Scots to pay ‘£1.5m every day for 30 years’ towards Trident renewal

The National 27th Dec 2024, https://www.thenational.scot/news/24821011.scots-pay–1-5m-every-day-30-years-towards-trident-renewal/

The Alba Party have used the latest National Records of Scotland (NRS) figures available as well as a House of Commons library report to highlight the daily cost of the UK’s so-called nuclear deterrent to Scotland.

The party have also used an estimate by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that up to £205 billion will be spent on replacing the nuclear deterrent that is based at Faslane and Coulport – which considers in-service costs (at 6% of the defence budget) over the 30 years and the cost of additional factors such as infrastructure investment.

Calculated per head of population, Scotland’s share towards the renewal would be over £16 billion – which then comes to over £1.5m every day over the next 30 years.

All three main pro-independence parties have a policy that the Trident would be swiftly removed from a future independent Scotland.

But now, with this new analysis in mind, former defence worker and Alba’s General Secretary Chris McEleny says that the cost of Trident renewal “must be on the table in the here and now”.

He added: “ When we talk about spending over £200 billion on the next generation of nuclear weapons, it is such an abstract and huge number. But what these figures released by Alba Party today show is what the cost will be every single day.

“It is the equivalent of providing free school lunches to around one hundred and fifty classes every single day or paying an additional fifteen thousand pensioners a winter fuel payment every single day.

“When one in four children in Scotland live in poverty it is obscene to be spending so much money every day for the next thirty years on weapons of mass destruction when that money could instead be invested in Scotland’s future.”

December 29, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Guardian view on arms control: essential to prevent the total devastation of nuclear war

Guardian 27th Dec 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/27/the-guardian-view-on-arms-control-essential-to-prevent-the-total-devastation-of-nuclear-war

Next November marks 40 years since the US president Ronald Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. The statement was striking – not least because their militaries were pouring billions into preparing for an unwinnable conflict.

A year later, at Reykjavik, the two came tantalisingly close to eliminating nuclear weapons entirely. That historic chance slipped away over Reagan’s insistence on his unproven “Star Wars” missile defence system. The moment passed, but its lesson endures: disarmament demands courage – and compromise.

The summit proved a turning point in the cold war. Arms control brought down the number of nuclear weapons held by the two countries from 60,000 to roughly 11,000 today. The most recent new strategic arms reduction treaty (New Start), signed in 2010, capped deployed strategic warheads at 1,550 each. In retrospect, that was a false dawn in nuclear diplomacy. Since George W Bush withdrew the US from the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Moscow in 2002, the risk of a return to an all-out arms race has grown.

On 20 January 2025, Donald Trump will once again hold the keys to a planet-ending arsenal. Mr Trump’s capricious personality sheds new light on an old question: how much of the terrible responsibility to inflict large-scale nuclear destruction should be invested in a single person? He has called the transfer of authority “a very sobering moment” and “very, very scary”. Reassuring words – until one remembers that he also reportedly wondered: “If we have nuclear weapons, why can’t we use them?” Presidential sole authority rightly ensures civilian control over nuclear weapons. But why concentrate such power in just one civilian’s hands?

Close to apocalypse

Without bold action, New Start, the last safeguard of nuclear arms moderation, will expire in February 2026. Mr Trump admires strongmen like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who has recklessly threatened nuclear strikes and hinted at restarting tests during the Ukraine war. But it would be a catastrophic mistake if the pair decided not to exercise self-restraint. It would mean that for the first time in more than 50 years, the US and Russia – holders of 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons – could begin an unconstrained arms race. That dismal decision would send a message to other states, notably China, further encouraging their buildup of nuclear stockpiles.

Deterrence is not the only way to think about nuclear weapons. For decades, a conflict involving them has been a byword for Armageddon. The fearful legacy of “the bomb” can be felt from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the testing grounds still contaminated by nuclear fallout decades later. Such sentiment led to Barack Obama, in 2009, advocating a hopeful vision of a nuclear-free world. His speech inspired a coalition of activists, diplomats and developing nations determined to force a global reckoning. Their resistance to the conventional wisdom that nuclear disarmament is unrealistic bore fruit with the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, adopted by 122 countries at the UN in 2017. Its message: the only way to ensure nuclear weapons are never used again is to do away with them entirely.

The treaty, championed by the Nobel prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, was a triumph over superpower diplomacy that had long hindered reviews of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nuclear-armed states are sceptical, if not scornful. But their resistance does not diminish the importance of the 2017 UN vote. It represents not only a moral and legal challenge to the status quo but a reminder that much of the world doesn’t accept the logic of mutually assured destruction. This sentiment was amplified this year when Nihon Hidankyo, Japan’s atomic and hydrogen bomb survivors group, won the Nobel peace prize for efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.

Eight decades after its first test, the nuclear bomb remains – its purpose long obsolete, its danger ever present. Built to defeat Hitler, dropped to end Japan’s imperial ambitions and multiplied to outlast the cold war, nuclear weapons have outlived every rationale for their existence. Arsenals have shrunk, but not enough. The world’s stockpile remains dangerously large, and efforts to reduce it further appear stalled. This against a geopolitical backdrop of nuclear proliferation, a multipolar and ideologically diverse UN, and the American desire for global pre-eminence. Little wonder that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight – the closest ever to apocalypse.

A shared responsibility

In 2019, Gorbachev warned, with good reason, that nuclear deterrence keeps the world “in constant jeopardy”. It is obvious that as long as these weapons exist, the risk of nuclear war cannot be erased. The question is no longer why the bomb remains, but whether humanity can survive it for another 80 years.

This December, UN members voted 144-3 to establish an independent scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war. Shamefully, Britain was among the naysayers. Imagination has already outpaced fact. In her book Nuclear War, Annie Jacobson describes how humanity could end in 72 minutes after a North Korean “bolt from the blue” attack sparks a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. She writes of thousands of warheads raining down on America, Europe, Russia and parts of Asia, obliterating cities, incinerating human life and leaving billions stripped of life, light and hope. Streets turn molten, winds flatten the land and those who endure suffer wounds so terrible that they no longer look – or act – human.

Ms Jacobson’s point is that this apocalyptic vision is the logical conclusion of the world’s current nuclear doctrines. Those that do emerge into the desolation discover what the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev warned decades ago: “The survivors will envy the dead.” The devastation is total, offering a future that no one could bear to live through.

The Guardian view on arms control: essential to prevent the total devastation of nuclear war

Editorial

Over the holidays, this column will explore next year’s urgent issues. Today we look at why an unqualified belief in nuclear deterrence can’t keep us safeSat 28 Dec 2024 04.30 AEDTShare

Next November marks 40 years since the US president Ronald Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. The statement was striking – not least because their militaries were pouring billions into preparing for an unwinnable conflict.

A year later, at Reykjavik, the two came tantalisingly close to eliminating nuclear weapons entirely. That historic chance slipped away over Reagan’s insistence on his unproven “Star Wars” missile defence system. The moment passed, but its lesson endures: disarmament demands courage – and compromise.

The summit proved a turning point in the cold war. Arms control brought down the number of nuclear weapons held by the two countries from 60,000 to roughly 11,000 today. The most recent new strategic arms reduction treaty (New Start), signed in 2010, capped deployed strategic warheads at 1,550 each. In retrospect, that was a false dawn in nuclear diplomacy. Since George W Bush withdrew the US from the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Moscow in 2002, the risk of a return to an all-out arms race has grown.

On 20 January 2025, Donald Trump will once again hold the keys to a planet-ending arsenal. Mr Trump’s capricious personality sheds new light on an old question: how much of the terrible responsibility to inflict large-scale nuclear destruction should be invested in a single person? He has called the transfer of authority “a very sobering moment” and “very, very scary”. Reassuring words – until one remembers that he also reportedly wondered: “If we have nuclear weapons, why can’t we use them?” Presidential sole authority rightly ensures civilian control over nuclear weapons. But why concentrate such power in just one civilian’s hands?

Close to apocalypse

Without bold action, New Start, the last safeguard of nuclear arms moderation, will expire in February 2026. Mr Trump admires strongmen like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who has recklessly threatened nuclear strikes and hinted at restarting tests during the Ukraine war. But it would be a catastrophic mistake if the pair decided not to exercise self-restraint. It would mean that for the first time in more than 50 years, the US and Russia – holders of 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons – could begin an unconstrained arms race. That dismal decision would send a message to other states, notably China, further encouraging their buildup of nuclear stockpiles.

Deterrence is not the only way to think about nuclear weapons. For decades, a conflict involving them has been a byword for Armageddon. The fearful legacy of “the bomb” can be felt from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the testing grounds still contaminated by nuclear fallout decades later. Such sentiment led to Barack Obama, in 2009, advocating a hopeful vision of a nuclear-free world. His speech inspired a coalition of activists, diplomats and developing nations determined to force a global reckoning. Their resistance to the conventional wisdom that nuclear disarmament is unrealistic bore fruit with the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, adopted by 122 countries at the UN in 2017. Its message: the only way to ensure nuclear weapons are never used again is to do away with them entirely.

The treaty, championed by the Nobel prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, was a triumph over superpower diplomacy that had long hindered reviews of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nuclear-armed states are sceptical, if not scornful. But their resistance does not diminish the importance of the 2017 UN vote. It represents not only a moral and legal challenge to the status quo but a reminder that much of the world doesn’t accept the logic of mutually assured destruction. This sentiment was amplified this year when Nihon Hidankyo, Japan’s atomic and hydrogen bomb survivors group, won the Nobel peace prize for efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.

Eight decades after its first test, the nuclear bomb remains – its purpose long obsolete, its danger ever present. Built to defeat Hitler, dropped to end Japan’s imperial ambitions and multiplied to outlast the cold war, nuclear weapons have outlived every rationale for their existence. Arsenals have shrunk, but not enough. The world’s stockpile remains dangerously large, and efforts to reduce it further appear stalled. This against a geopolitical backdrop of nuclear proliferation, a multipolar and ideologically diverse UN, and the American desire for global pre-eminence. Little wonder that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight – the closest ever to apocalypse.

A shared responsibility

In 2019, Gorbachev warned, with good reason, that nuclear deterrence keeps the world “in constant jeopardy”. It is obvious that as long as these weapons exist, the risk of nuclear war cannot be erased. The question is no longer why the bomb remains, but whether humanity can survive it for another 80 years.

This December, UN members voted 144-3 to establish an independent scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war. Shamefully, Britain was among the naysayers. Imagination has already outpaced fact. In her book Nuclear War, Annie Jacobson describes how humanity could end in 72 minutes after a North Korean “bolt from the blue” attack sparks a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. She writes of thousands of warheads raining down on America, Europe, Russia and parts of Asia, obliterating cities, incinerating human life and leaving billions stripped of life, light and hope. Streets turn molten, winds flatten the land and those who endure suffer wounds so terrible that they no longer look – or act – human.

Ms Jacobson’s point is that this apocalyptic vision is the logical conclusion of the world’s current nuclear doctrines. Those that do emerge into the desolation discover what the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev warned decades ago: “The survivors will envy the dead.” The devastation is total, offering a future that no one could bear to live through.

Amid historic lows in US-Russian relations, one truth remains: a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Leaders in Moscow and Washington should reaffirm this in the run-up to negotiating significant arsenal reductions as well as real limits on strategic missile defences. Such a statement, simple but profound, would remind the world that Mr Trump and Mr Putin recognise their shared responsibility to prevent global catastrophe. This will not be easy: rising nationalism, geopolitical rivalry and mutual mistrust between the countries – especially over Ukraine – loom large over disarmament efforts. But try they must. However bitter their disagreements, Washington and Moscow owe it to humanity to talk about – and act on – avoiding the unthinkable.

December 29, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Jeremy Corbyn speaks out on danger of Trident in Scotland

JEREMY Corbyn has highlighted the danger posed by the UK’s Trident
nuclear submarines – including having them based in Scotland. The former
Labour leader said there is “no defence” for nuclear weapons, adding
that his dissent from supporting their presence and potential use is
“well-known” – including a pledge in 2015 that, if he were to become
prime minister, he would never use them. On the subject of the UK’s
nuclear arsenal, which is hosted in Scotland at HM Naval Base Clyde, Corbyn
said it put a “target” on the city of Glasgow.

The National 27th Dec 2024, https://www.thenational.scot/news/24819794.jeremy-corbyn-speaks-danger-trident-scotland/

December 28, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US Military Supported Syrian Rebel Offensive That Toppled Assad Government

Geopolitical Economy, By Ben Norton, 12 Dec 24

Syrian rebel commanders have boasted that the US military helped them overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad.

They acknowledged this in a report published by major British newspaper The Telegraph, titled “US ‘prepared Syrian rebel group to help topple Bashar al-Assad’”.

The article revealed that a rebel group armed, trained, and funded by the United States, based in the south of Syria, collaborated with rebranded al-Qaeda in the north to jointly topple the Syrian government.

According to the report, the US military helped to create a Syrian militia called the Revolutionary Commando Army (RCA). The US and UK armed and trained the RCA. The Pentagon paid its fighters a salary of $400 per month, which The Telegraph noted was “nearly 12 times what the soldiers in the now defunct Syrian army were paid”. (This was because illegal unilateral Western sanctions on Syria had crushed the country’s economy, causing high rates of inflation that decimated local purchasing power.)

The US military knew that an offensive was being planned to topple Assad, The Telegraph reported. The Pentagon pressured disparate rebel groups and mercenaries in southern Syria to unify behind the US-funded RCA.

In the lead-up to the assault, which was launched in November 2024, US military officers met with Syrian rebel commanders in the Al-Tanf base that the US had built on the border with Iraq………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2024/12/23/us-military-syria-rebels-assad/

December 27, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Syria, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel’s War on Gaza Is a War on Children

Children in Gaza are not merely collateral damage; they are often actively being targeted.

By Henry A. Giroux , Truthout, December 21, 2024

In November, over a year into Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a report by the Gaza-based Community Training Center for Crisis Management produced a grim statistic: “Nearly all children in the embattled Palestinian enclave believe their death is imminent — and nearly half of them want to die.”

It is no wonder why the statistic, which came from a survey of families with disabled, injured or unaccompanied children, is so bleak. Amnesty International’s recent report lays bare the magnitude of the crisis: “Israel’s actions … have brought Gaza’s population to the brink of collapse. Its brutal military offensive had killed more than 42,000 Palestinians, including over 13,300 children, and injured over 97,000 more, by 7 October 2024, many of them in direct or deliberately indiscriminate attacks, often wiping out entire multigenerational families.”

This unfathomable suffering — inflicted disproportionately on women and children — represents a moral abomination, a political travesty, and a militaristic cruelty of the highest order. The destruction of lives, institutions and essential humanitarian infrastructure goes beyond the annihilation of a people; it constitutes an assault on future generations and the very fabric of our shared humanity. Genocidal language dehumanizes and legitimizes the unthinkable: an indiscriminate war waged against the most defenseless — children.

Israel’s war on Palestinian youth is genocidal — not only in the starvation, maiming and unimaginable killing of children but in its relentless assault on any viable notion of what it means for these young people to be valued, human and alive with hope. It seeks to strip them of their dignity, rendering them invisible and unworthy in the eyes of the world, as if their lives are expendable, their dreams inconsequential. This overpowering violence amounts to what we may term childcide, which is the deliberate or systematic destruction of children, whether through direct violence, neglect, or the conditions of war and oppression that render them uniquely vulnerable. It is a traumatic manifestation of collective failure — a war against innocence, in which the fragile promise of childhood is extinguished before it can bloom. In Gaza, where children face relentless bombings, displacement and deprivation, childcide becomes not just an act of violence but a moral collapse: the erasure of futures, dreams and entire generations. It is a crime not only against the child but against humanity itself, leaving behind a void that no words can fill and no justice can fully repair…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://truthout.org/articles/israels-war-on-gaza-is-a-war-on-children/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=bdbe0251d9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_12_21_08_06_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-5f034c9084-650192793

December 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Israel’s Crime of Extermination, Acts of Genocide in Gaza

Authorities’ Widespread Deprivation of Water Threatens Survival

Human Rights Watch 19 Dec 24

Israeli authorities have deliberately inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the population in Gaza by intentionally depriving Palestinian civilians there of adequate access to water, most likely resulting in thousands of deaths.

In doing so, Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide. The pattern of conduct, coupled with statements suggesting that some Israeli officials wished to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, may amount to the crime of genocide.

Governments and international organizations should take all measures to prevent genocide in Gaza, including discontinuing military assistance, reviewing bilateral agreements and diplomatic relations, and supporting the International Criminal Court and other accountability efforts.

(Jerusalem) – Israeli authorities have intentionally deprived Palestinian civilians in Gaza of adequate access to water since October 2023, most likely resulting in thousands of deaths and thus committing the crime against humanity of extermination and acts of genocide, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

In the 179-page report, “Extermination and Acts of Genocide: Israel Deliberately Depriving Palestinians in Gaza of Water,” Human Rights Watch found that Israeli authorities have intentionally deprived Palestinians in Gaza of access to safe water for drinking and sanitation needed for basic human survival. Israeli authorities and forces cut off and later restricted piped water to Gaza; rendered most of Gaza’s water and sanitation infrastructure useless by cutting electricity and restricting fuel; deliberately destroyed and damaged water and sanitation infrastructure and water repair materials; and blocked the entry of critical water supplies.

“Water is essential for human life, yet for over a year the Israeli government has deliberately denied Palestinians in Gaza the bare minimum they need to survive,” said Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human Rights Watch. “This isn’t just negligence; it is a calculated policy of deprivation that has led to the deaths of thousands from dehydration and disease that is nothing short of the crime against humanity of extermination, and an act of genocide.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed 66 Palestinians from Gaza, 4 employees of Gaza’s Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), 31 healthcare professionals, and 15 people working with United Nations agencies and international aid organizations in Gaza. Human Rights Watch also analyzed satellite imagery, photographs, and videos captured between the beginning of the hostilities in October 2023 and September 2024, as well as data collected and estimates produced by doctors, epidemiologists, humanitarian aid organizations, and water and sanitation experts.

Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli authorities have intentionally created conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza in whole or in part. This policy, inflicted as part of a mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, means Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination, which is ongoing. This policy also amounts to one of the five “acts of genocide” under the Genocide Convention of 1948. Genocidal intent may also be inferred from this policy, coupled with statements suggesting some Israeli officials wished to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, and therefore the policy may amount to the crime of genocide.

Immediately after the attacks in southern Israel by Hamas-led Palestinian armed groups in Gaza on October 7, 2023, which Human Rights Watch has found amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity, Israeli authorities cut all electricity and fuel to the Gaza Strip. On October 9, then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, stating: “There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed.”

That same day, and for weeks thereafter, Israeli authorities cut off all water and blocked fuel, food, and humanitarian aid from entering the strip. Israeli authorities continue to restrict the entry of water, fuel, food, and aid into Gaza and to cut Gaza’s electricity, which is required to operate life-sustaining infrastructure. This continued even after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures in January, March, and May 2024 ordering Israeli authorities to protect Palestinians in Gaza from genocide and, in so doing, provide humanitarian aid, specifying in March that this includes water, food, electricity, and fuel. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza

December 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Atrocities, civil liberties, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Pentagon admits massive surge of US troops in Syria

https://www.rt.com/news/609720-pentagon-reveals-syria-troops/ 21 Dec 24

Washington insists it was a coincidence that reinforcements were sent before the collapse of President Bashar Assad’s government

The US has revealed that it has more than doubled its military presence in Syria, with a Pentagon spokesman saying that he “just recently learned” there were in fact roughly 2,000 American forces deployed in the country, rather than 900 troops as previously reported.

For years, the Pentagon had maintained that “about 900” US troops were stationed in the country, and officials continued to repeat this figure even after the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar Assad on December 8.

However, during a press conference on Thursday, Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said that “we recently learned that those numbers [are] higher.”

The US military has been active in Syria since as early as 2014, ostensibly to fight Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS) terrorists, and has flown countless airstrikes against select militant groups and, at times, Syrian government forces.

Under President Barack Obama, Washington doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons to an array of jihadist rebel factions seeking to overthrow Assad, although the effort later fizzled following Russian and Iranian military involvement at the request of Damascus.

In 2019, President Donald Trump ordered all US troops to withdraw, but Pentagon officials pushed back, and he backtracked later that year, saying: “We’re keeping the oil… We left troops behind only for the oil.”

Since then, the US has kept some 900 troops scattered across several bases. Syrian officials have repeatedly accused the Pentagon of “stealing” the country’s oil reserves from provinces in the northeast, where American forces have been embedded with Kurdish militia groups.

Earlier this month, Syrian opposition forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) jihadists launched a surprise offensive across the country, capturing Damascus and forcing Assad to resign as president and seek asylum in Russia.

On Friday, Washington sent a delegation to Damascus for the first time since 2012, and announced it will no longer offer a $10 million bounty for the HTS leader.

December 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Syria, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Overnight Israeli Strike In Syria So Large It Caused Earthquake

by Tyler Durden, Tuesday, Dec 17, 2024

Days ago Israel began warning that it will use large bunker buster munitions to begin destroying the former Syrian Army’s underground missile and weapons storehouses.

This has begun in the overnight hours, with Israeli warplanes pummeling air defense systems and ammunition depots in Damascus and the coastal city of Tartous, near where a Russian naval base is located. The strike on Tartous resulted in the single biggest explosion seen in Syria in years, unleashing a fireball and mushroom cloud so large it led to quick speculation it could have been a tactical nuke (which widespread reports are denying).

The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) described that Israeli warplanes hit air defense units and “surface-to-surface missile depots” as part of a bid to degrade and disable Syria’s military capability. SOHR also called it the “the heaviest strikes” on the region in over a decade.

The Telegraph wrote that “A 3.1 magnitude tremor was reported by the Geographic Survey of Israel’s seismology department at 11.49pm on Sunday night in the region of the bombings.”

“The explosions in Tartous were extremely loud,” Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from inside the country, additionally described. “Some experts are saying that might probably mean it was a chemical weapons production house.”

Other sites which were bombed overnight were radar and air defense systems outside of Damascus, around the Qaisioun mountain which dominates the background of the capital.

In total there have been an estimated 600 Israeli strikes over the course of eight days. Some of them began immediately upon Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) entering the environs of Damascus as President Assad fled the country.

An Israeli broadcast correspondent from Kann previously wrote that “An Israeli source tells me: Israel’s goal is to destroy everything from Assad’s army that could fall into the hands of the rebels – from tanks to missiles. We are destroying the equipment of the Assad army.”

Jets and aerial equipment, and runways at bases are being obliterated. Part of Israel’s aim also seems to be preventing pro-Iranian entities from ever popping up again in Syria, and to finally and definitively dismantle Hezbollah and Shia militias’ arms networks. It’s also unclear what kind of future government will dominate Syria – most likely a hardline Sunni one.

December 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, Syria, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump And Israel Can’t Wait To Start Bombing Iran

Caitlin Johnstone, Dec 18, 2024

Both Israel and the incoming Trump administration are reportedly eager to start bombing Iran ASAP now that Assad’s out of the way.

Israeli media reports that the IDF now sees airstrikes on Iran as much easier to execute now that its pilots don’t have to worry about Syrian air defenses along the way, while The Wall Street Journal reports that the Trump team is weighing its options for airstrikes on Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon (which there’s no evidence Iran is currently trying to do).

A new article from The Washington Post titled “Syria’s collapse and Israeli attacks leave Iran exposed” reports that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled a desire to capitalize on gains against Hamas and Hezbollah and take on Tehran more aggressively under a new U.S. administration.” The article notes that Trump has expressed openness to war with Iran, saying that “anything can happen”.

This comes as the al-Qaeda affiliates who captured Damascus assure the world that Syria will no longer allow itself to be used as a launchpad for attacks against Israel.

After Assad was ousted I got a bunch of weirdos in my comments claiming that Israel was somehow sad about this development, because Israel and Assad were secretly on the same side. This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I’ve been asked to believe in a long time, and I was asked to believe it not by crazy QAnoners or the liberal mass media but by a sector of pro-Palestine leftoids who also love NATO.

❖

The US hates al-Qaeda, then loves al-Qaeda, then hates al-Qaeda, then loves al-Qaeda. They split up, they get back together, they split up again. “We were on a break!” “We were not on a break!” Will they or won’t they? Keep watching and find out!………………………………………

Israel supporters will tell you antisemitism is one of the biggest problems in the world and then if you ask them for examples of where dangerous antisemitism is occurring in our society they’ll list things like the United Nations, Amnesty International, Ireland, and the pope.

❖

I often see questions like “Why are the billionaires destroying the world like this? What’s the point of amassing all that wealth if you’re just going to spend the rest of your life in some underground bunker?”………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Becoming a billionaire and becoming a heroin addict are both irrational destructive behaviors driven by irrational internal dynamics. The only difference is that the billionaires are taking the rest of us with them. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/trump-and-israel-cant-wait-to-start?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=153285034&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

December 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US Space Force conducts ‘simulated on-orbit combat’ training

SPACE, By Brett Tingley, August 25, 2022

The exercise brought together Space Force members with counterparts in the U.S. Army and Air Force.

The U.S. Space Force just completed a major joint training exercise that saw participants engage in simulated orbital combat.

The exercise, known as Space Flag 22-3, took place from Aug. 8 to Aug.19 at Schriever Space Force Base in Colorado. Close to 120 Space Force personnel from multiple U.S. Space Force Deltas took part in the training alongside counterparts from the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army, according to a Space Force statement. The training was conducted by Space Force’s training and education component, Space Training and Readiness Command (STAR Command or STARCOM).

Space Flag 22-3 presented realistic training opportunities that “challenged players to consider complex astrodynamics while maneuvering and operating during simulated on-orbit combat engagements” in a “contested, degraded and operationally-limited environment,” the statement continues. ………………… https://www.space.com/space-force-space-flag-simulated-orbit-combat

December 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Finding the Unmentionable: Amnesty International, Israel and Genocide

Binoy Kampmark, December 16, 2024, https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/16/finding-the-unmentionable-amnesty-international-israel-and-genocide/

It was bound to happen. With continuing operations in Gaza, and increasingly violent activities being conducted against Palestinians in the occupied territories, human rights organisations are making increasingly severe assessments of Israel’s warring cause. While the world awaits the findings of the International Court of Justice on whether Israel’s campaign, as argued by South Africa, amounts to genocide, Amnesty International has already reached its conclusions.

In a 296-page report sporting the ominous title “You Feel Like You Are Subhuman”, the human rights body, after considering the events in Gaza between October 2023 and July 2024, identified a “pattern of conduct” that indicated genocidal intent. These included, among other things, persistent direct attacks on civilians and objects “and deliberately indiscriminate strikes over the nine-month period, wiping out entire families repeatedly launched at times when these strikes would result in high numbers of casualties”; the nature of the weapons used; the speed and scale of destruction to civilian objects and infrastructure (homes, shelters, health facilities, water and sanitation infrastructure, agricultural land”; the use of bulldozing and controlled demolitions; and the use of “incomprehensible, misleading and arbitrary ‘evacuation’ orders’”.

The report does much to focus on statements made from the highest officials to the common soldiery to reveal the mental state necessary to reveal genocide. 102 statements made by members of the Knesset, government officials and high-ranking commanders “dehumanized Palestinians, or called for, or justified genocidal acts or other crimes under international law against them.” The report also examined 62 videos, audio recordings and photographs posted online featuring gleeful Israeli soldiers rejoicing in the “destruction of Gaza or the denial of essential services to people in Gaza, or celebrated the destruction of Palestinian homes, mosques, schools and universities, including through controlled demolitions, in some cases without apparent military necessity.”

From its alternative universe, the Israeli public relations machine drew from its own agitprop specialists, working on mangling the language of the report. The formula is familiar: attack the authors first, not their premises. “The deplorable and fanatical organisation Amnesty International has once again produced a fabricated response that is entirely based on lies,” came the howl from Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oren Marmorstein.

Other methods of repudiation involve detaching Hamas and its war with Israel from any historical continuum, not least the fact that it was aided, supported and backed by Israel for years as a counter to Fatah in the West Bank. Isolating Hamas as a terrorist aberration also serves to treat it as alien, artificially foreign and not part of any resistance movement against suffocating Israeli occupation and strangulation. They, so goes this argument, are genocidal, and countering such a body can never be, by any stretch, genocidal. The pro-Israeli group NGO Monitor abides by this line of reasoning, calling allegations of genocide against Israel “a reversal of the actual and clearly established intent of Hamas and its allies (including its patron, Iran), to wipe Israel off the map”.

Israel’s closest ally and sponsor, the United States, proved predictable in rejecting the findings while still claiming to respect the humanitarian line. The US State Department’s principal deputy spokesman, Vedant Patel, expresseddisagreement “with the conclusions of such a report. We had said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded.” Patel did, however, pay lip service to the “vital role that civil society organizations like Amnesty International and human rights groups and NGOs play in providing information and analysis as it relates to Gaza and what’s going on.” Vital, but only up to a point.

Far less guarded assessments can be found in the American pro-Israeli chatter sphere. These follow the usual pattern. Orde Kittrie, senior fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a name that can only imply that crimes committed in such a cause are bound to be justifiable, offers a neat illustration. Amnesty, he argues, “systematically and repeatedly mischaracterizes both the facts and the law.” Kittrie suggests his own mischaracterisation by parroting the IDF’s line that Hamas had “increased casualty counts by illegally using Palestinian civilian shields and by hiding weapons and war fighters in and below homes, hospitals, mosques, and other buildings.” This conveniently ignores that point that the numbers are not necessarily proof of genocidal intent, though it helps.

The report also notes that, even in the face of such tactics by Hamas, Israel was still “obligated to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and avoid attacks that would be indiscriminate or disproportionate.”

Amnesty International’s report is yet another addition to the gloomy literature on the subject. Human Rights Watch, in November, pointed to violations of the laws of war, crimes against humanity, and the provisional measures of the ICJ issued urging Israel to abide by the obligations imposed by the UN Genocide Convention of 1948. The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem stated in no uncertain terms in October that “Israel intends to forcibly displace northern Gaza’s residents by committing some of the gravest crimes under the laws of war”.

Battling over the designation of whether a campaign is genocidal can act as a distraction, a field of quibbles for paper pushing pedants. The “specific intent” in proof must be unequivocally demonstrated and beyond any other reasonable inference. A smokescreen is thereby deployed that risks masking the broader ambit of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But no amount of pedantry and disagreement can arrest the sense that Israel’s lethal conduct, whatever threshold it may reach in international law, is directed at destroying not merely Palestinian life but any worthwhile sense of a viable sovereignty. Amnesty Israel, while rejecting the central claim of the parent organisation’s report did make one concession: the country’s brutal response following October 7, 2023 “may amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.”

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

December 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

With no real enemies, US poised to spend $1.8 trillion for national security in 2025.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 18 Dec 24

Not one of the other 194 countries poses the slightest threat to the US Homeland. Yet the US foolishly provokes confrontation with Russia and China, the first and third most nuclear armed states.

With no enemies lurking near our borders, the US plans to spend $1.8 trillion next year to promote not defense, but US adventurism abroad.

750 bases in 80 countries overseas billeting 160,000 soldiers does not come cheap. Additionally, the US has squandered upwards of $200 billion to destroy Ukraine in our proxy war against Russia, and obliterate Gaza by our Middle East aircraft carrier Israel.

That helps explain why Congress is about to pass an $895.2 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to fund discretionary activities of our Defense Department. Adding in mandatory defense spending of $25.8 billion swells the Pentagon’s budget to a cool $921 billion.

But don’t forget nuclear weapons programs, Homeland Security, cost to treat vets from America’s forever wars and miscellaneous foreign adventures. These add another $796.8 billion, making a national security grand total for 2025 a staggering $1,776,800,000. A far distant second in defense spending is China at less than a quarter trillion.

How can this be in the hyped ‘greatest democracy on Earth’? Simple. The administration, Congress, presidential candidates, the media offer not one word of discussion, much less protest about this monstrous squandering of US treasure to get millions killed, injured, starved, sick and homeless in countries America has no business meddling in.

America’s national security budget may as well be planned and passed on Mars, far from the radar of America’s 155,000,200 clueless voters having no say in this monstrosity whatsoever.

Of course, with the US war party crossing Russian red lines like it’s in a demolition derby, nuclear war becomes more likely than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis 62 years ago. If that happens, any important discussion of our $1.8 trillion national security budget will be moot.

December 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel’s not-so-secret nuclear weapons

The Federation of American Scientists estimates that Israel possesses 90 nuclear warheads, which are likely stored underground, potentially at Tel Nof, located centrally between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and Hatzerim Air Bases. …………………with ranges to target cities as far away as Moscow, or possibly from submarines.

December 15, 2024 by beyondnuclearinternational

A new report from ICAN looks at the reality and implications of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Risk of Use

As long as nuclear weapons exist, there is the possibility that they will be used, either by accident or intentionally. Even in spite of the ambiguity around the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons and enforced secrecy that persists to this day, there are examples of close calls, particularly during times of heightened conflict. …………………………….

Despite its policy of ambiguity, some Israeli officials have even made explicit threats to use nuclear weapons,………………..

Consequences of Use……………………………………………………..

Proliferation Risk……………………………………………….

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is the first international treaty to ban nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons activities, including testing, deployment, maintenance and use. It was adopted by 122 governments in July 2017 at the United Nations. ………………………

Conclusion

Despite the policy of ambiguity around Israeli nuclear weapons, it is clear that Israel’s nuclear arsenal poses a significant risk for humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East and it should take urgent steps towards nuclear disarmament. …………………………..more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/12/15/israels-not-so-secret-nuclear-weapons/

Read the full report complete with footnotes.

Introduction

Israel is one of nine countries that possesses nuclear weapons, with an estimated arsenal of 90 nuclear weapons, which it can launch by missiles and aircraft, and possibly by sea-based missiles.

Despite widespread acknowledgement by experts and former government officials of their existence, Israel and many Western governments maintain a policy of ambiguity about Israeli nuclear weapons. This pretense cannot continue. Nuclear disarmament is an essential component of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, and in the region more broadly.

This is because of the risk of use of nuclear weapons and the catastrophic consequences of such use, as well as the proliferation risks posed by Israel’s continued possession of a nuclear arsenal. Despite efforts, states have not yet succeeded in negotiating a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted in 2017, offers a clear pathway to nuclear disarmament, and Israel and all states should immediately join.

Historical Context

Israel’s nuclear weapons programme dates back to the 1950s, when it started to construct the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona in 1958, following its purchase of necessary equipment to develop nuclear weapons, including a research reactor from France and heavy water from Norway.

Although unclear, it may have assembled its first nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Since then, Israel has adhered to a policy of deliberate ambiguity, refusing to confirm or deny its possession of nuclear weapons.

Current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials use variations of the phrase “We won’t be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East” in response to questions about Israel’s nuclear arsenal. The United States and other Western governments have adopted Israel’s policy of ambiguity, despite widespread acknowledgement by nuclear experts and even former government officials of the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal.

The United States has adopted a policy not to pressure Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and all U.S. presidents since President Bill Clinton have even reportedly signed a letter indicating that arms control efforts would not target Israel.

Former German officials have likewise acknowledged that they were aware that submarines that they sold to Israel would be equipped with nuclear missiles. This tacit endorsement of a clear case of nuclear proliferation undermines broader nonproliferation and disarmament efforts in the Middle East.

Israel’s Current Nuclear Arsenal

Given the secrecy surrounding the Israeli nuclear arsenal, much is unknown, but experts have provided some estimates about its weapons.

The Federation of American Scientists estimates that Israel possesses 90 nuclear warheads, which are likely stored underground, potentially at Tel Nof, located centrally between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and Hatzerim Air Bases.

These warheads can be launched from aircraft and ballistic missiles, likely stored just 27 kilometers from Jerusalem but reportedly with ranges to target cities as far away as Moscow, or possibly from submarines.

December 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

On Ukraine war, will Trump channel JFK or LBJ?

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 17 Dec 24.

Donald Trump will inherit Joe Biden’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine on January 20.

Biden has made clear he’ll never negotiate an end to his failed war that includes any concession whatsoever to Russian security interests. Biden is furnishing Ukraine with billions more in weaponry to prevent a Ukraine collapse on his watch. He’ll be damned if he allows a US defeat in Ukraine in his last year to bookend his accepting a US defeat in Afghanistan in his first year.

That presents a huge dilemma for Trump whose who routinely called for a quick end to this senseless war during his successful campaign.

But just like in his first term, Trump may be trumped on negotiating peace and disengagement by the US war party. Trump achieved nothing in terms of détente with North Korea, China, Iran, Russia or cutting America’s bloated 34,000 troop presence in NATO Germany. He may also fall victim to the same dread Biden has of being president when Ukraine does sue for peace, losing four provinces, committing to neutrality between East and West, including no NATO membership as the basis for a ceasefire.

Trump’s situation recalls the dilemma both JFK and LBJ faced over US involvement in America’s lost war in Vietnam 611 years ago.

JFK inherited his predecessor Ike’s 700 ‘advisors’ and Vietnam and ironclad US commitment to keep South Vietnam free from communism. By the end of 1962 Kennedy hiked the advisors to 11,000, incurring over 50 deaths in their non-combat role.

But by spring of 1963 JFK, more a realist than fanatical Cold Warrior, understood that no US presence could save South Vietnam from defeat. He began to secretly plan for a full US withdrawal. In May, 1963 he had Defense Secretary Bob McNamara draw up a withdrawal plan. Kennedy made this plan official policy with his National Security Action Memorandum 263, dated October 11, 1963. It called for withdrawal of 1,000 advisors by December and rest of the now 16,000 personnel out by the end of 1965. The 2 year gap to complete the US pullout was due to waiting till after his reelection to avoid political pushback from Republicans that could jeopardize his reelection.

This was US policy on the day JFK died. Had Kennedy lived there is no basis for believing he would not follow through on his pledge to end US military involvement in Vietnam.

When Lyndon Johnson became president, he immediately cancelled National Security Action Memorandum 263. His administration, Congress, the military and compliant national media all rallied around the fiction of complete continuity between JFK and LBJ on Vietnam. Johnson began pouring in more advisors before pivoting to direct US warfare after he hyped the August, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident to militarize US action against North Vietnam. LBJ famously remarked ‘I’m not going to be the first US president to lose war’.

In so doing Johnson destroyed his presidency and his legacy, along with over 58,000 soldiers killed, 150,000 inured, of which 21,000 were permanently disabled.

That is the dilemma Trump most likely is grappling with today. Will he follow thru with his campaign pledge to end America’s proxy war with Russia without total victory for our Ukraine proxies? Or will Trump succumb to the tragic Lyndon Johnson syndrome of continuing to pour hundreds of billions in US treasure, if not US lives, into a lost cause America should never have provoked.

Based upon Trump’s sorrowful record of caving to the war party in his first term, the latter course is the safer bet. But we should all work to push President Trump on Ukraine to channel JFK, not LBJ.

December 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Trump Transition Team Considering Strikes on Iran

The incoming administration is debating if it should attack Iranian nuclear facilities

by Kyle Anzalone December 13, 2024 , https://news.antiwar.com/2024/12/13/trump-team-considering-strikes-on-iran/

Strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are being seriously considered within the Donald Trump transition team, according to the Wall Street Journal. While there is no proof Tehran is trying to make a nuclear weapon, Washington and Tel Aviv are threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear energy infrastructure.

“The military-strike option against nuclear facilities is now under more serious review by some members of his transition team,” the WSJ explained. “Iran’s weakened regional position and recent revelations of Tehran’s burgeoning nuclear work have turbocharged sensitive internal discussions, transition officials said.”

Tel Aviv is undergoing a similar debate. “The Israel Defense Forces believes that following the weakening of Iranian proxy groups in the Middle East and the dramatic fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, there is an opportunity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities,” the Times of Israel reported on Thursday. Adding, “The Israeli Air Force has therefore continued to increase its readiness and preparations for such potential strikes in Iran.”

According to WSJ, President-elect Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have recently discussed potentially attacking Iran. “Trump has told Netanyahu in recent calls that he is concerned about an Iranian nuclear breakout on his watch.” The report continues, “The president-elect wants plans that stop short of igniting a new war, particularly one that could pull in the US military.”

The sources explained that the administration is considering two options. The first is bolstering American military presence in the Middle East while providing Israel with the ability to destroy Iranian nuclear sites without US assistance. The other option calls for American threats to force Tehran to make concessions at the negotiation table.

Whichever option Trump chooses, he is also expected to increase sanctions on Iran given his belief that he must economically cripple Tehran.

While the US intelligence community, the IAEA, the Pentagon, and Tehran all say Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, the incoming Trump administration and Tel Aviv say they are concerned the Islamic Republic will obtain a nuke. Additionally, Trump believes Tehran was behind an assassination attempt on his life.

However, Trump and Netanyahu may perceive Iran as weak, given Bashar al-Assad’s ouster in Syria and Hezbollah’s concessions in its truce with Israel. Emboldened by recent events, Washington and Tel Aviv could attempt to strike Iran, believing Tehran is vulnerable.

Mark Dubowitzchief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told WSJ, “If you were going to actually do something to neutralize the nuclear-weapons program, this would be it.”

On Wednesday, Netanyahu published a video on X in English telling the Iranian people that regime change may come a lot sooner than many people think.

December 18, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment