LOS ANGELES (AP) — Federal regulators Wednesday rejected a request from two environmental groups to immediately shut down one of two reactors at California’s last nuclear power plant.
Friends of the Earth and Mothers for Peace said in a petition filed last month with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that long-postponed tests needed to be conducted on critical machinery at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, located midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. They argued the equipment could fail and cause a catastrophe.
In an order dated Tuesday, the NRC took no action on the request to immediately shut down the Unit 1 reactor and instead asked agency staff to review it.
The NRC also rejected a request to convene a hearing to reconsider a 2003 decision by staff to extend the testing schedule for the Unit 1 pressure vessel until 2025. The vessels are thick steel containers that hold nuclear fuel and cooling water in the reactors.
According to the groups, the last inspections on the vessel took place between 2003 and 2005. The utility postponed further testing in favor of using results from similar reactors to justify continued operations, they said.
The commission found there was no justification for a hearing.
The groups said in a statement that the decision showed “a complete lack of concern for the safety and security of the people living near” the plant, which started operating in the mid-1980s.
Operator Pacific Gas & Electric had said the plant was in “full compliance” with industry guidance and regulatory standards for monitoring and evaluating the safety of the reactor vessels.
The petition marked the latest development in a long fight over the operation and safety of the seaside plant, which sits on a bluff above the Pacific Ocean. In August, a state judge rejected a lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth that sought to block PG&E from seeking to extend the operating life of the plant.
PG&E agreed in 2016 to shutter the plant by 2025, but at the direction of the state changed course and now intends to seek a longer operating run for the twin reactors. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who once was a leading voice to close the plant, said last year that Diablo Canyon’s power is needed beyond 2025 to ward off possible blackouts as California transitions to solar and other renewable energy sources.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 4 Oct 23
Though little noted on mainstream news, America’s disastrous proxy war against Russia was a factor in the MAGA Republicans mutiny against House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Their only good spending cut, which fueled their removal bid, was ending all military aid to Ukraine. All their Republican colleagues and the entire Democratic House support endless war in Ukraine killing hundreds of thousands to protect US hegemony in Europe.
To placate the MAGA’s, McCarthy inserted an end to Ukraine aid that would be sure to doom Democratic support, forcing a shutdown. Yet all but one of 210 Democrats voted for the Ukraine weaponless bill. The MAGA’s, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, cried ‘FOUL’, claiming McCarthy made a secret deal with the Democrats to support more Ukraine aid once the shutdown crisis cooled. When called out on his likely subterfuge, McCarthy dared Gaetz to ‘Bring it on.’ Gaetz replied “I just did”, and quickly sent McCarthy packing with 100% Democratic support.
Mike Quigley of Illinois, sole Democrat voting against the bill, apparently didn’t get the leadership memo to support the bill without Ukraine aid. In a scurrilous insult to peace loving folks, Quigley blasted the bill as is a “Victory for Putin and Putin-sympathizers everywhere. We now have 45 days to correct this grave mistake before Russia friendly Republicans dig in their heels or claim victory in the next funding agreement.”
Whatever their motives, at least those ‘Russia friendly Republicans’ aren’t virulent war supporters like Quigley, cheering on America’s newest forever war, causing massive Ukraine death and destruction to maintain US dominance abroad.
The next shutdown fight looms November 17. Time for both parties to fully embrace negotiations over weapons in Ukraine to simplify the spending impasse. No more weapons may help keep the government afloat into next year while saving hundreds of billions in wasteful spending. More importantly, it may save the senseless loss of life and country in Ukraine.
Ben Henry KSTP, October 4, 2023 #nuclear #anti-nuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
Internal communication within state agencies highlights what appears to be a lack of coordination in responding to a radioactive leak at a nuclear power plant.
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS obtained hundreds of records in a public data request surrounding communication about Xcel Energy’s Monticello nuclear power plant leak from late last year.
According to Xcel, it detected the leak on Nov. 22, 2022. The 400,000-gallon spill was contaminated with tritium, which, according to the power company, is a compound that emits low levels of radiation.
From the start, Xcel says the leak posed no health or safety risk.
While the leak was detected in November, it wasn’t until mid-March this year that the public was informed. Now, after analyzing state data, we’re getting a better idea of how the months of communication, before informing the public, within state agencies went.
In an email between two Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) officials on Feb. 22 — three months after the leak was detected — one official wrote in part, “there’s a lot to say about this situation. It’s not helped by the fact that no state or federal agency has really stepped up to the plate and taken complete charge of the situation.”
That email goes on to say that in a meeting with Xcel, the MPCA official “told them we were concerned about Tritium getting into the Miss. River and that everything should be done to prevent that from happening,” eventually adding, “Xcel has not informed local Emergency Response authorities or legislators (something I told them to do).”
Then on March 2 — two weeks before Xcel publicly announced the leak — the same MPCA official informed colleagues that they would be the lead agency but that they’re still working out how other state agencies will respond – writing, “A “kickoff” meeting for involved staff is being scheduled. To be clear, there’s no new information prompting this action but rather a growing need for better coordination.”…………………… https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/state-records-highlight-lack-of-coordination-in-nuclear-leak-response/
The New York Times has published another CIA press release disguised as news, this time aimed at whipping up paranoia toward anyone who criticizes the US proxy war in Ukraine.
The article is titled “Putin’s Next Target: U.S. Support for Ukraine, Officials Say”. Its author, Julian E Barnes, has written so many New York Times articles with headlines ending in the words “Officials Say” that we can safely assume the primary reason for his continued employment in that paper is because empire managers within the US government have designated him someone who can be trusted to print what they want printed. This designation would make him a reliable supplier of “scoops” (read: regurgitations of unevidenced government claims) for The New York Times.
“American officials said they are convinced that Mr. Putin intends to try to end U.S. and European support for Ukraine by using his spy agencies to push propaganda supporting pro-Russian political parties and by stoking conspiracy theories with new technologies,” Barnes writes.
Of course the report never gets any more specific than that, and of course the “American officials” Barnes cites promote their unevidenced assertions under cover of complete anonymity.
“The American officials spoke on the condition their names not be reported so they could discuss sensitive intelligence,” Barnes writes.
The only named source cited in the article is a CIA veteran named Beth Sanner, who says that “Russia will not give up on disinformation campaigns,” but adds that “we don’t know what it is going to look like.”
And that’s really the whole article right there. Putin is going to be using his spy agencies to promote political parties and messages which support ending the practice of pouring billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, but nobody knows what that will look like exactly, so we all have to just be sort of generally distrustful toward anyone who doesn’t think it’s a swell idea to perpetuate a horrific war with potentially world-ending consequences, because they might be part of an unspecified Russian influence operation.
We saw a similar report from CNN a few weeks ago, in which the public was warned that Russia’s FSB is working to convert westerners into mouthpieces for Russian propaganda using methods so sneaky and subtle that those westerners wouldn’t even know it’s happening. Again, details were extremely vague and the only obvious response to the information provided is for everyone to just get really paranoid toward anyone saying anything that doesn’t support current US foreign policy toward Russia.
As a thought experiment, imagine what it would look like if the CIA or some other agency wanted to advance US information interests by making the public distrustful of any people or information which go against US strategic objectives. Try to imagine some of the things they might say or do.
Do you imagine it would look much different than what we’re seeing currently? Feeding trusted mainstream news reporters extremely vague stories about the Kremlin trying to deceive people into opposing the longstanding agendas of the US intelligence cartel, using online media and social subversion? Can you think of a more effective way to help shore up trust in your preferred narratives and sow distrust in narratives you do not prefer?
Here’s another one: imagine a state media outlet for a tyrannical dictatorship. Think about how its news stories are made, how it would often take orders from the government on what to report and what not to report, and how all its printing or broadcasting would always align with the information interests of that government.
Now ask yourself: in what material way is that reporting different from these CIA press releases we’re seeing from outlets like The New York Times and CNN? In both scenarios the government is feeding the media information it wants printed, and in both scenarios there will be consequences if the media don’t obey. In our hypothetical dictatorship those consequences might be more severe, but in our real life scenario the consequences are no less real.
If Mr Barnes had refused to work on this story, he would have lost his “scoop” and it would have been given to someone else, perhaps at a competing outlet. If Barnes ceased uncritically reporting unevidenced assertions from anonymous government officials, his prominence in the mainstream media would quickly fizzle, and his career would dry up. If The New York Times ceased functioning as a reliable outlet for the credulous printing of unevidenced government claims, then the government agencies who’ve been elevating the paper to prominence with their artificial “scoops” can take those hot stories to another competing outlet and let them get the subscriptions and the glory.
In both scenarios, the government is able to get its propaganda messaging printed as hard news reporting. In one scenario the reporter reports what the government wants because they work for the government, in the other scenario the reporter reports what the government wants because that’s the only way to have a career in media outlets that are owned and controlled by the plutocrats who benefit from the political status quo the government is premised upon. The only major difference is that in our hypothetical dictatorship, the public probably knows it’s being fed propaganda, and is therefore more likely to take what they’re being told with a grain of salt.
In a tyrannical dictatorship, the press is operated by employees of the government. In a Free Democracy™️, the press is operated by employees of the oligarchs who operate the government. In both cases you’re getting state propaganda, but in one of them the propaganda is disguised as objective news reporting.
There is considerable anti-war sentiment among voters worldwide — which explains why candidates run on peace promises (Obama, Zelensky, Trump). There is also considerable pro-war sentiment among corporations who build weapons of mass destruction, and the think-tanks they fundto support them.
This push-pull has nudged warmakers into branding wars as “D for Democrat” or “R for Republican” in order to whip up support and manage dissent. Thus Democrats support President Biden’s proxy war on Russia via Ukraine while Republicans and third parties (Greens, Libertarians, Communists) don’t.
But based on the congressional circus this week, maybe that is not such a good strategy?
Those of us opposed to ALL wars our government wages have experienced the partisan split in who will stand with us. When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats come out in droves. Then when an Obama or a Biden is elected, they go home.
Then, the parties wage information wars to support their team. These have ramped up considerably to insist that Putin = Hitler (just silly), that there are no Nazis in Ukraine (maybe they all went to Canada?), and that funding Ukraine’s government is a higher priority than funding our own. Even though as far back as July a CNN poll found a majority in the U.S. opposed sending any more money to Ukraine.
In order to avert a federal government shutdown over what to fund, we heard from Democrats that it was the bad Republicans’ fault.
The US president said on Sunday he was “sick and tired” of the political brinkmanship, and that US support for Ukraine could not be interrupted “under any circumstances”.
Even though Democrats never move left and always move right — or maybe because of that? — the Punch and Judy show where the two corporate parties bash each other constantly is having a long run.
Then we heard that the bad Republicans would only vote for averting a shutdown if it stripped out “aid” to Ukraine (currently at $180 billion and counting). And it worked! Worked, that is, after a fire drill shut Congress down when Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman pulled a fire alarm and delayed the vote a bit.
He swears this was an honest mistake. But I suspect the delay was so that some more back room deals on terms of the funding could be hammered out.
Received wisdom has it that Democrats want WW3 with Russia while Republicans want WW3 with China. But Greens like me see the corporate parties supporting all the wars and I think they’re all nuts.
I can see where the U.S. once believed it could beat Russia as it used the NATO alliance and CIA color revolutions to foment trouble like civil war for Ukraine. Looking at the situation today, it’s clear that few aside from delusional thinkers allied with the Biden administration believes this is still the case. Russia has objectively kicked Ukraine/NATO’s butt while the response in the West is best epitomized by the Canadian Parliament’s standing ovation for a literal Nazi “who fought the Russians in WW2.”
“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognize Yaroslav Hunka, who fought with the First Ukrainian Division in World War II, in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Sept. 22, 2023.” | Patrick Doyle/The Canadian Press
(If you’re unclear on WW2’s major players and alliances, the late Howard Zinn’s overview can be found here.)
Next up, preparations are already well underway for using Taiwan to create a situation where China feels it must respond to safeguard its own borders and sovereignty. What would lead to the delusion that AUKUS or NATO or U.S.-Japan-South Korea could defeat China in a hot war? Hot warriors falsely claim China is authoritarian, has lost the support of its people, and committed genocide against the Uyghurs.
Word to the U.S.: your government is increasingly authoritarian, has lost the confidence of its people, and has committed genocide in so many places it’s hard to list them all. Maybe just note the ongoing attempted genocide of the indigenous people of North America and leave it at that.
End of the American Dream. Life As You Have Known It Will Never Be The Same Again… by Michael
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the Military Industrial Complex to our society. It employs millions of people, and it brings in hundreds of billions of dollars each year. The Military Industrial Complex has always been one of the central pillars of our economy, and these days business is booming thanks to the war in Ukraine and the possibility of a war with China. Needless to say, those that run the Military Industrial Complex want the gravy train to continue, and so politicians that are pro-war are showered with campaign contributions. In both major parties, politicians that are pro-war greatly outnumber those that are anti-war, and that is not likely to change any time soon.
Smedley D. Butler fought in four major conflicts, and in 1935 he astutely observed that “war is a racket”…
“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”
If the Military Industrial Complex suddenly disappeared, it would leave a giant, gaping hole in our economy that would be extremely difficult to fill. In an excellent piece that he posted earlier this week, Richard C. Cook shared some numbers about the Military Industrial Complex that are absolutely astounding…
Today about 2.1 million people are employed by the defense industry. According to Acara Solutions, a major MIC recruiting firm, their average annual salary is $106,700, 40 percent higher than the national average. The companies they work for produced revenues in 2022 of $741 billion. How much of their production is high-priced junk, no one knows. The performance of U.S.-produced armaments in the Ukraine conflict does not seem impressive. No modern U.S. weapons have ever been tested in an industrial-type war against an equal adversary.
The MIC also includes active-duty uniformed personnel of 1.37 million and reserves of 849,000. There are 750 U.S. military bases in more than 80 countries outside of the U.S. More than 100,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed in Europe. Annual salary and benefits of the military are currently $146 billion per year, escalating with COLAs compounded at two to three percent annually, sometimes more. Some former U.S. military personnel are assumed to be fighting in Ukraine as mercenaries or helping direct the fighting from safe locations like Kiev or Lvov.
Then there are the civilian employees. According to the DoD, it employs more than 700,000 civilians “in an array of critical positions worldwide,” with compensation totaling about $70 billion. According to the Government Accountability Office, we may also add 560,000 contractor employees, whose compensation is typically higher than the career workforce.
We can also add hundreds of thousands of executives, managers, employees and contractors of the three-letter Deep State agencies, such as the CIA, NSA, DEA, FBI, and now DHS, etc., who interface with the MIC day in and day out and are part of the same fabric of state-sanctioned force and enemy identification and interdiction.
In the entire history of the world, we have never seen anything quite like this.
And the Military Industrial Complex absolutely loves Joe Biden, because he has promised to keep the war in Ukraine going “for as long as it takes”…
It is likely that billions of people around the world view the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy war being waged by the U.S. against Russia. US President Joe Biden has pledged to aid Ukraine’s pursuit of victory “for as long as it takes,” without defining what the end state might be. Russian President Vladimir Putin has interpreted U.S. intentions to mean a fight “to the last Ukrainian.”
Unfortunately, there is a problem.
The Ukrainians are running out of warm bodies.
They have literally been grabbing men off the streets and throwing them into vans, but we didn’t care because it wasn’t our sons that were being forced to go to war.
Many Americans cheered when the Ukrainians began their ill-fated “counter-offensive”, but it turned out to be a disaster.
A senior U.S. intel official recently admitted to journalist Seymour Hersh that Ukraine has suffered approximately 75,000 casualties during this counter-offensive…
“There is no discussion in his headquarters or in the Biden White House of a ceasefire and no interest in talks that could lead to an end to the slaughter,” Hersh said.
Speaking of the Ukrainian claims of slow progress in an offensive that has lost an estimated 75,000 casualties, the official told Hersh: “It’s all lies.”
On many battlefields in Ukraine, there are unburied dead bodies just laying around all over the place.
As the anniversary of the purported Biden Regime sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline approaches Sept. 26, veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh blamed a ”secret disinformation operation“ by CIA and MI-6 for misleading the public about the disastrous state of the US-led war effort.
“The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going,“ a senior US intel official told Hersh. “The truth is if the Ukrainian army is ordered to continue the offensive, the army would mutiny. The soldiers aren’t willing to die any more, but this doesn’t fit the B.S. that is being authored by the Biden White House.”
Where do we go from here?
The Military Industrial Complex certainly does not want this conflict to end, and Joe Biden has no intention of backing down.
So more warm bodies will be needed.
That is one of the reasons why there has been so much chatter about bringing back the draft here in the United States.
Recruitment has been way down in recent years, but our leaders desperately want to win this war with Russia and they also want to be ready to fight a war with China over Taiwan.
And so the stage is being set to draft young American boys and young American girls into military service…
The most recent edition of the US Army War College’s academic journal includes a highly disturbing essay on what lessons the US military should take away from the continuing war in Ukraine. By far the most concerning and most relevant section for the average American citizen is a subsection entitled “Casualties, Replacements, and Reconstitutions” which, to cut right to the chase, directly states, “Large-scale combat operations troop requirements may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription.”
The context for this supposed need to reinstate conscription is the estimate that were the US to enter into a large-scale conflict, every day it would likely suffer thirty-six hundred casualties and require eight hundred replacements, again per day. The report notes that over the course of twenty years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US suffered fifty thousand casualties, a number which would likely be reached in merely two weeks of large-scale intensive combat.
The military is already facing an enormous recruiting shortfall. Last year the army alone fell short of its goal by fifteen thousand soldiers and is on track to be short an additional twenty thousand this year. On top of that, the report notes that the Individual Ready Reserve, which is composed of former service personnel who do not actively train and drill but may be called back into active service in the event they are needed, has dropped from seven hundred thousand in 1973 to seventy-six thousand now.
Do you want your children to be fed into a meat grinder on the other side of the globe?
If not, it is time to stand up and say something………………………………………………………………………………………
We need to pull back from the brink before it is too late.
But our leaders won’t do that.
They don’t want to upset the Military Industrial Complex.
Unfortunately, we could also soon find ourselves in a war with China……………………………………………
The Military Industrial Complex wants to make even more money, and our politicians want to keep the campaign contributions rolling in.
So we will continue to speed toward a date with the unthinkable as the fate of our society hangs in the balance.
The U.S. government has embarked upon the first comprehensive modernization of its strategic nuclear arsenal since the Cold War ended three decades ago. The Department of Defense is simultaneously developing a new generation of ballistic-missile submarines, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers.
Collectively, these three systems are referred to as the strategic “triad.” Every nuclear posture review conducted by the government since the Soviet Union collapsed—there have been five counting Biden’s—has endorsed the triad as the best approach to assuring nuclear deterrence.
During the Cold War, each leg of the triad was periodically modernized. However, with the waning of the Soviet threat, improvement slowed. As a result, the nuclear arsenal has aged markedly. With great-power competition now restored to prominence in the nation’s defense strategy, the deterrent is overdue for revitalization.
The most recent authoritative estimate of nuclear-weapons costs, produced by the Congressional Budget Office in July, projects that the Department of Defense and Department of Energy will spend $247 billion during the ten years ending in 2032 to modernize the nuclear force.
An even larger amount will be allocated in subsequent years, delivering revenues to hundreds of companies. For instance, industrial conglomerate TextronTXT-1.1% will provide reentry-vehicle technology for carrying nuclear warheads, and BoeingBA-2% hopes to build a successor to the E-4B flying command post (popularly known as the Doomsday plane).
However, four companies are poised to dominate modernization of the nuclear arsenal, each of them ultimately realizing tens of billions of dollars in sales.
Northrop Grumman NOC+0.5%is the big winner in this generation’s round of competitions to rebuild the nuclear force. ……………… The company thus finds itself firmly ensconced as a key contractor on all three legs of the triad for decades to come—an unprecedented achievement in the history of the nuclear program.
General Dynamics, a Virginia-based defense and aerospace conglomerate, will build the 12 Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines destined to carry two-thirds of U.S. strategic warheads, just as it built the existing Ohio class of strategic subs……….. Today it is the world’s leading producer of undersea warships, supporting modernization of both the U.S. and United Kingdom nuclear deterrents.
Lockheed Martin LMT-0.3%is the world’s biggest military contractor, and will play a number of roles in nuclear modernization. The Maryland-based company has built every generation of submarine-launched ballistic missile from the early Polaris weapons to today’s Trident II D5……………………………………………………………………………………..
Like General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin contributes to my think tank.
At the Sept. 21 meeting of the Indian Point Decommissioning Oversight Board, a representative for Holtec, which is decommissioning the plant on the Hudson River near Peekskill, said he was not going to discuss what options it was considering. But he did say it expects the process will take longer.
“There will be a schedule impact; I don’t think you can avoid it,” said Rich Burroni, who was attending his last oversight meeting because he was recently promoted to become Holtec’s chief nuclear officer.
No remaining options are without their opponents. Boiling the water so that it evaporates would transfer its radiation to the air. Dumping it in the ocean would violate international law. Mixing it with concrete and shipping it to the western U.S. to be buried, which other decommissioned plants have done, has been criticized as an environmental justice violation, since it passes the risks to another community………………………………………………………………………………………
Dave Lochbaum, the oversight board’s nuclear expert, noted that in 2009 a tank at Indian Point failed, leaking 10,000 gallons a day “for a while” until the leak was discovered. “The result of that is the contamination gets into places it shouldn’t be, in higher levels of contamination,” he said.
When asked why the tanks fail so often, Lochbaum said that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) policies don’t encourage the development of better tanks.
“If you’ve ever paid a nickel for an overdue library book, you’ve paid a nickel more than the NRC has ever fined anyone for spilling millions of gallons of contaminated water,” he said. “Because there’s no sanction for doing wrong, there’s no incentive for getting it right.”
Lochbaum also had harsh words for the NRC when making a presentation on how the dry casks that store the spent fuel itself are inspected. Almost all of Indian Point’s spent nuclear fuel has been loaded into metal canisters, which are lowered into concrete hulls to protect them until they can be shipped to a yet-to-be-built permanent facility. The casks are supposed to be inspected on a regular basis to make sure they aren’t leaking or in danger of cracking.
But an audit by the NRC released this year found that for the past 20 years, nuclear power plants in the Southeast weren’t being inspected nearly as often or as robustly as they should have been. And inspectors weren’t qualified. Lochbaum said that in some cases, the inspectors didn’t even enter the fenced areas where the dry casks were located.
“They walked around the outside of the fence,” Lochbaum said. “That’s probably not adequate inspections.”
He also took issue with the fact that the NRC only spot-checks casks, rather than inspecting them all. At the same time, inspecting all of the casks properly is impractical because the process exposes inspectors to a low dose of radiation.
Public records indicate that the casks at Indian Point have been inspected more often and more thoroughly than those in the Southeast, but Lochbaum said that it’s still not clear if the inspectors are qualified or how many hours were spent.
Just the other day CNN anchor Erin Burnett ………. pausing to explain to her audience that this funding is actually good for Americans, because it goes straight into the US arms industry.
There’s been an astonishingly brazen propaganda push to normalize war profiteering in Ukraine as Kyiv coordinates with the arms industry and western governments to convert the war-ravaged nation into a major domestic weapons manufacturer, thereby turning Ukrainians into proxies of the military industrial complex as well as the Pentagon.
At an event in Kyiv which hosted 250 “defense” industry corporations from 30 different countries on Friday, President Zelensky gave a speech urging war profiteers to open factories in Ukraine to cut out the middleman of securing and delivering so many weapons from abroad. This is an investment that the arms industry would ostensibly have plenty of time to set up, given that western officials are now going out of their way to communicate to the public that this war will stretch on for many more years to come.
Zelensky’s speech twice made use of the phrase “defense-industrial complex”, and used the phrase “arsenal of the free world” no fewer than three times.
“Ukraine is developing a special economic regime for the defense-industrial complex,” Zelensky said. “To give all the opportunities to realize their potential to every company that works for the sake of defense — in Ukraine and with Ukraine or that wants to come to Ukraine.”
“Right now, the most powerful military-industrial complexes are being determined, as are their priorities and the global standard of defense. All of this is being determined in Ukraine,” Zelensky tweeted with photos from the event.
This move has been accompanied in recent weeks by some of the most appalling mass media headlines that I have ever seen, all geared toward normalizing the military industrial complex in the eyes of the public.
In an amazingly awful Wall Street Journal op-ed titled titled “In Defense of the Defense Industry” and subtitled “Populists of the right and left attack U.S. companies that make weapons. Who do they think protects us?”, Future of Capitalism’s Ira Stoll argues that the military industrial complex is actually a wonderful thing we should all love and support.
“The weapons industry protects America and its allies, keeping us safe from ruthless enemies who would otherwise exterminate or enslave us,” Stoll writes. “Raytheon helps make weapons systems that defend Israeli civilians against attacks from Iran-backed terrorist groups. These include the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, SkyHunter interceptor systems and Tamir missiles. Raytheon also produces the Javelin antitank missile that Ukraine has used against Russian armor and the early-warning radars that would detect incoming missiles aimed at the U.S.”
Stoll does not name the alternate universe he is describing in which the US military is used to keep Americans safe rather than to advance imperial interests abroad.
Another recent Wall Street Journal article titled “The War in Ukraine Is Also a Giant Arms Fair” and subtitled “Arms makers are getting orders for weapons being put to the test on the battlefield” glorifies the way war machinery is being field tested on human bodies to the benefit of war profiteers.
“The Panzerhaubitze howitzer is part of an arsenal of weapons being put to the test in Ukraine in what has become the world’s largest arms fair,” writes WSJ’s Alistair MacDonald. “Companies that make the weapons being used in Ukraine have won orders and resurrected production lines. The deployment of billions of dollars worth of equipment in a major land war has also given manufacturers and militaries a unique opportunity to analyze the battlefield performance of weapons, and learn how best to use them.”
A Reuters article from two weeks ago titled “At London arms fair, global war fears are good for business” gushes over how much money is being raked in by arms manufacturers as a result of this war, with one unnamed arms industry executive telling Reuters, “War is good for business.”
Just the other day CNN anchor Erin Burnett followed up some clips of “far right lawmakers” voicing their opposition to funding for the Ukraine proxy war by pausing to explain to her audience that this funding is actually good for Americans, because it goes straight into the US arms industry.
“It’s worthwhile with all of this gaining some steam in public perception to be clear on some facts,” Burnett said. “First and foremost, the vast majority of this money is going to American companies and jobs, right, because those are the people that are making the Abrams tanks, the ammo and everything else. And you take Lockheed Martin, which makes the HIMARS, that have been core to Ukraine’s counteroffensive, the company announced it’s going to increase its workforce in Camden, Arkansas, by 20 percent, just because of this new demand.”
“That money is going to America,” Burnett added.
All this propaganda energy is going into normalizing the act of war profiteering because if you let the idea stand on its own, it would make people scream in horror. The fact that a deliberately-provoked war is being used as a giant field demo to show prospective buyers and investors how effective various weapons systems can be at ripping apart human bodies in order to profit from all this death and destruction is more nightmarish than anything any dystopian novelist has ever come up with.
Ukraine is a giant advertisement for weapons of mass slaughter, and the cost of that corporate ad is not money but human blood. If you look right at this thing it absolutely chills you to the bone. Which is why so much effort is being poured into making sure people don’t look at it.
“With no end in sight, it looks increasingly likely that Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American taxpayer.”
In August, the Biden administration had requested a $24 billion package for Ukraine but was met with a significantly skimmed total of $6.1 billion. Of that amount $1.5 billionis earmarked for the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a measure that continues to delight US arms manufacturers by enabling the Pentagon to place contracts on their behalf to build weapons for Kyiv.
Things did not go so well this time around. When the worn Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy turned up banging on the doors of Washington’s powerful on September 21, he found fewer open hearts and an increasingly large number of closed wallets. The old ogre of national self-interest seemed to be presiding and was in no mood to look upon the desperate leader with sweet acceptance.
Last December, Zelensky and Ukrainian officials did not have to go far in hearing endorsements and encouragement in their efforts battling Moscow’s armies. The visit of the Ukrainian president, as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierrestated at the time, “will underscore the United States’ steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, including through provision of economic, humanitarian and military assistance.”
Republican Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, was bubbly with enthusiasm for the Ukrainian leader. “He’s a national and global hero – I’m delighted to be able to hear from him.” Media pack members such as the Associated Press scrambled for stretched parallels in history’s record,noting another mendicant who had previously appeared in Washington to seek backing. “The moment was Dec. 22, 1941, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill landed near Washington to meet President Franklin D. Roosevelt just weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor.”
Then House Speaker, the California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, also drew on the Churchillian theme with a fetishist’s relish. “Eighty-one years later this week, it is particularly poignant for me to be present when another heroic leader addresses the Congress in time of war – and with Democracy itself on the line,” she wrotecolleagues in a letter.
Zelenskyy, not wishing to state the obvious, suggested a different approach to the question of aiding Ukraine. While not necessarily an attentive student of US history, any briefings given to him should have been mindful of a strand in US politics sympathetic to isolationism and suspicious of foreign leaders demanding largesse and aid in fighting wars.
How, then, to get around this problem? Focus on clumsy, if clear metaphors of free enterprise. “Your money is not charity,”he stated at the time, cleverly using the sort of corporate language that would find an audience among military-minded shareholders. “It’s an investment in global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.” Certainly, Ukrainian aid has been a mighty boon for the US military-industrial complex, whose puppeteering strings continue to work their black magic on the Hill.
Despite such a show, the number of those believing in the wisdom of such an investment is shrinking. “In a US capital that has undergone an ideological shift since he was last here just before Christmas 2022,” remarkedStephen Collinson of CNN, “it now takes more than quoting President Franklin Roosevelt and drawing allusions to 9/11, to woo lawmakers.”
Among the investors, Republicans are shrinking more rapidly than the Democrats. An August CNN poll found a majority in the country – 55% – firmly against further funding for Ukraine. Along party lines, 71% of Republicans are steadfastly opposed, while 62% of Democrats would be satisfied with additional funding.
Kentucky Republican and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell continues to claim that funding Ukraine is a sensibly bloody strategy that preserves American lives while harming Russian interests. “Helping Ukraine retake its territory means weakening – weakening – one of America’s biggest strategic adversaries without firing a shot.”
The same cannot be said about the likes of Kentucky’s Republican Senator Rand Paul. While Zelenskyy was trying to make a good impression on the Hill, the senator was having none of it. “I will oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding. I will not consent to expedited passage of any spending measure that provides any more US aid to Ukraine.”
In The American Conservative, Paul warnedthat, “With no end in sight, it looks increasingly likely that Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American taxpayer.” President Joe Biden’s administration had “failed to articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and Ukraine’s long-awaited counter-offensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east.”
Such a quagmire was also proving jittering in its dangers. There was the prospect of miscalculation and bungling that could pit US forces directly against the Russian army. There were also no “effective oversight mechanisms” regarding the funding that has found its way into Kyiv’s pockets. “Unfortunately, corruption runs deep in Ukraine, and there’s plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since Russia’s invasion.” The Zelenskyy government, he also noted in a separatepost, had “banned the political parties, they’ve invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests, so no, it isn’t a democracy, it’s a corrupt regime.”
Republicans such as Missouri Senator Josh Hawley are of the view that the US should be slaying different monsters of a more threatening variety. (Every imperium needs its formidable adversaries.) The administration,he argued, should “take the lead on China” and reassure its “European allies” that Washington would be providing “the nuclear umbrella in Europe.”
On September 30, with yet another government shutdown looming in Washington, the US House approved a bill for funding till mid-November by a 335-91 vote. But the measure did not include additional military or humanitarian aid to Ukraine. In August, the Biden administration had requested a $24 billion package for Ukraine but was met with a significantly skimmed total of $6.1 billion. Of that amount $1.5 billionis earmarked for the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a measure that continues to delight US arms manufacturers by enabling the Pentagon to place contracts on their behalf to build weapons for Kyiv.
The limited funding measure proved a source of extreme agitation to the clarion callers who have linked battering the Russian bear, if only through a flawed surrogate, with the cause of US freedom. “I am deeply disappointed that this continuing resolution did not include further aid for our ally, Ukraine,” huffedMaryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer. “In September, the House held seven votes to approve that vital funding to Ukraine. Each time, more than 300 House Members voted in favor. This ought to be a nonpartisan issue and ought to have been addressed in the continuing resolution today.”
As Hoyer and those on his pro-war wing of politics are starting to realise, Ukraine, as an issue, is becoming problematically partisan and ripe. The filling in Zelenskyy’s cap is inexorably thinning and lightening.
VOA News, 1 Oct 23, #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
The United States struck security agreements this week with Pacific Island nations seen as a key part of U.S. plans to counter China’s territorial expansion. But after three years of negotiations, one of those Pacific nations — the Marshall Islands — still has not reached a deal with Washington.
A member of the U.S. negotiating team blames the State Department’s legal team for the holdup, saying they object to how the agreement describes money for compensation from U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands some 60 years ago.
The agreement — known as the Compacts of Free Association — gives Washington exclusive access to large parts of the Pacific Ocean surrounding Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands. Funding runs out on September 30.
“You would have to say that there was mission failure,” said Howard Hills in an exclusive interview with VOA.
Hills negotiated those compacts alongside presidential envoy Ambassador Joseph Yun but left his position September 7. Deals with Micronesia and Palau have been reached, while talks with the Marshall Islands have stalled.
In a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on September 20, President David Kabua laid out the Republic of the Marshall Island’s remaining demand.
“What the United States must realize is that Marshallese people require that the nuclear issue be addressed.”
Kabua was referring to the environmental and health impacts of the 67 atomic bomb tests conducted in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958.
But Hills says the State Department won’t let Yun officially designate the funds as compensation for the effects of American nuclear tests in the Marshalls………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.voanews.com/a/7290553.html
Fast Facts. The U.S. has set goals for a new strategic U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control treaty when the current one expires in 2026.
The goals are to ensure that a new treaty addresses all nuclear weapons—including those in storage and shorter-range weapons—and certain weapon delivery vehicles. For the next treaty, officials largely expect to use current methods to verify that each country complies, such as on-site inspections and satellite imagery.
Beyond the next treaty, future treaties could include more extensive nuclear weapon limits. Verifying such treaties may require more advanced technology, which the U.S. is researching and developing.
What GAO Found
New START, a treaty that limits U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces, will expire in 2026. The U.S. has established three goals for a nuclear arms control treaty with Russia to follow New START:
Retain limits on systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons at intercontinental ranges, or “strategic delivery vehicles”;
Address all nuclear weapons, including nonstrategic nuclear weapons and weapons in storage; and
Address new and novel Russian delivery vehicles, such as a nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed cruise missile.
According to U.S. officials, the measures for verifying compliance with a New START successor are likely to be similar to those employed for New START, including exchanges of data about deployed strategic delivery vehicles, inspections at relevant bases, and use of satellites. In the long term, the U.S. has aspirational goals—such as nuclear weapons reductions—that may require more extensive verification using more intrusive technologies.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has a plan for developing verification technologies that would support an array of possible treaty scenarios. NNSA’s plan groups these technologies into three “approaches” based on increasing levels of intrusiveness and confidence in compliance. Officials stated that technologies in the first, “baseline” approach are largely proven or already used under New START and are ready to support a potential successor treaty. More intrusive technologies—such as devices to measure weapons’ radiation signatures—would provide increased confidence in compliance and support longer-term treaty goals but may require 5 to 10 more years of development.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed and studies GAO reviewed noted likely challenges to verifying Russian compliance with future treaties that address U.S. nuclear arms control goals. For example, nuclear weapons are smaller than strategic delivery vehicles and would thus be harder to monitor using satellites. Verifying Russian compliance with limits on nonstrategic nuclear weapons may also be challenging, in part because many Russian nonstrategic delivery vehicles can carry nuclear or conventional weapons, making visual differentiation difficult.
Why GAO Did This Study
New START limits the number of U.S. and Russian strategic delivery vehicles—such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM)—and the total number of nuclear weapons that each party is allowed to deploy on those vehicles. New START also details a collection of verification measures—such as inspections and the use of satellites—intended to provide confidence that parties are complying with treaty limits. The U.S. has sought to negotiate a New START successor with Russia and aspires to pursue future arms control with China.
The Senate report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review technologies that could support verification of future nuclear arms control treaties. This report describes (1) U.S. goals and likely verification measures for future nuclear arms control treaties, including a successor to New START; (2) the extent NNSA has planned for or developed verification technologies to support future arms control goals; and (3) challenges stakeholders have identified to implementing verification measures to support future treaties.
GAO reviewed U.S. government plans and reports pertaining to nuclear arms control treaty verification, as well as relevant studies. GAO also interviewed 43 stakeholders, including U.S. government officials, representatives from the Department of Energy’s national laboratories, and nuclear arms control experts.
For more information, contact Allison Bawden at (202) 512-3841 or bawdena@gao.gov.
Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will reportedly announce on Oct. 9 that he is running as an independent
Kennedy is set to switch party affiliations after campaigning as a Democrat since April. His campaign plans to air “attack ads” against the Democratic National Committee to “pave the way” for his announcement, according to Mediate.
Kennedy has criticized President Joe Biden on various occasions during his campaign. He claimed to be “the first person censored by the Biden administration” in early 2021 when he was suspended from Instagram and Facebook for disinformation, and has accused the sitting president of living in a “bubble” and only talking to “donors.”
By switching his election bid to an independent campaign, Kennedy could serve as a “spoiler” candidate, though commentators were divided on whether he would pull more votes from Biden or former President Donald Trump.
Kennedy begged the Biden administration for Secret Service protection in September after a man impersonating a U.S. Marshal was arrested for bringing two loaded pistols and a spare ammunition magazine at one of Kennedy’s campaign events. The candidate’s father, New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, were both assassinated.
The Pentagon admitted that a Chinese balloon that crossed into US territory in February was not spying; it was likely blown off course by wind. But Washington and the media milked this manufactured scandal for new cold war propaganda.
The US government has admitted that severe accusations it made against China were just a lot of hot air.
The highest-ranking official in the US military has clarified that a Chinese balloon that crossed into US territory in February 2023 was not spying; it was likely blown off course by wind.
CBS News published an interview this September with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, who stated, “The intelligence community, their assessment – and it’s a high-confidence assessment – [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon”.
Milley conceded that the large rubber object was probably pushed off track by powerful wind.
This report, released seven months after the incident, has confirmed exactly what the Chinese government stated at the time: its balloon was not spying on the United States, and only accidentally entered its airspace.
The US government has still insisted that the Chinese balloon had technology that could have potentially been used to gather information – although it has not clarified if that technology was focused specifically on collecting data on weather patterns, which is what Beijing said it was doing.
Regardless, in another massive blow to Washington’s narrative, CBS News acknowledged in its report that, “After the Navy raised the wreckage from the bottom of the Atlantic, technical experts discovered the balloon’s sensors had never been activated while over the Continental United States“.
So even if the Chinese balloon had the technological capacity to spy on the United States, as Washington claims, the sensor was never turned on.
This is not the first time a senior US official has admitted that the Chinese balloon was not spying.
In June, Pentagon press secretary Brigadier General Pat Ryder made very similar comments.
“We’re aware that [the balloon] had intelligence collection capabilities, but it was our — and it has been our — assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States”, the Defense Department spokesman said, in remarks quoted by ABC News.
These statements confirm that Geopolitical Economy Report was accurate in its analysis in February, which synthesized existing evidence at the time and concluded that the Chinese balloon had likely been blown off course by unexpected weather.
Despite these bombshells proving the entire scandal to be manufactured, Washington and the US media turned this weather accident into a diplomatic crisis, milking the incident to demonize China and depict it as a grave “threat”.
The nationwide freakout was reminiscent of crude propaganda from the first cold war, when the US government produced “Duck and Cover” films instructing students to hide under their desks in the case of a sudden Soviet nuclear strike, or when Hollywood churned out blockbuster movies imploring North Americans to suspect their neighbors of being dastardly Russian communist spies.
Today, the United States is waging a new, second cold war. Moscow is still a target, but this time Washington’s main adversary is Beijing.
During the manufactured scandal, the US State Department claimed the “high altitude balloon’s equipment was clearly for intelligence surveillance”, and was “capable of conducting signals intelligence collection operations”.
The White House accused Beijing of operating a “global” espionage program, stating, “We know that these [Chinese] surveillance balloons have crossed over dozens of countries on multiple continents around the world, including some of our closest allies and partners”.
Hawkish US politicians, like Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher, the chair of the House of Representatives’ Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, declared that the large rubber object “is a threat right here at home. It is a threat to American sovereignty, and it is a threat to the Midwest”.
Fox News brought on air neoconservative activists from think tanks funded by the weapons industry, who argued that Beijing was using the balloon to spy on the US to “prepare the battlefield” for war.
While standing next to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Stoltenberg insisted, “The balloon over the United States confirms a pattern of Chinese behavior where we see that China has invested heavily in new capabilities, including different types of surveillance and intelligence platforms… We need to be aware of the constant risk of Chinese intelligence and step up what we do to protect ourselves and react in a prudent and responsible way”.
Musk’s aerospace firm is now competing for nearly $1 billion in Pentagon contracts extending into 2028, as the Space Force seeks to repurpose existing communications satellites for military use as part of its “Proliferated Low Earth Orbit” program.
The billionaire entrepreneur continues to insist that the Starlink network should not be a “participant to combat”
SpaceX has signed its first contract with the Pentagon to provide satellite services as part of its new ‘Starshield’ program. CEO Elon Musk described the effort as a military alternative to the “civilian” Starlink system, although it will apparently rely on the existing constellation of satellites.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday, Musk weighed in on reports that SpaceX had reached a deal with the US Space Force, confirming that the Starshield project would be “owned by the US government and controlled by [the Department of Defense].”
“Starlink needs to be a civilian network, not a participant to combat,” he said, referring to the use of the satellites in Ukraine throughout the conflict with Russia, adding “This is the right order of things.”
However, despite Musk’s stated reluctance to be involved in the fighting, the new Space Force contract will see SpaceX effectively lease out part of its Starlink network to the Pentagon, providing service over the same satellites, according to Bloomberg.
With a $70 million price ceiling, the deal “provides for Starshield end-to-end service via the Starlink constellation, user terminals, ancillary equipment, network management and other related services,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek told Bloomberg News.
The outlet noted that Musk’s aerospace firm is now competing for nearly $1 billion in Pentagon contracts extending into 2028, as the Space Force seeks to repurpose existing communications satellites for military use as part of its “Proliferated Low Earth Orbit” program.
Musk has come under fire from US officials for SpaceX’s decisions in Ukraine, after allegedly refusing Kiev’s demands to use the Starlink network to aid strikes on Russia’s Black Sea fleet last year. The billionaire’s biographer, Walter Isaacson, revealed earlier this month that Musk had developed a “military version of the Starlink” as a way to wash his hands of the project. more https://www.rt.com/news/583746-pentagon-musk-satellite-deal/
nuclear-news 