Saudi Arabia wants to fully recognize Israel in exchange for arms, nuclear facility — Biden
By JACOB MAGID, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saudi-arabia-wants-to-fully-recognize-israel-in-exchange-for-arms-nuclear-facility-biden/ 16 July 24
US President Joe Biden says Saudi Arabia wants to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for security guarantees from the United States.
“I got a call from the Saudis — they want to fully recognize Israel,” Biden says in an interview on “360 with Speedy.”
Riyadh has not publicly gone this far, and its officials have reiterated that their country will not normalize relations with Israel unless Jerusalem agrees to establish a pathway to a future Palestinian state — a condition Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has flatly rejected.
Biden doesn’t mention the Palestinian condition, and instead asserts that what Saudi Arabia wants in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel is a guarantee that the US will provide them weapons “if they’re attacked by other Arab nations — one just around the corner.” He appears to be referring to Riyadh’s Mideast rival Iran, which is not an Arab country.
The US president says Washington would also establish a civilian nuclear facility in Saudi Arabia, which the US army would operate “so they can move away from fossil fuels.”
This appears to be the most detail any US official has publicly given regarding the terms of the defense guarantees sought by Saudi Arabia, particularly the nuclear component.
“That’s a big game changer in the whole region,” Biden says.
A Democratic lawmaker and a senior Republican Senate aide told The Times of Israel last week, though, that the window has closed for the Biden administration to broker a normalization deal before the November presidential election, because there is not enough time left for the Senate to hold the hearings necessary to approve the defense guarantees for Saudi Arabia.
US Ally South Korea Threatens Nuclear-Armed North Korea With Regime Destruction
https://www.newsweek.com/south-north-korea-nuclear-weapons-regime-destruction-1925096, Jul 15, 2024
South Korea said Kim Jong Un‘s regime in the North faces a certain end if it uses nuclear weapons, a strongly worded statement that came after Pyongyang blasted Seoul and Washington for opening the door to further nuclear force deployments to the peninsula.
“If North Korea attempts to use nuclear weapons, the overwhelming response of the South Korea-U.S. alliance will bring about the end of the North Korean regime,” the Defense Ministry in Seoul said on Sunday.
“There is no scenario in which the North Korean regime will survive after using nuclear weapons,” the ministry added.
Kim’s government has stepped up its ballistic missile tests despite existing prohibitions backed by the U.N. Security Council. Amid spiraling tensions on the Korean Peninsula, Pyongyang has threatened to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to defend its territory from what it claims is an impending invasion.
In Washington, D.C., last week, President Joe Biden met South Korean counterpart Yoon Suk Yeol and recommitted “the full range of U.S. capabilities, including nuclear,” to the defense of the longtime U.S. treaty ally.
In a joint statement issued later the same day, the U.S. Defense Department and South Korean Defense Ministry announced the signing of “Guidelines for Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Operations on the Korean Peninsula.” This is a move to further integrate U.S. nuclear assets with South Korea’s conventional forces in defense of the alliance.
On Saturday, the North Korean Defense Ministry warned the United States and the South—”hostile states“—that they would “pay an unimaginably harsh price” for increased nuclear cooperation.
The allies were “betraying their sinister intention to step up their preparations for a nuclear war against the DPRK,” read the statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. DPRK stands for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea’s official name.
“We come to the conclusion that there is only one option for us to take against such confrontational fanatics,” the ministry said, noting the urgent requirement “to further improve its nuclear deterrent readiness and add important elements to the composition of the deterrent.”
South Korea’s Defense Ministry described the new guidelines as “a legitimate measure,” justified by North Korea’s continued development of nuclear-capable missiles.
The forceful language against Kim was first used by Biden last year during a state visit by Yoon.
“A nuclear attack by North Korea against the United States or its allies or partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of whatever regime, were it to take such an action,” Biden said.
North Korea’s embassy in Beijing did not immediately respond to a written request for comment.
The new guidelines governing when and how American nuclear forces might be deployed and used on the Korean Peninsula were crafted by the U.S.-ROK Nuclear Consultative Group, established after Yoon’s visit to the White House. ROK stands for the Republic of Korea, South Korea’s official name.
South Korea, which has no nuclear weapons, says the contents of the guidelines are confidential.
Analysts say Washington aims to boost the credibility of what it calls “extended deterrence,” the ability of the U.S. military to deter adversaries and reassure allies, particularly with its nuclear arms.
North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006 and is estimated to have around 50 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
In SIPRI’s annual yearbook released last month, the think tank’s experts described North Korea’s nuclear weapons program as “active but highly opaque.”
“Based on statements by the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, and North Korea’s expanding force posture, it seems likely that North Korea intends to increase its nuclear warhead inventory significantly,” the experts said.
North Korean nuclear weapons, 2024
Bulletin By Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, Mackenzie Knight | July 15, 2024
North Korea continues to modernize and grow its nuclear weapons arsenal. In this Nuclear Notebook, the authors cautiously estimate that North Korea may have produced enough fissile material to hypothetically build up to 90 nuclear warheads, but has likely assembled fewer than that—potentially around 50. To deliver the warheads, North Korea is enhancing and diversifying its missile force, most recently with new solid-fuel long-range strategic missiles, short-range tactical missiles, and sea-based missiles. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: director Hans M. Kristensen, associate director Matt Korda, research associate Eliana Johns, and program associate Mackenzie Knight.
This article is freely available in PDF format in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ digital magazine (published by Taylor & Francis) at this link.
North Korea—also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK—has made significant advances over the past two decades in developing its nuclear weapons arsenal. Since 2006, North Korea has detonated six nuclear devices, updated its nuclear doctrine to reflect the irreversible role of nuclear weapons for its national security, and continued to introduce a variety of new missiles test-flown from new launch platforms.
It is widely assumed that North Korea has operational nuclear warheads for its short- and medium-range missiles as well as possibly for its longer-range missiles, although the latter capability has not yet been publicly demonstrated. There is considerable uncertainty about which of North Korea’s missiles have been fielded with an active operational nuclear capability. However, it seems clearer from North Korea’s public statements and systems-testing that the country intends to field an operational nuclear arsenal capable of holding targets at risk in East Asia, the United States, and Europe.
In 2021, Kim Jong-un announced several key strategic goals for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, proposed as a five-year plan. According to Kim’s statement, these goals included: 1) producing “super-sized nuclear warheads,” 2) producing smaller and lighter nuclear weapons for tactical uses, 3) improving precision strike and range capabilities, 4) introducing “hypersonic gliding flight warheads,” 5) developing “solid-fuel engine propelled intercontinental, underwater, and ground ballistic rockets,” and 6) introducing a “nuclear-powered submarine and underwater-launch nuclear strategic weapon” (KCNA 2021). North Korea appears to have made significant progress on these goals, and has since introduced more demands including the dramatic increase of missile production and “cutting edge strategic weapon engines” (Kim 2023).
Due to the lack of clarity surrounding North Korea’s nuclear program, agencies and officials of the US intelligence community, as well as military commanders and independent experts, struggle to assess the program’s characteristics and capabilities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
North Korea’s nuclear policy
For decades, North Korea has made numerous statements and signals about its nuclear weapons policy, laying out its nuclear doctrine if deterrence fails. Such statements have more recently been codified in official declaratory policy. In 2013, for example, North Korea’s “Law on Consolidating the Position of Nuclear Weapons State” suggested a no-first-use policy, noting that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal would only be used “to repel invasion or attack from a hostile nuclear weapons state and make retaliatory strikes” (KCNA 2013). Kim Jong-un officially declared a no-first-use policy in 2016 following North Korea’s fourth nuclear test.
Since 2016, however, North Korean statements and force posture changes have indicated a shift away from this no-first-use policy. Just two months after the policy was declared, the North Korean government issued a statement that North Korea would not be the first to use nuclear weapons “as long as the hostile forces for aggression do not encroach upon its sovereignty” (KCNA 2016b). In 2020, Kim Jong-un stated that North Korea’s nuclear deterrent “will never be used preemptively. But if […] any forces infringe upon the security of our state and attempt to have recourse to military force against us, I will enlist all our most powerful offensive strength in advance to punish them” (38 North 2020). Such caveats culminated in September 2022 when North Korea’s parliament codified in law North Korea’s right to launch nuclear weapons preemptively (Kim 2022). One year later, the North Korean government codified under the country’s constitution its right to “deter war and protect regional and global peace by rapidly developing nuclear weapons to a higher level” (Soo-Yeon 2023).
The abandonment of North Korea’s no-first-use policy coincides with the country’s recent efforts to develop tactical nuclear weapons. Following development and demonstration of new long-range strategic nuclear-capable missiles, the pursuit of tactical nuclear weapons appears intended to provide options for nuclear use below the strategic level and strengthen its regional deterrence posture (KCNA 2022; National Committee on North Korea 2021). According to two analysts, Pyongyang now sees its nuclear weapons as useful not only for retaliation against an attack but also for potentially winning a limited conflict………………
………………….. Occasionally, North Korea has explicitly mentioned or signaled which targets it would hit with its nuclear weapons. These include US military bases in South Korea, the Asia-Pacific region, Guam, Hawaii, and the continental United States.
………………………………………………………………….. despite occasional inflammatory statements, it appears highly likely that North Korea—as with other nuclear-armed states—would use its nuclear weapons only under extreme circumstances, particularly if the continued existence of the North Korean state and its political leadership were threatened.
North Korea’s nuclear weapons program
Plutonium production operations
The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, located in North Pyongan province, has been called the “beating heart” of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. At Yongbyon, North Korea produces plutonium at its five megawatt-electric (MWe) graphite-moderated nuclear reactor, which has been operating intermittently since 1986………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Uranium enrichment operations
Assessing the state of North Korea’s uranium enrichment operations is more difficult because the operational history and locations of several associated uranium enrichment facilities are unknown………………………………………………………………
Fissile material and warhead inventory estimates
Because of the prior access to the facilities at Yongbyon, analysts have a reasonable understanding of North Korea’s plutonium production capabilities. However, given the uncertainties about the operations at Yongbyon’s uranium enrichment facility and the possible existence of a second centrifuge facility, it is unclear how much highly-enriched uranium (HEU) North Korea has produced and how much uranium it might divert to military purposes, including for plutonium production. Still, this amount is known to be growing and it is clear North Korea is investing in the improvement of its fissile material production capabilities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The size of North Korea’s nuclear stockpile also depends on the weapon design and the number and types of launchers that can deliver them. Many experts also estimate that North Korea may have built a smaller number of nuclear weapons than what its stockpile of fissile material may suggest………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Nuclear testing and weaponization
After six nuclear tests—including two with moderate yields and one with a high yield—there is no longer any doubt that North Korea can build powerful nuclear explosive devices designed for different yields. North Korea’s latest nuclear test, conducted on September 3, 2017, had a yield of well over 100 kilotons and demonstrated that North Korea had managed to design a thermonuclear device or at least one that used a mixed-fuel (composite) design………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Potential land-based nuclear-capable missiles
Over the past decade, North Korea has developed a highly diverse ballistic missile force, including missiles in all major range categories…………………………………………………………………………………………
Short-range missiles…………………………………………………………………………………
Medium- and intermediate-range missiles North Korea is developing a new generation of medium- and intermediate-range missiles with improved accuracy, readiness, and maneuverability…………………………………………………………………
Intercontinental ballistic missiles
The most dramatic of North Korea’s recent developments has been the display and test launch of large intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs),…………………………………………………
Sea-based nuclear-capable missiles
Over the past decade, North Korea has worked to develop an increasingly sophisticated sea-based nuclear deterrent. ……………………………………………………………………..
Submarine-launched ballistic missiles……………………………………………
Submarine-launched cruise missiles North Korea is developing a new submarine-launched cruise missile, known as Pulhwasal-3-31. The system has been labeled a “strategic cruise missile”—implying a nuclear-capable status……………………………………………………
Other sea-based weapons North Korea appears to be developing an underwater weapon system………………………………………..
Land-attack cruise missiles North Korea appears to be developing a series of land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs)—………………………………………………… more https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-07/north-korean-nuclear-weapons-2024/
China is installing the wind and solar equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week
Instead of nuclear, solar is now intended to be the foundation of China’s new electricity generation system.
ABC Science / By technology reporter James Purtill, 16 July 24, https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewable-energy-boom-breaks-records/104086640
In short:
China is installing record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear.
While Australia is falling behind its renewables installation targets, China may meet its end-of-2030 target by the end of this month, according to a report.
What’s next?
Energy experts are looking to China, the world’s largest emitter and once a climate villain, for lessons on how to rapidly decarbonise.
While Australia debates the merits of going nuclear and frustration grows over the slower-than-needed rollout of solar and wind power, China is going all in on renewables.
New figures show the pace of its clean energy transition is roughly the equivalent of installing five large-scale nuclear power plants worth of renewables every week.
A report by Sydney-based think tank Climate Energy Finance (CEF) said China was installing renewables so rapidly it would meet its end-of-2030 target by the end of this month — or 6.5 years early.
It’s installing at least 10 gigawatts of wind and solar generation capacity every fortnight.
By comparison, experts have said the Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear power plants would add fewer than 10GW of generation capacity to the grid some time after 2035.
Energy experts are looking to China, the world’s largest emitter, once seen as a climate villain, for lessons on how to go green, fast.
“We’ve seen America under President Biden throw a trillion dollars on the table [for clean energy],” CEF director Tim Buckley said.
“China’s response to that has been to double down and go twice as fast.”
Smart Energy Council CEO John Grimes, who recently returned from a Shanghai energy conference, said China has decarbonised its grid almost as quickly as Australia, despite having a much harder task due to the scale of its energy demand.
“They have clear targets and every part of their government is harnessed to deliver the plan,” he said.
China accounts for about a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. A recent drop in emissions (the first since relaxing COVID-19 restrictions), combined with the decarbonisation of the power grid, may mean the country’s emissions have peaked.
“With the power sector going green, emissions are set to plateau and then progressively fall towards 2030 and beyond,” CEF China energy policy analyst Xuyang Dong said.
So how is China building and connecting panels so fast, and what’s the role of nuclear in its transition?
Like building solar farms near Perth to power Sydney
Because its large cities of the eastern seaboard are dominated by apartment buildings, China hasn’t seen an uptake of rooftop solar like in Australia.
To find space for all the solar panels and wind turbines required for the nation’s energy needs, the planners of China’s energy transition have looked west, to areas like the Gobi Desert.
The world’s largest solar and wind farms are being built on the western edge of the country and connected to the east via the world’s longest high-voltage transmission lines.
These lines are so long they could span the length of our continent.
In Australian terms, it’s the equivalent of using solar panels near Perth to power homes in Sydney.
Mr Buckley said China’s approach was similar to the Australian one of developing regional “renewable energy zones” for large-scale electricity generation.
“They’re doing what Australia is doing with renewable energy zones but they’re doing it on steroids,” he said.
What about ‘firming’ the grid?
One of the issues with switching a grid to intermittent renewables is ensuring a steady supply of power.
In technical terms, this is the difference between generation capacity (measured in gigawatts) and actual energy output (measured in gigawatt-hours, or generation over time).
Renewables have a “capacity factor” (the ratio of actual output to maximum potential generation) of about 25 per cent, whereas nuclear’s is as high as 90 per cent.
So although China is installing solar and wind generation equivalent to five large nuclear power plants per week, their output is closer to one nuclear plant per week.
Renewables account for more than half of installed capacity in China, but only amount to about one-fifth of actual energy output over a year, the CEF’s Tim Buckley said.
To “firm” or stabilise the supply of power from its renewable energy zones, China is using a mix of pumped hydro and battery storage, similar to Australia.
“They’re installing 1GW per month of pumped hydro storage,” Mr Buckley said.
“We’re struggling to build the 2GW Snowy 2.0 in 10 years.”
There are some major differences between Australia and China’s approaches, though. Somewhat counterintuitively, China has built dozens of coal-fired power stations alongside its renewable energy zones, to maintain the pace of its clean energy transition.
China was responsible for 95 per cent of the world’s new coal power construction activity last year.
The new plants are partly needed to meet demand for electricity, which has gone up as more energy-hungry sectors of the economy, like transport, are electrified.
The coal-fired plants are also being used, like the batteries and pumped hydro, to provide a stable supply of power down the transmission lines from renewable energy zones, balancing out the intermittent solar and wind.
Despite these new coal plants, coal’s share of total electricity generation in the country is falling.
The China Energy Council estimated renewables generation would overtake coal by the end of this year.
The CEF’s Xuyang Dong said despite the country’s reliance on coal, “having China go green at this speed and scale provides the world with a textbook to do the same”.
“China is installing every week the equivalent of what we’re doing every year.”
Despite this speed, China wasn’t installing renewables fast enough to meet its 2060 carbon neutrality target, she added.
“According to our analysis, [the current rate of installation] is not ambitious enough for China.”
What about nuclear?
China is building new nuclear plants, although nowhere near as fast as it once intended.
In 2011, Chinese authorities announced fission reactors would become the foundation of the country’s electricity generation system in the next “10 to 20 years”.
But Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster prompted a moratorium on inland nuclear plants, which have to use river water for cooling and are more vulnerable to frequent flooding.
Meanwhile, over the following decade, solar became the cheapest electricity in the world.
From 2010 to 2020, the installed cost of utility-scale solar PV declined by 81 per cent on a global average basis.
As well as cheap, it was safe, which made solar farms quicker to build than nuclear reactors.
Instead of nuclear, solar is now intended to be the foundation of China’s new electricity generation system.
Authorities have steadily downgraded plans for nuclear to dominate China’s energy generation. At present, the goal is 18 per cent of generation by 2060.
China installed 1GW of nuclear last year, compared to 300GW of solar and wind, Mr Buckley said.
“That says they’re all in on renewables.
“They had grand plans for nuclear to be massive but they’re behind on nuclear by a decade and five years ahead of schedule on solar and wind.”
How is China transitioning so fast?
In June of this year, on the eve of the Coalition’s nuclear policy announcement, former Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who’s now a Smart Energy Council “international ambassador”, led a delegation of Australians to the world’s largest clean energy conference in Shanghai.
The annual Smart Energy Conference hosts more than 600,000 delegates across three days.
Its scale underlines China’s increasing dominance of the global clean energy economy and, for some attendees, prompted unenviable comparisons with Australia’s progress.
Mr Buckley, who was part of the delegation, said he was “blown away”.
“China is winning this race.”
John Grimes, the Smart Energy Council CEO who also attended, said Australia could learn from the Chinese government’s ability to execute a long-term, difficult and costly transition plan, rather than relying on market forces to find a solution.
“Australia’s transition is going too slow, there was a lost decade of action,” he said.
“The world today spends about $7 trillion a year on coal, gas and oil and that money is going to find a new home.
Who is going to be the economic winner in that global economic transition? It’s going to be China.”
He and other energy experts are frustrated with the progress of Australia’s transition, including the discussion of nuclear power and the “weaponisation of dissent” from community groups over new wind farms and transmission lines.
Stephanie Bashir, CEO of the Nexa energy advisory, said Australia’s transition was tangled in red tape.
“The key hold-up for a lot of projects is the slow planning approvals,” Ms Bashir, who also attended the conference, said.
“In China they decide they’re going to do something and then they go and do it.”
The Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) plan to decarbonise the grid and ensure the lights stay on when the coal-fired power stations close requires thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines and large-scale solar and wind farms.
Australia is installing about half the amount of renewables per year required under the plan.
Due to this shortfall, many experts say its unlikely to meet its 2030 target of 82 per cent renewables in the grid and 43 per cent emissions reduction.
“We need to build 6GW each year from now until each power station closes, and so far we’re only bringing online 3GW,” Ms Bashir said.
“If we identify some projects are nation-building … and we need them for transition, we just have to get on with it.”
Mr Buckley predicted China would accelerate its deployment of renewables.
“My forecast is it will lift 20 per cent per annum on current levels.”
Democrats to Keep Unconditional Military Aid to Israel in Party Platform
by Kyle Anzalone | Jul 10, 2024, https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/dems-to-keep-unconditional-military-aid-to-israel-in-party-platform/
A senior Joe Biden administration official explained that the Democratic party has no plans to alter its policy of unconditional arms support for Israel. President Biden has provided Israel with billions of dollars in weapons since October 7, including over ten thousand heavy bombs.
After an internal DNC debate over the party’s plank on arms shipments to Israel, an official explained that President Biden has no plans to change the policy that allows weapons to flow to Tel Aviv with no conditions on how they are used. “The platform will reflect the views of the president of the United States, and cutting aid to Israel is not President Biden’s policy,” the official said.
Over the past nine months, the White House has sent Israel over $6.5 billion in arms, including tens of thousands of bombs. Fourteen thousand of those munitions are massive one-tonne bombs. American-made bombs have contributed to the enormous death toll that has surpassed 38,000.
While American weapons have been documented to have been used in Israeli attacks on civilian targets in Gaza, the White House has maintained that Tel Aviv has not violated US laws. President Biden has no plans to curtail arms shipments except for one shipment of heavy bombs.
A growing number of Democratic voters have broken with the president over his unfettered support for the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. An April poll found about 40% of Democrats believe Biden has given Israel too much support.
Biden is a self-proclaimed Zionist and has been a vocal supporter of Israel for decades. Over his career, the president has frequently claimed that Israel is so vital to American security that if it did not exist, the US would have to create Israel.
However, the argument that Israel contributes to American security is rebuked by the head of the State Department Intelligence agency, Brett Holmgren. The Assistant Secretary of State explained that the Israeli war on Gaza is driving recruitment into jihadist organizations and inspiring lone-wolf terrorists.
North Korea tests new nuclear-capable underwater drone
Canberra Times, By Soo-Hyang Choi and Ju-Min Park, March 24 2023
North Korea has tested a new nuclear-capable underwater attack drone, as leader Kim Jong-un warned joint military drills by South Korea and the United States should stop.
The drone cruised underwater at a depth of 80 to 150 metres for more than 59 hours and detonated a non-nuclear payload in waters off its east coast on Thursday, North Korean state news agency KCNA said on Friday.
Analysts say North Korea is showing off its increasingly diverse nuclear threats to Washington and Seoul, though they are sceptical whether the underwater vehicle is ready for deployment.
North Korea intends to signal “to the United States and South Korea that in a war, the potential vectors of nuclear weapons delivery that the allies would have to worry about and target would be vast,” said Ankit Panda, senior fellow at the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“There would be silos, railcars, submarines and road mobile missile launchers and now they’re adding this underwater torpedo to the mix,” he said………………………………………………………… more https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8134654/north-korea-tests-new-nuclear-capable-underwater-drone/—
Nuclear War Is Imminent
Unless the U.S. Embraces Peace – and Soon!
by Gerry Condon, , https://original.antiwar.com/Gerry_Condon/2024/07/14/nuclear-war-is-imminent/
The world is headed toward nuclear war. The horrific nightmare of global destruction that has haunted humanity ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is nearly upon us. For decades, peace activists and nuclear experts have warned about the “growing danger of nuclear war.” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the hands of their Doomsday Clock all the way to 90 seconds! How much closer can we get? Are these dire warnings being dismissed like the man with the sign shouting “The End Is Near?”
The original nuclear powers, the U.S., Russia, China, France and the UK – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – never followed the commitment they made when they signed and ratified the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which required them to “begin good-faith negotiations for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.” Instead they have poured billions of dollars into “modernizing” nuclear weapons. In the meantime, four more countries have joined the nuclear club – India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.
After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact military alliance of the Soviet Union, there was an opportunity for a broad peace in Europe. NATO, an anti-Soviet military alliance led by the U.S., should have disbanded at that point. Instead, it pursued an aggressive policy against a weakened Russia, surrounding it with hostile military forces, including nuclear weapons.
In 2002, President George W. Bush unilaterally removed the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, while placing a U.S. missile base in Romania. In 2019, President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that had lowered nuclear tensions in Europe, while placing another U.S. missile base in Poland. What were the Russians to think? The U.S. is clearly seeking a dominant nuclear position.
Neoconservative war hawks – or “Neocons” – have captured the foreign policy machinery of Democratic and Republican administrations. Given the declining economic power of the U.S. vis-à-vis a rising China, the Neocons believe the U.S. must aggressively employ its military superiority to maintain global dominance. The U.S. maintains 850 foreign military bases in over 80 countries (compared to a handful each for Russia and China).
Western politicians and pundits frequently accuse Russian president Vladimir Putin of making “nuclear threats.” Indeed, Putin keeps reminding the world of Russia’s nuclear rules of engagement. Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first if it is attacked by the superior conventional forces of NATO. The U.S. has a similar nuclear posture – it will use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear threats such as a cyber-attack. As Daniel Ellsberg reminded us, to possess nuclear weapons is to use them every day, like a gun pointed at someone’s head.
Apparently oblivious to the imminent threat of nuclear war, President Biden continues to pour billions of dollars of weapons into its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, while blocking peace negotiations. The Biden administration is simultaneously sending billions in weapons to Israel as it commits a horrific and ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel threatens other Middle Eastern countries with its U.S.-backed military, including nuclear weapons. Can anybody now doubt that they would use them?
The Neocons are also actively preparing for a war against China. The U.S. is encouraging Taiwan’s independence from China, conducting provocative “freedom of navigation” operations in the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea, and building anti-China military alliances throughout the Pacific. One of the few foreign policy debates in Congress is which war should take precedence – the war against Russia or the war against China. Both are nuclear powers. Then there is the joint US/South Korean military exercises aimed at the “decapitation” of the government of North Korea, another nuclear power. What could possibly go wrong?
The threat of nuclear war does not exist in a vacuum. It is directly related to aggressive military competition, much of it being driven by the U.S. Nuclear annihilation will come from a specific war, whether by miscalculation, accident or otherwise.
If we are serious about avoiding a nuclear war, we must demand that the U.S. stops sending weapons to Ukraine and Israel, and instead supports ceasefires and negotiations to stop the killing. We must call for an end to the reckless U.S. confrontation with China and North Korea. It is critically important that these conflicts are ended as soon as possible and replaced with negotiations for peaceful co-existence.
In the longer run, as detailed in the Veterans For Peace Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. must make a sea change in its foreign policy. We must stop intervening in other countries. We must stop playing “nuclear chicken.” We must demand a peaceful U.S. foreign policy that respects the sovereignty of all nations and the human rights of all people.
The U.S. should sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and reach out to the other nuclear powers, saying “let’s all get rid of our nuclear weapons together.” Let’s pursue the interests of all humanity by replacing competition with cooperation. Let’s stop spending precious resources on the military and take care of our peoples’ needs instead. Let’s work together to stop global warming, the other imminent existential threat. In order to avoid nuclear annihilation – and climate catastrophe too – we must abolish war once and for all.
Gerry Condon is a Vietnam-era veteran and war resister who serves on the Board of Directors of Veterans For Peace and coordinates its Nuclear Abolition Working Group.
FacebookTwitterWhatsAppRedditLinkedInTumblrEmailPrint
https://www.facebook.com/v17.0/plugins/like.php?app_id=0&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df7d6bd41d37b090cc%26domain%3Doriginal.antiwar.com%26is_canvas%3Dfalse%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Foriginal.antiwar.com%252Ff746d070f98ff7b99%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fgerry_condon%2F2024%2F07%2F14%2Fnuclear-war-is-imminent%2F&layout=button&locale=en_US&ref=addtoany&sdk=joey&width=90https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2FGerry_Condon%2F2024%2F07%2F14%2Fnuclear-war-is-imminent%2F&related=AddToAny%2Cmicropat&size=m&text=Nuclear%20War%20Is%20Imminent&time=1721084674990&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fgerry_condon%2F2024%2F07%2F14%2Fnuclear-war-is-imminent%2FShare
Hundreds of Scientists Urge Biden to Cancel $100 Billion Nuclear Weapons Boondoggle
“There is no sound technical or strategic rationale for spending tens of billions of dollars building new nuclear weapons,” an expert said.
Edward Carver, Common Dreams. JULY 11, 2024 https://www.commondreams.org/news/scientists-end-land-based-nuclear-weapons
More than 700 scientists on Monday called for an end to the United States’ land-based nuclear weapons program that’s set to be replaced, following a Pentagon decision to approve the program despite soaring costs.
In an open letter to President Joe Biden and Congress, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued that the new intercontinental-range ballistic missile system, known as Sentinel, was “expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary.”
The Department of Defense on Monday certified the continuation of the project, releasing the results of a review that was legally required when the cost estimate ballooned to “at least” $131 billion earlier this year, which drew the scrutiny of some Democrats in Congress, according toThe Hill.
The Defense review found that Sentinel was “essential to national security,” but the scientists disagreed with the assessment.
“There is no sound technical or strategic rationale for spending tens of billions of dollars building new nuclear weapons,” Tara Drozdenko, director of UCS’ global security program, said in a statement.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Barry Barish, a signatory to the letter, was also harshly critical of the Pentagon’s approach.
“It is unconscionable to continue to develop nuclear weapons, like the Sentinel program,” he said.
The soaring costs of Sentinel, which is overseen by the defense contractor Northrup Grumman, have been the subject of media attention. The program will cost an estimated $214 million per missile, far more than originally expected, Bloombergreported on Friday.
However, the cost is hardly the only reason to cancel the program, UCS scientists argue. The silos that house the nuclear missiles, which are found in North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, are vulnerable to attack—in fact, they are designed to draw enemy weapons away other U.S. targets, according toScientific American. Such an attack would expose huge swaths of the American population to radioactive fallout.
Because they are a likely target, the siloed missiles are kept on “hair-trigger” alert so the U.S. president can launch them within minutes. This “increases the risk of nuclear war” that could start from false alarms, miscalculations, or misunderstandings, the UCS letter states.
The scientists further argue that there’s no need for a land-based nuclear weapons system given the effectiveness of nuclear-armed submarines—one of the other parts of the nuclear triad, along with bomber jets. Such submarines are “hidden at sea” and “essentially invulnerable to attack,” according to the letter. Moreover, the submarine missiles are just as accurate as land-based missiles, and already have “destructive capability than could ever be employed effectively,” it states.
The submarine system is also being overhauled, as is the ‘air’ component of the nuclear triad. In total, the U.S. military plans to spend more than $1 trillion over 30 years on renewing the nuclear arsenal, according to the Arms Control Association.
The U.S. leads the way in a surge of global spending on nuclear arms, according to two studies published last month, one of which found that nearly $3,000 per second was spent in 2023.
Biden signs ADVANCE Act. Now what?
By Dave Kraft/NEIS, Dave Kraft is the founder and director of Nuclear Energy Information Service. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/07/14/biden-signs-advance-act-now-what/
Congress wants to “accelerate” new reactor build, putting public safety in jeopardy
By Dave Kraft/NEIS
On Wednesday July 10th President Joe Biden signed the “ADVANCE Act,” which stands for “Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy.”
The controversial bill aggressively promotes the narrow, short-term interests of the U.S. nuclear industry in ways that threaten the long-term national environmental, climate and national/international security interests.
Further, it functionally rewrites the mandate of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in ways that potentially cast it into the role of promoter instead of federal regulator of the controversial and moribund nuclear power industry.
To summarize, The ADVANCE Act:
- promotes development of currently experimental, commercially non-existent “small modular nuclear reactors” (SMNRs) and allegedly “advanced” reactors, using tax dollars;
- provides less regulatory oversight by ordering the NRC to “streamline” licensing of currently experimental SMNRs, putting the NRC in a position of becoming a quasi-promoter instead of regulator, in contradiction to its 1975 founding mandate;
- requires development of the infrastructure needed to produce more intensely enriched radioactive fuel called “HALEU” – high-assay, low-enriched uranium — required for the SMNRs to run on. Enrichment would be just below weapons-usable; currently the only source of HALEU is Russia;
- ignores the potential increased risk and harm from having more nuclear reactors large and small;
- produces more high-level radioactive waste without first having a disposal method in place for either current or future reactors;
- permits and encourages export of nuclear technology and materials internationally; and
- for the first time, allows foreign control/ownership of nuclear facilities within the U.S.
Congress cannot be absolved from its role in uncritically swallowing the gaslit promises of nuclear power. The House previously passed its version of the legislation by a margin of 393-13 before sending it to the Senate. There, it stalled, but was procedurally resurrected by attaching the 93-page nuclear Christmas-wish list to a three-page, must pass fire safety bill – S.870, the Fire Grants and Safety Act. It passed in the Senate 88-2, with only Senators Ed Markey (MA) and Bernie Sanders (VT) recognizing the imminent threat it posed to energy, environmental, and international security interests.
Critics of nuclear power and opponents of the ADVANCE Act fail to see:
- how the Act fights climate disruption, when SMNRs are only experimental, may not work at all, and if they work will not be available in sufficient quantities for commercialization before the mid-2030s, according the nuclear industry itself. It is the carbon we remove and keep out of the atmosphere between NOW and the mid-2030s that will determine if we can meet climate goals;
- how SMNRs will enhance currently threatened system reliability and power availability, when they will not be available – assuming they even work – before the mid-2030s;
- how exporting SMNR technology and ~19+% enriched (just below weapons useable) HALEU reactor fuel worldwide improves international security in a world dominated by wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potentially in southeast Asia; poorly controlled non-state actors; and well-known corrupt business entities. Equally baffling is how allowing foreign ownership of nuclear facilities in the U.S. proper makes our energy systems safer, more secure, and insulated from economic instability or foreign interference;
- how mandating the NRC to “expedite” SMNR licensing – potentially at the expense of its original and official mandate to “adequately” protect public health and safety and the environment – makes nuclear power and the nation safer. This regulatory approach has demonstrably failed with Boeing; failed with Norfolk Southern in East Palestine; failed with PIMSA in Sartortia; and doubly-failed at Fukushima. NRC is supposed to oversee and regulate an industry that in the past five years has repeatedly displayed corporate and legislative corruption at the highest levels resulting in FBI indictments, convictions and guilty pleas, millions of dollars in fines, and enormous cost overruns born by ratepayers; and
- why viable alternatives to nuclear expansion like renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy storage, and transmission improvements are not prioritized over nuclear expansion, since ALL are cheaper, quicker to implement, reduce carbon emissions, produce no radioactive wastes, have no meltdown potential, create no nuclear proliferation issues, and, most importantly – ALREADY EXIST. Nothing more needs to be invented; just implemented.
For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stated in December, 2023 that roughly 2,600 giga-watts (GW) of electric power projects await grid connection – over twice the entire current electrical output of the US, and roughly 27 times the entire output of all current US reactors combined. The large majority of this backlog are renewable energy projects awaiting connection access to the aging transmission grid.
New EXISTING transmission technologies like reconductoring and improved grid resiliency solutions could double the capacity of the grid in much shorter time and with far greater certainty than chasing speculative nuclear promises, creating greater ease of access for renewables and storage.
By signing the ADVANCE Act, the President and an accomplice Congress have placed the nation’s energy future, climate goals, and even international security at grave risk. Clearly, placing short term, ego-invested interests over the long-term best interests of the nation seem to be a problem extending beyond re-election. As Napoleon once observed, never ascribe anything to malice when there is the least suspicion of incompetence. Perhaps, but in the end, the results are the same.
Dave Kraft is the founder and director of Nuclear Energy Information Service.
Campaigners against Sizewell C hopeful new MPs will take their concerns to parliament
The campaign group Stop Sizewell C says it’s heard from several MPs already
Jasmine Oak, 10th Jul 2024, https://hellorayo.co.uk/greatest-hits/west-norfolk/news/stop-sizewell-c-campaigners-new-mp-hopes/
Campaigners are calling on the new Government to consider scrapping plans to build a nuclear power plant on the Suffolk Coast
Once up and running, it’s thought Sizewell C will power up to six million homes, but activists say it’s going to devastate our countryside
Alison Downes is from ‘Stop Sizewell C’ group – and says Sir Kier Starmer needs to listen to their concerns: “The priority needs to be preventing there being any more unnecessary damage to the local environment.
“We have already seen a fair amount of damage, but that’s nothing compared with what’s to come…
“The government needs to resist any pressure from the nuclear industry for a hasty decision, especially as Sizewell C is going to take a long time, and a lot of money, to build.”
Alison’s hoping the local area’s new MPs will voice their concerns in Parliament: “Our new MP has publicly said that Stop Sizewell C was the first group she met with when she was elected.
“We also have the co-leader of the Green Party, Adrian Ramsay, in Waveney Valley. He’s been very vocal against Sizewell C.”
A spokesperson for EDF Energy has previously told us: “Our proposals for Sizewell C will see the creation of a 3.2 gigawatt power station that will create low-carbon electricity that will supply 6 million homes.
“This will be delivering clean, reliable, and affordable power for generations.”
Kiev missile attack. What happened? [i]
Cruise missile or stray air defense missile
Black Mountain Analysis MIKE MIHAJLOVIC, JUL 14, 2024
Coincidence or not, every time NATO has a high-level meeting, something terrible happens in Ukraine. After that, there is a frenzy of accusations about war crimes, indiscriminate targeting of civilians, and insults in both mainstream media and social media. There are “experts” that pop up like mushrooms after rain and an uncontrollable flood of speculations. What is missing is someone who puts a brake on emotional comments and starts to look at the issue from different angles: what may be evident from one side may be completely different when looked at from the other side.
This article is not an attempt to investigate the recent explosion that damaged the children’s hospital in Kiev, nor to finger point at anyone, but rather to establish the facts that may point to some conclusion if one expends the effort.
FACTS
The warhead
On July 8, Russia unleashed a barrage of cruise missiles at strategically important locations such as the Artyom Plant, which is a well-known manufacturer of equipment for the Ukrainian military. This target was carefully selected, and selection was based on careful and long surveillance, meaning that drones, satellites, field operatives, etc., were involved. The target for the specific day was not chosen randomly but after careful analysis, and the decision to strike was made after many pieces of the intelligence puzzle were acquired and placed to reveal a clear picture.
The target was very important, so the targeteers decided to engage it with multiple cruise missiles. Mathematically, it is clear that the probability of destruction is much higher with multiple missiles. The weapon chosen was not by chance: a cruise missile with a 450 kg warhead (the optimal choice for this type of target) guarantees destruction on a large scale, even if it is not a pinpoint hit. Several warheads of this size will obliterate the designated target(s).
Ukrainians are not naïve; more often than not, valuable equipment is relocated to predetermined places. Because of the machinery and other equipment, moving the manufacturing facilities is harder but not entirely impossible. Moving the VIPs is much easier, but one precise hit can virtually destroy the command structure or decision-makers.
In this case, as seen in several videos, the target mentioned was the Artyom Plant—a series of sequential hits by Kh-101 missiles achieved desirable results. What happened with the hospital is highly debatable
Firstly, there is a video clip showing a flying object, a missile, in a steep dive hitting the area. What is very important to say is that the missile didn’t hit the hospital directly, and the damage on the facade, which is evident in some photos, is caused by secondary effects such as blasts and shrapnel.
[excellent photos on original]
……………………………………………………………………………………………… Let’s do a brief investigation backward, starting from the position of the hit and working toward the missile. In almost every analysis flooding the media, everyone talks about the missile, and there are two streams: those who categorically say that the missile is indeed a Russian cruise missile and the other that argues for the stray Ukrainian AD missile. More on the hierarchy line in the political world, more acquisitions and this is especially on the pro-Ukrainian side.
The first step is to determine the level of damage and the impact point and compare it with the equivalent damage that can be produced with a high explosive charge.
The damaged building, a Soviet-built brick structure, has one corner collapsed, while the substation also shows damage from blasts and shrapnel. The hospital is not damaged except for shrapnel (that may be from the flying debris, not from the warhead fragments), broken windows, and other minor consequences of the blast…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. [many photos]……………….
What is the next?
Based on what was previously said, all factors must be involved in the investigation: the estimated size of the warhead, two “best” candidates for the perpetrator based on the video evidence, and something that both sides, including the whole pact for one side, are not willing to share—radar records and surveillance satellite records………………………………………………………………………………………………
Conclusion
The hospital was not the intended target. The damaged building is likely not the intended target as well.
The explosive was not heavy and is likely not from the typical cruise missile charge, even with the activation of unburned motor propellant. This does not exclude cruise missiles because they may be decoys or have some modified charge, another stream that may be explored.
The visual records are of low quality and prone to heavy editing, so the validity of the comparison is questionable, and the investigation can’t be judged solely on that.
AD units in the area were active. It is not publicly known how many missiles were launched and from where.
Hypotheses like that there was a secret meeting in the building or that the target was actually a Ministry of Infrastructure meeting may be considered. Still, there is no evidence to support this.
Sabotage and some heavily modified third types of missiles are in the domain of conspiracy theories and should stay there.
As usual, the blame game will continue until something else happens, and everything starts from the beginning.
In any case, the reader should conduct further research and, if possible, try to stay unbiased if that is possible.
I. Balagansky: Damaging Effects of Weapons and Ammunition, 3.5 Evaluation of the Damaging Effect of Shock Waves on Various Objects.
Ibid
High Explosive-Fragmentation
[i] Edited by Piquet (editPiquet@gmail.com) https://bmanalysis.substack.com/p/kiev-missile-attack-what-happened?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1105422&post_id=146522183&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email—
For 75 Years, NATO Has Been Terrorizing the Globe
Ukraine Breathes New Life into NATO
Most recently, NATO has performed its familiar war-mongering role in Ukraine, where it has trained Ukrainian troops, including members of the neo-Nazi-led Azov Battalion.
The latter began attacking the people of eastern Ukraine after the 2014 U.S.-backed coup that triggered the devastating ongoing conflict.
This conflict was provoked in part by U.S. efforts to extend NATO membership to Ukraine, which CIA Director William Burns had warned was a red line that should not be crossed.[14]
In late March 2022, thanks to peace talks mediated by Turkey, Russia was ready to withdraw from all the territory it had captured if Ukraine agreed to give up any commitment to join NATO or allow NATO military bases or missiles to be stationed on its territory.
The deal was scuttled when British Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Zelensky that the “collective West” would not support it.
By Jeremy Kuzmarov, July 13, 2024, https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/07/13/for-75-years-nato-has-been-terrorizing-the-globe/
Will a formidable peace movement ever emerge that can succeed in stopping it?
This past week, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) celebrated its 75th anniversary by hosting a summit in Washington, D.C., where its founding treaty was signed.
A declaration issued at the summit made clear NATO’s intent to continuously confront Russia in Ukraine, and to further expand its operations in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.[1]
The Biden administration announced that: a) they are going to start stationing long-range nuclear and other missiles (including hypersonic missiles, that the U.S. doesn’t even have yet) in Germany, within easy striking-distance of Moscow; b) nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets will be arriving in Ukraine any day now, and will go into service “during the summer”; and that c) Ukraine is on an “irreversible path” to join NATO.
A commemorative documentary featured now on NATO’s website celebrates NATO’s role in facilitating the Western victory in the Cold War and in allegedly ending ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans in the 1990s, curtailing terrorism from Afghanistan after 9/11, and helping to protect the world from Russian aggression.
NATO’s formation in April 1949 is depicted as being vital in preventing the U.S. from having fallen into dreaded isolationism as it had after World War I, and in protecting European security in the face of the Soviet threat.
Colonel Richard Williams, Deputy Director of NATO’s Defense Investment Division, 1997-2011, states that “NATO is the only organization that offers hope that peace can become a real possibility.”
George Orwell would surely be proud of these latter comments in light of NATO’s long record of war-making. The true, venal history is exposed in a short book by peace activists Medea Benjamin and David Swanson, NATO: What You Need to Know, whose publication was timed to encourage protests at the 75th NATO anniversary summit.
Danger to World Peace
In the preface, Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs wrote that “NATO is a clear and present danger to world peace, a war machine run amok that operates beyond the democratic control of the citizenry of the NATO countries.” Sachs continued: “The war machine lines the pockets of the arms contractors at the core of NATO, U.S. companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman and Europe’s arms manufacturers…NATO also sucks one nation after another into the vortex of war, instability, displacement, and poverty. During the past 30 years, NATO has fomented a vast arc of violence stretching from Libya to Afghanistan and with many victims in between.”[2]
Benjamin and Swanson emphasize in their introduction that NATO has repeatedly violated the UN Charter outlawing military aggression and the UN’s 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons because of the placement of U.S. nuclear weapons in five European NATO nations.
NATO’s formation in 1949 as a military defense alliance against the Soviet Union was predicated on rampant propaganda that grossly exaggerated the Soviet threat, and on the ouster of peace-oriented politicians such as Henry Wallace, Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President.
Wallace had proposed a continuation of Roosevelt’s policy of cooperation with the Soviets and was consequently removed in a coup d’état at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago in 1944 and then fired by Harry S. Truman as Commerce Secretary.
Under the direction of Truman’s advisers, including Joe Biden’s political mentor W. Averell Harriman, NATO established private clandestine armies among fascist elements throughout Western Europe who carried out black-flag terrorist activities as part of a strategy to inculcate fear in local populations and to discredit the political left.
In Italy, NATO operatives bombed a Bologna rail station and then planted evidence in the home of a left-wing journalist to make it look like he was the culprit.[3]
Rather than supporting democracy in Western Europe, NATO has a record of empowering reactionary forces. After World War II, it helped destroy popular movements of the left that had led the fight against fascism and were intent on redistributing wealth.
Greece was accepted as a NATO member only after its “ruthless Western-backed government killed or jailed the last of the partisans who had liberated it from the Nazis.”[4]
Turkey’s membership in NATO gave NATO military control of the Bosporus Strait—the only navigational waterway between the Mediterranean and Black Seas and a choke point for the Soviet ports of Odessa and Sevastapol.[5]
Within a decade of joining the Alliance, both Turkey and Greece were toppled in right-wing coups, which did not affect NATO membership. NATO further accepted Portugal as a member when it was ruled by a fascist dictator, Antonio Salazar, who provided the U.S. with a military base in the Azores.
NATO backed Portugal’s brutal suppression of anti-colonial movements in its African colonies (i.e., Angola and Mozambique), supported France’s colonial war in Algeria and the U.S. aggression in Korea, which resulted in the killing of 20% of North Korea’s population.
At an Asian-African conference in Bandung in 1955, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru called NATO “the most powerful protector of colonialism” and said that Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia “would probably have been independent if it had not been for NATO.”[6]
Upholding Unipolar U.S. Power
The U.S. has long been a driving force behind NATO because NATO “provides a vehicle for imposing U.S. leadership over Western nations,” according to Benjamin and Swanson. It has “tied Europe to U.S. military, geopolitical, and economic interests, made Europeans dependent on U.S. military power, and helped fortify U.S. global economic interests.”[7]
After the end of the Cold War, U.S. weapons companies helped lobby for NATO’s expansion. A lobby group called U.S. Committee to Expand NATO was run by the Vice President of Lockheed Martin.[8]
The father of the Cold War containment strategy, George F. Kennan, warned that NATO expansion in the 1990s would be a disastrous folly that would antagonize the Russians and trigger a new Cold War, but to no avail.
Beholden in part to the Polish-American and other Eastern European lobbies alongside the weapons lobbyists, the Clinton administration expanded NATO to three Eastern European countries (Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic)—in violation of a pledge made by the George H.W. Bush administration to the Russians that NATO would not be expanded “one inch to the East.”
George W. Bush followed Clinton by expanding NATO to seven additional countries—Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Later, NATO was expanded to Montenegro and to Sweden and Finland.
Sowing Methodical Devastation
In 1994, NATO launched its first-ever combat operations in Bosnia, conducting hundreds of air strikes, which contributed to the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia and transformed Bosnia into what Swanson and Benjamin call a “dysfunctional ward of NATO and the West.”[9]
In 1999, NATO carried out an illegal bombing campaign that dropped 23,000 bombs on Serbia, which killed thousands of civilians. This was followed by the U.S.-NATO invasion and occupation of the Serbian province of Kosovo, resulting in the empowerment of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which established Kosovo as a mafia state.
As a spoil of victory, the U.S. acquired the 955-acre Camp Bondsteel in southeastern Kosovo, which became a secret CIA black site for illegal detention and torture. (Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner Álvaro Gil-Robles called Camp Bondsteel a “smaller version of Guantanamo.”[10])
NATO caused more mayhem and bloodshed in the catastrophic 20-year military occupation of Afghanistan. During that time, U.S. and NATO forces dropped 85,000 bombs and missiles and conducted tens of thousands of “kill or capture” night raids, largely targeting innocent civilians, in a futile attempt to destroy the Taliban.
In Iraq, NATO soldiers from Canada, Hungary, Italy, Norway and the Netherlands trained senior military officers who carried out massive human rights crimes in sustaining the illegal U.S. military occupation.[11]
NATO played a further instrumental role in the 2011 regime-change operation targeting Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi who had given Libya the fifth-highest GDP per capita in Africa and the highest human development rating there.
Before the start of bombing operations, NATO secretly deployed CIA officers and British, French, Canadian and Qatari Special Forces to organize and lead Libyan jihadist forces intent on toppling the secular nationalist Qaddafi.[12]
NATO took full command of all aspects of the Libyan air war, with warships from 12 NATO countries sent to enforce a critical naval blockade.
Benjamin and Swanson wrote that, “after taking the capital, Tripoli, NATO and its allies cut off food, water, and electricity to the people of Sirte and Bani Walid as they bombarded them for weeks. The combination of aerial, naval, and artillery bombardment, starvation and rebel atrocities on these civilian populations made a final, savage mockery of the UN Security Council’s mandate to protect civilians.”[13]
Ukraine Breathes New Life into NATO
Most recently, NATO has performed its familiar war-mongering role in Ukraine, where it has trained Ukrainian troops, including members of the neo-Nazi-led Azov Battalion.
The latter began attacking the people of eastern Ukraine after the 2014 U.S.-backed coup that triggered the devastating ongoing conflict.
This conflict was provoked in part by U.S. efforts to extend NATO membership to Ukraine, which CIA Director William Burns had warned was a red line that should not be crossed.[14]
In late March 2022, thanks to peace talks mediated by Turkey, Russia was ready to withdraw from all the territory it had captured if Ukraine agreed to give up any commitment to join NATO or allow NATO military bases or missiles to be stationed on its territory. The deal was scuttled when British Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Zelensky that the “collective West” would not support it.
This ensured that the war would go on—at the cost of the flower of Ukraine’s youth who have been sacrificed in another unwinnable war.
Hope for the Future?
NATO’s dubious role in triggering the ongoing bloodbath in Ukraine is sadly characteristic of a 75-year history of provoking warfare and terrorizing civilians—in the service of U.S. and Western global hegemony.
At the end of their book, Swanson and Benjamin note that people around the world increasingly see the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace.
Americans themselves remain divided about NATO: 47% want to see the U.S. keep its current commitment, and 28% want to either decrease it or withdraw entirely.
In a reflection of the rising hawkishness of the Democratic Party base and its susceptibility to government propaganda, only 14% of Democrats want no or less participation in NATO compared to 42% of Republicans.[15]
These data, while potentially discouraging, do reflect the fact that a significant percentage of Americans—including many living in the conservative heartland—are weary of foreign military intervention and NATO and represent a significant potential organizing base.
Given the high percentage of support for NATO among liberal Democrats, an urgent task should be for peace activists to embark on a vigorous campaign of public education targeting liberals that focuses on NATO’s horrifying history.
Benjamin and Swanson’s book is a perfect resource for that campaign and should be widely distributed to better inform the U.S. public about the evil ways their tax dollars are being spent.
References…………………………
Hinkley Point C, the £46 billion mega-project digging tunnels under the sea
As engineers finish 30m-deep tunnels that will provide water for the £46
billion power station, Labour must decide whether to back new nuclear
plants.
Deep beneath the Bristol Channel, the latest phase of the Hinkley
Point C nuclear power station is nearing completion. Three tunnels
extending miles under the seabed are being fine-tuned by engineers in
bright orange overalls. When the plant is operational, two of these
tunnels, 6m wide and 3.5km long, will be flooded with seawater that will be
used to cool the plant. A third tunnel will return it to the sea.
Constructing all this has required some fiddly design. Each tunnel is
connected to 44m-long metal “water heads” that have been designed to
suck in water but not fish. There is also a “fish return pipe” to help
any unlucky sprat get back to the ocean. The complexity of these tunnels
speaks to the engineering challenge of building Britain’s first new
nuclear power station in 30 years. Overruns and delays mean that Hinkley
Point C is now likely to cost £46 billion by the time the first of its two
reactors is switched on in 2029.
Hinkley is just over halfway built, and
its delivery will fall to the new Labour government. The party is
pro-nuclear but it will soon have to decide whether to give the green light
to an identical plant, Sizewell C in Suffolk, and a new breed of smaller
reactors.
Does it have the political will — and the financial firepower
— to back this new nuclear age? EDF hit out at British regulators for
ordering 7,000 changes to the design of its reactors, which were not
required in other countries where they have been built. These changes
include the fish return pipe and a requirement that Hinkley’s critical
systems have an “offline” back-up to protect them against cyberattack.
Some industry sources counter that EDF should bear most of the blame.
“They hadn’t done the proper engineering design and construction
planning before they started work,” said one senior figure. Hinkley’s
Crooks blames stringent measures imposed by the Environment Agency for some
of the delays. “The processes in the agency are very, very, very
challenging, and very long. And everything is subject to legal challenge,
which goes on for ever,” he said.
EDF’s current spat with the agency
concerns the company’s plan to ditch underwater speakers that were
supposed to deter fish from swimming near the site. Both parties have
agreed these speakers won’t work, but are now wrangling over what EDF
should do instead. Until the row is resolved, Hinkley won’t have a
licence to operate.
Ironing out these problems is especially important
because EDF plans to replicate Hinkley’s design at Sizewell. It insists
that project will benefit from the lessons learnt at Hinkley. Crooks said:
“I’m highly confident Sizewell will be quicker and a lot cheaper than
this one.”
The UK government is still looking for private investors to
back Sizewell; a final investment decision was due before the election, but
never came. The project is now sitting at the top of energy secretary Ed
Miliband’s in-tray. He is expected to give it close scrutiny, as
electricity bill-payers will be on the hook for the bulk of the cost.
Miliband must also decide how much the UK wants to spend on a newer breed
of smaller modular reactors. Steve Thomas, emeritus professor of energy
policy at Greenwich University, notes that the reactor model being used at
Hinkley has run into problems and delays wherever it has been built — in
China, Finland and France. “Going forward with Sizewell C would be a
costly and risky venture and would draw resources away from the options
that would allow us to meet our climate-change goals quicker, more cheaply
and more reliably,” he said.
There are even more immediate concerns. CGN
has refused to put any more money into Hinkley to cover the overruns. EDF
won’t give a number, but industry sources suggest the project is facing a
funding gap of up to £5 billion. “We are actively looking for investors
to mitigate this cash requirement,” said Crooks. Under the terms of its
contract, EDF — or, more precisely, the French government — will have
to pick up the tab.
Times 13th July 2024
NATO at 75: obsolete but still risking nuclear war, seeking dragons to slay.
NATO officially became obsolete December 26, 1991 when the Soviet Union officially dissolved. In response to that dissolution and allowing Germany to reunify, the US promised not to expand NATO eastward toward Russia. But in among the worst and duplicitous foreign policy mistakes in American history, the US reneged, doubling NATO from 16 at the USSR collapse, to 32 today.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 14 July 24
President Biden basked in glory hosting the NATO Summit in D.C on its 75th anniversary last week.
He boasted that America is the world’s only indispensable nation leading the strong bulwark of NATO to preserve democracy, freedom and security around the world.
The opposite is true. NATO represents the greatest threat to peace in the 21st century. Its unhinged 17 yearlong effort to bring Ukraine into NATO would allow NATO nukes on Russia’s border to keep Russia out of the European political economy.
But instead of negotiating a ceasefire that will protect the security interests of both countries, NATO’ s 75th brought more determination to make the war a zero sum game of NATO wins, Russia loses. That requires flinging hundreds of billions in military and economic aid to Kyiv, including long range US missiles and F-16 fighters that could make this local war spin out of control and go nuclear.
Not satisfied with provoking Russia, NATO continued its 4 yearlong pivot to Asia, ramping up its relations with US allies there to counter China. NATO blasted China for expanding its military and other assistance to Russia to help its war in Ukraine. Apparently, what’s good for the goose NATO, is not good for the gander China.
NATO officially became obsolete December 26, 1991 when the Soviet Union officially dissolved. In response to that dissolution and allowing Germany to reunify, the US promised not to expand NATO eastward toward Russia. But in among the worst and duplicitous foreign policy mistakes in American history, the US reneged, doubling NATO from 16 at the USSR collapse, to 32 today.
The Russian Bear, in waiting 31 years to push back against US/NATO duplicity, exercised infinitely greater patience to an existential threat to its national security than Uncle Sam ever would.
And Cold Warrior Biden, who recklessly keeps the nuclear pot boiling with NATO‘s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and threatening behavior toward China, remains clueless of the danger NATO poses to peoplekind.
While we should all hope NATO never sees another birthday, let’s further hope it’s not because NATO triggered nuclear Armageddon.
NATO’s nuclear bases have poisoned water and fish
A German Brown Trout caught downstream from Büchel Air Base, Germany contained massive levels of carcinogenic PFAS.
Fish from Pahlbach Stream which drains Büchel Air Base, Germany are dangerously contaminated with PFAS, according to the German government.
Nuclear deterrence has a nasty side effect.
Military Poisons, By Pat Elder, July 13, 2024
Nuclear armed air bases at Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi in Italy, and Volkel in the Netherlands have poisoned the environment with PFAS.
Massive fires were intentionally lit in large fire pits at these bases and extinguished with cancer-causing fire-fighting foams during routine training exercises dating back 40 years or longer. Afterward, the foam residue was typically allowed to run off or drain into the soil. The “forever chemicals” pollute the soil, sewers, sediment, surface water, groundwater, and the air. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) bases regularly tested sprinkler systems in hangars to create a carcinogenic foam layer to coat the expensive aircraft. The sprinkler systems often malfunctioned. The foams were sent to sewers or deposited in groundwater or surface water.
The PFAS-laden foams work miraculously well in putting out super-hot petroleum-based fires, but remarkable technologies may escape our control and imperil humanity.
Two astonishing inventions in 1938 are like Daedalus’ fastening of wings to wax: the splitting of the uranium atom by German scientists and the discovery of per – and poly fluoroalkyl substances, (PFAS) by Dupont chemists in New Jersey. It’s not a stretch. Both nuclear weaponry and PFAS chemicals are existential threats to humanity. Their development and use are inextricably linked.
Wherever nuclear weapons are found, huge quantities of PFAS foams are ready to be used to snuff out a fire that may cause unimaginable destruction.
Like Pandora’s nightmare, once PFAS is let loose we can’t get it back in the box. We can’t get rid of it. We can’t bury it. We can’t incinerate it. We don’t know what to do with it. Notions of ”cleaning up” PFAS from these practices are largely misguided, propagandistic ploys promulgated by the U.S. military.
The Fish at Büchel Air Base
The base is located in the Rhineland-Palatinate region of western Germany, about 60 km from the border with Belgium and Luxembourg. A German Brown Trout caught in the Pahlbach, downstream from Büchel Air Base, contained
769 μg/kg of PFOS, a particularly deadly type of PFAS.
769 ug/kg = 769 micrograms per kilogram.
769 micrograms per kilogram = 769 parts per billion.
769 parts per billion = 769,000 parts per trillion (ppt).
People eat these fish.
The US EPA, meanwhile, is enforcing a limit of 4 ppt for PFOS in drinking water. Throughout most of the world municipal water providers are removing the majority of PFAS from drinking water supplies while governments largely ignore the threat of poisoned food, especially the fish. Regular ingestion of just 1 part per trillion is associated with a higher risk of developing cancer.
The European Environment Agency’s Drinking Water Directive limits total PFAS in drinking water to 500 ppt and levels for 20 individual PFAS (including PFOS) to 100 ppt. Meanwhile Germans are free to eat the fish containing PFOS 7,690 times more than the standard for drinking water.
The European Environment Agency has also set a a largely unenforced Environmental Quality Standard, (EQS) level for fish at 9,100 ppt. Scientists have scoffed at this ridiculously high level since it was promulgated. The agency has proposed to update the EQS for fish from 9,100 ppt to 77 ppt. This limit will apply to a sum of 24 PFAS, according to a “potency factor.”
We only know the results in the Brown Trout for one compound – PFOS. Often, fish may contain more than a dozen compounds and sometimes, the levels of these chemicals surpass that of the PFOS. If the EU actually passes and enforces the new regulation, eating fish throughout large areas of the continent with be “verboten.”
The Water at Büchel Air Base
Surface water on Büchel Air Base was reported at 1,866.32 ppt. In 2016 PFOS was detected at 3,200 ppt in the surrounding bodies of water and in the rainwater retention basins of Buchel Airbase…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Nuclear Bases
Büchel Air Base, known in Germany as Der Fliegerhorst Büchel, is the home of approximately 15 US thermonuclear weapons, carried by the German Luftwaffe’s Panavia Tornado fighter jets. F-35’s are scheduled to replace the Tornadoes. The Luftwaffe is working to upgrade the runway for the arrival of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter later this decade.
Each bomb can deliver a blast 22 times greater than Hiroshima.
German pilots will take off with these weapons if the order comes from President Biden. The squadron of fighter jets directly supports the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) contingency and wartime operations and its strike mission.
The German Tornadoes are fitted with B61 nuclear bombs. The B61 features a “dial-a-yield” capability with a yield of 0.3 to 340 kilotons. The Hiroshima bomb contained 15 kilotons, the same as 15,000 tons of TNT.
These “scalable” nuclear devices may be programmed enroute, allowing for a variety of tactical responses. A yield of .3 kilotons is 2% of the blast of Hiroshima’s Little Boy. This enables NATO to annihilate neighborhoods or advancing tanks rather than entire cities. This option lowers the threshold, the proclivity to use these weapons.
About 100 B61’s are stored at six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Base in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands and Incirlik in Turkey.
Let’s briefly examine the PFAS contamination at these facilities, courtesy of the data gathered by LeMonde’s Forever Pollution Project.
Kleine-Brogel Airbase, Belgium
Kleine-Brogel Airbase in Peer, Belgium was found to have 416,000 ppt of PFAS in soil. This total includes 360,000 ppt of PFOS, 7,300 ppt of PFOA, 2,500 ppt of PFNA, and 5,400 ppt of PFHxS. Buchel Air Base reported 100,000 ppt of PFOS in soil, so Kleine-Brogel appears to be substantially more contaminated than Buchel, based on the limited data……………….
LeMonde – ‘Forever pollution’: The map of Europe’s PFAS contamination
Examine LeMonde’s map to see how Belgium is fantastically contaminated with PFAS from military and industrial sources. (Map on original)…………………………………………………………………………….
Ghedi Air Base, Italy
Surface water contained 1,659 ppt of total PFAS about two miles south of the runway at Ghedi Air Base, Italy. Note the 1,000 ppt of PFBS in surface water. The compound has been used as a replacement for PFOS in firefighting foams. Ample evidence confirms the toxicity effects PFBS has on several organ systems, including cardiac, immune, hepatic, and reproductive systems. PFBS bioaccumulates in fish, although few seem to know or care.
Those who treat people who are sick and dying of disease and cancer are rightfully today’s heroes, but those who attempt to pinpoint the source of these diseases are enemies of the state.
Incirlik Air Base, Turkey
NATO
On July 10 NATO released the following statement after its Washington Summit: “We are further accelerating the modernisation of our collective defence and are investing in our Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defence capabilities required to effectively operate in all environments.” Notice how they capitalize the powerful gods of our age.
NATO’s bases contaminate the continent. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents don’t just terrorize the enemy, they also endanger people at home.
Buchel Shrine, Peace Camp, and jailed resisters
There’s a Catholic shrine in the Peace Camp adjacent to Büchel Air Base. It is just 200 meters from the main gate and it is seen by 2,000 soldiers and civilians as they enter the base every day. The shrine depicts Jesus breaking a gun in two. It says, “Think – Atomic weapons are a crime against God and Humanity.”……………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.militarypoisons.org/latest-news/natos-nuclear-bases-have-poisoned-water-and-fish
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (91)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 