𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗜𝗡 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘: 𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔 𝗢𝗥 𝗜𝗦𝗥𝗔𝗘𝗟?
Israel is experiencing a golden era of influence, but its recent moves have not produced the results it expected.
more Americans and government officials are arguing that the United States must prioritize its own interests and avoid being pulled into endless foreign conflicts.
The political relationship between the United States and Israel comes down to a fundamental question: who is actually in charge?
Ibrahim Majed, Aug 06, 2026, https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/9bb?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=209955647&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
When you look at the region today, the United States does not want a full-scale regional war. However, it also cannot afford to completely back down. Washington continues to support military pressure on Iran because a sudden retreat would undermine American deterrence, weaken its credibility among allies and adversaries alike, and erode the global perception of U.S. hegemony.
Israel, meanwhile, has pushed for even more aggressive action, creating growing tensions over how far the conflict should go.
The reality is that Israel cannot afford to keep taking endless losses, because running a nonstop military campaign with no real political achievements will eventually exhaust and destabilize any state
The balance of power between the two countries is not as simple as military strength alone.
The United States is clearly the stronger country, with far greater economic resources and military capabilities.
However, Israeli leaders have often been highly effective at navigating the political system in Washington, allowing them to build significant influence over American decision-making.
Benjamin Netanyahu has been in power for a very long time, and he understands how the American government works better than almost anyone.
In the United States, politics runs on money, lobbies, and deals made behind closed doors in Congress.
Ever since the 1960s, Israel has built a massive network of support inside Washington.
This does not mean Israel completely owns America, but it does mean Israeli leaders know exactly which politicians to talk to, which donors to use, and how to push the U.S. government to do what they want.
This influence works best when Israel’s goals match what the American President personally wants.
But there is a limit.
If a U.S. President ever feels that Israel is hurting his own political career or messing up America’s bigger plans, he has the power to tell Israel to stop, and Israel would have no choice but to listen.
The main reason America rarely puts its foot down is because the pro-Israel lobby has spent decades building power in Washington.
Israel is experiencing a golden era of influence, but its recent moves have not produced the results it expected.
The war on Lebanon in 2024 did not bring a clear victory, while the 2026 war on Iran caused massive destruction but failed to achieve its intended objectives. On the contrary, Iran emerged with a stronger regional position, greater influence, and increased leverage over key strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, giving it the ability to impact global energy markets and the world economy.
As a result, many governments and populations around the world are increasingly blaming Israel’s actions for escalating tensions and threatening the stability of critical global trade routes, including the Strait of Hormuz.
The way Israel keeps its hold on U.S. politics is through a mix of favors and political pressure, making it very risky for American politicians to speak out against Israeli decisions.
Even so, people inside the U.S. government are getting frustrated.
A leader with a big ego, like Donald Trump, hates feeling like a smaller country is bossing him around.
On top of that, when an American leader builds his entire image around being tough on Iran, he gets trapped into a corner where he cannot back down without looking weak.
Meanwhile, Iran is playing the exact same game, making unpredictable moves to counter American pressure.
This conflict has also disrupted major economic and diplomatic plans in the Middle East.
Before the recent escalations, countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar were moving toward closer business and security partnerships with Israel, heavily pushed by figures like Jared Kushner.
However, the events of October 7 and the war that followed dramatically changed the regional and global environment.
Israel’s actions during the conflict, along with statements by some Israeli officials regarding territorial ambitions and visions of a “Greater Israel,” have increased concerns across the region and contributed to a major shift in public and political attitudes.
As a result, previous normalization and partnership efforts have been slowed or put on hold, forcing Washington to reconsider whether its regional strategy is still achievable.
At the same time, more Americans and government officials are arguing that the United States must prioritize its own interests and avoid being pulled into endless foreign conflicts.
Inside the U.S. national security system, major disagreements are emerging over how Washington should handle Israel and the wider regional conflict. Some officials and policymakers have grown increasingly concerned about Netanyahu’s government, the direction of the war, and the consequences for broader American interests.
Major American media figures and influential commentators have openly criticized these policies, showing that even within conservative circles in the United States there is growing division over the approach toward Israel and the wider conflict.
After the long, painful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many people in Washington no longer believe that constant military action works.
That is why you see political figures like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance taking different approaches, it is a calculated way for political leaders to appeal to different groups of voters without losing control.
If you look back at history, America is the strongest empire the world has ever seen, but taking endless risks for a smaller ally is a dangerous strategy.
History shows that ancient superpowers, like the Roman Empire, would eventually put their foot down and crush any regional partner that caused too much trouble for the empire as a whole.
If America wants to remain the top global power, its leaders have to put American interests first instead of constantly backing another country’s moves.
Washington gave Israel a chance to handle the region on its own, but since that failed, smart decision-makers in the U.S. government are starting to think it is time to cut their losses before things get worse.
You can already see signs that both the United States and Israel are facing growing pressure and are looking for ways to manage the situation behind the scenes.
Washington’s priority is to avoid being dragged into a wider war, but it also cannot afford to appear weak or defeated.
The United States wants to preserve its image as the dominant global power and maintain its credibility and deterrence in the region.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s political position has become increasingly difficult, forcing his government to balance domestic pressure with the risks of further escalation.
Netanyahu is dealing with major political trouble at home and is looking for ways to protect himself if new elections happen.
On the ground, Israel is quietly trying to limit the intensity of the fighting.
Operations in Lebanon have shifted into smaller-scale actions, while direct confrontations with Iran have slowed down.
At the same time, Israeli forces in southern Lebanon continue to face attacks from the resistance, but many of these incidents are kept away from public attention to avoid highlighting vulnerabilities or creating pressure for a wider escalation.
Israel keeps quiet about these hits because it does not want the public to see its weakness or get pulled into a bigger war it cannot win.
At the same time, the resistance is keeping quiet so they can keep chipping away at Israeli forces without starting a massive new conflict.
In the end, even though Israel has been highly effective at influencing U.S. politics, the United States remains the far stronger power and will ultimately prioritize its own strategic interests.
History shows that great powers place their national interests above any individual alliance when they believe a partnership has become too costly or threatens their broader objectives.
The United States could lose its alliance with Israel and still remain a global power, but Israel’s strategic position is far more dependent on continued American military, political, and diplomatic support.
This is why Israeli leaders have repeatedly emphasized the need to develop greater independence in areas such as defense production, while pro-Israel political networks in the United States continue to push for maintaining strong American support. Their concern is that if Washington begins prioritizing its own interests over Israel’s regional objectives, Israel’s ability to sustain its current position and policies in the region would be significantly weakened.
Ultimately, the choice facing the United States is whether it continues to bear the costs of policies that primarily serve another country’s objectives, or whether it puts American interests first.
A great power maintains its strength by protecting its own security, economy, and global position, not by allowing any ally to influence the direction of its foreign policy.
Pentagon Plans AI Data Centers at Military Bases Across Multiple Branches
One site is near the military’s main chemical and biological weapons testing range. Another parcel is a half-mile from civilian housing.
Jul 27, 2026, By Adam Gramegna, Military.com
At Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, on ground the Army’s own contracting documents describe as previously used for grazing, a company owned by two of the largest investment firms in the world is preparing to build a data center.
That site sits about an hour’s drive from the nearest community, on the installation where the U.S. military conducts its primary chemical and biological weapons testing. Three parcels there total roughly 3,466 acres. One of them, about 1,201 acres, is already spoken for.
It is one of at least a dozen military installations the Army and the Department of the Air Force have opened to commercial data center developers over the past year and a half. Two of those deals are real; the rest are still proposals.
Land-for-Computing
In late March, the Army conditionally selected two companies to enter exclusive negotiations to build and operate commercial hyperscale data centers on Army land.
Carlyle, the global investment firm, was picked for roughly 1,384 acres at Fort Bliss, Texas. CyrusOne, a data center operator jointly held by funds managed by KKR and BlackRock, was picked for the parcel at Dugway. Each project is estimated to cost about $2 billion, according to the Financial Times.
The companies will be responsible for financing, building, operating, maintaining and eventually decommissioning the facilities, the Army said, on what it called “underutilized but non-excess Army land at no upfront cost to taxpayers.” In exchange for the land, the service gets access to computing power.
It all runs through the Army’s Enhanced Use Lease program, driven by a Trump executive order directing agencies to open non-excess federal land to data center development. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is handling lease negotiations and environmental review.
“AI is a strategic asset for the Army,” Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said in the March announcement. “It is a force multiplier, supports future transformation and requirements, keeps the Army ahead of our adversaries, and generates resiliency across the force.” Driscoll told the Wall Street Journal that the Fort Bliss facility would be “the first hyper-scale data center that the Pentagon has ever done.”…………………………..
Which Bases and How Close to Housing?
Only Fort Bliss and Dugway have been awarded so far, and even those remain conditional, pending negotiation. Beyond them, federal contracting documents show the Army considering data centers at Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort Bragg, N.C.
The Department of the Air Force put out its own call in 2025 for private AI data center projects on unused land at Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn., Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J., Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., and Robins Air Force Base, Ga.
More recently, it sought bidders for facilities at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Eielson Air Force Base and Clear Space Force Station in Alaska. Acreage varies enormously; for example, Fort Hood has 207 acres on offer. Fort Bliss has nearly seven times that.
Dugway is remote by design, although not every site is. Contracting documents show the Army weighing a parcel at Fort Hood within a half-mile of residential and commercial property, and several potential locations at Fort Bragg within one mile of civilian areas and a half-mile of civilian housing.
Proximity to the population is what has made data centers a heated topic in the civilian world. Nearly $156 billion in projects nationwide have been delayed or canceled after local opposition, according to Data Center Watch.
In Virginia, which holds the world’s highest concentration of the facilities, a state-funded study found residents’ monthly energy bills could rise by $14 to $37 by 2040………..
Two requirements attached to these projects do not apply to commercial builds off base. Proposals must include net-zero water usage and a power plan that does not draw on the local electrical grid. Bidders were also required to describe plans for “local outreach and engagement” and to assess “any risks or opposition” to the project.
The Defense Department’s own procurement documents, obtained by the trade publication Data Center Dynamics, rate the water risk for the El Paso area as “Extremely High.” Data centers consume water to cool their servers. Fort Bliss is where the Army wants its flagship…………..
Proximity to the population is what has made data centers a heated topic in the civilian world. Nearly $156 billion in projects nationwide have been delayed or canceled after local opposition, according to Data Center Watch.
In Virginia, which holds the world’s highest concentration of the facilities, a state-funded study found residents’ monthly energy bills could rise by $14 to $37 by 2040.
Army Officials Say They’re Ready
“So I think the difference between us, the Army, doing a data center, and say Meta or Google, is we’re part of the communities that are there, and we are going to engage with them on a routine and regular basis to look for solutions that work for everyone, right?” Col. John Oliver, executive officer for Deputy Army Under Secretary Dave Fitzgerald, told Defense One. “Because, yes, we understand that there’s been consternation with data centers.”
Two requirements attached to these projects do not apply to commercial builds off base. Proposals must include net-zero water usage and a power plan that does not draw on the local electrical grid. Bidders were also required to describe plans for “local outreach and engagement” and to assess “any risks or opposition” to the project.
The Defense Department’s own procurement documents, obtained by the trade publication Data Center Dynamics, rate the water risk for the El Paso area as “Extremely High.” Data centers consume water to cool their servers. Fort Bliss is where the Army wants its flagship.
Army officials want the project to be a net contributor rather than a net drain. In the spring, Fitzgerald traveled to Fort Bliss for a listening session with the commander of the 1st Armored Division, community members, El Paso Water, El Paso Electric and Carlyle. One idea on the table is having the developer drill a new well to feed the city’s desalination plant, offsetting what the data center uses.
“We are encouraging Carlyle to do that, so actually make it net-positive,” Oliver told Defense One. “We don’t know if that’s an engineering solution that we can actually get to yet, but we’re actively working toward that as a part of the process.”
Darrell M. West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies data center development, said the approach is sound, and that communities which have accepted the facilities tend to be the ones told the full details in advance.
“People want to know up-front, you know, where the energy is coming from, how much water is being used, how much the overall cost is going to be, and what the noise levels are,” West said.
Congress Not Settled
Rep. Cory Mills, a Florida Republican, secured a provision in the House version of the fiscal 2027 defense authorization bill. This bill bars the Defense Department from leasing land for data centers unless developers agree not to install equipment containing components made in China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. The restriction covers certain printed circuit boards, advanced semiconductors and chipsets the department considers a security risk.
“Honored to pass this amendment to protect our military installations from Chinese components being used in data centers on our installations,” Mills wrote on X.
The Army objected. The measure would create a “federal land penalty,” a service official told Federal News Network, imposing rules on companies building on installations that would not apply to identical projects built anywhere else. “We want Congress to incentivize companies to build on secure federal land, rather than creating barriers that drive them away,” the official said.
Rep. John Garamendi, a California Democrat, proposed requiring the Pentagon to evaluate a data center’s energy and water consumption, noise and light pollution, and effects on security and supply chains before finalizing any deal. House Armed Services Republicans rejected it………………… https://www.military.com/pentagon-plans-ai-data-centers-at-military-bases-across-multiple-branches
CIA Assessment Details Israel’s Race to Make the U.S.-Israel Alliance Irreversible
The intelligence assessment says Israeli officials are pursuing a long-term strategy to make the alliance harder for future administrations to scale back.
Aída Chávez, Jul 30, 2026, https://capitalandempire.com/p/exclusive-cia-assessment-israel-us-support
Israeli officials know they’re losing the American public. Panicked that America’s political consensus on Israel is collapsing, they’re pursuing a long-term strategy to permanently enmesh Israel within America’s military, intelligence, and defense establishment – in ways future administrations would struggle to unwind – according to a new confidential U.S. intelligence assessment.
Israeli officials believe the political fight over Israel in the United States is becoming harder to win, and that the era of indefinitely securing billions of dollars in annual military aid is coming to an end, according to the assessment, which was described to Capital & Empire by several U.S. officials. Instead of relying on direct U.S. military aid – an increasingly visible and politically contentious form of support – Israel is racing to embed itself more deeply in America’s military, intelligence, and national security apparatus in ways designed to outlast future administrations.
The assessment, written primarily by the CIA and circulated this week, describes discussions about expanding intelligence cooperation and the possibility of hosting a permanent U.S. military base on Israeli territory. It also says Israeli officials have been cultivating prominent figures in the American technology sector to build long-term political and financial support for the strategy. The assessment does not identify those individuals by name.
Congress has already begun advancing elements of Israel’s strategy. Last week, the House quietly approved Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act, establishing a permanent U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative within the Pentagon. The House version establishes a Pentagon executive agent charged with coordinating bilateral defense research, development, industrial cooperation, and technology integration.
Six Democrats – Reps. Henry Cuellar, Don Davis, Jared Golden, Vicente Gonzalez, Adam Gray, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez – joined Republicans in voting to pass the defense authorization bill. The measure now heads to the Senate, which is expected to consider its own version of the NDAA before lawmakers from both chambers negotiate a final compromise bill for President Donald Trump’s signature.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who led an effort to strip Section 219 from the $1.15 trillion Pentagon budget, called the provision “a betrayal of our sovereignty.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., similarly described the proposal as “an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy.”
Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu floated phasing out direct U.S. military aid altogether. Most mainstream news coverage framed the proposed shift as a reflection of Israel’s growing economic and military strength, or self-sufficiency. But according to the assessment, the CIA views the strategy differently. The spy agency believes that Israel is seeking to insulate the U.S.-Israel alliance from America’s changing political landscape by replacing highly visible foreign aid with deeper, longer-lasting forms of military and industrial integration.
From Israel’s perspective, embedding the alliance more deeply within the U.S. national security apparatus would make it far more difficult for future administrations to pressure Israel by slowing or withholding arms transfers.
The strategy goes beyond intelligence sharing and military aid. Israeli officials also want Israeli technology, intelligence capabilities, and jointly developed weapons systems embedded in the U.S. military itself, making American defense increasingly reliant on Israeli systems. The assessment says Israeli officials have discussed positioning Israel in Washington as a uniquely indispensable technological and intelligence partner, pointing to language in the 2026 National Defense Strategy describing Israel as a “model ally” whose relationship with the United States is mutually beneficial.
Since the start of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, American public opinion toward Israel has deteriorated sharply. About 60 percent of U.S. adults now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53 percent a year ago, according to an April Pew Research Center survey. Among both Democrats and Republicans under 50, majorities now view both Israel and Netanyahu negatively.
As Gaza has become a defining issue in Democratic politics, the Democratic Socialists of America has surged in membership and electoral success behind campaigns centered on opposition to Israel. A generation ago, public support for Palestine could end a career. Today, a Canary Mission profile may be a stepping stone to Congress. The CIA knows Israel is nervous.
‘Defend Israel or the Homeland’: Top US general issues stark warning to Pentagon brass
Washington has greatly reduced its interceptor missile stocks, jeopardizing its ability to fight China, while prioritizing the protection of Israel
News Desk, AUG 1, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles/defend-israel-or-the-homeland-top-us-general-issues-stark-warning-to-pentagon-brass
The highest-ranking US general in Europe informed the Pentagon this week that he does not have enough naval units to protect Israel against potential Iranian missile strikes, according to a report by the Washington Post on August 1.
General Alexus Grynkewich, the head of US European Command (EUCOM), notified senior Pentagon officials in writing that without another navy destroyer, he will be forced to choose between defending the US “homeland” and defending Israel.
Grynkewich’s warning comes as US President Donald Trump continues to escalate the war on Iran.
The US Navy has shouldered a significant burden in waging the war, including responsibility for blockading Iranian ports in response to the Islamic Republic’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
US naval destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean have long been part of Israel’s defense strategy. They are equipped with radar systems and missile interceptors capable of countering Iranian ballistic missiles and drones.
EUCOM is responsible for protecting Israel from the Mediterranean and deterring any Russian ground incursion into NATO member states.
The US Navy has five destroyers deploying from Rota, Spain, with a sixth expected later this year. They face maintenance issues due to lengthy missions.
The US is also experiencing a shortage of missile interceptors, which are costly to manufacture and hard to restock.
Pentagon assessments conducted earlier in the war showed that US forces have “shouldered the brunt of defending Israel from Iranian ballistic missiles.”
Washington has used more of its defensive weapons, including the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and naval interceptors, to defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone attacks than Israel has used of its own interceptor stocks.
US inventories of Patriot missiles have now fallen below 1,000 and THAAD inventories to about 250, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Israel has not participated in the war on Iran since Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) and ceasefire in mid-June.
Trump resumed attacks on Iran three weeks ago.
Last week, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said Israel was content to remain out of the fighting and allow the US and its Gulf allies to fight the war on Tel Aviv’s behalf.
“Israel has no interest in joining the campaign – the current situation is the best for us,” Smotrich said on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House last week and lobbied Trump to escalate the war by imposing a land blockade on Iran.
According to a CBS News report on Friday, Washington and Tel Aviv are planning to significantly escalate the war of aggression by targeting Iran’s vital energy infrastructure.
Walt Zlotow – Many top military leaders opposed atomic bombings
2 August 26, Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glan Ellyn IL
Every year the four day period August 6 – 9 brings to mind the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings. This year marks the 81th anniversary of those horrific acts. We may be closer to nukes fired in anger at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis 64 tears ago. Major wars in Ukraine and Iran could both devolve into nuclear war. U.S. withdrawal from several nuclear treaties and planning to spend a trillion dollars to upgrade our nuclear stockpile add to nuclear anxiety. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight in January, the closest it’s been set to nuclear winter in the entire nuclear age.
I learned of the atomic bombings 75 years ago at age 6 and have been haunted by them ever since. For the first decade or so afterward I swallowed whole the US fairytale that the military and political elite were unified in dropping the bombs to prevent a U.S. invasion and its estimate of a million U.S. casualties. A little research disabused me of that false narrative designed to justify the unjustifiable.
Few if any reputable historians buy that version today. They point to a number of top military leaders who opposed the nuclear attacks, for good reasons. Most prominent was U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall who argued not using the Bomb would strengthen America’s prestige and position in post war Asia. He even advocated for inviting the Russians to view our July 16, 1945 test. Navy Secretary and later Defense Secretary James Forrestal argued the bombings would impede our post WWII relations with the Soviet Union. Fleet Admiral William Leahy, senior US military officer on active duty in WWII, called the proposed bombings “barbaric”. Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy told Truman that neither invasion nor atomic bombings were necessary. Japan would surrender if we avoided terminology ‘Unconditional Surrender’ since any surrender would amount to that without saying so. Allowing Hirohito to remain Emperor would bolster that view. McCloy even advocated telling Japanese leaders we had the Bomb as additional incentive to quit the war.
Tho not involved in the Bomb decision process, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was furious we dropped them, telling Secretary of War Harry Stimson shortly after the attacks “I voiced my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” Japanese leaders never admitted US atomic bombings motivated their surrender. More likely it was the massive Russian invasion of Manchuria the day of the Nagasaki bombing that more motivated the Japanese surrender.
Ike, McCloy, Leahy, Forristall, Marshall and others were right; Truman and his supporters were wrong. Eighty-one years on America is still the only country to explode nukes in anger. Current senseless wars in Ukraine and Iran, refusal to maintain critically needed nuclear agreements, routinely threatening imagined enemies with “all military options are on the table”, spending a trillion dollars to build bigger and better nukes, all bode ill we’ll make another 81 years nuclear attack free.
How Lockheed Martin, Raytheon & BAE Systems Are Propagandizing Children To Support War Through STEM
If Saudi Arabia is Washington’s biggest customer, then Israel is its prime recipient of welfare. A study from Brown University found that in the two years following the October 7, 2023 attack, the United States spent $21.7 billion on military aid to Israel, including aircraft, missiles, and all manner of small arms munitions.
August 1, 2026, Alan Macleod Mint Press News, https://scheerpost.com/2026/08/01/how-lockheed-martin-raytheon-bae-systems-are-propagandizing-children-to-support-war-through-stem/
Raytheon sponsors the Girl Scouts of America. BAE Systems is reading your toddlers their favorite fairytale stories. And Lockheed Martin funds children’s math and STEM festivals. This is done with great fanfare, supposedly to empower and inspire children to pursue their passion for science. In reality, though, these companies are attempting to launder their images and enlist the next generation to become cogs in the military-industrial complex.
All the while, these organizations’ products are being used across the world by the United States and Israel to commit war crimes – in Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and beyond – to target children.
MintPress explores the murky world of the arms companies training kids to bomb kids.
Normalizing War to Kids
When many Americans think of Raytheon (now officially rebranded as RTX Corporation), they don’t envisage rockets and cruise missiles; they think of math. For decades, the second-largest arms manufacturer on the planet has bankrolled a wide range of organizations aimed at getting children excited about STEM subjects.
Since 2009, Raytheon has been the title sponsor of MATHCOUNTS, a non-profit organization that provides engaging math programs for middle school students in every U.S. state, as well as organizing math competitions to find the brightest children in America.
In 2005, Raytheon launched its MathMovesU program, aimed, in its own words, “to inspire middle school students to get excited about math and science.” In addition to the materials provided, it has also spent millions on scholarships, grants, and study awards to thousands of students, teachers, and volunteers.
And its MathAlive! traveling exhibit promises, in rather outdated branding, to take math “2theXtreme”. MathAlive! Has also traveled to several countries in West Asia, including Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia – all of them among the biggest purchasers of Raytheon weapons technology.
The company also enjoys a longtime partnership with the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA). In 2017, for example, it launched the GSUSA’s first national computer science program and cyber challenge for middle and high school girls.
“The progress to diversify the STEM workforce needs to be accelerated… At a time when technology is transforming the way we live and work, we can – and should – show young women a clear path to taking an active role in this transformation,” said Thomas A. Kennedy, then-Raytheon CEO; “Working together, Raytheon and Girl Scouts will help girls build confidence to see themselves as the robotics engineers, data scientists and cybersecurity professionals who will create a better tomorrow.”
Raytheon also spearheaded the GSUSA’s “Think Like a Programmer” project, which encourages girls to explore the world of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, and developed many of the programming badges available to the scouts.
GSUSA appears proud of this relationship. Its website profiles one former scout who now works at Raytheon as a success story and a model to follow. The article includes a step-by-step guide and a list of tips for those wishing to follow in her footsteps.
Unsurprisingly, Raytheon also works closely with the U.S. military on these matters, establishing four new STEM “centers of innovation” with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America in Michigan, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Washington, D.C., all near military bases.
While some might be surprised by the closeness of the relationship between a children’s organization and an arms manufacturer, it is worth remembering that the scouting movement was originally established by Lieutenant-General Robert Baden-Powell, as a stepping stone towards boys joining the military. Baden-Powell was deeply concerned that English boys would not be physically fit enough to fight for their country in any upcoming wars, and designed an organization that would train them both physically and mentally to do so.
Kirsten Bayes from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade was unimpressed by Raytheon’s attempts to improve their image and to train the next generation of weapons manufacturers. “Our view is that arms companies have no place in schools or colleges, and should certainly not be working with children’s educational charities,” she told MintPress, adding:
“Schools and other places of education should be places where children learn, grow and develop their full potential. They should not be a recruiting ground where arms companies whitewash their activities.”
Lockheed Martin U
But Raytheon is far from the only weapons giant directly targeting America’s children. Lockheed Martin hosts CYBERQUEST, an annual high school competition that encourages children to pursue careers in intelligence and cybersecurity. The 2026 event was held in 11 locations across the country, as well as virtually around the world. The arms giant offers high school internship programs designed to fast-track America’s brightest young minds into careers in defense. Every year, Lockheed Martin hires thousands of young interns, and claims that 60% of these candidates go on to paid work at the company.
It also sponsors “young minds at work” days, setting up hands-on experiments for children to play with, including bottle rocket experiments and more.
Universities are a key recruitment ground. The corporation spends huge sums attracting top talent, including hosting “Lockheed Martin Day” at more than a dozen colleges nationwide, where company recruiters are allowed on campus to dazzle students with virtual reality exhibitions, flight simulators, and even landing helicopters directly on college greens.
Lockheed Martin has entered into partnerships with several top colleges. A $1.5 million donation to the University of Texas at Arlington, for instance, resulted in the renamed of one of their buildings as the Lockheed Martin Career Development Center.
The company touts its reputation as a safe space for women and LGBT employees, and is regularly listed as one of the best employers for inclusivity. One woman the company itself profiles is Haley, who, as a girl, dreamed of becoming an inventor. “As a child,” they write, “Haley clung to a notebook where she sketched her ideas and inventions. On the cover she scribbled, ‘Haley’s Way to Make Life Better.’ Her best idea? A self-folding Christmas tree cleverly called ‘Merry, Bright and Boxed’ to make cleaning up after the holidays more efficient.” Today, that child with dreams of making the world a better place is a missiles and fire control engineer with Lockheed Martin, developing weapons that efficiently kill people all across the planet.
Targeting Toddlers
Boeing, too, has developed a number of projects aimed at young children. Their “Engineering is Elementary” program is designed for pre-K, kindergarten, elementary and middle school students, and, like those from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is focussed on funnelling young minds into a career in weapons manufacturing. “Boeing has a strategic community focus to increase teacher effectiveness in math and science and to attract more students into STEM-related careers,” a company representative said, adding,
“Engineering is Elementary provides teachers and students a greater understanding of engineering, and it accomplishes that in a fun, interactive way. Our goal is to interest students in engineering at an early age and increase the number of scientists and engineers.”
Aerospace manufacturer BAE Systems, however, goes even further. The London-based giant that produces jet aircraft, missiles, howitzers, and warships published a series of bizarre videos featuring both its employees and members of the British Armed Forces reading classic fairytales to children. This included Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Cinderella, and Hansel and Gretel. These came complete with worksheets to help extremely young children with their problem-solving skills.
Reading bedtime stories to babies is just part of a wider strategy BAE Systems is conducting in order to, in their own words, “improve our corporate reputation at both a local and national level.” Other initiatives include hosting school roadshows, robotics festivals, science camps, and local community outreach programs, all aimed at children. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it also stepped in to provide schools with branded learning materials for children as young as five.
Bayes appeared appalled at the company’s actions, stating:
“We are aware that BAE Systems claims to spend as much as £100m [U.S.$134m] per year on educational activities. It claims its motives are community based, but we would say that this is part of their recruiting strategy: seeking to influence young people without presenting the full facts of what an arms company is, and what the consequences of working for them would be.”
Fairytales and Nightmares
As much as these companies attempt to present themselves neutrally as scientific entities, the reality is that their primary businesses revolve around producing the hardware and weaponry that the United States uses to dominate the world.
In the past twelve months alone, the United States has bombed seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. And it is companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin that make this kind of extraordinary planetary violence possible.
For example, on February 28, the United States launched an attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in Minab, Iran. A Tomahawk cruise missile – one of the most precise guided weapons on the planet – was launched from a nearby warship and pummelled the building, causing the school to collapse in on itself. Soon after, a second missile hit the school’s courtyard, where desperate survivors were gathering.
The attack was timed precisely for maximum damage: 10:45am on a school day. At least 156 people were killed, most of them pupils at the school, which neither served any military purpose, nor was located near any military target. Over 100 more were injured.
The event was immediately denounced as a major war crime. But Secretary of War Pete Hegseth brushed it off, and later stated that, “The only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians who think they’re going to live.”
The Tomahawk cruise missile is produced by Raytheon, and subsystems used in the operation were made by a subsidiary of BAE Systems.
Washington also uses its primacy in weapons to keep its allies in power. Saudi Arabia is by far the U.S.’ top arms customer, purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hi-tech weaponry, which it immediately uses against Yemen, and to suppress domestic dissent.
Riyadh has pursued a genocidal attack on civilian infrastructure in Yemen, including against farms, sewage, and water facilities, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In August 2018, it dropped a 227 kg (500lb) laser-guided bomb on a school bus in Dhahyan, northern Yemen. Fragments found at the scene identified the bomb as having been produced by Lockheed Martin. Forty children were killed in the attack – a far from uncommon occurrence during the Saudi-led campaign to topple Ansar Allah from power.
If Saudi Arabia is Washington’s biggest customer, then Israel is its prime recipient of welfare. A study from Brown University found that in the two years following the October 7, 2023 attack, the United States spent $21.7 billion on military aid to Israel, including aircraft, missiles, and all manner of small arms munitions.
Israel has used these weapons to systematically target children in Gaza and beyond. At least 97% of schools in the densely-populated strip have been hit. One of the more notable examples was the Khadija Girls’ School in Deir al-Balah, which was targeted on July 27, 2024. A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Israel dropped at least two GBU-39 bombs on the school – munitions manufactured in the United States by Boeing.
Thus, while arms manufacturers read fairytales to Western kids, children across the world are forced to live out a very real nightmare, thanks in no small part to these companies.
Whether they live in the United States or one of the countries under its boot, however, children everywhere are being targeted by these weapons firms, though in different ways. In the United States, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others have stepped in to bolster cash-strapped education departments. While their rhetoric emphasizes empowering children – especially girls – to follow their science dreams, their true intent is to launder their reputations as merchants of death, and to train up the next generation of Americans to become willing members of the American war machine.
Children on the other side of the globe, however, are given no such illusions, and have to live with the constant terror that they be these companies’ next victims. This image, is not the one the likes of Raytheon want us to think about when we picture their products, and so they spend millions attempting to distract us with stories of empowerment and discovery. What a world we live in, where weapons companies are training kids to bomb kids.
After 157 days of Iran war failure, Trump must quit war or quit presidency.
Walr Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 4 Aug 26
President Trump is flailing around like every world leader in history who launched a criminal war of choice he can’t win but can’t quit. Like every losing criminal war predecessor, he’s becoming more and more unhinged searching for a magic bullet, make that a magic missile, that will turn his inevitable defeat into his cherished victory.
He fantasizes Iran has been destroyed and is begging to surrender in Trump’s terms. He threatens massive destruction one day, then calls off that destruction a day later for two reasons: he doesn’t have the firepower to inflict it, and knows Iran will inflict even worse damage to US Gulf State bases and Middle East energy infrastructure cratering the world economy. Thousands more Iranians may die and hundreds more US service casualties may pile up to no avail.
Iran won, the US has lost. Deservedly so. Iran did nothing to deserve Trump’s dastardly attack.
Except for a dwindling number of ‘destroy Iran dead enders’, Trump’s war cabinet must be apoplectic over Trump’s delusional descent into endless war madness. Neither VP Vance nor Secretary of State Rubio were keen on Trump’s cockamamie war but bowed to his hubris fueled by the power behind the push for war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
On this war day 157 of Trump’s disastrous, failed war edging the world economy toward the fiscal cliff, Trump still has 900 days to ensure that happens. On his own he appears incapable of admitting defeat or simply resigning the presidency to allow Vance to begin negotiations to end the war on Iran’s sensible terms. We can only hope Trump’s was council will conduct an intervention. Instruct Trump to quit the war or quit the presidency. If not they should threaten resignation en mass to paralyze the government to fulfill the prophesy Bob Dylan once famously sang…. “Even the President of the United States sometimes has to stand naked.”
Canada built its nuclear industry to avoid foreign fuel. Its new SMR reactors will depend on it.
by relying on imported enriched uranium, Canada would give foreign governments the ability to disrupt its nuclear fuel supply during a political dispute.
Canada would need to enrich its own uranium to control the entire fuel chain, but such a facility would cost billions to build and require extensive security, regulation and international safeguards througout its life.
“It would be much more uneconomical for Canada to develop one just for this small modular reactor design.”
Ontario’s first small modular reactor will rely on enriched uranium from the U.S., France and Britain
Colin Butler · CBC News · Aug 02, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-nuclear-supply-chain-smr-darlington-uranium-enrichment-9.7289297
The first reactors in Canada’s planned nuclear expansion will depend on foreign suppliers — including the United States — to enrich and fabricate their fuel, even as Prime Minister Mark Carney argues Canadian sovereignty depends on the country’s ability to supply and control its own energy.
It marks a sharp departure from the Candu reactor system, which gave Canada — the world’s second-largest uranium producer — a largely domestic nuclear supply chain for more than half a century.
Ontario has begun building the first of four planned BWRX-300 small modular reactors, or SMRs, in Clarington, Ont., called the Darlington New Nuclear Project. The American-Japanese-designed light water reactor uses low-enriched uranium, unlike Canada’s Candus, which use fuel made domestically from natural uranium without enrichment.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the Crown corporation that operates provincially owned electrical utilities, expects the first BWRX-300 at Darlington to be connected to the grid by the end of 2030. The other three are planned for the mid-2030s.
Cameco, the Saskatoon-based uranium mining and nuclear fuel company, will mine uranium ore in Saskatchewan and convert it in Port Hope, Ont., before it is enriched in the United States. France’s Orano and Britain’s Urenco are also listed by OPG as a supplier of enriched uranium, and an American company will manufacture the finished fuel assemblies in the United States.
Against Candu’s founding logic
Experts say the shift reverses the founding logic in Canada’s nuclear program.
A 1993 Library of Parliament background paper said the reason Candu was created was “to design a reactor tailored to Canadian circumstances” that used natural uranium to avoid “the difficult and expensive process of enrichment or, alternatively, dependence on foreign sources of enriched uranium.”
By placing that step in foreign hands, experts say, the new reactors undermine claims of energy soverignty and expose Canada to long-term geopolitcal risk.
Mark Winfield, a professor at York University who studies sustainable energy, climate change and energy policy, said by relying on imported enriched uranium, Canada would give foreign governments the ability to disrupt its nuclear fuel supply during a political dispute.
“It turns the original rationale for the Candu program completely on its head,” he said. “The whole idea was, going back to the 1950s, that we would have an all-Canadian fuel supply chain that would not be the subject to those kinds of geopolitical risks.”
OPG said spreading the work among suppliers in the United States, Britain and Frnace creates a “robust and resilient supply chain,” but the company still leaves both enrichment and fabrication — the two steps Canada cannot perform for the BWRX-300 — in foreign hands.
Why Ontario went global
Speaking at a recent news conference in Nanticoke, Ont., provincial Energy Minister Stephen Lecce said the province chose a foreign reactor because no Canadian alternative was ready to generate electricity at the required scale.
“There is not a Canadian grid-scale, commercially viable small modular reactor technology to procure,” he said. “So we had to go global.”
He said Ontario chose the American-Japanese BWRX-300 because it was the most advanced option and offered the best chance to reduce the risks associated with building a first-of-its-kind reactor.
Canada does have a new domestic reactor under development, but it was not an alternative for Ontario’s SMR project. The Candu Monark is not an SMR and is currently under assessment by Canada’s nuclear regulator.
The decision to “go global,” as Lecce put it, leaves Ontario dependent on foreign enrichment, but Lecce said the province has reduced the risk by arranging access to suppliers in the United States, France and Britain.
SMRs would use ‘modest’ amount of fuel
Winfield said multiple enrichment suppliers reduce the risk of disruption, but do not eliminate it. Every enrichment facility is outside Canada, while the only company identified that would make the finished fuel assemblies is American.
“I think that’s still a risk. Particularly if the United States decides to use its supply of various uranium for geopolitical leverage, which is clearly not beyond the thinking of the Trump administration,” Winfield said.
Even with France and Britain as backup suppliers, Winfield said, it opens the door to “all kinds of vulnerabilities relative to an all-Canadian supply chain. You are at the mercy of whatever external geopolitical events may be occurring.”
The federal government says foreign enrichment doesn’t present a significant supply risk, especially in the short to medium-term.
In an email, Natural Resources Canada said the four planned Darlington SMRs will require “a very small amount” of enriched fuel, which is “modest” compared with the global market, but did not provide a quantity.
Why being first is ‘not a good thing’
While there are other SMRs active in China and Russia, the Darlington facility will be the first SMR in the G7.
“That’s not a good thing, in my opinion,” said M.V. Ramana, a University of British Columbia professor who studies nuclear energy and international security.
“Nuclear power is a very expensive way to generate electricity and the small modular reactor is even more expensive.”
Ramana said SMRs sacrifice the economies of scale available to larger reactors.
A 2014 study suggests they are more expensive per unit in generating capacity unless savings from shared infrastructure can offset the disadvantage, which is what OPG intends for its four-reactor Darlington site.
BWRX-300 designer GE Vernova says smaller reactors can overcome some of that cost disadvantage because they require less machinery than conventional reactors: water circulates through the reactor without powered pumps, while emergency cooling functions use gravity and natural circulation.
The company says this reduces the amount of equipment that must be manufactured, installed and maintained.
However, because Darlington is the design’s first deployment, those projected savings have not yet been demonstrated by a commercially operating unit.
Could Canada enrich its own uranium?
The only way for Canada to eliminate its reliance on foreign suppliers is by establishing its own uranium-enrichment industry.
Lecce said Ontario would be open to discussions, but he acknowledged the decision ultimately rests with the federal government.
Natural Resources Canada said Ottawa has made no decision on commercial enrichment but plans to create a “Nuclear Fuels Table” with the provinces and industry to examine future needs and opportunities.
Ontario is currently the only province committed to building SMRs, but Saskatchewan is advancing plans for the same BWRX-300 technology, while New Brunswick and Alberta are evaluating potential nuclear projects that could include SMRs.
Ramana said Canada would need to enrich its own uranium to control the entire fuel chain, but such a facility would cost billions to build and require extensive security, regulation and international safeguards througout its life.
“In the enrichment business, again, there are economies of scale,” he said. “It would be much more uneconomical for Canada to develop one just for this small modular reactor design.”
Ramana added that the new reactors also create another long-term liability. Canada’s current $26-billion nuclear waste plan was calculated around fuel from the existing Candu reactor fleet.
New reactors could change both the volume and type of spent fuel requiring disposal, but Ramana noted there has been no cost estimate from Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization for adding the spent fuel from four BWRX-300s.
Nuclear Watchdog Sues for Plutonium Pit Production “Special Study”
Jay Coghlan, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, 4 Aug 26, https://nukewatch.org/nuclear-weapons-watchdog-complaint-nnsa-pit-production-special-study
Santa Fe, NM – Nuclear Watch New Mexico has sued the Department of Energy under the Freedom of Information Act for its Special Study of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Leadership and Management of the Plutonium Pit Production Mission. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is the semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency within DOE.
Plutonium “pits” are the radioactive cores or “triggers” of nuclear weapons. Their
expanded manufacturing has been the chokepoint of resumed industrial-scale nuclear
weapons production by the U.S. Crucially, no future pit production is to maintain the
safety and reliability of the existing stockpile. Instead, it is all for new-design nuclear
weapons for the new arms race. These new weapons can’t be tested because of the
existing global testing moratorium, thereby perhaps degrading confidence in the
stockpile. Or new-design nuclear weapons testing could prompt the U.S. to resume
testing, which would have severe international proliferation consequences.
Plutonium pit production is the NNSA’s most expensive and complex program to date.
However, the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly
stated that the agency has no credible costs estimates and no “Integrated Master
Schedule” for simultaneous production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
in northern New Mexico and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. In fact,
DOE and NNSA have been on the GAO’s “High Risk List” for project mismanagement
and waste of taxpayers’ dollars since 1991. At more than $30 billion, the plutonium pit
plant at SRS is on track to become the most expensive building in U.S. history. A
comparable amount will be spent at LANL on facility upgrades and related projects, for
which the NNSA fails to keep total aggregated costs.
Even the Department of Energy recognizes how deeply troubled NNSA’s plutonium pit
production program is. In August 2025 DOE Deputy Secretary James Danly ordered the
“Special Study” completed within 120 days (i.e., mid-December 2025). On December 16,
2025, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. John Garamendi, both members of the Armed
Services Committees, unsuccessfully demanded the Special Study.
Nuclear Watch New Mexico filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the Special
Study on December 22, 2025. Having received no substantive response, in April 2026 we
requested expedited processing because of an open public comment period for a Pit
Production Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (that we had to sue NNSA for
to begin with). Having received no further response from DOE we have therefore filed
this litigation in the Washington, DC federal court.
Nuclear Watch New Mexico’s counsel is Jules Zacher, who has successfully represented
us in two previous FOIA lawsuits. Apart from his legal practice, Mr. Zacher is also
chairman of the Board of Directors of the Council for a Livable World, founder of
Citizens for Transparency and on the Executive Board of the Center for Ethics and Rule
of Law at the University of Pennsylvania. He commented, “This Special Study has not
been classified to my knowledge and was completed before the end of 2025. The
American taxpayer deserves to see it. It’s an exorbitant amount of money he and she is
being asked to bear for a deeply troubled and provocative program.”
Jay Coghlan, Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, added, “There is a massive
coverup by DOE and NNSA over their plutonium pit production program. To grease
expanded nuclear weapons production, they have rescinded nuclear safety regulations,
illegally restricted the access of the independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,
and are withholding crucial documents from the American taxpayer. We hope this
lawsuit will help to bring NNSA’s plutonium house of cards tumbling down.”
Kremlin Still Key for US Atomic Power Despite Looming Import Ban
The vulnerability is growing more urgent as Washington promotes a nuclear
revival driven by power demand from data centers and electrification. The
US nuclear industry remains heavily dependent on Moscow for the enriched
uranium that fuels reactors generating about a fifth of the nation’s
electricity, highlighting the challenge of meeting a 2028 deadline to end
Russian purchases.
US reactor operators bought about 3.28 million
separative work units, or SWUs, of Russian enrichment services in 2025,
equal to almost 26% of their total purchases, according to data published
Wednesday in the Energy Information Administration’s latest uranium
marketing report. That compares with 17% a decade earlier.
Bloomberg 30th July 2026,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/kremlin-still-key-for-us-atomic-power-despite-looming-import-ban
Common Sense & the Pentagon Budget
time and reason strongly suggest that the U.S. “defense” budget is out of control, unsustainable and absent of accountability.
Eisenhower said the following:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed“
By Dennis Laich
Eisenhower Media Network, July 31, 2026, https://consortiumnews.com/2026/07/31/common-sense-the-pentagon-budget/
For Americans, the courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront one at home — the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex, writes Dennis Laich.
The first sentence of Thomas Paine’s classic 1776 essay, Common Sense, urged the American people to challenge the legitimacy of the English Crown, something that had never been challenged before.
He wrote:
“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them a great favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
Two hundred and fifty years later, time and reason strongly suggest that the U.S. “defense” budget is out of control, unsustainable and absent of accountability.
Only the American people can rein it in
The “defense of custom” in this case will come from the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (MICC) of which President Eisenhower warned us in 1961 in his farewell address, and drove home the consequences of in his famous “Cross of Iron” speech in 1953. In his address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower said the following:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
All of these forces benefit by exaggerating threats to our national security which justify a huge U.S. “defense” budget, larger than the next eight nations (most of whom are allies) in the world combined, while American citizens lack health care, childcare and other basic needs.
The defense industry’s lobbyists team up with U.S. politicians, who receive campaign financing from the industry, to draft the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which sets military policy, the expensive weaponry to be purchased and the overall military budget
The industry takes the ensuing windfall and puts it toward stock buybacks, which increase the share price, making the rich richer; dividend payments for shareholders; eight-figure annual compensation packages for corporate executives; and the continual political graft (campaign contributions and lobbyists) that keeps the wheel spinning. Incredibly, some contracts stipulate that only the contractor may repair and maintain equipment.
The most embarrassing example of this practice is the F-35 Stealth Fighter, which is grossly over budget, behind schedule and is only 25 percent fully mission capable.
The principal beneficiaries of the MICC’s practice of vastly overstating foreign threats are the Pentagon and the invertebrate senior uniformed bureaucrats who occupy it and secure lucrative post-retirement employment with the MICC.
The massive Pentagon budget provides the Pentagon with a premier position within both the government and society. Money talks in America, but few members of Congress choose to talk about the $39 trillion national debt to which military spending is a major contributor.
Unfortunately, the uniformed bureaucrats lack the courage to stand up against a draft dodger and a Rambo-wannabe in order to protect their profession or the institution of the military.
Government employees, including military officials, are fired for specious reasons and no one, not even those who were fired, dare speak up regarding the negative impact on morale, discipline and readiness. Nor do they speak up when the U.S. supports genocide in Gaza, extrajudicial murders in the Caribbean, or attacks the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
These recent developments will serve to accelerate a decline in the U.S. military’s performance. Since WWII, the U.S. has won one war (the first Gulf War), lost four (Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran) and tied one (Korea). Iran may be as much an embarrassment as a loss.
The United States has failed to achieve its stated objectives in any recent war, despite having a military budget larger than the next eight countries combined and being easily the most defensible of any peer nation (with two friendly, stable nations to its north and south and oceans on its east and west). What football coach could keep his job with a 1-4-1 record?
Additionally, the Pentagon cannot tell the American taxpayer where the money went, since it is unable to pass a financial audit as required by law — something every other department of the federal government is able to do.
Now, they are requesting a 50 percent increase in the defense budget to S1.5 trillion. This is equivalent to your child asking for more money a day after receiving his/her allowance. When you ask what happened to the money he/she received yesterday, the child can’t answer the question, but you give him/her more money regardless.
This represents a level of arrogance and incompetence that the American people should not be asked to tolerate.
Thomas Paine understood something that seemed impossible in 1776. On paper, the American colonies had no chance against the greatest empire on Earth. Britain possessed the world’s most powerful military, immense wealth, and overwhelming resources.
The colonies had none of those advantages. What Paine recognized as “common sense” was that wars are not won by budgets alone. They are won by legitimacy, purpose, and the willingness of a free people to defend their own liberty.
The $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request represents more than S9,000 per individual taxpayer.
If we Americans are tired of seeing our tax dollars spent on endless wars, bombing campaigns, and military excess while our own communities struggle with the costs of health care, child care, education, and infrastructure, then the time has come to do what Thomas Paine asked Americans to do 250 years ago: challenge the assumptions that have become accepted simply because they are old. The courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront one at home — the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex — and reclaim a government that serves the American people rather than the interests of perpetual war.
Major General Dennis Laich, U.S, Army, retired, is executive director of the Eisenhower Media Network, an organization of expert former military, intelligence and civilian national security officials who have an independent, alternative story to tell.
Venture Capitalists Money Floods Into U.S. Nuclear Startups as AI Power Demand Explodes
By Haley Zaremba – Jul 31, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/VC-Money-Floods-Into-US-Nuclear-Startups-as-AI-Power-Demand-Explodes.html
- Global VC funding for nuclear fission and fusion startups has already topped $4.5 billion across 81 companies in 2026, on pace to beat 2025’s $6.2 billion record.
- Big Tech figures including Sam Altman and Bill Gates are pouring money into fusion to keep up with AI’s ballooning electricity demand.
- Critics warn the startup boom is skipping voluntary safety guardrails and pulling attention from proven large-scale reactor technology.
Venture capitalists are taking a major interest in nuclear energy start ups. Funding is surging for both nuclear fusion and fission firms as the technology becomes an increasingly essential part of a feasible pathway toward sustainable energy security in the face of the artificial intelligence boom.
According to reporting by Axios, global investment in both fission and fusion has topped USD $4.5 billion across 81 companies in 2026 so far. At this pace, by year’s end, this year will shatter 2025’s previous record of $6.2 billion for 93 companies.
Data center hyperscalers are driving up energy demand projections to previously unthinkable levels that will require an all-of-the-above approach to energy development that is likely to prominently feature nuclear energy as a round-the-clock source of zero-emissions electricity. In the United States, the public and private sectors alike are extremely bullish on the technology and clearly eager to usher in a new nuclear era. As a result, the majority of this year’s funding surge is going to U.S. companies.
Big Tech has taken a particular interest in expanding nuclear energy deployment and technological advancement to feed its own ballooning energy needs. Some of the tech sector’s biggest names, including Bill Gates and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, are major investors in and advocates of nuclear fusion as an answer to AI’s ballooning energy problem. “There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” he said at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “It motivates us to go invest more in fusion.”
The Trump administration, too, is a major proponent of nuclear energy expansion, with a particular focus on next-gen nuclear technologies as part of a broader push to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy” and “produce lasting American dominance in the global nuclear energy market.” To this end, Executive Order 14301, signed by Trump in May 2025, mobilizes significant resources from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program to fast-track the testing and commercialization of advanced nuclear technologies in order to bring them to scale.
These advanced technologies include nuclear fusion as well as small modular reactors (SMRs) which hold major promise for overcoming some of the hurdles that have been causing nuclear energy to fall out of fashion in the United States. Traditional nuclear power plants are enormously costly and face long timelines and miles of red tape to come online. The country’s most recent traditional nuclear power plant, Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, finally came online years late and billions over budget. The hope is that modular and alternative technologies won’t face the same issues, as they can be built offsite relatively cheaply.
SMRs are still an emerging technology. While one SMR design has been officially approved for development in the United States, and many more firms are seeking approval for their plans, zero SMRs have yet come online in the country. “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission took about six years to approve the first advanced small reactor design, from fission developer NuScale,” Axios reports. “President Trump has sought to accelerate the process, aiming for 18 months. But that still could give first movers a major advantage in locking down contracts with data centers and electric utilities.”
With the backing of both the federal government and Silicon Valley, it’s no surprise that nuclear startups are going gangbusters. But while the increasing fragmentation and privatization of the nuclear energy sector could be great for innovation and expansion of the technology, it also poses some key drawbacks. For one thing, nuclear startups have so far shown a concerning disregard for voluntary safety guidelines that were tacitly accepted in the nuclear sector until now.
In addition to safety concerns, some critics have argued that a focus on cutting-edge nuclear energy technologies and startups may be diverting energy and funding from proven technologies that would better serve nuclear power capacity addition goals. A recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal argued that “The administration is chasing unproven technology when it could encourage Wall Street investment in large-scale reactors,” and, as a result, Trump’s nuclear renaissance is stalling.
A Kansas Town Is Split Over Plans to Bury a Nuclear Reactor a Mile Underground.
“This is a nuclear experiment,” Reynolds said. She questions how the company will perform maintenance so far underground, why drillers are operating under oil-and-gas regulations rather than nuclear-specific rules, and what happens to the site if Deep Fission goes out of business.
026-07-30, https://finance.biggo.com/news/1fb78f6c-786f-4381-be62-937bfa684157
Deep Fission, a California startup, plans to operate the first commercial nuclear reactor a mile underground in Parsons, Kansas, by 2027 or 2028. The project has raised $150 million and is part of a DOE pilot program to fast-track advanced reactors amid surging AI-driven electricity demand. The company says deep burial eliminates the need for costly containment buildings, with each 15-megawatt reactor powering 12,000 homes. However, the plan has sharply divided the town of 9,600. Opponents, including local group Prairie Dog Alliance and watchdog Beyond Nuclear, warn of environmental risks and insufficient oversight, while supporters view it as a vital economic spark for the struggling rural community. The project faces regulatory hurdles and broader questions about nuclear waste storage underground.
An ambitious plan to bury a commercial nuclear reactor a mile beneath a small Kansas town is pitting residents who see a coming economic renaissance against those who fear their community is being turned into a testing ground for an unproven experiment. The project, spearheaded by a California startup founded by a father-daughter team, would be the first time a commercial reactor has ever been operated so far underground.
Deep Fission, the company behind the so-called Gravity Reactor, has already drilled one test hole on the outskirts of Parsons—a rural community of 9,600 people roughly midway between Kansas City and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The firm, founded by Chief Executive Liz Muller and her father Richard Muller, an emeritus professor of physics at University of California, Berkeley, has raised roughly $150 million in the past year, with $40 million of that earmarked for the Parsons work. The startup plans to send a canister loaded with nuclear fuel into a third borehole to heat water deep underground and generate electricity on the surface as early as 2027 or 2028, a timeline that is remarkably short by industry standards.
“It’s allowing us to develop a first reactor within a time frame that had been unthinkable previously,” Liz Muller told The Wall Street Journal.
The reactor design relies on well-established pressurized water technology, but its innovation lies in its location. By operating a mile underground, Deep Fission argues it can eliminate some of the most expensive components of conventional nuclear plants. The immense pressure from rock and water at that depth would replace costly safety structures like massive containment buildings and complex cooling systems. Each reactor would generate 15 megawatts of electricity from inside a 30-inch borehole, enough to power roughly 12,000 homes. However, Muller’s long-term vision is far larger: an array of 100 or more reactors providing over a gigawatt of power, enough to supply a major data center.
Federal push meets local pushback
The Parsons project is one of 11 in a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) pilot program designed to accelerate the development and testing of small, advanced reactors. Participating companies can fast-track environmental review procedures and construct reactors outside of traditional national laboratory settings. The initiative is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to spur a “nuclear renaissance,” aiming to quadruple America’s nuclear-power generation by 2050 amid skyrocketing electricity demand driven largely by data centers for artificial intelligence.
But the expedited process has drawn sharp criticism from nuclear watchdogs and local advocacy groups. Earlier this year, a coalition of state attorneys general challenged the DOE’s new categorical exclusion for advanced nuclear reactors, arguing it bypasses rigorous environmental review and weakens public safety protections.
“It’s simply unacceptable to even consider exempting Deep Fission from a peer-reviewed environmental impact statement on the generation of high-level nuclear waste under Parsons,” said Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear, a group that opposes nuclear power and weapons.
The Energy Department has stated that the administration remains focused on safety and security.
In Parsons, the divide is stark. When Deep Fission broke ground in December at the Great Plains Industrial Park, a decommissioned U.S. Army ammunition base, many residents were caught off guard by the lack of public discussion. Marjorie Reynolds, a pediatric nurse and seventh-generation Kansan, quickly formed a nonprofit called the Prairie Dog Alliance to oppose the project. Its logo features a prairie dog inside a black-and-yellow nuclear symbol.
“This is a nuclear experiment,” Reynolds said. She questions how the company will perform maintenance so far underground, why drillers are operating under oil-and-gas regulations rather than nuclear-specific rules, and what happens to the site if Deep Fission goes out of business.
Jerel Johnson, an IT professional who had planned to retire in Parsons, voiced a similar frustration. “I put $125,000 into my house, and now a nuclear reactor is coming to town. I can’t think of a worse idea.”
Liz Muller has pushed back against the environmental concerns, stating that the reactor is far too deep to affect underground aquifers and that the company will follow all nuclear and oil-and-gas regulations. Because the reactors are expected to last six to seven years with few moving parts, she added, the likelihood of requiring maintenance is low. “We have simplified our reactor quite extensively,” she said. The company also plans to open a local office where residents can ask questions, emphasizing that the project “needs to be done in partnership with the community.”
Economic hopes in a struggling farm town
For others in Parsons, a 19th-century boomtown that has long sought a new economic spark, the potential payoff is worth the risk. The town was once home to one of the largest rail yards west of the Mississippi, but recent victories have been small—attracting a Taco Bell or saving a local furniture store.
Verlyn Bolinger, an insurance agent and city commissioner whose great-great-grandfather also served on the commission, captured the conflicted mood. “Any time you’re putting a nuclear reactor in a hole, it’s kind of scary,” he said. “It’s great that it’s here. It’s kind of bad that we’re the guinea pigs.”
Robert Spinks, Parsons’ police chief, is more optimistic. He views the reactor as a potential catalyst that could draw manufacturers and data centers to the region. “It’s a proven technology, just in a new application,” Spinks said. “And if that is a trigger which draws in other manufacturing and brings in living-wage jobs, I think that’s a win.”
Wayne Gilmore, an optometrist who owns the local radio station, echoed that sentiment, arguing that rural communities cannot build their futures by rejecting new technology before it is fully evaluated.
Deep Fission’s plan to store spent nuclear fuel underground is also drawing scrutiny. The company says it could eventually seal the waste in place or move it to another site. Liz Muller and her father previously founded Deep Isolation, a firm that designs underground disposal systems for nuclear waste. Still, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will need to approve any commercial licensing before electricity from the reactor can be sold. Dozens of companies are designing smaller reactors, but none yet operate commercially in the United States, and Deep Fission must still prove it can meet its aggressive timelines and contain costs in an industry notorious for overruns.
This startup just raised nearly $500 million to build nuclear reactors for the US military.
By Rahim Amir, 30 July 26, https://www.techradar.com/pro/this-startup-just-raised-nearly-usd500-million-to-build-nuclear-reactors-for-the-us-military
Antares lookt to supply small reactors by 2028
- Antares closes $470 million Series C, $370 million in equity and $100 million in debt, co-led by Paradigm and Caffeinated Capital
- The move follows the Mark-0 reaching criticality at Idaho National Laboratory and helps fund an electricity-producing Mark-1 in 2027 and military deployments in 2028
- Antares’ military-first strategy targets a price-insensitive customer bound by an executive order requiring a reactor on a US base September 30 2028
Nuclear fission startup Antares has announced it has raised a total of $470 million in funding as it looks to supply a single client with a looming deadline: the US Military.
The Torrance, California company closed a Series C co-led by Paradigm and Caffeinated Capital, with Point72 Ventures, Shine Capital and Industrious Ventures among the participants, according to TechCrunch‘s look at its PitchBook data.
Antares’ raise comes seven weeks after its Mark-0 microreactor reached criticality at Idaho National Laboratory under the Department of Energy’s authorization in a demonstration run with the DOE, the lab, and BWX Technologies, with the US Army observing.
A direct beneficiary of the White House
Antares calls it the “first privately developed non-light-water reactor to achieve criticality in the United States in more than four decades,” underscoring how important the test was for both Antares and the US military.
The US military’s presence is not by chance; It is mandated by an executive order (“Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security”) signed by US President Donald Trump to ensure that it has an operating army-regulated nuclear reactor on a domestic military site by September 30, 2028
Antares happens to be one of three finalists in the Pentagon’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program that aims to test-deploy a small module reactor (SMR) on two different air force bases.
With Antares being the first private company to go through that gate under the DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program, it plans to build an electricity-producing Mark-1 reactor in 2027, followed by initial deployments to defense customers by 2028.
US Navy’s nuclear battleship plan raises questions for carriers, submarines and AUKUS
The same reactor vendor, dockyards and specialist workforce that sustain the Virginia boats promised to Australia under the trilateral AUKUS partnership are already working at their limit
Navy Lookout 30 July 26, https://www.navylookout.com/us-navys-nuclear-battleship-plan-raises-questions-for-carriers-submarines-and-aukus/
The US Navy has confirmed that its planned Trump-class guided-missile battleship, whose lead ship would be USS Defiant, will be nuclear-powered. The propulsion decision could have consequences extending beyond the BB(X) programme (now redesignated BBGN), placing additional pressure on US aircraft-carrier construction and the naval nuclear industrial base, with potential second-order implications for AUKUS and the submarine programmes of Australia and Britain.
Going nuclear
When BBG(X) was unveiled at the end of 2025, the Navy’s initial concept depicted conventional integrated electric propulsion using gas turbines and diesel generators. The FY2027 thirty-year shipbuilding plan subsequently confirmed that the battleship would be nuclear-powered, while Navy officials told Congress that it was expected to use the A1B reactor type fitted to the Ford-class carriers.
There is an operational logic to the decision. A large combatant intended to carry extensive missile batteries, high-output lasers, powerful sensors, electronic-warfare equipment and future energy-intensive weapons will require considerable generating capacity. Nuclear power also removes the fuel constraint that would otherwise limit a ship expected to operate across the distances of the Indo-Pacific, and it would make the Defiant-class the first American nuclear-powered surface combatant since the last of the Virginia-class cruisers paid off in the 1990s.
Industrial chokepoint
The difficulty is not the nuclear technology itself, which is proven in service and is a design that could be adapted for the battleships. The issue is the increased pressure on the supply chain. Nuclear-powered surface ship construction in the United States is dependent on one yard, HII Newport News. This facility is already experiencing delays and cost growth delivering the Ford-class aircraft carriers. The GD Electric Boat in Groton is the only other yard certified for naval nuclear work but only builds submarines, which are the Navy’s top priority. The most significant industrial bottleneck is the naval reactor supply chain centred on BWX Technologies, the sole supplier of US naval reactor cores and key reactor components. BWX are simultaneously supplying the CVN programme (each ship has 2 reactors) as well as two major submarine programmes. Adding the nuclear requirement to the battleship programme when there is no spare industrial capacity to draw upon means it must compete directly for nuclear-certified labour, drydock time and reactor components already committed years ahead.
The House Armed Services Committee has backed a requirement for the Navy to explain how the programme would avoid disrupting Ford-class carrier construction and the wider naval nuclear industrial base. The concern is grounded in the sequencing of the work, since naval reactors are ordered two to three years before the hulls they power, so any diversion of components or skilled staff is felt long before a battleship takes shape. The Columbia-class SSBN programme, which replaces the sea-based leg of the American nuclear deterrent, is already running late, while Virginia-class SSN construction is below the rate the fleet requires. Adding a third demand to that base without expanding it invites exactly the outcome Congress is trying to avoid.
The AUKUS dimension
The same reactor vendor, dockyards and specialist workforce that sustain the Virginia boats promised to Australia under the trilateral AUKUS partnership are already working at their limit. Nuclear surface ship construction is concentrated at HII Newport News alone. The GD Electric Boat in Groton is the only other yard certified for naval nuclear work but only builds submarines, which are the Navy’s top priority. Reactor components come from a single supplier, BWX Technologies, that is also supplying the Columbia and Virginia submarine lines. The clearest direct risk is to the Ford-class carrier programme, but submarine output would probably be indirectly impacted, through competition for reactor components, nuclear-qualified personnel and investment across the wider supplier base.
For UK reactor production, the exposure is less significant. British naval reactors are designed and manufactured through the UK Defence Nuclear Enterprise, centred on Rolls-Royce Submarines at Raynesway. Reactors for the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS boats are made in Britain and complement rather than compete with US capacity. What the UK relies on from the States is the design pedigree of the PWR3, which, to an unknown extent, is modelled on the S9G reactor that powers the Virginia-class and was developed with USN engineering support.
The last public figure put the UK’s Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) stockpile at 21.86 tonnes in 2002, but its present size, composition and availability for future naval fuel are not publicly known. Over half of that stockpile was of US origin and none of it is immediately replenishable since domestic weapons-grade enrichment ended in 1962. It is unclear if there is enough for the 4 Dreadnoughts, up to 12 RN SSN-As planned in the medium-term. (Provision of HEU for the 8 Australian SSN-As also has to be considered, although the source for this has not been publicly established). The genuinely usable reserve is smaller than the headline figure once spent cores, warhead reservation and material form are accounted for, and the stock must also serve every future class indefinitely. Building sovereign enrichment capability takes 15-20 years; the UK has committed £1.7bn to a Nuclear Fuels Programme to explore re-establishing a domestic enrichment to reduce dependence on the US in the long run.
Political and industrial reality
The propulsion decision has also exposed the BBGN programme to an even greater extent politically. Before the decision was finalised, then-Navy Secretary John Phelan said the service was still examining the trade-offs. Admiral Daryl Caudle had earlier warned that nuclear propulsion would add a construction ‘tail’ that could push the ship beyond the timeframe of the operational requirement, although he subsequently endorsed the nuclear design. The ambition for 15 battleships sits awkwardly against a fleet that the same plan does not expect to reach 355 ships until FY2040, and then only if industry achieves a dramatic improvement in delivery performance.
There are plenty who believe that BBGN is essentially a vanity project that will be axed as soon as Trump leaves office. Congress has strongly supported the USN’s continued development of the large, but less demanding, conventionally-powered DDG(X) project, although this is officially a replacement for the Ticonderoga cruisers an
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (268)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
