadership-amid-iranian-threat/

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

79 years since the unthinkable

  

But are we closer than ever to nuclear war?

By Kate Hudson, August 4 2024 https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/08/04/79-years-since-the-unthinkable/

As we mourn the loss of all those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by US atomic bombs, in August 1945, we cannot avoid the fact that we are closer than ever to nuclear war. The war on Ukraine is greatly increasing the risk. So too is NATO’s location of upgraded nuclear weapons across Europe — including Britain — and Russia’s siting of similar weapons in Belarus. Irresponsible talk suggesting that “tactical” nuclear weapons could be deployed on the battlefield — as if radiation can be constrained in a small area — makes nuclear use more likely.

And our own government is leading the charge on greater militarisation and is in denial about the dangers it is unleashing. This is a bad time for humanity — and for all forms of life on Earth. It’s time for us to stand up and say No: we refuse to be taken into nuclear Armageddon.

Help in raising awareness of the existential peril of nuclear weapons is coming from an unusual quarter — Hollywood. Many of us have seen the blockbuster, Oppenheimer. Many in the movement have their criticisms but my own feeling is that you cannot leave the film without being aware of the terror of nuclear weapons, and their world-destroying capacity. 

I attended a screening hosted by London Region CND; it was sold out within hours, and followed by a dynamic audience discussion that lasted till 11pm. I recognised only two people in the audience. That’s the crowd we need to engage with — none of us just want to preach to the converted. But there is a particular flaw in the film I must raise, as we remember Hiroshima Day.

It was repeatedly suggested that dropping the bomb was necessary to end the second world war. Although there was eventually a quick aside that countered this, it could easily have been missed. So for the record, this is the reality of what happened.

Conventional wisdom, especially in the US, is that it was necessary to drop the bomb to bring about a speedy conclusion to the war and save lives. Even today many people believe that the bomb was necessary to bring about a Japanese surrender and to avoid the need for an invasion of Japan by the US, which might have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

But extensive scholarly research in the US, using primary sources from the time, shows that this just wasn’t true. By the time the bomb was ready for use, Japan was ready to surrender. As General Dwight Eisenhower said, Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face, and “it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Here’s what was said at the time by some of the key players:

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and successful bombing with conventional weapons … In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. – Admiral William Leahy, President Truman’s chief of staff

Nor were the atomic bombs decisive. It has long been held in justification that they made unnecessary an invasion of the Japanese mainland and thus saved the resultant fighting and thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides. On few matters is the adverse evidence so strong. The bombs fell after the decision had been taken by the Japanese government to surrender. That the war had to be ended was agreed at a meeting of key members of the supreme war direction council with the emperor on 20 June 1945, a full six weeks before the devastation of Hiroshima. – Professor JK Galbraith, official US investigator, Japan 1945

It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell and was brought about by overwhelming maritime power. – Winston S Churchill, British wartime leader

So if Japan was ready to surrender, why were atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A significant factor in the decision to bomb was the US’s desire to establish its dominance in the region after the war. Those planning for the post-war situation believed that this required US occupation of Japan, enabling it to establish a permanent military presence, shape its political and economic system and dominate the Pacific region. But the US’s key strategic concern, above all, was the position of the Soviet Union in the post-war world.

Evidence suggests that the US wanted to demonstrate its unique military power — its possession of the atomic bomb — in order to gain political and diplomatic advantage over the Soviet Union in the post-war settlement in both Asia and Europe. So nothing to do with ending the war with Japan.

I leave the final word to Joseph Rotblat — the true hero of the Manhattan Project. Whatever qualms Oppenheimer may have felt after the event, as shown in the film, the fact is he pursued the bomb to the bitter end. Rotblat was a nuclear physicist from a Polish-Jewish family. He had seen the development of the atomic bomb as a necessary evil in the arms race to defeat Hitler, and went to work on the Manhattan Project. At the end of 1944, it was clear that Germany was not going to succeed in making an atom bomb. In these circumstances, Rotblat left the Manhattan Project. Others tried to alert politicians to the dangers ahead. But top politicians pressed for the rapid completion of the bomb.

As Rotblat himself later pointed out: “There is good reason to believe that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not so much the end of the second world war as the beginning of the cold war, the first step in a fateful chain of events, the start of an insane arms race that brought us very close to a nuclear holocaust and the destruction of civilisation.”

In memory of all those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and those who have suffered the consequences since, let us do our utmost to prevent the same catastrophe happening again; let us take action to prevent our politicians catapulting us into nuclear war — and the destruction of all life on this planet.

Kate Hudson has been General Secretary of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) since September 2010. Prior to this she served as the organisation’s Chair from 2003. She is a leading anti-nuclear and anti-war campaigner nationally and internationally. This article was originally published by CND in August 2023.

August 6, 2024 Posted by | history, Reference, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Arundhati Roy: India Must Stop Arming Israel or ‘Forever Be Linked to Genocide’

“It is our responsibility to show that as people of India, we refuse to be complicit in that, even if our government wishes to continue with what it does.”

Brett Wilkins, Aug 02, 2024,  https://www.commondreams.org/news/arundhati-roy-israel

Acclaimed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy this week joined prominent jurists, diplomats, artists, and others in urging their government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which they called “abominable” and “a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our Constitution.”

Speaking Thursday at an event organized by the Press Club of India, Roy—winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for her debut novel The God of Small Things—said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support that murder in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”

Acclaimed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy this week joined prominent jurists, diplomats, artists, and others in urging their government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which they called “abominable” and “a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our Constitution.”

Speaking Thursday at an event organized by the Press Club of India, Roy—winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for her debut novel The God of Small Things—said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support that murder in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”

“What is happening in Gaza, it is not just the murder… of tens of thousands of women and children,” she continued. “It is the bombing of hospitals, the destruction of universities… the attempt to erase the very memory people have of that place. It is a genocide like no other because it’s taking place on live TV.”

“India used to be a country that supported the people of Palestine in their struggle for freedom,” Roy noted. “Everywhere, even in the United States… people are standing up against their government’s support for [Israel]. But we are not standing up… and that is such a shame.”

“We must stand up. We must refuse,” she asserted. “We will not support the export of weapons of any kind.”

Roy is one of more than two dozen former Indian Supreme Court justices and other judges, foreign service officers, academics, artists, activists, and others who on Wednesday sent a letter to Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh urging him to halt the licensing of arms sales to Israel, whose military forces have killed or wounded more than 140,000 Palestinians while obliterating and starving Gaza.

“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has clearly ruled that Israel is in violation of obligations under the Genocide Convention and further that Israel is in illegal occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory,” the letter states. “In light of these rulings, any supply of military material to Israel would amount to a violation of India’s obligations under international humanitarian law and the mandate of Article 21 read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India.”

Among the weapons India has sent to Israel are Hermes 900 unmanned aerial drones, which are co-manufactured with Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. The letter notes that the drones “have been extensively used in the Israeli Defense Forces’ military campaign in Gaza.”

“Several [United Nations] experts have warned that the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws, and risk state complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately,” the letter’s signer wrote.

“In short, the grant of licenses and approvals for export of military material to Israel, coupled with reports of such exports by Indian companies, constitutes a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our own Constitution,” the letter stresses.

“International law aside, we consider such exports to be morally objectionable, indeed abominable,” the signatories added. “We demand, therefore, that India should immediately suspend its collaboration in the delivery of military material to Israel. Further, India must immediately make every effort to ensure that weapons already delivered to Israel are not used to contribute to acts of genocide or violations of international humanitarian law.”

The letter came ahead of planned nationwide protests by Indian leftists on Saturday calling for an end to arms sales and “all forms of complicity with Israel’s illegal occupation and genocide.”

India—which in 1971 invaded Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in large part to end a U.S.-backed Pakistani genocide mostly targeting Bengalis—voted in favor of the December U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate Gaza cease-fire.

However, the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and many lawmakers from his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party have expressed steadfast support for Israel and its Gaza onslaught. Critics have noted that both Israel and India are occupying Muslims, the former in Palestine and the latter in Jammu and Kashmir.

In an interview with Middle East Eye published Friday, Roy—who faces prosecution in India over comments she allegedly made nearly 15 years ago regarding Kashmir—said that India could “forever be linked to genocide” if it does not change course.

“India needs to stop the export of weapons to Israel and ensure the return of Indian workers who have been sent to Israel to replace Palestinian workers,” she said.

“If it does not do so at once, it is in violation of the orders of the ICJ,” she added. “It will forever be complicit in aiding and abetting a genocide that is being telecast live for the world to watch.”

August 5, 2024 Posted by | India, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Where Is the Biden Plan to End the War in Ukraine?

On the face of it, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.

Biden team blows off deadline for Ukraine war strategy

Perhaps the administration can’t admit it doesn’t have one.

Anatol Lieven, Aug 02, 2024,  https://responsiblestatecraft.org/biden-ukraine-strategy/

Almost 100 days have now passed since the Congress passed $61 billion in emergency funding for Ukraine, a measure that included a condition that required the Biden Administration to present to the legislative body a detailed strategy for continued U.S. support.

When the funding bill was passed with much fanfare on April 23, Section 504, page 32 included the following mandate:

“Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall submit to 18 the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on 20 Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a strategy regarding United States support for Ukraine against aggression by the Russian Federation: Provided, That such strategy shall be multi-year, establish specific and achievable objectives, define and prioritize United States national security interests…”

It is now August and There is still no sign on the part of the Biden Administration of any intention to submit such a strategy to Congress. This inevitably leads to the suspicion that no such strategy in fact exists. It also suggests that without a massive change of mindset within the administration, it is not even possible to hold — let alone make public —serious and honest internal discussions on the subject, as these would reveal the flawed and empty assumptions on which much of present policy is based.

This relates first of all to the requirement “to define and prioritize United States national security interests.” No U.S. official has ever seriously addressed the issue of why a Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine that was of no importance whatsoever to the U.S. 40 years ago (when Soviet tank armies stood in the center of Germany, 1,200 miles to the West) should now be such a threat that combating it necessitates $61 billion of U.S. military aid per year, a significant risk of conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia, and a colossal distraction from vital U.S. interests elsewhere.

Instead, the administration, and its European allies, have relied on two arguments. The first is that if Russia is not defeated in Ukraine, it will go on to attack NATO and that this will mean American soldiers going to fight and die in Europe. 

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of any such Russian intention. Russian threats of escalation and (possibly) minor acts of sabotage have been outgrowths of the war in Ukraine, and intended to deter NATO from intervening directly in that conflict — not actions intended to lay the basis for an invasion of NATO.

Moreover, given the acute difficulties that the Russian military has faced in Ukraine, and the Russian weaknesses revealed by that conflict, the idea of them planning to attack NATO seems utterly counter-intuitive. For Russia has been “stopped” in Ukraine. The heroic resistance of the Ukrainian army, backed with Western weapons and money, stopped the Russian army far short of President Putin’s goals when he launched the war. They have severely damaged Russian military prestige, inflicted enormous losses on the Russian military, and as of today, hold more than 80% of their country’s territory.

The Biden administration has issued partly contradictory statements about the purpose of U.S. aid to Ukraine: that it is intended to help Ukraine “win”, and that it is intended to help “strengthen Ukraine at the negotiating table.” They have not however fulfilled their legal obligation to define to Congress what “winning” means, nor why if the war will end in negotiations, these negotiations should not begin now — especially since there is very strong evidence that the Ukrainian military position, and therefore Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, are getting worse, not better.

As Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro have written in response to the latest US despatch of weapons to Ukraine:

“[A]daptation and adjustment do not constitute strategy, and reactive escalation absent a strategy is not sound policy. Escalating U.S. involvement in this conflict—or any conflict—should be guided by an idea about how to bring the war to an end.”

As with U.S. campaigns in Vietnam and elsewhere, the administration and its allies have tried to play the “credibility” card: the argument that it is necessary to defeat Russia in Ukraine because otherwise, China, Iran and other countries will be emboldened to attack the United States or its allies. But like the line about Russian ambitions beyond Ukraine, this is simply an assumption. There is no actual evidence for it at all.

It can, with equal or greater validity, be assumed that the governments of these countries will make up their minds according to calculations of their own interests and the military balance in their own regions.

The final administration line of argument is a moral one: that “Russian aggression must not be rewarded” and that “Ukrainian territorial integrity must be restored.” Since, however, any realistic negotiations towards a peace settlement will have to involve de facto recognition of Russian territorial gains (not de jure recognition, which the Russians do not expect and even the Chinese will not grant), this statement would seem to rule out even the idea of talks. On the face of it therefore, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.

If this is a mistaken picture of the administration’s position, then once again, it has a formal obligation under the bill passed by Congress in April to tell the American people and their elected representatives what their goals in Ukraine in fact are. Then everyone will be able to reach an informed judgment on whether they are attainable, and worth $61 billion a year in American money.

Unfortunately, it seems that the administration’s actual position is to kick this issue down the road until after the presidential election. Thereafter, either a Harris administration will have to draw up new plans, or a Trump administration will do so. But given the length of time it takes a new administration to settle in and develop new policies, this means that we could not expect a strategy on Ukraine to emerge for eight months at best.

If the Ukrainians can hold roughly their present lines, then this approach could be justifiable in U.S. domestic political terms (though not to the families of the Ukrainian soldiers who will die in the meantime). There is however a significant risk that given the military balance on the ground, and even with continued aid, Ukraine during this time will suffer a major defeat. Washington would then have to choose between a truly humiliating failure or direct intervention, which would expose the American people to truly hideous risks.

There is an alternative. Since President Biden will in any case step down next January, he could take a risk and try to bequeath to his successor not war, but peace. In terms of domestic politics, to open negotiations with Russia now would deprive Donald Trump and JD Vance of a campaigning position, and would spare a future Democrat administration (if elected) from a very difficult and internally divisive decision.

The first step in this direction is for the Biden administration clearly to formulate its goals in Ukraine, and — as required by law — to submit these goals to the American people.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

First NATO F-16’s delivered to Ukraine (nuclear capable)

 Bruce K. Gagnon, 2 Aug 24, https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2024/08/first-nato-f-16s-delivered-to-ukraine.html

Reports indicate that six F-16’s have been sent to Ukraine (UAF) from the Netherlands to be used against Russia. 

Doesn’t this mean that US-NATO are fully at war with Russia? Of course the US-NATO deny that fact but we are surely used to their endless lies by now!

It appears the war planes will be based in western Ukraine – far from the front lines in eastern Ukraine which is closest to the Russia border.

Previously, a number of NATO states, including the US, France, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden, formed a so-called ‘F-16 coalition’, pledging to provide Kiev with 79 of the American-made fighter jets as well as to train Ukrainian pilots to operate the aircraft.

While Ukraine is pinning high hopes on the fighter jets, the truth is that NATO is only supplying them to make up for the heavy losses of the UAF and prolong the conflict.

In addition the US-NATO war mongering ‘coalition’ must supply the weapons for the planes as well as the maintenance crews since Ukraine does not have the technical capacity to keep the planes in the air by themselves. The west will also likely need to supply the repair parts and the jet fuel for the planes.

Because it takes years to properly train pilots some have speculated that US-NATO pilots (wearing Ukraine military uniforms) might end up being the ones flying in combat against Russia. Especially after the first six planes get shot down and the Ukrainian F-16’s crews might be quickly erased.


There are reports that Moldova could be used as the main base for F-16 fighters. This will allow NATO countries to avoid becoming targets for Russian missiles, but at the same time provoke the Kremlin to a harsh reaction. (Any F-16 that enters Ukraine from a NATO country and continues to fly on to its combat area will be seen as an attack by NATO enabling Russia to legally attack the country of origin. Theoretically, this could start WW III – with a nuclear power no less. Note, however, that Moldova is not a NATO member. At any rate, the West is courting disaster.) This will increase the escalation and take the conflict in Ukraine to a new level, using Moldova for this purpose.

These planes will have the capability to carry US supplied nuclear weapons and fire them from a distance at ‘Russian targets’ that often means nothing more than population centers as Ukraine has been doing since the war began in 2014 after the US orchestrated coup d’état in Kiev. Moscow has said that it must conclude that any F-16’s in the air heading toward Russia could be carrying nukes and will respond accordingly.

The US long ago positioned nuclear weapons throughout Europe as you can see in the graphic just below. [on original]

Out of their complete desperation, as the US-NATO lose the war in Ukraine, they very well could decide to use these nukes now deployed in Europe. If that decision is made (and it would be made in Washington) then we are without a doubt off to the nuclear war races.

Now is the time for people not suffering from terminal imperial insanity to speak loudly – publicly and with determination – if we hope to survive the decline of the US-NATO killing project

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Japan, U.S. urged to work for nuclear abolition at symposium

By NAOKI NAKAYAMA/ Staff Writer, July 28, 2024

NAGASAKI–Japan and the United States have a “special responsibility” to lead efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, the head of a U.S. nongovernmental organization told a 30th international peace symposium.

Ivana Hughes, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was speaking at the “International Symposium for Peace: The Road to Nuclear Weapons Abolition” held at the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum on July 27.

She said damage from radiation is still an issue in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean 70 years after the largest U.S. hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll.

“After all, although for different reasons, the United States and Japan both have a special responsibility to not only join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but to lead efforts toward its full and complete implementation and total elimination of nuclear weapons,” Hughes said as she wound up her keynote speech.

Many speakers felt that the global situation surrounding nuclear weapons has deteriorated over the past 30 years, with nuclear disarmament stalled, and expressed concerns about growing international tensions, citing Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas conflict.

“We should think about nuclear abolition from the perspective of the security of ‘mankind,’ not of nations,” said Mitsuru Kurosawa, an expert on nuclear disarmament and professor emeritus at Osaka University.

Batyrkhan Kurmanseit, minister-counselor at the Kazakhstan Embassy in Japan, said Kazakhstan is the only former Soviet republic that ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. He said an international framework for nuclear abolition has never been more needed than right now.

The Asahi Shimbun has been a co-sponsor of the annual symposium, which has alternately been held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the municipal governments and local peace organizations every summer since 1995.

Terumi Tanaka, a hibakusha atomic bomb survivor and co-chair of the Japan Federation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization (Nihon Hidankyo), and Seiko Mimaki, an associate professor at Doshisha University’s graduate school specializing in U.S. politics and diplomacy, also participated in the symposium’s panel discussion.

In a speech, Kan Sang-jung, president of Chinzei Gakuin University in Nagasaki Prefecture, emphasized the importance of listening to hibakusha, saying that many lives have been lost as countries clash over what they believe is just amid the post-Cold War rise of nationalism.

Hibakusha Shizuko Mitamura read a hand-made picture card show that tells the story of what happened to her on Aug. 9, 1945, when the city of Nagasaki was leveled by atomic bombing, and the loss of her daughter to cancer in 2010, when she was 39.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Japan, opposition to nuclear, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘True horror’: Japan’s Hiroshima atomic bomb survivor campaigns for a nuclear-free world

Bun Hashizume, 93, who has written poems about her descent into ‘hell’ after the bombing, has travelled the world to spread her message

Norman Aisbett, SCMP, 3 Aug 24,

What I feel the most about these days is human stupidity,” says 93-year-old Bun Hashizume, from her home in the Japanese temple city of Kamakura.

“I was a victim of the first atomic bomb in human history and I have advocated throughout my life for the abolition of nuclear weapons, but the world leaders still do not understand their true horror.

“Even my poems cannot describe it.”

Rewind to 8.15am on August 6, 1945 in the final throes of World War II.

A US atomic bomb named “Little Boy” was dropped from a B-29 aircraft and exploded at low altitude over the city of Hiroshima. With a blast force equal to 16 kilotons of TNT, it destroyed most buildings and caused mass death and injury.

Then aged 14, Hashizume was a war-mobilised school student working in the four-storey reinforced-concrete Savings Bureau building about 1.5km from the hypocentre of the blast.

Looking back, she recalls a third-floor window being filled “with a sudden flash of light that was so bright I thought the sun had fallen at my feet. A thousand rainbows all at once seemed to explode before my eyes”. And how, after being briefly unconscious and bleeding heavily from a head wound, she staggered downstairs among other workers looking “like a parade of ghosts with wildly dishevelled hair and sooty bodies”.

Once outside the building, it was a regular employee, Tomoyanagi, who “half-carried” her to a nearby Red Cross Hospital, where more shocking scenes and high drama followed.

Hashizume is today the author of The Day the Sun Fell – Memoirs of a Survivor of the Atomic Bomb – translated by Susan Bouterey – which closely details her and her family’s horrific experiences and also explains her present-day opposition to “dangerous” nuclear power plants, which she emphasises during this Australian writer’s long-distance interview with her, via a Japanese interpreter-admirer.

Her drive was such that, at age 70, she began her solo pilgrimages to many countries over 15 years to “become a citizen of the world” and share her anti-nuclear views. With only her aged pension to buy airline tickets and stay in youth hostels, she spoke to anyone or group willing to listen, including schoolchildren. Everywhere, people were also touched by her genuine personal warmth and quiet charm. A small booklet she handed out was entitled, “Fellow Humans! Let Us Foster Love and Wisdom.”

Right now, though, she is homebound due to A-Bomb-related health issues that have plagued her life. She tells of having endured “lifelong” rheumatism, chronic kidney disease, thyroid cancer and more. The past 20 years have also brought numerous breaks of radiation-weakened ribs, collarbones and three compressed fractures of her spine after a fall in Norway in 2003.

She is unable to go outside alone. There are twice-weekly visits to a hospital and three transports per week to a rehabilitation clinic. “Otherwise I’m on my bed reading the newspapers, with care from my eldest son and his family, who live with me.”

Her activist spirit nevertheless endures. She cites recent-times threats of nuclear strikes by North Korea if threatened; by Russia amid the Ukraine war; and an Israeli cabinet minister’s suggestion to nuke Hamas in Gaza The minister was promptly sacked by his embarrassed government which has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons – and subsequent high tensions and conflict between arch-enemies Israel and Iran.

{I believe that nuclear weapons should never be used, stockpiles should be completely abolished, and the Japanese government should join and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as soon as possible,” she says. “It’s no wonder they are being been used as a threat.” She further notes that nine nations have nuclear weapons, but the warheads of only two nations – Russia (5,890) and the US (5,224) – “are enough to destroy all life on Earth several times over”.

A major disappointment for her was the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (Cop28) in Dubai when 23 nations including the US and Japan declared they would triple the generation of their nuclear power plants to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

“It is shocking that Japan joined this dangerous proposal despite the fact that the world’s pervasive emphasis on economic growth, baseless absolute trust in science and technology, and limitless pursuit of energy collapsed in Fukushima in 2011,” she says…………………………………………

After Tomoyanagi left to find her own family, a 16-year-old boy Yoshiaki Iida, who was unknown to Hashizume, helped her outside just before flames engulfed the whole building.

However, she later heard that her brother, Hideo, seven, had died after his back caught fire in an instant when hit from behind by the scorching A-Bomb blast in a school playground. Her other family members survived but with bad injuries and other health problems. Younger sister Shizuko, nine, had been evacuated to a temple when she was struck by the blast wave. Years of radiation sickness caused her suicide at age 19. Older sister Mitsuko, 19, suffered “ghastly” facial wounds at her grandmother’s house.

What does Hashizume remember most after the explosion? She replies: “The complete silence and the smell of burnt corpses that filled the air.”………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Day the Sun Fell – Memoirs of a Survivor of the Atomic Bomb by Bun Hashizume (translated by Susan Bouterey) is published by Austin Macauley Publishers Ltd and also available on Kindle.  https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3273031/true-horror-japans-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-survivor-campaigns-nuclear-free-world

August 3, 2024 Posted by | Japan, PERSONAL STORIES, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump could win back the nuclear codes. Biden should put guardrails on the nuclear arsenal—now.

By Tom Z. Collina | July 30, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/trump-could-win-back-the-nuclear-codes-biden-should-put-guardrails-on-the-nuclear-arsenal-now/?utm_source=Newsletter+&utm_medium=Email+&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08012024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_GuardrailsNuclearArsenal_07302024

On January 6, 2021, then-President Donald Trump inspired a mob attack on the US Capitol to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration. Not only was this an unprecedented attack on American democracy, but it represented a serious national security threat. Many saw and see this as one of many examples of an unstable President Trump acting in dangerous, irrational ways. And throughout his time in office, Trump—like all presidents in the nuclear age—had the unilateral authority to launch the US nuclear arsenal.

At any moment, Trump could literally have ended the world with a phone call. Congressional approval is not needed, and the secretary of defense cannot stop a presidential order to unleash the US nuclear arsenal. The system is built for speed, not deliberation. The whole process, from presidential order to the launch of one or hundreds of nuclear warheads, would take just minutes.

The danger that Trump would do something catastrophic was so acute that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately looked for ways to prevent the “unstable president from … accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” according to a letter Pelosi wrote in January 2021 to House Democrats in the wake of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley was convinced that Trump had suffered “serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election” and took the extraordinary step of ordering his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from the president. “No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley reportedly told the officers. “You never know what a president’s trigger point is.”

Pelosi and Milley had plenty of reasons to worry that Trump could start a nuclear war. In August 2017, in a thinly veiled nuclear threat, Trump warned North Korea that it would be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” Trump mocked Kim Jong Un, the North’s leader, writing “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” According to then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, Trump privately discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and suggested he could blame a US strike on another country.

Actually, however, Milley was not correct when he told his staff that he was part of the formal procedure to launch nuclear weapons. As former Defense Secretary William J. Perry and I wrote in our 2020 book, The Button, policy established during the Cold War puts decisions about the use of nuclear weapons solely in the hands of the civilian president, not Congress and above all not the military. All the president need do is call the Pentagon’s War Room—using the nuclear “football” or some other means—and identify himself and give the order to launch. The president may choose to consult with senior advisors such as Milley but is not required to.

Milley broke these rules, as others broke them before him. During the Watergate crisis, then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger was so concerned about President Richard Nixon’s mental state and alcohol consumption that he told military commanders that if Nixon ordered a nuclear strike, they should check with him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger first. Sen. Alan Cranston phoned Schlesinger, warning him about “the need for keeping a berserk president from plunging us into a holocaust.”

Should Milley, Schlesinger, or any military leader, let a clearly unstable president start a nuclear war just to follow protocol? Of course not. But officials should not have to break the rules to do the right thing. The United States needs to change the policy that put Milley and Schlesinger in an impossible spot.

With just six months left in office, President Biden can fix the system for himself and all future presidents. To do so, Biden should announce the White House will share authority to use nuclear weapons in any first strike with a select group in Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, not the president. The first use of nuclear weapons is clearly an act of war. In a situation where the United States has already been attacked with nuclear weapons, the president would retain the option to act unilaterally.

President Biden would have to make such a policy change by executive order. Passing congressional legislation would be more durable but is unlikely in the current political environment. If Trump wins the election, he would likely reverse Biden’s order. But if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, the new policy could be strengthened over time with legislation.

Such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A launch could be ordered only if the United States had already been attacked with nuclear weapons or if Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check to executive power. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine.

As an important part of his legacy, President Biden must put guardrails on presidential authority to start nuclear war now before the next dangerous leader gets elected—whomever and whenever that may be. We must never again entrust the fate of the world to just one fallible human. This is not about whose finger should be on the button. This is about making good policy that can keep Americans—and people around the world—alive, regardless of whom US voters happen to put in the White House.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Replacing the UK’s nuclear deterrent: The Warhead Programme-  without appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny.

 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9777/ 2 Aug 24

Since 2006 work has been underway on several programmes that will maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the current system. Much of the focus in that time has been on the delivery of a new class of ballistic missile submarine (the Dreadnought class), which are expected to enter service from the early 2030s. However, a decision on replacing the UK’s Mk4/A nuclear warhead was also awaited and work on possible options had been ongoing. After a decision was deferred in 2010, one was widely expected to be taken as part of the Government’s Integrated Defence and Security Review in 2021.

In February 2020, however, a US official disclosed the existence of a UK replacement warhead programme, which the Government subsequently confirmed in a Statement to the House. That revelation prompted widespread criticism that a decision appeared to have been taken without an official Government announcement or appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny.

The programme is currently in its concept phase (the first phase in any Ministry of Defence procurement project). Details on timeframe and costings are expected to be matured as the programme progresses.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA deploys 12 warships in Middle East amid rising tensions : Washington Post

The United States has deployed at least 12 warships to the Middle East, a defense official told the Washington Post, amid rising tension in the region following the Israeli assassination of senior officials in Hamas and Hezbollah.

The vessels included the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and its accompanying warships, and the Wasp Amphibious Ready Group, a three-ship amphibious task force that includes more than 4,000 Marines and sailors, the official told The Washington Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The official added that the rising tension in the Middle East has not prompted the Pentagon to announce any additional deployments, but the US Navy has assembled at least a dozen warships nearby………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.sott.net/article/493618-US-deploys-12-warships-to-Middle-East-as-Israel-escalates-attacks-in-region—

August 3, 2024 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Major escalation’: Israel bombs densely populated area of Beirut, Hezbollah says commander survived the attack

SOTT, Peoples Dispatch, Tue, 30 Jul 2024

In a major escalation towards regional war, Israel today bombed one of the most densely populated areas in Beirut. The Israeli military claims to have targeted a senior Hezbollah commander, who in fact survived the attack. Israeli forces have claimed that this commander was responsible for theattackon Majdal Shams, in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights on Saturday, July 27.

Comment: Except that Hezbollah have refuted the claim, and they aren’t known for lying about their retaliations, whilst Israel is. Hezbollah also has no reason to kill Druze people in what is Syrian territory. And, tellingly, when Israeli officials visited to ‘pay their respects’ they were shouted down by the locals.

The attack occurred almost immediately after Netanyahu had finished his US genocide tour, and after allegedly receiving pledges of support from US officials to escalate the Greater Israel war. Netanyahu used this incident as his excuse to leave the US earlier than scheduled: Israel’s FM claims ‘moment of an all-out war’ with Hezbollah approaching

Following this attack, Israeli officials had released numerous threats against Hezbollah, who they blamed for the Majdal Shams strike, which killed at least 12 people, including 9 children and one teenager. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuvowed that Israel will “not let [the attack] pass in silence.” Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari threatened, “We will prepare for a response against Hezbollah, we will act.”

Comment: Israel’s motive for this attack should now be quite obvious.

Israel’s attack of densely populated Beirut was this response, an attack which resulted in the death of at least one person.

However, Hezbollah as well as other regional resistance forces have claimed that they are not responsible for the Majdal Shams attack, with some placing the blame squarely on Israel. The head of the Druze initiative Ghaleb Saifclaimedthat the missiles which fell on the Syrian Golan Heights and Galilee were Israeli interceptor missiles. “Every day, we see how Iron Dome missiles miss their targets and end up falling on us,” he said.

The Iranian ambassador to Lebanon Mojtaba Amani described the attack on Majdal Shams as a “staged play orchestrated by the occupation regime.”

“This was incredibly reckless and criminal by Israel. Once again it’s the side labeled ‘terrorists’ who are left to act as the adults in the room,” said Rania Khalek, journalist with Breakthrough News who is based in Beirut. According to Khalek, “awaiting Hezbollah’s response never feels as unsettling as awaiting Israel’s aggression, [because Hezbollah has] thus far been measured while the Israelis play with fire.”

Comment: Around the same time as the above, an explosion was reported at an Iraqi base for ‘Iran-aligned’ security forces base:……………………………….more https://www.sott.net/article/493570-Major-escalation-Israel-bombs-densely-populated-area-of-Beirut-Hezbollah-says-commander-survived-the-attack

August 2, 2024 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »