Biden’s USA headed for confrontation with Russia? The troubling appointment of Victoria Nuland
Nuland’s actions helped produce the regime change in Ukraine which led to U.S. arms sales, U.S. sanctions on Russia, even the first Trump impeachment over the matter of anti-tank missile delivery. The coup damaged U.S.-Russian relations
Basic Notes on Victoria (“Fuck the EU!”) Nuland, more https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/01/25/basic-notes-on-victoria-fuck-the-eu-nuland/ BY GARY LEUPP, 25 Jan 21
On January 5 Joe Biden quietly announced the nomination of Victoria (“Fuck the EU!”) Nuland as Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs. This announcement may signal the inception of the confrontation with Russia placed on hold during the Trump presidency.
For four years the Democrats have pilloried Trump for “coddling” Putin, although in fact Trump has heaped sanctions on Russia bringing relations to their lowest point since the early Cold War. Now they want some more serious anti-Russian measures. They want their president, Commander-in-Chief of the Exceptional Nation and Leader of the Free World against its adversaries, return us to Clinton-Obama normalcy. That means “getting tougher” with Russia. But what does tougher mean?
Nuland is eminently qualified for the task of making things much worse, even provoking war with the other superpower that while lacking foreign bases, and spending a fraction of what NATO spends on military defense, has over 6000 nuclear weapons. (Remember? The U.S. developed and used nuclear weapons in 1945, the only country to ever do so. The Soviets followed by developing their own bomb in 1949, in self-defense. That’s when Truman established NATO as an anti-Soviet, anti-communist military alliance.)
Moscow feels a mounting resentment over the expansion of a hostile military alliance, formed during the Cold War under conditions no longer pertinent, to surround it. Is this hard to fathom? How would Congress view a gradual expansion of a Russian-led military alliance committed to spending 2% of its members’ GDPs on military spending to embrace Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Panama and maybe Canada next year?
Nuland is a career official, serving under multiple administrations, representing bipartisan imperialism. She was deputy director for “affairs in the former Soviet republics” in the Bill Clinton administration. Her task was to exploit the pain and suffering caused by the implosion of the Soviet Union to assert greater U.S. hegemony over Eurasia, using the traditional mix of covert operations, National Endowment for Democracy meddling, “color revolutions,” aid promises, etc.
During this period Clinton reneged on the U.S. promise to Moscow in 1989 that NATO would not advance “one inch” east after the Soviets accepted German reunification. Instead he drew Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, long members of the dissolved Warsaw Pact, into the anti-Russian military alliance in 1999. It was an extraordinary repudiation of the Bush-Gorbachev agreement, an egregious provocation of a now-friendly country (then headed by the buffoonish Boris Yeltsin), unremarked on by the U.S. press at the time as anything controversial. Since then the expansion of NATO has been treated as no more remarkable than the expansion of UNESCO. Thank Nuland in part for making you think relentless NATO growth is normal, and that it makes sense for North Macedonia and Montenegro to have joined most recently (during the Trump term).
Thank Nuland too, in part, for the “color revolutions” in Serbia (2000), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004) and Kyrgyzstan (2005). The (fake) concept of the popular uprising against (Russian-backed) tyranny, backed by an altruistic America that stands for Freedom and Democracy—that’s Nuland’s baby. She surely has plans for Belarus. And she must be deeply alarmed that the State Department did not try to interfere in the last flare-up of violence in Nagarno-Karabakh leaving Russian diplomacy to resolve the situation. (Just because Russia itself extends into the Caucasus and borders Georgia and Azerbaijan doesn’t mean that it should “interfere” in countries that ought by rights to be ruled by the U.S.A.—due to Exceptionalism and all.)
The extremely reactionary chauvinistic Nuland was deputy foreign advisor to Dick Cheney during the Bush-Cheney administration (2003-2005) and then U.S. ambassador to NATO (2005-2008). Under Obama she was Under Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, handpicked by Hillary Clinton. She is married to noted neocon warmonger-scholar Robert Kagan. Both were deeply complicit in spreading the Big Lies leading to the Iraq War in 2003. Nuland supported Hillary Clinton’s terroristic regime change efforts in Libya and Syria. But her main mission in life is to expand NATO. Joe Biden shares her passion for this project.
Nuland is perhaps best known for her pithy ejaculation: “Fuck the EU!” in a telephone call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in 2014.
In that year, while Nuland built support for the coup in Kiev (Feb. 18 to 21), she boasted openly that the U.S. had invested $5 billion in supporting “the Ukrainian people’s European aspirations.” (This referred to the support of some Ukrainians for the violent overthrow of the democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, on the basis of his alleged pro-Russian policies and his opposition to European Union affiliation under the conditions the EU was then offering.) To state the matter honestly: the U.S. spent $5 billion to install a government in Kiev that would request NATO membership (ostensibly to protect it from always-aggressive, always expanding Russia) and bind it forever to the U.S. military-industrial complex and “Free World.”
Since NATO membership since the end of the Cold War has invariably been followed by EU membership, it was easy for Nuland to pose as the champion of Ukraine’s EU membership versus the evil Russians (supposedly) opposing that membership. Yanukovych himself had negotiated seriously with the EU but rejected a plan for association due to its austerity provisions. Meanwhile Moscow offered an attractive aid package. This in the world of U.S. propaganda was a choice between Europe and Russia, with Yanukovych siding with America’s adversary.
The Maidan coup occurred just a month after Nuland was recorded discussing the upcoming event with U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. Nuland, who had joined Sen. John McCain and other U.S. politicians in offering cookies to the Maidan protestors, discussed with Pyatt who should serve as prime minister after the coup. Pyatt noted that the EU favored Vitali Klitschko, the ex-boxer.
“Fuck the EU!” replied Nuland, who wanted banker and NATO supporter Arseniy Yatsenyuk to lead the new government. She soon got her way.
Nuland worked with Oleh Tyahnybok, head of the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party (and one of the three leaders Nuland ordered Pyatt to keep in touch with) and the Right Sector militia. Both glorify Stephan Bandera, the Ukrainian fascist leader who aided the Nazis in rounding up Ukrainian Jews during the war. Tyahnybok publicly inveighs against the “Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine.”
When Congressman Dana Rohrbacher Nuland in a hearing was asked soon after the coup whether there had been any neo-fascists on the Maidan she refused to answer the question, stating there were “mothers, grandmothers, and veterans…all colors of Ukraine, including ugly colors” on the Maidan. In other words, a diverse anti-Russian crowd. (Notice how she ignored the existence of the 30% of Ukrainians who are ethnic Russians and were a support base for the president targeted for toppling. Just the sort of sensitivity to ethnicity you’d expect from a top U.S. State Department official who’d been comfortable with the slaughter of Iraqis.) Continue reading
A dangerous out-dated ”zombie” U.S. Navy policy on ballistic missile submarines
Failure to consider new technology may result in a situation where a nuclear first strike is seen as the only way to guarantee “winning” a war, despite the almost incomprehensible levels of destruction involved. As the situation gets complex with China developing its own submarine-based deterrent force, such instability will be dangerous to everyone.
Dismukes argues that to reduce this danger we have to recognize the two factors it stems from: advances in submarine detection technology; and a dubious, outdated U.S. policy on strategic ASW. The new administration should tackle that policy ASAP.
This seems to be the result of the inertia of a strategy laid down in a different era, one which is becoming increasingly precarious as technology advances.
Previous administrations have failed to spell out the actual policy, preferring to keep it under wraps. Continuing this lack of clarity could prove catastrophic.
Bradford Dismukes is a strategy expert with thirty years’ experience at the Center for Naval Analyses or CNA, having headed a group which supported and developed U.S. Navy strategy. His new blog challenges ideas which have, as he says, “marched zombie-like out of the Cold War,” without being questioned. One such idea is the policy of Strategic Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), which Dismukes says makes nuclear escalation more likely, not less, if threatened in time of crisis or executed in war.
ASW is all about finding, tracking and destroying enemy submarines. Strategic ASW targets the submarines carrying nuclear missiles. During the Cold War, Strategic ASW was about tying up enemy forces and affecting the war on the ground, but now the situation is quite different.
“Today, the Russians would have every reason to see the mission primarily as preparation for a U.S. first strike,” says Dismukes. Continue reading
The aerospace industry – the goal is weaponry and global dominance
Keep Space for Peace! Save the Heavens fro!m Hegemony https://www.womenagainstmilitarymadness.org/articles/2020/12/22/keep-space-for-peace-save-the-heavens-from-hegemony Bruce K. Gagnon
Recently we learned that the aerospace industry is pushing to turn a former naval air station in Brunswick, Maine, into a spaceport. Promising lots of “high tech” jobs, a bill is being pushed in Augusta, our capital, by some of the most “progressive” legislators in the state. Similarly, we are hearing from many other states where launch complexes are being promoted – from Hawaii to New Mexico to Alaska – that the industry wants some of the most pristine places on Earth to become spaceports. Why? A spaceport in Kodiak Island, Alaska (locals call it “Spacepork”), was built some years ago in spite of overwhelming opposition by local residents. They were promised that it would be used only for civilian launches. So far, all the launches at Kodiak have actually been for Pentagon (and Israeli) space-weapons technology tests. We’ve been hearing for several years now that new companies formed by tech-industry billionaires Elon Musk (whose projects include Tesla and SpaceX) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon, Blue Orbit) plan to launch as many as 35,000 mini-sats (satellites) into orbit. Imagine the enormous hole these polluting launches will punch into the ozone layer. The plan is to have a satellite orbiting over the head of every person on Earth 24 hours a day, making it possible for the new 5G wireless technology system to be profitable. Many questions are being raised about the military (dual-use) applications of these satellites as well. Space Force Earlier this year, Trump was able to “stand up” his new high-tech legacy branch of the military, called the Space Force. Congress was overwhelmingly in favor – that means both parties supported it; the only thing the Democrats (who could have stopped it cold in the House of Representatives) wanted to change was the name ¾ to “Space Corps.” They surrendered on that as well. When the new leaders of the Space Force speak about it, they keep using the word “lean” to describe the new service branch. They want to make it sound as though it won’t be a “fiscal burden” to the nation, especially at a time when we have more unemployment than during the Great Depression. But facts are facts, and I can testify that the aerospace-industry publications have been bragging about since the 1980s when Ronald Reagan first proposed Star Wars, that this would be the largest industrial project in the history of the planet. So $15 billion is just the foot in the door. Where will the funds come from to pay for this? Our entitlement programs ¾ Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and what little is left of the social safety net –– are on the chopping block to be sacrificed to the aerospace industry. During his presidency, Trump announced that the U.S. rejects the United Nations Outer Space and Moon Treaties that declare the planetary bodies are the “province of all humankind” – meaning that no nation, corporation, or individual can claim ownership of them. Thus the way is open for a new gold rush to grab the planets for resource extraction. And, if Biden were to continue Obama’s legacy, the way will be paved. The Real Missions of Space Force In 2015, Obama signed the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act into law. The act grants companies the rights to whatever they manage to pluck out of these extraterrestrial bodies. Effectively an extension of capitalism into space, the bill is one of the few during Obama’s presidency that received widespread support from the GOP as well as from the Democrats, because apparently nothing screams bipartisanship louder than asteroid mining. (Asteroids are rocky and metallic objects that orbit the sun but are smaller than planets.)[1] “This is the single greatest recognition of property rights in history,” said Eric Anderson, a founder of Planetary Resources, Inc., a company whose mission it is to mine asteroids. “This legislation establishes the same supportive framework that created the great economies of history, and will encourage the sustained development of space.” I’ve long believed that the Space Force (and before that the Space Command) will have two primary missions: first, to give the U.S. and its Western capitalist allies “control and domination” of Earth; and secondly, the Space Force will be given the task to create the technologies to “control and dominate” the pathway on and off our sacred Mother Earth. In 1989, the U.S. Congress published an internal study called “Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years.” In this study, the congressional staffer who wrote it explained the need to control the pathway between the Earth and the Moon. He suggested that armed space stations on either side of the Moon would allow the Pentagon to seize the “Earth-Moon gravity well.” He wrote: “Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return.” So this plan has been in the works for many years – in fact, since a former Nazis first briefed Congress back in 1958. From Nazi Rocket Science to the U.S. Militarizing Space Program Walter Dornberger was Hitler’s head man in charge of his World War II era V-1 and V-2 rocket program. He was the staff link between rocket scientist Wernher von Braun and Hitler. Dornberger, like von Braun and 1,600 other Germans, was smuggled into the U.S. after the war in the secret military program called Operation Paperclip. Speaking at a congressional hearing in 1958, Dornberger insisted that America’s first space priority ought to be to “conquer, occupy, keep and utilize space between the Earth and the Moon.” There has been unanimity in the halls of Congress since Dornberger’s testimony – both parties have faithfully kept the funding for the militarized space program alive and growing. Dornberger would be happy today to see that his Nazi prophecy has largely come to fruition. International Treaties and an Achilles Heel The U.S. has been leading the way to militarize and weaponize space since the beginning of WW II. For a while the former Soviet Union was in the game – until its collapse in 1991. Neither Russia nor China could keep up with the U.S. in the ensuing years, and they continually begged the U.S. to join them in negotiating a treaty to ban all weapons in space – in other words, close the door to the barn before the horse gets out. During Republican and Democrat administrations since Bill Clinton, the response to Moscow and Beijing was the same from Washington – NO. So Russia and China slowly but steadily have moved forward since the early 1990s and have begun to close the space gap – always continuing to urge the creation of a space-weapons ban treaty. But Washington still refuses to even consider it. In fact, the U.S. has gone in the opposite direction of international treaties under Trump – pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), and the Iran Nuclear Deal. Will the U.S. under Biden renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START), which run out in 2021? It’s all really quite simple – the U.S. has not wanted to be bound by any treaties that limit its goal for “control and domination.” One could say the U.S. has become a renegade or pirate nation controlled by the soulless corporate agenda, which is all about power and greed. This all makes the job of the Global Network[2] terribly difficult. Since our founding in 1992 we’ve been working hard to build an international constituency to keep space for peace. The corporate agenda is determined to block any progress toward that goal. But I’ve always maintained that like everything else, the aerospace industry and its Star Wars project has an Achilles heel. It’s money. The current global virus pandemic is only bringing this reality to bear as never before. We Must Stop an Arms Race in Space! If we hope to beat this insane and provocative plan, then we must starve the beast. We can do that by bringing our national priorities down to earth and fighting for social progress – for programs like Medicare for All and funding to deal with our real problem today: climate crisis. Please help us beat the expensive and dangerous Space Force by demanding our government provide programs that honor life on this lovely planet. Best wishes to all of you. Keep your spirit strong! ~ Bruce K. Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space (keepspace4peace.org) and lives in Bath, Maine. He began working on space issues in 1982. Endnotes [1] Definition from solarviews.com [2] Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space |
|
|
Protest rally against University of Arkansas’ involvement with nuclear weapons corporation


A group gathered at the University of Arkansas to protest its contract with the nuclear weapons corporation Honeywell International.
Abel Tomlinson is the founder of Arkansas Non-Violence Alliance.
He said the University contradicts its mission statement by building non-nuclear components for the bombs.
“Its mission statement says that they’re ‘determined to build a better world.’ and we belive that building nuclear bombs is the complete opposite of that. Nobody should be having them. They’re endangering everyone, it’s unacceptable,” Tomlinson said.
The University of Arkansas was aware of today’s protest, but did not wish to comment.
Strong opposition to USA’s Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission extending nuclear reactors’ lives to 100 years
Well, I can’t help think that all these officials are looking out for themselves here. They hope that the disasters and cleanups won’t be their problem, – but the problem of future taxpayers.
RESOUNDING NO – TO LETTING NUCLEAR PLANTS RUN FOR 100 YEARS, The Sentinel By Karl Grossman, Jan 22, 2021
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a “public meeting” this week on what it titled “Development of Guidance Documents To Support License Renewal For 100 Years Of Plant Operation.” Comments from the “public” were strongly opposed to the NRC’s desire for it to let nuclear power plants run for a century. “I request you pause and consider before you go ahead on this reckless path,” testified Michel Lee, chairman of the New York-based Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy. “Our position and that of our constituents is a resounding no,” declared Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at the national organization Beyond Nuclear. “It’s time to stop this whole nuke con job,” said Erica Gray, nuclear issues chair of the Virginia Sierra Club. There is “no solution” to dealing with nuclear waste, she said. It is “unethical to continue to make the most toxic waste known to mankind.” And, “renewable energy” with solar and wind “can power the world.” Jan Boudart, a board member of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, spoke, too, of the lack of consideration of nuclear waste. Cited was the higher likelihood of accidents with plants permitted to run for 100 years. Whether the NRC—often called the Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission—listens is highly unlikely considering its record of rubberstamping whatever has been sought by other nuclear promoters in government and the nuclear industry. Nuclear power plants when they began being built were not seen as running for more than 40 years because of radioactivity embrittling metal parts and otherwise causing safety problems. So operating licenses were limited to 40 years. But with the major decline of nuclear power—the U.S. is down to 94 plants from a high of 129 and only two are now under construction—the nuclear promoters in the U.S. government and nuclear industry are pushing to let nuclear power plants run for 100 years to somehow keep nuclear power going…….. In further discussing the “Life Beyond Eighty” scheme for nuclear power plants, Rosseel showed a U.S. Energy Information Administration slide projecting the amount of energy nuclear power would contribute to the U.S. energy supply in decline from 19% in 2019 to 12% in 2050 while renewable energy sources would jump from the current 19% to 38%. For the DOE, which inherited the role of promoting nuclear power from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, abolished by Congress in 1974 for being in conflict of interest for having a dual role of both promoting and regulating nuclear power, this decline is of great concern. At the start of the “public meeting” on January 21—held online as a teleconference—Allen L. Hiser, Jr., senior technical advisor for the Division of New and Renewed Licenses of the NRC, said the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 gave authority to the U.S. government to license nuclear power plants for 40 years. “But nothing in the AEA [Atomic Energy Act] prohibits a number of license renewals,” said Hiser. Using this lack of prohibition in the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC is now pushing ahead on the scheme to let nuclear power plants run for 100 years.
The NRC—which was supposed to only get the regulatory function from the eliminated U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—has also, with DOE, been a promoter of nuclear power. Earlier, it began extending the operating licenses of nuclear power plants to run for 60 years—and most of the plants in the U.S. now are being allowed to run for 60 years. And in recent years it has given the go-ahead for nuclear plants to run for 80 years, and several have been licensed for that length. In granting the license extensions to 60 and 80 years, the NRC has also been allowing the plants to be “uprated” to generate more electricity—to run hotter and harder—further asking for disaster. Gunter testified about an NRC cover-up involving the extending of nuclear power plant licenses. Using PowerPoint to reinforce his points, Gunter displayed a 2017 report commissioned by the NRC made by the DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The “very critical report,” said Gunter, looked at conducting research on the impacts of extending nuclear power plant operating licenses. It is titled “Criteria and Planning Guidance for Ex-Plant Harvesting to Support Subsequent License Renewal.” http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/aging/slr/autopsy_PNNL-27120_harvesting_Dec2017.pdf The report listed many significant issues considering the “harsh” degradation of nuclear power plant components over the years, he said. It pointed to “a host of critical technical gaps.” fter he “raised questions about” issues in the report at a meeting on operating license extensions held in 2018 at the NRC’s headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, the report was “taken down from government websites,” said Gunter. However, Beyond Nuclear saved a copy of the report. He spoke of an email that Beyond Nuclear obtained, after two years of trying under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, from an NRC employee saying: “Big picture, I think the entire report needs to be scrubbed.” A “sanitized” version of the report, said Gunter, was “republished” in 2019. Gunter spoke of “public safety” being threatened. Gunter, also at the “public meeting” this week, said among the issues not being considered in the NRC’s drive to extend the licenses of nuclear power plants to 100 years is the management of the radioactive waste generated by the plants and “the advent of reliable, competitive and abundant renewable energy.” The oldest nuclear power plant in the U.S. was Oyster Creek in Toms River, New Jersey which opened in 1969 and was shut down 49 years later in 2018. What President Joe Biden does about nuclear power—he has said he is for “advanced” nuclear power—and the pro-nuclear NRC remains to be seen. The president appoints the five members of the NRC, and its current chairperson, a nuclear engineer and Trump appointee, is resigning. Biden could move to have done to the NRC what was done to its predecessor agency, the AEC, to have it abolished. And to push to end nuclear power in the U.S. Most U.S. nuclear power plants, according to a PowerPoint slide shown by the NRC’s Hiser, have already operated more than 40 years—the numbers of years they were seen as running safely when they began operating. https://www.thesentinel.com/communities/montgomery/news/science/resounding-no-to-letting-nuclear-plants-run-for-100-years/article_4cef89fc-5cc1-11eb-bfab-8b68f4bca770.html |
|
|
USA and Iran must overcome 9 hurdles to revive the nuclear deal.
Nine hurdles to reviving the Iran nuclear deal, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Seyed Hossein Mousavian | January 19, 2021, Although reviving the agreement is certainly still possible, it won’t be easy. The two sides will need to overcome nine hurdles to make it happen.
First, the sequencing of a mutual return could be an immediate problem. Iran expects the United States to lift sanctions first, because it was the Trump administration that withdrew first. While Tehran’s demand is legitimate, Washington may ask that Iran come into full compliance before lifting sanctions. …….
Second is the issue of what compliance constitutes …….
Third, the Trump administration imposed numerous sanctions against Iran under the guise of terrorism and human rights, aimed at preventing the Biden administration from returning to the deal. For a clean implementation of the agreement, Biden will need to remove all of these sanctions as well.
Fourth, Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement and violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 as well as other international commitments has damaged US credibility abroad. …..Fifth, because of Trump’s maximum pressure policy, the Iranian economy has suffered hundreds of billions of dollars of losses while Iran was in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the deal……..
Sixth, the “snapback” mechanism built into the agreement allows any country to force the UN Security Council to reimpose multilateral sanctions against Iran if Iran fails to fulfill its commitments. But this is one-sided: There is no such remedy for Iran if other parties fail to do their part. ………
Seventh, in the first week of December 2020, the Iranian parliament passed a bill mandating Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization to resume enriching uranium to 20 percent purity. The legislation also requires the Iranian government to cease voluntary implementation of the IAEA’s Additional Protocol within two months of the bill’s enactment if the other signatories fail to fully deliver on their commitments under the agreement. …….
Eighth, there are some in the United States who are worried that Trump may start a reckless last-ditch war with Iran before leaving office. ……
Ninth, some pundits and politicians in Washington want Biden to leverage the Trump administration’s sanctions to pressure Iran to accept additional commitments beyond the original agreement as a condition for US return to compliance……..
Despite these hurdles, Biden should nevertheless seek a reentry into the deal. Only a clean and full implementation by all parties can save the world’s most comprehensive nuclear agreement, contain rising US-Iran tensions, and open the path toward more confidence building measures. That path should include, upon Biden’s issuing an executive order to rejoin the JCPOA, the creation of a working committee of parties to the agreement tasked with ensuring full compliance by all signatories, and a forum, organized by the UN secretary general, in which Iran and the Gulf countries can discuss a new structure for improving security and cooperation in the region. https://thebulletin.org/2021/01/nine-hurdles-to-reviving-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter01212021&utm_content=NuclearRisk_9hurdles_01192021
Biden keeps Trump appointee as acting nuclear weapons chief
Biden keeps Trump appointee as acting nuclear weapons chief
By: Aaron Mehta 22 Jan 21, WASHINGTON — Charles Verdon will serve as acting administrator for the National Nuclear Security Agency, serving under acting energy secretary David Huizenga as the Biden administration begins.
Huizenga, the new acting energy secretary, had been serving as associate principal deputy administrator for NNSA. He comes from the nonproliferation side of the agency and has experience with DoE’s office of environmental management. Verdon, who was confirmed in 2018 as head of defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, is one of the few Trump political appointees being kept in a national security position. Previously a career NNSA employee, Verdon has largely avoided politics during his time in office, focusing instead on the technical details behind America’s planned nuclear warhead modernization efforts. The NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency located within the DoE. While the Pentagon is in charge of developing the planes, submarines and missiles that deliver nuclear weapons, the NNSA is in charge of developing and producing the actual warheads. The department’s fiscal 2021 budget request for nuclear weapons activities was $15.6 billion. ……. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2021/01/21/biden-keeps-trump-appointee-as-acting-nuclear-weapons-chief/ |
|
The 70-year nuclear gloom begins to lift on January 22
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A New Chance, https://portside.org/2021-01-19/abolishing-nuclear-weapons-new-chance– 20 Jan 21,
The 70-year nuclear gloom begins to lift on January 22, 2021. The nine countries that have held the world captive to the threat of nuclear war are losing moral ground to 122 smaller countries that approved the world’s first nuclear weapons ban.
The 70-year nuclear gloom begins to lift on January 22, 2021. The nine countries that have held the world captive to the threat of nuclear war are losing moral ground to 122 smaller countries that approved the world’s first nuclear weapons ban in July 2017. Once 50 of those 122 approving countries completed the ratification process of the UN Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in their legislatures, it became international law in October 2020.
The law goes into effect January 22, 2021 to the profound relief of most people of the world. Those now 51 “freedom fighter” countries commit to having nothing to do with nuclear weapons – no design, testing, manufacturing, storage, transport, use or threat of use. Consider this a marathon for disarmament to outpace the current nuclear arms race in which all nuclear-armed countries are, in lockstep, upgrading their weapons.
And this is only the beginning. Thirty five additional countries are in the process of ratifying the Treaty; 50 more support the Treaty; a dozen more have immense popular support, among them Canada, and are one election away from signing the Treaty. If the United States, where a majority of citizens does not want to use nuclear weapons, signed the Treaty, the rest would follow.
Actions of note:
- The General Electric Company stopped production of nuclear weapons in 1993.
- Two of the world’s largest pension funds have divested from nuclear weapons.
- Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group, 1 of the 5 largest banks in the world, has excluded nuclear weapons production from its portfolio, labeling them “inhumane.”
- Kennedy and Khrushchev were working toward the abolition of nuclear weapons when Kennedy was assassinated.
- Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to a radical dismantling of their nuclear weapons.
- Our goal must be a world “without nuclear weapons… “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought:” Former Republican Secretary of State George Schultz and former Democrat Secretary of Defense William Perry.
- Mayors for Peace: 7675 cities in 163 countries support the total abolition of nuclear weapons.
- 56 former presidents, prime ministers, foreign and defense ministers from 20 NATO countries and Japan and South Korea recently signed an open letter in support of the UN treaty to ban nuclear weapons. “Sooner or later our luck will run out – unless we act…There is no cure for a nuclear war,” they asserted. “Prevention is our only option.”
- Pope Francis: “The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral. As is the possession of atomic weapons.”
A limited nuclear war could trigger a global famine that would likely end billions of lives. A full scale nuclear war would end human and most other life on Earth, reminding us of the classical depiction of total war: they had to destroy the village to save it. A nuclear war, whether by accident, misjudgment or intention to destroy the enemy would destroy the rest of us as well – how insane is that?
What then can President-elect Biden do?
Open dialogue with and renew nuclear agreements and diplomacy with Russia immediately.
Change US policy in 3 key ways: No first use of nuclear weapons; take weapons off of hair trigger alert; and select another senior official to share decision-making about “pressing the button.”
Revive the agreement with Iran: they do not develop nuclear weapons, we lift sanctions.
With South Korea, engage in diplomacy with North Korea to freeze and roll back their nuclear weapons program.
Stop the new program of upgrading nuclear weapons.
Listen to the world’s majority and lead the United States toward signing the new UN Treaty and the others will follow. It is our only solution to exit a dead-end system that permits a single human being, in the words of national security analyst Joseph Cirincione, “to destroy in minutes all that humanity has constructed over millennia.”
Pat Hynes, retired from Boston University, is on the board of the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice https://traprock.org.
100 year licences for nuclear reactors? – a hazardous plan

NRC to discuss 100-year licenses for nuclear plants, Facilities could receive longer extensions, Gloucester Daily Times. By Heather Alterisio Staff Writer, 9 Jan 21, SEABROOK, N.H. — A daylong Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting Thursday will revolve around discussion of any technical issues that could arise if nuclear power plants were licensed to operate for 100 years.
When a nuclear power plant is first licensed by the NRC, that license permits a plant to operate for 40 years. After that, owners of nuclear plants can apply for a 20-year license extension. Nearly every power plant in the U.S. has gone through that renewal process at least once, according to NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.
Seabrook Station at 626 Lafayette Road received approval from the NRC in 2019 to extend its operating license from 2030 to 2050. The plant sits about 17 miles northwest — as the seagull flies — from parts of Cape Ann.
As of Oct. 31, the federal Energy Information Administration said there were 56 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 94 nuclear reactors in 28 states.
About 10 years ago, the NRC began discussions to address what protocols should be put in place if plant owners wanted to renew their license a second time, allowing operation for 80 years. Burnell said the law does not set a limit on how many times a plant can apply to renew its license.
The NRC has since awarded second renewals to a Florida plant and one in Pennsylvania, allowing operation for 80 years. The meeting Thursday — which will be online and open to the public — poses the question, what protocols should be in place if a plant owner pursued a third renewal, allowing it to operate for 100 years?………
Natalie Hildt Treat, executive director for C-10, an Amesbury-based nonprofit that monitors Seabrook Station and its impact on surrounding communities, said C-10 has already brought attention to issues related to aging concrete at Seabrook, the first nuclear power plant known to have this problem.
Prior to and while Seabrook Station was undergoing its recent license renewal process, C-10 pressed the NRC to address concrete degradation caused by alkali-silica reaction in which tiny cracks develop in concrete structures. C-10 worked closely with Victor Saouma, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder and an expert in alkali-silica reaction.
Saouma is one of the experts who will speak Thursday on technical issues relating to concrete. C-10 believes there should be federal regulations that include taking concrete samples from all of the nation’s nuclear reactors, testing them “rigorously,” and creating protocols for how to manage issues as they arise, Treat said.
“We don’t think the NRC or the plant operators have a handle on whether these reactors are safe today, much less an unprecedented number of decades,” she said.
Treat added that Seabrook Station, like other plants around the country, was designed a few decades ago and they “are not getting any safer as they age.”
It is implausible to think that plants could safely operate for more than double of their anticipated life span,” she said.
Construction of the Seabrook reactor began in 1976 and the plant began operating at full power in 1990.
More information on the work of C-10 may be found at www.c-10.org.
The public meeting is Thursday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. For more information or for the Microsoft Teams webinar details, visit www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details& Code=20201407.
To access the meeting by telephone, call 301-576-2978 and then enter the passcode, 835226175#.
Heather Alterisio may be contacted at halterisio@gloucestertimes.com
A view from the law: The Danger Of Sole Presidential Authority Over Nuclear Weapons
The Gold Code Standard Revisited: The Danger Of Sole Presidential Authority Over Nuclear Weapons Jurist, Kevin Govern, JANUARY 19, 2021
Kevin Govern, a Professor of Law at Ave Maria School of Law, analyses the sole Presidential authority over nuclear weapons vis-a-vis the Trump administration and military intervention…
On January 8, 2021, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took the extraordinary step of publicly revealing she had talked with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, about “available precautions for preventing an unstable President from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.” Milley reportedly issued a statement saying he “answered [Speaker Pelosi’s] questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” Four days later, The House of Representatives voted 223-205 to formally call on Vice President Mike Pence to use the 25th Amendment to strip President Trump of his powers after he incited a mob that attacked the Capitol. With the Vice President’s refusal, impeachment proceedings went forward in the House on January 13, 2021, with a vote of 232-197, to impeach President Trump for “incitement of insurrection” in only the fourth presidential impeachment in US history, and the first time a President has been impeached twice. Continue reading |
Trump’s worst move – gambling on nuclear war with North Korea
He didn’t merely threaten to attack North Korea if it possessed the ability to strike the U.S. He ordered the Pentagon to develop new plans, over the resistance of then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis, to do so. As Slate columnist Fred Kaplan reports in his book “The Bomb,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff created new war plans “that assumed the United States would strike the first blow.”
By Far the Worst Thing Trump Did Was Flirt With Nuclear War With North Korea
Trump’s actions on this one issue outweigh everything else, yet it’s received less attention than many of his tweets. The Intercept Jon Schwarz, January 21 2021, JUST BEFORE NOON Wednesday, when President Joe Biden took the oath of office, the nuclear codes in the briefcase carried by a military aide to Donald Trump became invalid. The United States and the world survived the four years of Trump’s presidency without him starting a nuclear war.
This was a genuine possibility during 2017 and early 2018, Trump’s first year in office, when he brought the U.S. far closer to a nuclear conflict with North Korea than most Americans realize. Incredibly, the American foreign policy establishment seemed to look upon this risk with equanimity at the time and by now seems to have completely forgotten it.
The significance of Trump’s actions on this one issue outweighs every other aspect of the Trump years, including his response to the coronavirus pandemic. A conflict with North Korea could have led to the deaths of millions, tens of millions, or even more. Yet it’s received less attention than many of his tweets. Here’s what happened and why Trump’s behavior was extraordinarily dangerous. Continue reading
|
Gorbachev Urges Biden to Improve Relations With Russia, Extend Key Nuclear Pact
Gorbachev Urges Biden to Improve Relations With Russia, Extend Key Nuclear Pact, Moscow Times, 20 Jan 21, Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, has urged Joe Biden’s administration to improve U.S.-Russia ties and extend a key nuclear pact ahead of the U.S. President-elect’s inauguration.”The current condition of relations between Russia and the United States is of great concern,” Gorbachev said in an interview with the state-run TASS news agency published Wednesday, the day Biden will be sworn in as president.
“But this also means that something has to be done about it in order to normalize relations,” he said. “We cannot fence ourselves off from each other.” Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, has urged Joe Biden’s administration to improve U.S.-Russia ties and extend a key nuclear pact ahead of the U.S. President-elect’s inauguration. “The current condition of relations between Russia and the United States is of great concern,” Gorbachev said in an interview with the state-run TASS news agency published Wednesday, the day Biden will be sworn in as president. “But this also means that something has to be done about it in order to normalize relations,” he said. “We cannot fence ourselves off from each other.” ……. Gorbachev said he felt optimistic toward the future of U.S.-Russia ties, pointing toward the Cold War, another difficult time in the countries’ relations. As the last Soviet leader, he played a pivotal role in ending the Cold War, reaching agreements with U.S. President Ronald Reagan on denuclearization and a number of other issues. “At the Geneva summit, we agreed to establish bilateral working groups on all issues: nuclear disarmament, bilateral relations, humanitarian cooperation and regional issues. There were many issues — no less than now,” Gorbachev said. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/20/gorbachev-urges-biden-to-improve-relations-with-russia-extend-key-nuclear-pact-a72665 |
|
|
President Hassan Rouhani has urged U.S. President Joe Biden to return America to the nuclear deal
Iran’s President: Nuclear ball in US court, The West, AAP Wed, 20 January 2021 Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has urged US President-elect Joe Biden to return to a 2015 nuclear deal and lift crippling sanctions on the Islamic Republic,
Biden, who takes office on Wednesday, has said the United States will rejoin the pact that includes restrictions on Iran’s nuclear work if Tehran resumes strict compliance.
“The ball is in the US court now,” Rouhani said in a televised cabinet meeting. “If Washington returns to Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal, we will also fully respect our commitments under the pact. “Today, we expect the incoming US administration to return to the rule of law and commit themselves and if they can, in the next four years, to remove all the black spots of the previous four years.”…… https://thewest.com.au/politics/irans-president-nuclear-ball-in-us-court-ng-s-2046145 |
|
|
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War comment on “The great evasion”
Two related events—the 75th anniversary of the January 24, 1946 UN General Assembly Resolution 1 (which established a commission to plan for the abolition of nuclear weapons) and the January 22, 2021 entry into force of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (designed to finally implement that goal)—should be a cause for worldwide celebration.
In fact, however, they are a cause for shame. The nine nuclear powers have refused to sign the treaty and, instead, today continue to engage in a nuclear arms race and to threaten nuclear war—a war capable of destroying virtually all life on earth.
A similarly reckless pattern characterized the nuclear arms race that emerged out of World War II. But an upsurge of popular protest and wise diplomacy led to nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties, as well as unilateral actions, that dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals. It also made nuclear war increasingly unthinkable.
Unfortunately, however, as the nuclear danger receded, the nuclear disarmament campaign ebbed. As a result, government officials, no longer constrained by popular pressure, began to revert to their traditional ways, based on the assumption that nuclear weapons promoted national “strength.” India and Pakistan became nuclear powers. North Korea developed nuclear weapons. In the United States, the administration of George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty and pressed hard to begin building “mini-nukes.”
Ascending to the presidency, Barack Obama made a dramatic attempt to rally the planet behind the goal of building a nuclear-free world. But neither Republican nor Russian leaders liked the idea, and the best he could deliver was the last of the major nuclear disarmament agreements, the New START Treaty. And even that came at a heavy price—an agreement with Senate Republicans, whose support was necessary for treaty ratification, to back a major U.S. nuclear weapons “modernization” program.
After Donald Trump entered the White House, nuclear arms control and disarmament were no longer on the agenda—for the United States or for the world. Trump not only failed to generate any new international constraints on nuclear weapons, but withdrew the United States from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Open Skies Treaty and allowed the New START Treaty to lapse without renewal. Nor did the other nuclear powers show much interest in retaining these agreements. Indeed, the Russian government, after a brief, perfunctory protest at Trump’s destruction of the INF Treaty—a treaty that it had long privately deplored—immediately ordered the development of the once-prohibited missiles. The Chinese government said that, although it favored maintaining the treaty for the United States and Russia, it would not accept treaty limits on its own weapons.
Meanwhile, all nine nuclear powers, instead of reducing the existential danger to the world from their possession of 13,400 nuclear weapons (91 percent of which are held by Russia and the United States), are busily “modernizing” their nuclear forces and planning to retain them into the indefinite future. In December 2019, the Russian governmentannounced the deployment of the world’s first hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles, which President Vladimir Putin boasted could bypass missile defense systems and hit almost any point on the planet. Indeed, the Russian president touted several new Russian nuclear weapons systems as ahead of their time. “Our equipment must be better than the world’s best if we want to come out as the winners,” he explained.
Trump, always determined to emerge a “winner,” had publicly stated in December 2016: “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” Consequently, expanding the earlier U.S. nuclear “modernization” plan to a $2 trillion extravaganza, he set the course for the upgrading of older U.S. nuclear weapons and the development and deployment of a vast array of new ones. These include the development of a new intercontinental ballistic missile (at a cost of $264 billion) and the production and deployment of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead that will make starting a nuclear war easier.
The new nuclear weapons are designed to not only win the arms race, but to intimidate other nations and even “win” a nuclear war. Early in his administration, Trump publicly threatened to obliterate both North Korea and Iran through a nuclear onslaught. Similarly, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has repeatedly threatened a nuclear attack upon the United States. Furthermore, the U.S. government has been engaging recently in a game of “nuclear chicken” with China and Russia, dispatching fleets of nuclear bombers and nuclear warships dangerously close to their borders. Such provocative action is in line with the Trump administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, which expanded possibilities for displays of nuclear “resolve” and the first use of nuclear weapons. Subsequently, the Russian government also lowered its threshold for initiating a nuclear war.
The incoming Biden administration has the opportunity and, apparently, the inclination to challenge this irresponsible behavior. As a long-time supporter of nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements—as well as a sharp critic of the Trump administration’s nuclear policies during the 2020 presidential campaign—the new president will probably advance measures dealing with nuclear issues that differ significantly from those of his predecessor. Although his ability to secure U.S. ratification of new treaties will be severely limited by Senate Republicans, he can (and probably will) use executive action to rejoin the Iran nuclear agreement, re-sign the Open Skies Treaty, block the U.S. production and deployment of particularly destabilizing nuclear weapons, and reduce the budget for nuclear “modernization.” He might even declare a no first use policy, unilaterally reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and show some respect for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Of course, this won’t be enough. But it would provide a start toward terminating the nuclear powers’ disgraceful evasion of their responsibility to safeguard human survival.
[Dr. Lawrence Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).]
First a comment on military smrs – then the enthusiastic article about them

White House Accelerates Development Of Mini Nuclear Reactors For Space And The Battlefield
The order looks to accelerate and integrate the development of highly mobile nuclear reactors for space and the terrestrial battlefield. BY BRETT TINGLEY JANUARY 16, 2021
President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 12 that aims to promote small, modular nuclear reactors for defense and space exploration applications. According to a press statement issued by the White House, the order will “further revitalize the United States nuclear energy sector, reinvigorate America’s space exploration program, and produce diverse energy options for national defense needs.”
The order instructs NASA’s administrator to prepare a report within 180 days that will define NASA’s requirements and foreseeable issues for developing a nuclear energy system for human and robotic exploratory missions through 2040. The order also calls for a “Common Technology Roadmap” between NASA and the Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, and State for implementing new reactor technologies. The full text of the Executive Order can be read at WhiteHouse.gov ………
Section 4 of the Executive Order goes into further detail about the DoD’s energy needs, and outlines the role the Department of Defense will play in this new initiative to develop mobile nuclear reactors …….
The Executive Order also outlines a Common Technology Roadmap that “describes potential development programs and that coordinates, to the extent practicable, terrestrial-based advanced nuclear reactor and space-based nuclear power and propulsion efforts” between the Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, State, and NASA. This roadmap will also require “assessments of foreign nations’ space nuclear power and propulsion technological capabilities.” Naturally, one of the most pressing concerns with any nuclear technology is national security, and thus the order also instructs the DoD to work together with NASA and other agencies to identify security issues associated with any potential space-based nuclear systems.
With this new Executive Order, the White House seeks to propel the United States to the forefront of all of the work being conducted in compact reactor research. While the wording in the statement focuses more on space exploration, the Department of Defense’s involvement is highly important. Since space environments are similar in that resupply is a tricky, if not impossible, endeavor, NASA could help jump-start the DoD’s mobile nuclear program even further if both are really working on it collaboratively, although the requirements will be somewhat different. “There’s sometimes a risk of forcing too much commonality,” a White House official told SpaceNews.com. “What this executive order does is ensure that there is a deliberate look at what those opportunities may be.”
If realized, the Executive Order’s accompanying statement reads, this initiative could lead to a “transportable small modular reactor for a mission other than naval propulsion for the first time in half a century.”
Contact the author: Brett@TheDrive.com https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38687/white-house-accelerates-development-of-mini-nuclear-reactors-for-space-and-the-battlefield
-
Archives
- January 2021 (230)
- December 2020 (230)
- November 2020 (297)
- October 2020 (392)
- September 2020 (349)
- August 2020 (351)
- July 2020 (281)
- June 2020 (293)
- May 2020 (251)
- April 2020 (273)
- March 2020 (307)
- February 2020 (223)
-
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
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- 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
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS