nuclear-news

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

What do Americans really think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Bulletin, By Scott D. Sagan, Gina Sinclair | August 5, 2024

In mid-August 1945, within weeks of the end of World War II, Americans were polled on whether they approved of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  An overwhelmingly high percentage of Americans—85 percent—answered “yes.” That level of approval has gone down over the years, with (depending on the precise wording of the question) only a slim majority (57 percent in 2005) or a large minority (46 percent in 2015) voicing approval in more recent polls.

This reduction in atomic bombing approval over time has been cited as evidence of a gradual normative change in public ethical consciousness, the acceptance of a “nuclear taboo” or what Brown University scholar Nina Tannenwald has called “the general delegitimation of nuclear weapons.” 

This common interpretation of US public opinion, however, is too simplistic. Disapproval has indeed grown over time, but most Americans remain supportive of the 1945 attacks, albeit wishing that alternative strategies had been explored. These conclusions can be clearly seen in the results of a new, more complex public opinion survey, conducted for this article, that asked a representative sample of Americans about their views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, examined alternative strategies for ending the war, and provided follow-on questions to determine how the public weighs the costs and benefits of different strategies. 

Scratch beneath the surface, and the American public today, as in 1945, does not display an ethically based taboo against using nuclear weapons or killing enemy civilians, but rather has a preference for doing whatever was necessary to win the war and save American lives…………………………………………………………………………………………….

US public opinion in 2015 and 2024. A 2015 replication of the 1945 Roper poll found that 14.4 percent of Americans felt the United States should not have used atomic bombs at all, that 31.6 percent thought a bomb should have been dropped in a demonstration strike on an unpopulated area, but that almost no one (less than 3 percent) wanted to use more bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender.

For this article, we replicated the 1945 Roper poll again with a representative sample of 2,000 Americans on June 21, 2024, but then asked follow-on questions to help us determine what the public really meant when answering the survey. Such follow-on questions are necessary to understand the public’s deeper set of commitments and preferences. Did those opposing any use of the atomic bombs really support such a policy even if it meant ending the war without a Japanese government surrender? Or would they support dropping the bomb if Japan did not surrender? Would those who favor a demonstration strike today support bombing cities if the demonstration strike failed to compel Tokyo to surrender, or did they oppose atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki under all circumstances? In short, what do Americans really think, now, about using nuclear weapons in 1945?

Options and alternatives. The percentage of respondents who said that the United States shouldn’t have used any atomic bombs at all increased from 4.3 percent in 1945, to 14.4 percent in 2015, to 36.7 percent in 2024. The percentage of respondents who preferred the demonstration strike option decreased from 31.6 percent to 20.9 percent. Public support for use of the two bombs, as the United States did in 1945, followed the same general trend, decreasing to 19.4 percent.  But what do these trends reveal about US opinion? Our follow-on questions were designed to measure the public’s true willingness to use nuclear weapons and kill enemy civilians…………………………………………………

In short, when reminded of the Japanese refusal to surrender, the strong majority (82.33 percent) of those who originally favored the demonstration strike then accepted nuclear or conventional attacks on Japanese cities.

Why these preferences? The basic finding that over 36 percent of Americans said today that the United States should not have used any atomic bombs cannot reasonably be interpreted as an indication of a widespread nuclear taboo. It may be a positive trend, but it is not a robust opinion. Indeed, less than half of those respondents maintained that position after they were reminded (as was the case in 1945) that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender prior to the atomic bomb attacks.

Instead, our 2024 Roper Poll replication provides three valuable insights about American public opinion. First, much of US public is, in fact, still supportive of the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Adding the answers from the different follow-on questions, reveals that 41.3 percent of all respondents were ultimately willing to use a nuclear bomb on one or more cities, and many more Americans (over 25% of all respondents) reported that they didn’t know what their preferences were in this wartime scenario. These findings are inconsistent with the existence of a nuclear taboo and underscore that large hawkish instincts lurk within the U.S. public.

A second novel finding relates to the public’s willingness to attack cities and thereby violate the basic law of armed conflict and the just war principle of non-combatant immunity. While only 41.3 percent of respondents were ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons against cities, many other respondents favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan. Reasons given by respondents who had at first stated that they opposed nuclear attacks, but then favored continued conventional bombing once reminded that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender included: “Because if humane tactics don’t work, then you gotta do what you Gotta do;” “Since they refuse to heed to the warning, then they deserve war;” and “If Japan doesn’t surrender than it’s time to show them what we can do.”

Altogether, adding advocates of conventional bombing with advocates of nuclear attacks, 51.25 percent of all respondents chose to attack Japanese cities and kills civilians on a massive scale. This shows that the non-combatant immunity principle, contrary to the claims of some experts, does not have strong “stopping power” at least among the public. These findings challenge the theories of scholars such as Charli Carpenter, Alexander Montgomery, Steven Pinker, Neta Crawford, and Ward Thomas, who posit that a decrease in willingness to use nuclear weapons is a result of broader acceptance of the just war principle of non-combatant immunity.

………………………………………………….. many responses in the 2024 Roper Poll revealed something else: a notable percentage of respondents (15.92 percent) cited their beliefs on the importance of US isolationism and avoiding any engagement in foreign affairs.

……………………………………………These findings about contemporary views of the 1945 atomic bombing are consistent with previous research demonstrating that large segments of the American public are willing to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran, in order to avoid US military fatalities, or against a terrorist organization planning chemical weapons attacks on the United States. …………………………………

The American public does not hold a strong nuclear taboo and indeed, may be more of a goad than a constraint on any future president who is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons in trying wartime conditions. While the laws of armed conflict and just war doctrine may still be a constraint on nuclear use, their powers are more likely to exercised by the moral compass of individual political leaders or the legal training of senior military officers, not through the deeply problematic instincts of the American public. https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/what-do-americans-really-think-about-the-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=DayNewsletter08052024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_WhatAmericansReallyThink_08052024

August 7, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

US Congressmen Say ‘No War With Iran!’

“Israel’s dramatic escalation is completely compatible with its past efforts to drag the U.S. into another war,” one expert said of the Israeli assassination of a Hamas leader in Iran.

Jessica Corbett, Aug 04, 2024

Amid mounting fears of a regional war in the Middle East, a pair of Democratic congressmen joined the growing chorus warning against the U.S. engaging in an armed conflict with Iran.

In response to U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introducing a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on social media Saturday that “the U.S. must not be dragged into a war with Iran.”

“The Iraq War was the biggest American blunder of the 21st century,” Khanna added. “Every candidate running this cycle must be clear on where they stand on this.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said early Sunday: “I agree with Ro Khanna. No war with Iran! Let’s all get on record with this.”

Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, urged Khanna to introduce a related war powers resolution, arguing that “we really could use a clear vehicle like this to increase the pressure for no U.S. military intervention in a disastrous war with Iran.”

“We’re a miscalculation or a miscue away from an event that could draw the U.S. and Iran into a direct military conflict.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-iran-war

August 6, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

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

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

Biden team blows off deadline for Ukraine war strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass Media Goons Are Still Reporting That Biden Is Getting Tough On Netanyahu

Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 03, 2024,  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/mass-media-goons-are-still-reporting?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=147305961&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Another day, another Axios article falsely asserting that President Biden is really getting tough on Benjamin Netanyahu. 

In a write-up titled “Biden warns Netanyahu against escalation as risk of regional war grows,” Barak Ravid reports that while Biden has pledged to support Israel against any strikes from Iran in retaliation for its insanely escalatory assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, he also told Netanyahu that he “expects no more escalation from the Israeli side” from here on out.

“President Biden privately demanded in a ‘tough’ call Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stop escalating tensions in the region and move immediately toward a Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal,” writes Ravid, citing two US officials who as usual remain unnamed.

“At the end of the meeting with Netanyahu in the Oval office last Thursday, Biden became emotional, raised his voice and told Netanyahu he needs to reach a Gaza deal as soon as possible, three Israeli officials with knowledge of the meeting told Axios,” Ravid reports.

Ravid writes:

“One U.S. official said Biden complained to Netanyahu that the two had just spoken last week in the Oval Office about securing the hostage deal, but instead Netanyahu went ahead with the assassination in Tehran.

“Biden then told Netanyahu the U.S. will help Israel defeat an Iranian attack, but after that he expects no more escalation from the Israeli side and immediate movement toward a hostage deal, the U.S. official said.”

Sure, sure. This time Biden really means it when he draws a firm line with Israel, unlike all those other times when this administration has continued to back Israel’s psychopathic actions unconditionally since October 7.

Commentators on US foreign policy are less than impressed with this report.

“It’s the umpteenth installment of ‘Biden is secretly mad at Bibi’: he became emotional! He raised his voice!” tweeted The Economist’s Gregg Carlstrom. “Can’t imagine anyone takes these self-serving leaks seriously. Least of all Netanyahu, who has ignored Biden with impunity for ten months”

“Biden reportedly told Netanyahu he’ll help defeat an Iranian attack, but expects no more escalation from Israel, warning Netanyahu that he shouldn’t count on the US to bail him out again,” tweeted Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, adding, “Fine, but given Biden’s record, why should Netanyahu believe him?”

Barak Ravid has made an entire career out of writing up these anonymously sourced White House press releases about how badass and un-genocidal the president is and packaging them as real news stories. Here are some of the headlines from Ravid’s reporting since October:


Biden “running out” of patience with Bibi as Gaza war hits 100 days

Scoop: Biden in “frustrating” call told Bibi to solve Palestinian tax revenue issue

Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi: Change Gaza policy or we will

White House temperature is “very high” ahead of Biden-Bibi call

“We won’t support you”: Inside Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi

Israel and U.S. deeply divided in meeting on key Rafah operation issues

Biden and Bibi “red lines” for Rafah put them on a collision course

Biden-Bibi clash escalates as U.S. accused of undermining Israeli government

Biden and Netanyahu hold first call in a month amid public split

Biden breaks with Netanyahu but sticks with Israel

Biden on hot mic: Told Bibi we needed “come to Jesus” meeting on Gaza

Biden, in rare criticism, warns Netanyahu that Israel risks losing global support

Biden, in rare criticism of Bibi, says pause in Gaza fighting should have come sooner

Scoop: Blinken warns Israeli officials global pressure will grow longer war goes on

Israeli minister lambasted at White House about Gaza and war strategy

Scoop: Biden tells Bibi he’s not in it for a year of war in Gaza

Blinken unloads on Bibi: “You need a coherent plan” or face disaster in Gaza

Scoop: White House cancels meeting, scolds Netanyahu in protest over video

Netanyahu irked by “critical” Harris comments

This is just one guy, from just one outlet. These “Biden is very upset with Netanyahu and wants him to be different” reports have been coming out throughout the US media since the early weeks of this ongoing mass atrocity, all of which are flatly contradicted by the White House taking zero meaningful action this entire time to rein in Israel’s demented genocidal aggressions.

And to be clear, none of this is actually news. “Anonymous sources say X, Y and Z about how the president’s feelings are feeling” is not a news story. These reports serve no purpose other than to create distance in the eyes of the American public between the genocidal monster Benjamin Netanyahu and the president who is unconditionally supporting his genocidal atrocities in every way possible. They are PR spin and nothing more, which would be surprising to anyone who still believes the mainstream western press exist to report the news instead of promulgate propaganda for the advancement of the information interests of the western empire.

All they’re doing here is trying to wash this administration’s hands of the horrors that are being inflicted in the middle east with the direct facilitation of this administration. Don’t let them. All the monstrous actions being perpetrated by Israel today are just as much the fault of the US government as they are of Israel itself. This is who they are. Make them own it.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Israel, media, USA | Leave a comment

US nuclear plant unfit for quick resurrection, former lead engineer says

By Timothy Gardner, WASHINGTON, Aug 2 2024, (Reuters)

– The first U.S. nuclear plant to ever try reopening after undergoing preparations for permanent closure is not fit to restart anytime soon because it sidestepped important safety work for years before retirement, a former official at the reactor said.

Power company Entergy (ETR.N), opens new tab closed the Palisades reactor in Michigan in 2022, after the plant generated electricity for more than 50 years. Privately-held Holtec International bought Palisades shortly after and has since secured a $1.52 billion conditional U.S. loan guarantee to restart. Holtec seeks to open the plant in about a year.

The fate of Palisades is closely watched by the nuclear industry as at least two other shuttered plants, including a unit at Constellation Energy’s (CEG.O)
, opens new tab Three Mile Island, consider reopening…………

“I’m pro-nuclear, but they selected the wrong horse to ride to town on,” said Alan Blind, who was engineering director at the Palisades plant from 2006 to 2013 under Entergy.

Blind said the plant got exemptions from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nuclear safety regulator, allowing it to fall short of safety design standards that more modern plants must adhere to because it was nearing retirement.

Those safety standards include prevention of cooling systems being clogged by the breakdown of insulation on pipes, defense against earthquakes, and reduction of risks to fires, Blind said, adding he had been monitoring the plants’ exemption requests since his retirement.

“I’m worried that the NRC will not insist that the generic safety issues be the fixed before they allow Palisades to restart,” Blind told Reuters………………………………………………………..

The Biden administration’s Loan Programs Office at the Department of Energy issued Holtec a conditional $1.52 billion loan guarantee in March to restart Palisades. … https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-nuclear-plant-unfit-quick-resurrection-former-lead-engineer-says-2024-08-02/

August 4, 2024 Posted by | safety, USA | 2 Comments

Kamala: We need a ceasefire and arms embargo NOW!

 https://www.codepink.org/kamalastopisrael 2 Aug 24

Over the past weeks, we’ve seen Vice President Kamala Harris’s image being portrayed as more sympathetic to Palestinians in comparison to Joe Biden. But in reality she repeats so many of the same anti-Palestinian talking points and hasn’t done anything to move us towards a ceasefire. It’s time to put pressure on the VP! Sign the petition below!

Vice President Kamala Harris, 

As Vice President of the United States, your job is to serve the people, and the majority of Americans want a permanent ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We are disgusted with how our hard-earned money is being used to annihilate innocent people in Palestine! 

You have strategically presented yourself as distinct from President Biden, especially with regard to Israel’s genocide campaign in Gaza, though you are part of the same administration. We have not been fooled, and we know you are not powerless. We know you can take significant action to stop Israel’s genocide, and you haven’t.

We will not blindly praise you — as others have — for calling for a ceasefire “for at least six weeks” in March of 2024. At that point, 30,000 Palestinians had already been murdered by Israel and we were five months into the genocide. 

In the past, you have had no problem meeting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), taking in hundreds of thousands of Zionist campaign contributions, and speaking at their events. We understand the true purpose of this lobby group is to ensure continued U.S. funding of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and imperialism in the Middle East. We reject the influence of foreign governments in American politics and see your relationship with AIPAC as a stark contradiction to your supposed support of a ceasefire in Gaza. 

Most recently, you condemned protests in D.C. opposing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress — the man spearheading the worst genocide we’ve seen in recent history. Policing Americans who are rightfully angry about war crimes and the mass murder of innocent children was a true display of your immorality, and proved your alignment with Biden’s policies on Israel. What’s worse is that you characterized these protests as anti semitic, showing us your complete lack of understanding for what’s really happening. 

Sharing stories of how you as a young girl helped plant trees for Israel is a deliberately tone-deaf attempt at greenwashing Israel’s occupation, given the ecological devastation the IOF have waged on the Palestinian people, land, water and vegetation for 76 years, culminating in the utter devastation of Gaza in recent months. How can you be so selfishly blind to the reality on the ground?

Considering your stances, we have no reason to believe you are not following Biden’s policies on Israel. In order to salvage what political credibility you may have left, it is imperative that you use your capacity as Vice President to push for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We demand you release a statement explicitly distancing yourself from Biden’s support for genocide, and call for an arms embargo on Israel. 

August 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blank Checks for War: Congress Has Abdicated Its Power From Tonkin to Gaza

As the 60th anniversary of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution approaches, it’s time to reflect on how Congress solidified its long-standing deference to the presidency on foreign policy and how the people can make their voices heard.

Christian Appy Aug 01, 2024, Common Dreams

With the U.S.- backed carnage in Gaza continuing and the threat of growing violence looming throughout the region (in Lebanon, Iran, and who knows where else), we need to think more deeply than ever about how the American people have historically been excluded from foreign policy decision-making. An upcoming anniversary should remind us of what sent us down this undemocratic path.

Sixty years ago, on August 7, 1964, U.S. Congress handed President Lyndon B. Johnson the power to wage a major war in Vietnam, solidifying its long-standing deference to the presidency on foreign policy. Not once since World War II has Congress exercised its constitutional responsibility to vote on declarations to decide if, when, and where the United States goes to war.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 flew through Congress, in part because most members trusted the president’s assurance that he sought “no wider war.” Their trust was misplaced. The Johnson administration kept secret and lied about its plans for future military escalation in Vietnam. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Congress, for its part, continues to enable an ever more imperial presidency that decides when and where the U.S. goes to war. It almost never uses the power of the purse to reduce U.S. militarism or to cut funding for unpopular wars. The nearly trillion-dollar Pentagon budget is rubber-stamped every year……………………………………………

We have seen, in the last 10 months, an unprecedented outpouring of American protest in support of Palestinian rights. For good reason. Nearly 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, and many of them children, have been killed by the Israeli military’s indiscriminate and disproportionate response to the Hamas killing of some 1,100 Israelis on October 7, 2023. Around 1.7% of the Gazan population (2.3 million) have been killed and at least 90% displaced from their homes (many have had to flee multiple times). A recent study by the medical journal The Lancet, estimates that the death toll in Gaza could reach 186,000 even if there is a cease-fire today.

For most Americans, this level of suffering is unimaginable. Yet we must try to imagine it. If we were Gaza, at least 5.7 million of us would be dead, the vast majority women, children, and other civilians. Many millions more would be among the uncounted dead and dying—buried, lost, sick, starving. More than 300 million of us would be forced from our homes, on the road seeking shelter, food, and water under ongoing military attacks and perils beyond description.

That is the reality in Gaza.

In the end, only a mass democratic movement has the potential to dramatically change U.S. foreign policy. The first challenge is to overthrow the baseless claim that the United States is the greatest force for good in the world, the “indispensable nation” that stands for the rule of law, freedom, and democracy. Our record does not warrant such a delusion. Only when that ideology and naïve faith is broadly undermined can we hope to chip away at the long-standing infrastructure of U.S. militarism—the over 750 military bases on foreign soil, the annual military exercises in two-thirds of the world’s nations, and the “defense” budget that equals the next nine most militarized nations combined.

Ellsberg and Morse were right. The people must know the truth. But we have long had more than enough evidence to demand fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy. We can’t wait for Congress to represent us faithfully. The people’s voice must be heard.  https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/congress-blank-checks-war

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

The Abrahamic Alliance: Reality or work of fiction?


Lorenzo Maria Pacini, Strategic Culture Foundation, Sat, 27 Jul 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/493617-The-Abrahamic-Alliance-Reality-or-work-of-fiction

DC‘Abrahamic Alliance’ will probably end up being an empty and superficial alliance, consisting mostly of the U.S. and Israel, similar to Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is widely considered a flop.

On Wednesday 24 July 2024, Israeli President Bibi Netanyahu delivered a speech to the Congress of the United States of America that will go down in history.

The speech of the world’s most dangerous clown

In the absence of the political leadership – embroiled in an unprecedented social crisis of paedophilia scandals, old men with Alzheimer’s pressing random buttons in war rooms and clowns on psychiatric drugs attacking banks -, the ‘host’ from the Middle East took the opportunity to travel to Washington and clarify certain programmatic aspects of the future of the collective West.

Here are some highlights of his crazy speech, with which he orwellianly turned reality upside down, spread fake news, manipulated his listeners and legitimised a genocide that goes on while the rest of the world thinks about going on holiday, while writing ‘All eyes on Rafah’ on social media to wash hisconscience.

– “The war in Gaza has one of the lowest ratios of combatants to non-combatants in the history of urban warfare”;

– “Not a single innocent Palestinian civilian has been killed by the IDF in Rafah”;

– “Iran is behind all the terrorism, all the unrest, all the chaos and all the endless killing. And this should come as no surprise”;

– “For Iran, Israel is first, America is second. When Israel fights Hamas, we are fighting Iran. When we fight Hezbollah, we are fighting Iran. When we fight the Houthis, we are fighting Iran. And when we fight Iran, we are fighting radical terrorism”;

– “We are not just protecting Israel, we are protecting the United States. Our enemies are your enemies. Our fight is your fight. Our victory is your victory”;

– Netanyahu then proposed an Abrahamic Alliance, consisting of Israel, the U.S., and Arab countries dependent on the two aforementioned.

– He received a total of 58 standing ovations in his 60-minute speech (not even a Taylor Swift concert!).

So, to recap:

– Genocide of the Palestinians does not exist;

– If anything, there is a good genocide and that is the Israeli one;

– Palestine is called Israel and if you think otherwise you are an idiot;

– Israel is a victim, unfortunately it has found itself in the home of people who had been there for thousands of years who are demanding their land back;

– The only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian;

– Iran (the only country in the world to have fought against the imperialism of the Great Satan (Israel+USA+UK+Saudi Arabia) is entirely to blame for being Shia (and also for having eradicated Wahabi and Salafist Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and curbed imperialist expansionism);

– If you think otherwise, maybe you deserve a bullet too.

The Abrahamic Alliance

In the general delirium of his words, Netanyahu put forward the strategic proposal of an alliance, military, political and economic, called the ‘Abrahamic Alliance’.

If the U.S. had tried to form this alliance 10 years ago, we could say that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan and Egypt would probably have joined. With the ongoing Syrian war, fears over the nuclear programme and anti-Iranian sentiment at boiling point, the Arab nations felt they had something to prove.

However, in the Middle East of the year 2024, with Iran as an emerging force that has imposed hard power equations on its neighbours, and after the peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, I think such an alliance is not feasible. At best, the Kingdom of Jordan and Bahrain would join such an alliance.

Saudi Arabia is openly interested in closer ties with Iran, the UAE mostly follows Saudi policy and is heavily dependent on Iranian imports, while Egypt has a history of rejecting alliances and has bigger problems than Iran. None of these countries will be enthusiastic about the prospect of an anti-Iran alliance at a time when Iran is rapidly emerging as a pre-eminent geopolitical power in the Middle East.

Jordan, because of its dependence on NATO and the U.S., is the one most likely to be in favour. It was the only Arab nation to open its airspace to the Israeli Air Force when Iran launched its missile attacks against Israel in April this year.

Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Persian Gulf Fleet, while it might be interested in joining, has also openly expressed its interest in re-establishing diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In short: the ‘Abrahamic Alliance’ will probably end up being a shell of what it once could have been. It will be an empty and superficial alliance, consisting mostly of the U.S. and Israel, similar to Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is widely considered a flop.

Then, in all this, there remains one last fundamental point to consider: while Netanyahu and his followers blather on about turning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a global war on a religious basis (in perfect neocon eschatological style), they perhaps forget that the rest of the world – ‘the rest’, as the Americans used to say – is turning over a new leaf and will not stand by and watch. Russia and China have already concluded the laying of the pillars of a multipolar world… in which war will no longer be fought as before.

Comment: The Abrahamic Alliance is merely a guise to ‘circle the wagons’ assuring Israel an unhindered mission and survival at the expense of others. Some have eyes to see.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

California achieves 100% renewable energy for 100 days.

 On 100 out of 144 days since 8 March, California’s electricity has been supplied fully by
renewable energy for at least part of the day.

 Power Technology 30th July 2024

https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-100-renewable-energy-for-100-days/

August 3, 2024 Posted by | renewable, USA | Leave a comment

This nuclear waste site could soon host a massive solar installation

The Hanford Site in Washington state, a radioactive relic of the Manhattan Project and Cold War, was selected by DOE to be outfitted with up to 1GW of solar.

By Carrie Klein, 30 July 2024, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/this-nuclear-waste-site-could-soon-host-a-massive-solar-installation—

The U.S. Department of Energy announced plans last week to transform a contaminated former nuclear weapons production site into what could be the largest solar project in the country. The installation would stretch across up to 8,000 acres in south-central Washington state and boast up to 1 gigawatt of energy capacity — enough to power 750,000 homes.

One of the core challenges of building large solar installations is deciding where to put them. Local residents and farmers sometimes protest the use of agricultural land, while environmentalists urge caution in disturbing ecosystems. But this project location, known as the Hanford Site, is heavily contaminated from decades of atomic weapons production — first as part of the Manhattan Project and later during the Cold War.

Weapons production at Hanford created around 56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste, plus millions of cubic feet of solid waste and billions of gallons of less contaminated liquids. During production and upon Hanford’s decommissioning in the early 1990s, much of this waste was disposed of in concrete-lined pits, trenches, and ponds, and has since leached into the Columbia River basin, contaminating groundwater and causing health issues for locals.

Building solar at this location is ​“a great way to reuse land that has limited potential for other uses,” said Nels Johnson, senior advisor for renewable energy at The Nature Conservancy, who notes that ​“it means we’re not converting” prime farmland.

The project is part of the DOE’s new program Cleanup to Clean Energy, launched last year to help attain the climate goals in President Joe Biden’s 2021 executive order directing federal agencies to develop clean energy generation on their properties, with the goal of those agencies achieving 100 percent clean electricity by 2030.

The department announced the program’s first two projects — also solar installations — in June and July. One project will be located on 890 square miles of Idaho National Laboratory land and will feature 400 megawatts of solar capacity. The other will take up 2,400 acres of the Nevada National Security Site and has a capacity of 200 megawatts.

The Hanford project aims to generate the most energy by far — and, in addition to potentially becoming the largest solar project in the country, Johnson said that it would certainly be the largest on mine land, brownfield, or other degraded land.

Real estate negotiations are currently underway between the DOE and renewable energy developer Hecate Energy. Once an agreement is reached, Hecate will lead environmental reviews, including cultural resource surveys and consultations with local tribal nations, a DOE spokesperson told Canary Media. Hecate will also assess the impact of the proposed power generation on the grid to determine if any transmission upgrades are needed. These environmental and grid assessments could impact the ultimate size of the installation, according to the DOE.

The department declined to share a target timeline for the project.

In Benton County, where the Hanford Site sits, the Tri-City Development Council (TRIDEC) sees the solar installation as part of a larger transformation of the economy. The council, originally created to help diversify employment so the county was less dependent on federal funding, is planning several other renewable energy projects, along with ​“decarbonized manufacturing and industrial” projects, said Sean O’Brien, executive director at TRIDEC. ​“We very much envision that there will be a strong appetite for the electrons that this project will produce.”

Cleanup of the Hanford Site will be ongoing while the solar project moves forward into construction and operation in the coming years. ​“We can be doing both,” O’Brien said. The project itself will mostly be located on land that doesn’t require environmental remediation work, he said.

The Hanford Site is 560 square miles — about half the size of the state of Rhode Island. Since the late 1990s, workers have ​“cocooned,” or covered, seven nuclear reactors, removed 600 tons of contaminants from groundwater, and treated 32 billion gallons more. But decades of work still remain to fully remediate the site, O’Brien said. Adding solar to the site doesn’t change that, though it does at least put the land to productive use in the meantime.

August 2, 2024 Posted by | renewable, USA | Leave a comment

The US might lose a war with China, congressional commission says

Insufficient industry, readiness, innovation, and funding hamper military’s ability to prevail in conflict, key experts find.

By Patrick Tucker, Science & Technology Editor, Defense One, July 29, 2024, https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2024/07/us-might-lose-war-china-congressional-commission-says/398418/

The U.S. military “lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat,” in the judgment of a congressional commission whose new report finds that collaboration between Russia, China, and other autocratic states is increasing the chance of a multi-front conflict—and that the U.S. would have trouble sustaining such a fight.

For more than a year, the former lawmakers, military leaders, and policy experts on the Commission on the National Defense Strategy have studied how well the U.S. military is executing the 2022 national defense strategy. The group released their report on Monday and will present its findings to the Senate Armed Services committee on Tuesday.

The group found big gaps between the Defense Department’s ambitions of deterring or prevailing in a major conflict and reality. One of the reasons they came to that conclusion is the current state of the U.S. defense industrial base compared to China’s.

“Unclassified public wargames suggest that, in a conflict with China, the United States would largely exhaust its munitions inventories in as few as three to four weeks, with some important munitions (e.g., anti-ship missiles) lasting only a few days. Once expended, replacing these munitions would take years,” the report states.

Furthermore, the growing collaboration between autocratic powers make it nearly inevitable that China and Russia would coordinate against the United States in the event of an armed conflict with one or the other.  

“The United States should assume that if it enters a direct conflict involving Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea, that country will benefit from economic and military aid from the others. We also believe that this partnership increases the likelihood that a conflict with one would expand to multiple fronts, causing simultaneous demands on U.S. and allied resources,” the report states. 

Of the commission’s many recommendations, most are similar to efforts the Pentagon is already undertaking, including reaching out more aggressively to the private sector, particularly new information-technology focused startups, to establish a new industrial base, and reevaluating counterproductive regulatory impediments to buying and selling defense technology. 

Other recommendations are more pointed, such as abandoning outdated “programs of record” in order to procure key pieces of equipment, and loosening ship maintenance rules, allowing more maintenance in foreign ports, and being more willing to buy weapons and supplies from other countries. 

But for the most part, the commission’s report paints a picture of a situation years in the making that can’t be righted quickly. 

“Today, the United States has a DIB with too few people, too few companies, declining and unstable financial support, and insufficient production capacity to meet the needs of the Joint Force in both peacetime and wartime,” the group said.

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

Largest wildfire in US grows to cover area bigger than Los Angeles

 The largest wildfire in the US swelled to more than 380,000 acres (154,000
hectares) on Tuesday morning, an area bigger than the city of Los Angeles
and three times the surface area of Lake Tahoe, as thousands of
firefighters battled the blaze in a remote wilderness area in northern
California. Meanwhile, the destruction caused by wildfires raging across
the US west came into sharp focus as photographers documented the
destruction left by the Borel fire in southern California. The fast-growing
fire tore through the historic mining town of Havilah, leaving burnt
buildings, cars and forests.

 Guardian 30th July 2024

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/california-wildfires-los-angeles

August 1, 2024 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

US Forces Japan to be upgraded to warfighting command

The shift will move operational control of Japan-based forces east from Hawaii and, officials say, deepen cooperation with the Japanese military.

TOKYO—The Pentagon will upgrade and expand its three-star command in Japan to handle operational control of U.S. forces based there, part of an effort to deepen ties between the U.S. and Japanese militaries and to streamline command and control of joint operations, senior defense officials told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday.

“Secretary Austin plans to announce that the United States intends to reconstitute U.S. Forces Japan as a Joint Force Headquarters, reporting to the commander of U.S. INDOPACOM,” said the senior official. The shift will give USFJ, which is “currently, primarily, an administrative command” more warfighting responsibilities. “They do day-to-day management of the alliance, but not operational command of forces. So it’ll be a significant difference for them.” 

The announcement comes as part of the Joint Statement of the Security Consultative Committee (“2+2”) committee meeting taking place in Tokyo between Austin, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, and their Japanese counterparts.

The command will grow as it adds missions and responsibilities to its current alliance-management functions, the official said, “including some of the planning exercises and commanding of operations, and we’ll be doing those, as I mentioned, side-by-side with Japanese forces like never before.”

Many details of the new headquarters aren’t yet known and officials said that the approach will be phased, with many more discussions about how to implement yet to come. Among the decisions to be made is whether the expanded USFJ will have a command structure that integrates Japanese forces, the way U.S. Joint Forces Korea does for South Korean forces. 

“A major part of that phased approach will involve bilateral working groups with the U.S. side, led by INDOPACOM, to work through important implementation factors, including potential resourcing needs, infrastructure, personnel, authorities and ranks,” the official said.

The new Joint Force Headquarters will allow INDOPACOM officers and operators to have daily interactions with Japanese counterparts about how to plan exercises, operations, and how to act on shared intelligence and information, the official said. ……………………..more https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/07/us-forces-japan-be-upgraded-warfighting-command/398386/

July 31, 2024 Posted by | Japan, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Project 2025 – A New Pax Romana

the plan is chiefly concerned with how to put ever greater control of both people and resources in the hands of a small minority of mostly white, mostly male, wealthy Christians.

The wholesale capture of the state is the ultimate goal of its Christian nationalist architects

Tom Dispatch, By Liz Theoharis and Shailly Gupta Barnes. 28 July 24

Roman poet Juvenal coined the phrase “bread and circuses” nearly 2,000 years ago for the extravagant entertainment the Roman Empire used to distract attention from imperial policies that caused widespread discontent. Imagine the lavish banquets, gladiatorial bouts, use and abuse of young men and women for the pleasure of the rich, and so much more that characterized the later years of that empire. And none of it seems that far off from the situation we, in these increasingly dis-United States, find ourselves in today.

Although the Roman Empire described itself as being in favor of life and peace, the various Caesars and their enablers regularly dealt death and destruction in their wake. They spread the Pax Romana (the Roman Peace), including a taxation system that left the poor in debt servitude, a military that caused terror and violence across the then-known world, and a ruling authority that pitted whole communities against each other, while legislating who could associate with whom (passing marriage laws, for instance, that banned gay, inter-racial, or even cross-class marriages). The emperor in power in Jesus’s time, Caesar Augustus, was known for ushering in a Golden Age of Moral Values that went hand in hand with that Pax Romana, and it meant war and death, especially for the poor.

Fast forward millennia and that world bears a strange resemblance to the media distractions, violence, and regressive policies that MAGA and other extremists are pushing forward in our times. Whether it’s Donald Trump’s assertion that “I alone can fix your problems”; Supreme Court and state legislative attacks on reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and trans youth in the name of family values; cuts to welfare, healthcare, worker’s rights and other life-sustaining programs to protect corporate interests; the militarizing of endless communities by allowing guns (especially AR-15 rifles) to proliferate, while offering only thoughts and prayers to the victims of violence, the MAGA movement is promoting culture wars and extremist policies under the banner of Christian nationalism. In doing so, its leaders are perfecting a disdain for the excluded, exploited, and rejected that hurts the poor first and worst, but impacts all of society.

And now, after decades of neoliberal plunder and the coronation of an avowed Christian nationalist — Speaker of the House Mike Johnson — to the third most powerful position in the government, the Christian Right and its wealthy patrons have their eyes set on an even more ambitious power-grab: Project 2025. Articulated through the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project, it’s a sprawling plan to maximize presidential power with hundreds of newly trained and deployed political operatives during Donald Trump’s next presidency.

It was seen in full display recently at the Republican National Convention and made all the more likely by the recent assassination attempt against him with (yes!) an AR-15! The nearly 900-page document outlines a plan to ramp up U.S. military might, slash social welfare programs, and prioritize “traditional marriage.” A reflection of the Republican Party today, including several Christian nationalist organizations and billionaire funders listed among its 100 institutional sponsors, Project 2025 is a roadmap for what could be thought of as a new Pax Romana.

The Formal Project 2025 Takeover

As Project 2025’s official website explains (and doesn’t this sound like it could come directly from the mouth of vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance?): “It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on Day One of the next conservative Administration.” Although its authors unabashedly deploy the language of conservative populism — decrying wokeness and “cultural Marxists” — the plan is chiefly concerned with how to put ever greater control of both people and resources in the hands of a small minority of mostly white, mostly male, wealthy Christians.

The wholesale capture of the state is the ultimate goal of its Christian nationalist architects. Project 2025 simply clarifies just how they plan to implement their drive for power.  Each of its sections — from “taking the reins of government” by centralizing executive authority in the office of the President to securing “the common defense” by expanding every branch of the military — is worth reviewing.

The longest section focuses on “general welfare” and it should be no surprise that the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development are subject to significant cutbacks, including:

Imposing yet stricter eligibility standards, work requirements, and asset tests to constrain access to Medicaid, even though more than 23 million Americans have been unenrolled from that program since 2023;

  • Revisiting how the “Thrifty Food Plan” is formulated to minimize food-stamp allocations, while imposing onerous work requirements on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), even though most of its recipients work and/or are in households with children, elderly people, or people with disabilities;
  • Ending universal free school meals by removing the “community eligibility provision,” which allows school districts with high poverty rates to provide free breakfast and lunch programs to all children in need;
  • Eliminating Head Start, which has served 39 million children and families since 1965 and currently serves more than 800,000 poor families with young children, while shuttering the Department of Education;
  • Ending “Housing First” programs and prohibiting non-citizens, including mixed-status families, from living in low-income public housing; and
  • Imposing a “life agenda” and a “family agenda” that will restrict access to abortion and reproductive rights, and otherwise curtail LGBTQ+ rights.

Such proposals would undoubtedly be deeply unpopular. In fact, as people learn more about Project 2025, opposition is growing, even across party lines. Most Americans want a government that would provide for the down-and-out, who are a growing segment of the population and the electorate, as well as one that supports abortion rights, voting rights, and the freedom of expression. At least 40% of us — 135-140 million people — are either poor or one emergency away from economic ruin, including 80 million eligible voters. Project 2025’s social welfare cuts would, in fact, push significant numbers of people across the poverty line into financial ruin.

Even Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025 as attention has moved toward its distinctly (di)visionary agenda. However, more than half of the project’s listed authors, editors, or contributors were once part of his administration — and no one doubts that his vice-presidential nominee is 100% pro-Project 2025!

The Informal Takeover Already Underway

Perhaps scarier than either Trump’s or Vance’s connection to this regressive plan, however, is the fact that, despite popular distaste for such policies, it may not take a second Trump presidency to implement significant parts of Project 2025. In this sense, it reflects the ancient world of the Pax Romana.  Rather than being dependent on particular emperors, its “peace” was a political and ideological program that punished the poor and marginalized so many, while keeping all its subjects in line.

From its recent rulings, it’s clear that the Supreme Court is hastening Project 2025’s agenda judicially, both in terms of specific future policies and the executive power grab at the heart of that mandate (and now of that court’s rulings). In June, for instance, it ruled in favor of the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, which enacted a law to fine, jail, and ultimately expel its unhoused residents. That precedent will only exacerbate the already hostile terrain confronting unhoused people, seeding firm ground to 2025’s plan to eliminate even more housing projects.

Worse yet, as the Nation’s Elie Mystal recently made clear, in just a few weeks of rulings, the court “legalized bribery of public officials, declared the president of the United States absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for ‘official acts,’ and made the power to issue regulations subject to the court’s unelected approval.” As he warns, “There’s no legislative fix for the problems the court has created… [and] they will continue to do all the things Republicans want that nobody elected them to do.”…………………………………………………………………………………..

in lockstep with Project 2025’s call for military expansion, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker recently released a report proposing that $55 billion be added to the Pentagon’s already humongous budget in fiscal year 2025 while raising military spending by hundreds of billions of dollars in the next five to seven years. The report, “Peace Through Strength,” revives the false idea that spending ever more on war preparations makes us safer. Not only is Wicker distorting Cold War history, but his prescriptions ignore our experience of the past 20 years of military buildup and the disastrous Global War on Terror. According to the Costs of War Project and the National Priorities Project, this country’s post-9/11 wars have cost at least $8 trillion, taken millions of lives, and displaced tens of millions of people globally, while precipitating climate chaos through their polluting emissions. If implemented, Wicker’s plan would only increase the risk of yet more destabilizing conflicts, offering a modern Pax Romana promise for yet more war and death.

Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace

While extremist Republican politicians and appointees are leading the way on Project 2025, both major parties align around building up the war economy. Indeed, bipartisan support for military aid to Israel is contributing to what the United Nations has labeled a genocide in Gaza.

Nor is this new. Every year, the Pentagon budget invariably passes with widespread bipartisan support, even if a few representatives vote otherwise. Since the 9/11 attacks, in fact, $21 trillion has been funneled into war, surveillance, policing, border control, and incarceration. In Fiscal Year 2023, nearly two-thirds of the federal discretionary budget funded the military-industrial complex and militarized spending. This year, a Democratic amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act will automatically register every male citizen and resident aged 18-26 in the selective service database………….

This remarkably bipartisan consensus for a war economy shouldn’t just be considered another “issue,” but an approach to governance that relies on force and violence, rather than consent, to establish social control…………………………

Jobs and Homes, Not Death in the Streets

The greatest violence of the Pax Romana was always borne by the poor, who were often ripped from their families, enslaved in back-breaking labor, and dispossessed of their land and resources. To maintain its authoritarian rule over millions of people, the Roman Empire relied on its military might and the fear inspired by its brutal army. And yet it was from the ranks of the poor that Jesus and his disciples led a non-violent revolution for peace.


Today, tens of millions of poor people in this country are on the front lines of our failing democracy and increasingly militarized society. They are the true canaries in the coal mine, already living through the violence of a society that has prioritized war and profits over addressing the pain and toll of low-wage jobs, crushing debt burdens, polluted water and land, and lives cut short by poverty, the police, and the denial of basic human rights. They can undoubtedly also foresee the drive toward an ever-deeper warfare state and the possible fallout from Project 2025 if Donald Trump and J.D. Vance win this year.

Forged in the crucible of violence, the criminalized and impoverished still call out for a true peace.

On June 29th, Reverend Savina Martin, a military veteran and formerly homeless mother, took to the stage of the Poor People’s Campaign’s Mass Assembly in Washington, D.C., and shared these thoughts:

“I am a US Army veteran and I was impacted by homelessness many years ago. Today, thousands of homeless veterans are fighting for [their] benefits, housing… navigating a complex system while sick and suffering, trying to survive the war waged against the poor. Yesterday, the US Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson permits cities to criminalize homelessness by enforcing bans on sleeping outside when no shelter is available. How can sleeping while homeless be against the law? If you sleep, you get arrested?

This system depends on us to fight their wars, but we can’t depend on [our government] to guarantee housing or healthcare? Instead, [our government] allocates $1.1 trillion to war, weapons, and a system that criminalizes the poor, leading to mass incarceration, deportations, and detentions. We want jobs and homes, not death in the streets.”

Savina was speaking of the war on the poor, the power of the military-industrial complex, and an extremist agenda that will connect her in unsettling ways with 140 million poor and low-income people in this country — and billions more around the world. As in other moments of history, the struggle of the poor for life and dignity in a world that denies them both is a struggle for the best that we can be as a society. In their leadership lies the hope for us all — not in Project 2025, a future Trump administration, or the all-too-devastating version of a Pax Americana that would go with it, but in the peace (and justice) that Savina and so many others are demanding, and will continue to push for, until it is ours.  https://tomdispatch.com/project-2025/

July 30, 2024 Posted by | politics, Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »