nuclear-news

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

Kevin Gosztola: Correcting the Record on the Assange Case

April 14, 2024 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Amid Serious Iran-Israel Tension, The Nuclear Elephant Is In The Room

Tuesday, 04/09/2024, Shahram Kholdi,  https://www.iranintl.com/en/202404097226

April 7 marked the sixth month of Hamas-Israel open conflict. Six days before this semi-anniversary, Israel’s April 1 strike on Iran’s embassy in Damascus punctuated an alarming turning point.

Israel’s action did not only corner Hezbollah, Iran’s primary quasi-state proxy on the bloody chessboard of their ongoing conflict but have also eliminated key military leaders. Amid various pundits attempting to predict Iran’s next move, many are acknowledging the significant factor of Iran’s nuclear program lurking in the background.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s “fatwa” and opinion on the prohibition of producing nuclear weapons “may change tomorrow,” Mahmoud-Reza Aghamiri, the president of Tehran’s Beheshti University and a pro-regime professor of nuclear physics, told Iran’s state TV this week. Aghamiri says Iran currently has the technology and capability to develop a nuclear bomb, and under such circumstances, developing it is easier than not making it.

The punditry and analyses on a possible “direct” clash between Iran and Israel is indeed all over the map. Some, whilst citing “warnings from unnamed Israeli officials behind the scenes” wonder whether or not Iran will strike Israel back from its own territory. Others probe whether it will have its proxies to escalate their asymmetrical strikes against Israel. And last but not least, a handful quibble over whether Israel’s strike would give President Joe Biden the occasion to proclaim support for Israel against Iran but further pressure Israel to heed the US’ demands on the conclusion of the war in Gaza and negotiations with Hamas for the release of the hostages.

On this very outlet, in an article published four days after Hamas attack on October 11, 2023, Benjamin Weinthal covered various sides of a debate on the (unlikely) possibility of a joint US-Israeli attack against Iran as a state sponsor of Hamas.

On the conventional front, The gravity of Israel’s situation cannot be exaggerated. The Hezbollah of Lebanon is armed with thousands of conventional rockets and cruise missiles that can potentially swarm and overwhelm the Israeli Air Defense Shield and Iron Dome and the analyses of Israel’s ability to take all Hezbollah’s arsenal preemptively has been the subject of much debate.

What most observers do not take into account is the possibility that the Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus may trigger a rude awakening amongst the IRGC top brass and Khamenei. It might prompt them to hasten the development of their nuclear deterrence capabilities. Despite the regime’s longstanding vow to eliminate Israel, dating back to before 1979, the tensions between Iran and Israel are mutual and deep-rooted.

Israel is presently wary of the Iranian ability to deploy a handful of nuclear warheads and the IDF has been preparing itself for a decisive strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities for quite some time before the Hamas October 7 attack on Israel. Israel, as is discussed below, has been acutely aware of Iran’s ever growing weaponization capacity as early as 2018.

Yet Israel’s collective sense of insecurity is not simply rooted in its fear of its enemies or the deep-seated collective trauma of the Holocaust. Israel’s primary source of insecurity is rooted in its historical roller coaster experience of its alliances. The Soviet de jure recognition of Israel and support for its war of independence against the Arab nations was short-lived and inadequate. France was Israel’s major military supplier for much of the 1950s to the mid-1960s, and upon her aid Israel developed its conventional and unconventional nuclear programs. 

 But France proved unreliable when President De Gaulle sought a rapprochement with Israel’s Arab enemies and abandoned Israel in the mid-1960s. From the mid-1960s, the United States became Israel’s sole guarantor and ally in all aspects of economy and military from research and development, joint aeronautical and space projects to the development of the sophisticated air-defense systems, namely, “the Iron-Dome”, and the latest sophisticated UAVs.

The United States itself has wavered in its “unequivocal support” for Israel at least on three different occasions. First, President Dwight Eisenhower refused to support Israel in its collusion with the Anglo-French powers during the 1956 Suez Crisis. In fact, Eisenhower turned his back on Israel as he feared escalation with the Soviet Union. Incidentally, there are commentators who believe that President Biden should treat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a similar set of measures that Eisenhower imposed on Israel in 1956.

There are indeed those in the US who believe Johnson failed to act to prevent Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in 1967 and this is a legacy from which Biden must take harsh lessons and act accordingly. Finally, President Barack Obama’s administration sidelined Israel’s Netanyahu to cajole Tehran’s ruling mullahs into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) over their nuclear program causing Israel to distance itself ever farther from the Euro-American alliance. Israel has been less than forthcoming about sharing the details of its assassination and sabotage operations with its Euro-American allies ever since. According to some reports, “the CIA does not know” if Israel plans to bomb Iran.”

Today, Israel and Netanyahu are almost identical in their shared sense of insecurities. Even though a majority of Israelis may not vote him to office if elections were held today, they share the same sense of insecurity that has been the compass of his five mandates over the past thirty years. At the core of this sense of insecurity lies Iran’s nuclear program. Since 2018, Israel has taken possession of thousands of documents that lay bear all the militaristic directions of the Iranian nuclear program (Revealed: Emptying of the Iranian “Atomic Warehouse” at Turquz Abad). Over nearly 15 years, Israel is alleged to have succeeded in sabotaging many critical sites of the Iranian nuclear industrial complex. Moreover, Israel is accused of having masterminded the operations that eliminated Iranian nuclear scientists in the same period. Nonetheless, since Donald Trump left the JCPOA, the Iranian regime has progressively accelerated its uranium enrichment and proved Israel’s, read Netanyahu’s, worst fears. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is effectively and totally is in the dark per the latest reports of IAEA and its dire warnings about the exact state of the Iranian nuclear program. In view of the above, it appears that Israel’s assassination and sabotage operations against the Iranian scientists and nuclear sites have effectively failed.

Israeli-American air forces joint drills for long range operations in the summer of 2023 revealed how alarmed both US and Israel were about the Iranian nuclear program. It was speculated at the time that such drills were to prepare both air forces for a joint operation on the Iranian nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, the Americans were in the midst of secret negotiation with the Iranians to reach an “informal nuclear agreement”.

However, joint exercises of such magnitude with any ally are always planned long in advance and are indicative of longstanding concerns. Accordingly, the joint US-Israeli hint at the fact that the Biden administration did neither have any confidence in the success of those secret negotiations with Iran, nor was it assured of the Iranian side’s honoring any such accord. Three weeks before Hamas attack on Israel, a most telling paragraph in the IDF statement on Israeli and Hellenic air forces’ joint drills for long range operations reads as follows: “The exercise is part of a series of exercises and models carried out by the IAF in the past year and their purpose is to improve operational and mental competence for long-range flights, refueling, attacks in the depth [of enemy territory] and achieving air superiority.”

Khamenei, per his religious edict, fatwa, has stated time and again that the manufacturing and usage of nuclear weapons is forbidden. However, Israel’s elimination of two high-ranking IRGC general inside the Iranian embassy’s compound in Damascus has established that there is no red line that it will not cross to maximize its security and minimize all risks. Such an escalating assault may cause the Iranian ruling clerics and the IRGC to wonder if their nuclear facilities will be next on Israel’s target list and they may consider attaining a deterrence greater than a conventional one. Khamenei may indeed invoke the principle of expediency to overrule his own “anti-Nuclear” fatwa. The principle of expediency, as decreed by the regime’s founder Ayatollah Khomeini in January 1988, stipulates that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic may even violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith in order to preserve “the Islamic Regime” as the preservation of the Islamic Regime supersedes all else.

Thus, if Israel continues to expand its unrelenting attacks on IRGC top brass and Iranian military and diplomatic facilities in the region, and the Iranian regime continues to plunge into the depths of a maelstrom of economic troubles, will Khamenei perceive such an assault as compromising the survival of the regime? And if so what will he do? Will he invoke the principle of expediency and order the rapid manufacturing of nuclear devices and their deployment in the form of a dozen or so warheads? Or will he be resigned to Israel’s overwhelming assault on its proxies and, like his predecessor, will drink from the poisonous chalice of surrender?

April 14, 2024 Posted by | Iran, Israel, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer slammed over staunch defence of nuclear weapons

“it’s increasingly clear that Starmer’s offer is just more of the same: billions of pounds wasted on nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and a belligerent foreign policy that includes support for the Aukus pact, Nato, and continuing arms sales to Israel, used to kill Palestinians.

“Putting billions of pounds into the pockets of arms companies and their investors will not reinvigorate the economy in any meaningful way.”

The National By Hamish Morrison @HMorrison97 Political Reporter, 10 Apr 24

KEIR Starmer has said Trident is the “bedrock” of Labour’s defence policy – despite growing concern over the state of the ageing nuclear fleet critics say is a “grotesque” waste of money.

The Labour leader launched a full-throated defence of Britain’s nuclear weapons in an attempt to stress the distance he has taken the party since its leadership under Jeremy Corbyn – who voted against the renewal of Trident while in charge.

During a visit to Barrow today, where nuclear submarines are being built, Starmer is expected to focus on increasing jobs and skills in defence.

Starmer said: “The changed Labour Party I lead knows that our nation’s defence must always come first. Labour’s commitment to our nuclear deterrent is total.

“In the face of rising global threats and growing Russian aggression, the UK’s nuclear deterrent is the bedrock of Labour’s plan to keep Britain safe.

“It will ensure vital protection for the UK and our Nato allies in the years ahead, as well as supporting thousands of high paying jobs across the UK………………………..

Labour will ensure that new UK leadership within Aukus helps make this national endeavour a success for Britain.”

The Aukus pact unites Australia, the UK and the USA in a military pact in the South Pacific, which critics say escalates tensions with the Chinese.

China’s government has described Aukus – which will see Australia provided with nuclear-powered submarines – as indicative of an “obsolete Cold War zero sum mentality”.

The SNP have said Labour’s commitment to Trident was “grotesque”.

Martin Docherty-Hughes (below), the party’s defence spokesperson, said: “Westminster has already wasted billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money on nuclear weapons and expensive nuclear energy.

“It is therefore grotesque that Sir Keir Starmer is prepared to throw billions more down the drain when his party claim there is no money to improve our NHS, help families with the cost of living or to properly invest in our green energy future.

“This money would be better spent on a raft of other things – not least investing in the green energy gold rush, which would ensure Scotland, with all its renewal energy potential, could be a green energy powerhouse of the 21st century.”

He blasted the “misfiring Trident missiles”, drawing attention to a high-profile blunder which saw a test missile dramatically fail to launch, landing just yards from the submarine carrying it.

Docherty-Hughes said the Government should provide more money for “underpaid and under-resourced” armed forces staff and conventional defence systems.

Alba general secretary Chris McEleny, who worked at HM Naval Base Clyde, where nukes are stored, said: “When one in four children in Scotland live in poverty it is obscene that resources are wasted to ensure that we have the best defended foodbanks in the world.”

He added that the “war-mongering Labour Party have now made it clear that independence is the only way to free Scotland of nuclear weapons”.

Healey, Labour’s shadow defence minister, said a “strong defence industrial strategy” would be “hardwired” in the party’s quest to promote economic growth if it gains power at the election.

He added: “We will make it fundamental to direct defence investment first to British jobs and British industry.”……………………………..

Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said voters were “desperately looking for hope from the Labour Party”.

She added: “However, it’s increasingly clear that Starmer’s offer is just more of the same: billions of pounds wasted on nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and a belligerent foreign policy that includes support for the Aukus pact, Nato, and continuing arms sales to Israel, used to kill Palestinians.

“Putting billions of pounds into the pockets of arms companies and their investors will not reinvigorate the economy in any meaningful way.”  https://www.thenational.scot/news/24248069.keir-starmer-slammed-staunch-defence-nuclear-weapons/

April 14, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Biden ‘very proud’ of expanding NATO to Russia’s borders

 https://www.rt.com/news/595718-biden-proud-nato-expansion/ 12 Apr 24

The US leader believes it would be a “disaster” if the bloc were to break up

US President Joe Biden has hailed NATO’s further expansion toward Russia’s borders, while accusing Republican rival Donald Trump of undermining the unity of the American-led military bloc.

Russia has for years voiced concern about NATO’s creeping encroachment, viewing its policies as an existential threat. However, in an interview with Spanish-language broadcaster Univision that aired on Tuesday, Biden touted the recent addition of Finland and Sweden to the bloc’s ranks amid the Ukraine conflict as a great achievement.

“We’ve done something that I was very proud of. I’ve engaged with NATO for my whole career. We were able to expand NATO, and we have 2,000 miles of border because you have two Nordic nations having joined NATO. You have a whole range of NATO countries along the Russian border,” the US president said.

Biden went on to argue that a stalemate in Congress over his $61 billion military aid package for Kiev is “very dangerous” for the bloc’s unity, accusing his former US leader Trump of virtually holding the measure – and the entire Republican party – hostage.

“Trump runs that party. He maintains a sort of a death grip on it. Everybody’s afraid to take him on whether they agree with him or not, and it’s incredibly dangerous. The last thing we need is to see NATO start to break apart. It would be a disaster for the United States, a disaster for Europe, a disaster for the world,” Biden said.

The US has provided Ukraine with over $113 billion in various forms of assistance since the start of hostilities with Russia. Moscow has repeatedly condemned foreign arms shipments to Kiev, arguing they will only prolong the conflict, while making the West a direct participant in the hostilities.

Finland shares a 1,300km border with Russia, and Moscow has argued that NATO membership has threatened, not guaranteed, Finnish security. After Helsinki joined the alliance last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the creation of a new military district bordering the Nordic nation. Sweden joined the bloc last month.

Putin has warned for nearly two decades that NATO’s policies undermine Russian national security, but a real “red line” for Moscow would be an attempt to move the bloc’s forces into Ukraine. The conflict in Ukraine is an “existential” one for Moscow and a “matter of life and death,” Putin said in February, while for the West it is simply a matter of “improving its tactical positions.”

April 14, 2024 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

UK Government decision to withhold nuclear power plant information unlawful

 Government decision to withhold nuclear power plant information unlawful.
A ruling by the Information Commissioner (IC) requiring the Secretary of
State for Energy Security and Net Zero requesting the disclosure of
information in respect of a proposed nuclear power plant on Anglesey was
upheld by the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) which concluded that the
public interest supported its disclosure.

 Planning Resource 11th April 2024

https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1868100/government-decision-withhold-nuclear-power-plant-information-unlawful

April 14, 2024 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy ‘now an obstacle to delivering net zero’ – Greenpeace.

Nuclear energy has been touted as key to the global transition,
but concerns around costs and timescales have generated scepticism.
According to Greenpeace director of policy Doug Parr: “Nuclear power
can’t bridge the gap between anything and anything. It is too slow. It is
too expensive. It is a massive distraction.”

Speaking about the role of
nuclear energy in the UK’s transition, Parr tells Energy Monitor: “It
doesn’t help with the kind of grid system that we need, which is going to
be renewables heavy. I think the UK focus on nuclear power is now an
obstacle to delivering net zero because it is sucking up time, energy and
political bandwidth, which can be spent on more useful things.”

Parr argues that governments should be investing in more immediate solutions. He
points to investment in Sizewell C – the 3.2GW power station set to be
built in the English county of Suffolk – where construction is set to
commence this year. It is likely to take between nine and 12 years to
complete, but delays at Hinkley C (of which Sizewell C will be a close
copy) have stirred doubt.

“We will be putting a lot of money into
something like Sizewell C, when actually we will find that it is a white
elephant by the time it has opened,” he contends. “We will have spent
all that time, energy and effort, which could have been put into improving
our housing stock, improving our grid or improving the ability of electric
vehicles to meet the needs of people through a proper charging network –
things that would actually would deliver this decade, not in 15 years time.
So, we would cut a lot more carbon, we would get something done that is
useful and we wouldn’t have piles of messy radioactive waste that we
still don’t know what to do with.”

 Energy Monitor 10th April 2024, https://www.energymonitor.ai/features/nuclear-energy-now-an-obstacle-to-delivering-net-zero-greenpeace/

April 14, 2024 Posted by | climate change, UK | 1 Comment

Why you probably shouldn’t become a Community Interest Company

  by preorg,  https://preorg.org/why-you-probably-shouldnt-become-a-community-interest-company/

Imagine you have sacrificed hundreds of hours of your volunteering time to a non-profit organisation doing good work. After years of effort, often exhaustion, you discover that the directors don’t care that much about whether you succeeded in helping those people you intended to help. They care mostly about how much time they can spend at the swimming pool at their second home in Spain. Your volunteer hours have helped fund that lifestyle.

How could such a situation arise? Aren’t charities supposed to have boards of governors that keep the organisation on track? But wait, it wasn’t a charity! It was a Community Interest Company. Now, I should say that I don’t currently know of any such dramatic betrayals of people’s goodwill. But what I will argue here is that this situation arising in some CICs is bordering on inevitable, given the operating parameters of CICs. Given the weakness of regulation of the companies, almost boasted about by the CIC Regulator, it’s only a matter of time.

Why would I think that? Most people seem happy with CICs; Community Interest Companies are a success story, we are told. There are now many thousands of CICs in the UK, all having appeared within the space of ten years. This rapid rise in fact means that many people have chosen a form the long-term resilience of which has yet to be tested. It would be exciting to write an article about all the horribly failed CICs littering the social economy landscape. But I don’t know of any; I can only do a much less exciting job: pointing out what’s wrong with CICs before they start to fail. My contention is that, with the help of an FOI request to the CIC Regulator, we can see that certain types of failure are predictable. As for why we haven’t seen the failures yet, it is largely because CICs are young and in most of them the founders are still in charge.

The CIC was designed for organisations with social goals. It must operate in the ‘community interest’, which is defined in the articles of the organisation. It is also chosen over charities as an organisation that can more easily buy and sell commercially. But among the people I have asked, the main reason for opting for a CIC has been that it is easy. It is a lightweight structure, it is unencumbered by bureaucracy. It can be set up in a couple of days and can adapt quickly to changing conditions since it doesn’t have long lists of rules in its constitution. More like a standard profit-making company then, but with social objectives built in. Supposedly. More on that later.

By comparison both charities and co-operatives or community benefit societies (BenComs) have a lot more rules. Rules! How annoying! How limiting! But hang on a moment, why, if rules are so tedious, do those other organisations bother with them? The answer is that most of the rules are about accountability. In the case of a charity, the board of trustees, who must be consulted on significant matters, exist to keep the charity in line with its social aims. In co-ops and BenComs it is the membership who must constantly be consulted, and who choose who leads the organisation. Democracy certainly can be quite annoying.

By comparison a standard CIC is at the mercy of its directors, who needn’t even be many in number. That’s fine, I hear some say, I am the director, and I trust myself to make good decisions. Perhaps, but do you intend to lead the organisation forever? Even if you plan to live forever, what happens if you get ill, or leave through some other reason beyond your control? The purpose behind many accountability mechanisms is that they transcend the ideals of one particular person. They embed the ethics and goals into the DNA of the organisation, whoever may be running it at a given time. So how long do you want your organisation to last?

There is one supposed accountability mechanism in CICs: the government regulator. In theory the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies has a lot of power to force CICs to stick to their aims. In practice it appears to do very little, priding itself on being a ‘light touch’ regulator. When I contacted the Regulator, they explained that in the last year they received 57 complaints, only 3 of which resulted in an intervention by the regulator. None of these 3 were related to the community benefit requirements. The Regulator has so far never wound up a CIC or stripped one of its CIC status. The Regulator has no records of intervening in a CIC on the basis of the standard paperwork submitted each year, which in part reports on the organisation’s performance under its community benefit requirement. That is to say, there appears to be no pro-active monitoring of whether CICs are operating for community benefit.

Even Social Enterprise UK, a fan of the CIC form, has raised questions over the strength of the Regulator. This accountability mechanism begins to look weak, to say the least. I’m not sure it will ever improve either. I doubt the regulator will ever be well enough funded to investigate what is going on in tens of thousands of organisations. We should not look for accountability in the CIC regulator.

Let’s move on to another question, a special case of the accountability problem: what profits can be made from a CIC, often presented as a non-profit structure? There is a CIC limited by shares that is allowed to make a profit. Previously there was a dividend cap of 20% of share value in any given year. This was considered by the government to be ‘inhibiting investment’ so in 2014 they removed the cap. Say that again? Annual 20% profits inhibiting investment?

Let’s leave that aside. In fact the majority of CICs are limited by guarantee and are more genuinely non-profit in form. There are, however, a couple of massive catches. The directors of a CIC can pay themselves whatever they can argue could reasonably be seen as necessary, as long as they are still fulfilling their social objectives. As determined by the aforementioned ‘light touch’ regulator. A CIC with a turnover of some millions a year could in theory pay the directors a million a year, if they could argue that without the salary they couldn’t retain the talent they need. Is it still a non-profit? This raises the aforementioned scenario of people putting in hundreds of volunteer hours for a supposed non-profit while the directors are buying holiday homes in the Mediterranean.

The second problem is that nobody is paying any attention to who CICs contract out work to. If a CIC pays huge ‘management fees’ or overpays on a cleaning contract to a company that happens to be owned by, say, the partner of a director, any money in the organisation can very easily be siphoned out to profit-making enterprises. In a charity the board and regulator would keep a sharp eye on this type of activity; the CIC regulator barely seems to glance at the paperwork.

You, the current director, might not abuse your position so, but can you be so sure of your successors? We only need to look at Housing Associations for a case study in organisational mission drift, in part driven by the high salaries CEOs have been able to pay themselves.

A word too on putting an informal democratic structure on top of an undemocratic CIC: I’m told that the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales acted for years like a co-operative, and those involved assumed that’s what it was. But it never took a co-operative legal form, so when it ran into trouble, new leadership bulldozed aside the democracy people had assumed was one of the core values of the organisation. CAT is at least a charity, but the lesson is that informal structures can be dispensed with any time the CIC directors get tired of them.

But surely there must be a right situation for a CIC? Perhaps. A CIC could be right for an organisation that is mostly a trading organisation and is for a short-term project which won’t exist for long. If the project is intended to run long-term, I don’t believe the CIC is a reliable form. It is at the mercy of the leadership that follows you, if not your own leadership. The CIC Regulator is not the safety net you need. For most people it would be worth choosing an organisational type that seems more ‘difficult’ in the short term, but will almost certainly be more sustainable and accountable in the long run.

For existing successful CICs, why would they bother to change if they are doing well as they are? Let’s remember they are still young organisations. Do we want to wait twenty years to see the emergence of accountability and mission-drift problems that are, I am suggesting, rather predictable? Mission-drift that the Regulator will never pick up on unless someone reports it?

There are a few ways to mitigate the risks here. The best option for many would be to convert into a co-operative CIC. Co-ops UK offers one set of model rules for this, and the Somerset Rules can also convert a CIC into a multi-stakeholder co-op. It will cost time and money, it is true, to change the rules, but it will surely not be as painful as the organisation going off track in a few years’ time after the founders have retired.

The second best option is to add democratic rules to the CIC. It is a benefit of CICs that they are very flexible. The CIC Regulator offers model rules of a participatory organisation of large membership, though it is still very much director-controlled. It is theoretically possible to set up a more democratic membership structure without being a co-operative. While this method may miss out on embedding some of the checks and balances that co-ops have developed over the years, it could make the organisation more accountable. But remember, rules that can be added can be taken away. Only co-ops and their cousins, community benefit societies, lock democracy in permamently.

Finally, if actual democracy seems too great a task, it is at least possible to simply install more directors onto the CIC board, preferably those affected by what the organisation does, and so establish a strong democratic culture among the CIC directors. It’s not a perfect fix, but increased collective decision-making will mitigate the problems of a top-down culture reliant on the goodwill of two or three people.

For those who haven’t started their organisation yet, this is a plea to consider that a sustainable organisation is an accountable one, and democracy is one of the best ways to ensure accountability. Thankfully others, in the form of the co-operative movement, have already paved the way for us.

April 14, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Five Years At Belmarsh: A Chronicle Of Julian Assange’s Imprisonment.

Kevin Gosztola, Apr 11, 2024,  https://scheerpost.com/2024/04/12/five-years-at-belmarsh-a-chronicle-of-julian-assanges-imprisonment/

Calls for Assange’s freedom are renewed as the WikiLeaks founder marks five years in Belmarsh prison.

At the behest of the United States government, the British government has detained WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in His Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh for five years. 

Assange is one of the only journalists to be jailed by a Western country, making the treatment that he has endured extraordinary. He has spent more time in prison than most individuals charged with similar acts. 

Since December 2010, Assange has lived under some form of arbitrary detention.

He was expelled from Ecuador’s London embassy on April 11, 2019, and British police immediately arrested him. Police transported Assange to Belmarsh, a maximum-security facility often referred to as “Britain’s Guantanamo.” 

Around the same time, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed an indictment that alleged that Assange had conspired with U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning to commit a “computer intrusion.” The following month the DOJ issued another indictment with 17 additional Espionage Act charges. 

2019

On May 1, Assange was sentenced by a British court to 50 weeks in prison as punishment for seeking political asylum from Ecuador while Sweden was attempting to extradite him. His sentence was longer than the six-month sentence that Jack Shepherd, the “speedboat killer” received for “breaching bail.” 

Continue reading →

April 13, 2024 Posted by | Legal, PERSONAL STORIES, UK | Leave a comment

Flicker of Hope: Biden’s Throwaway Lines on Assange

April 12, 2024 by: Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/flicker-of-hope-bidens-throwaway-lines-on-assange/

Walking stiffly, largely distracted, and struggling to focus on the bare essentials, US President Joe Biden was keeping company with his Japanese counterpart, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, when asked the question. It concerned what he was doing regarding Australia’s request that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be returned to Australia.

Assange, who has spent five tormenting years in Belmarsh Prison in London, is battling extradition to the US on 18 charges, 17 tenuously and dangerously based on the US Espionage Act of 1917.

The words that followed from the near mummified defender of the Free World were short, yet bright enough for the publisher’s supporters. “We’re considering it.” No details were supplied.

To these barest of crumbs came this reaction from from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on ABC’s News Breakfast: “We have raised on behalf of Mr Assange, Australia’s national interest, that enough is enough, that this needs to be brought to a conclusion, and we’ve raised it at each level of government in every possible way.” When pressed on whether this was merely an afterthought from the president, Albanese responded with the usual acknowledgments: the case was complex, and responsibility lay with the US Department of Justice.

One of Assange’s lawyers, the relentless Jennifer Robinson, told Sky News Australia of her encouragement at Biden’s “response, this is what we have been asking for over five years. Since 2010 we’ve been saying this is a dangerous precedent that’s being set. So, we certainly hope it was a serious remark and the US will act on it.” Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, also told Sky News that the statement was significant while WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson thought the utterance “extraordinary”, cautiously hoping “to see in the coming days” whether “clarification of what this means” would be offered by “those in power” and the press corps.

The campaign to free Assange has burgeoned with admirable ferocity. The transformation of the WikiLeaks founder from eccentric, renegade cyber thief deserving punishment to prosecuted and persecuted scribbler and political prisoner has been astonishing.

The boggling legal process has also been shown up as woefully inadequate and scandalous, a form of long-term torture via judicial torment and deprivation. The current ludicrous pitstop entails waiting for a UK Court of Appeal decision as to whether Assange will be granted leave for a full reconsideration of his case, including the merits of the extradition order itself.

The March 26 Court of Appeal decision refused to entertain the glaringly obvious features of the case: that Assange is being prosecuted for his political views, that due process is bound to be denied in a country whose authorities have contemplated his abduction and murder, and that he risks being sentenced for conduct he is not charged with “based on evidence he will not see and which may have been unlawfully obtained.” The refusal to entertain such material as the Yahoo News article from September 2021 outlining the views of intelligence officials on kidnapping and assassination options again cast the entire affair in a poor light.

Even if Assange is granted a full hearing, it is not clear whether the court will go so far as to accept the arguments. The judges have already nobbled the case by offering US prosecutors the chance to offer undertakings, none of which would or could be binding on the DOJ or any US judge hearing the case. Extradition, in other words, is likely to be approved if Assange is “permitted to rely on the First Amendment”, “is not prejudiced at trial (including sentence) by reason of his nationality” and that he “is afforded the same First Amendment protection as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty not be imposed.” These conditions, on the face of it, look absurd in their naïve presumption.

Whether Biden’s latest casual spray lends any credibility to a change of heart remains to be seen. In December 2010, when Vice President in the Obama administration, Biden described Assange as a “high-tech terrorist” for disclosing State Department cables. He failed to identify any parallels with previous cases of disclosures such as the Pentagon papers.

Craig Murray, former British diplomat and Assange confidant, adds a note of cautious sobriety to the recent offering from the president: “I’m not going to get too hopeful immediately on a few words out of the mouth of Biden, because there has been no previous indication, nothing from the Justice Department so far to indicate any easing up.”

For all that, it may well be that the current administration, facing a relentless publicity campaign from human rights organisations, newspapers, legal and medical professionals, not to mention pressure from both his own party in Congress and Republicans, is finally yielding. Caution, however, is the order of the day, and nothing should be read or considered in earnest till signatures are inked and dried. We are quite a way off from that.

April 13, 2024 Posted by | civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR BRITAIN’S WEAPONS EXPORTS

WEAPONS MADE ON MY DOORSTEP ARE HELPING TO KILL PEOPLE IN GAZA

Amy Hall, 10 Apr 24,  https://newint.org/arms/2024/weapons-made-my-doorstep-are-helping-kill-people-gaza?utm_source=ni-email-whatcounts%20&utm_medium=1%20NI%20Global%20Master%20List1%20-%20enews%20-%20International%20AND%20North%20America&utm_campaign=2024-04-12%20enews

British voters want to stop arming Israel, so why are spineless politicians ignoring them, asks Amy Hall.

This week, Foreign Secretary David Cameron confirmed that the UK government will not join the handful of Western countries that have stopped sending arms to Israel. Weapons exports from the UK will continue. The majority of voters are in favour of a ban and three British aid workers were among the seven killed by an Israeli air strike last week. But for Cameron and his cronies, it’s business as usual.

Britain has a long-standing commitment to arming the violence of the Israeli state and its occupation of Palestine. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Britain licensed around $556 million worth of arms to Israel between 2015 and 2022.

Those of us in Britain who are devastated and incensed by the endless death and destruction in Gaza are apparently to take reassurance from Cameron’s insistence that government ministers have ‘grave concerns around the humanitarian access issue’ there.

But these concerns appear not to be grave enough to challenge Britain’s own arms industry and its role in Israel’s ongoing genocidal campaign on Gaza. The weapons manufacturing taking place in my city assures me of that. 

NO BOMBS FROM BRIGHTON’ 

Just a few kilometres from where I live in Brighton & Hove, on the South Coast of England, locals have set up a protest camp near to a factory that has been oiling the global war machine for many years. L3Harris makes bomb release mechanisms for F35 and F16 fighter jets, used by government armies including the Israeli Defence Forces.

Since 15 March, Brighton Peace Camp has been welcoming visitors, hosting everything from storytelling for kids to workshops on topics ranging from local antifascist history to Dabke, a Palestinian folk dance. The camp has also hosted an Iftar/Shabbat meal organized by Brighton and Hove Jews Against the Occupation.

‘We need to take every action in our power to stop the genocide in Gaza,’ said Sarah, from the group Brighton Against the Arms Trade. ‘We need to look at where the weapons are produced and disrupt the production and supply chain. L3Harris in Brighton is a critical part of that.

‘We demand a just transition towards the development of renewables, which must and can start now. Production at the factory must stop immediately and all components must be decommissioned.’

Local people have been campaigning against L3 Harris (formerly EDO MBM Technology Ltd) for decades. The company is now seeking to further solidify its mark on the city by making permanent an extension to its factory that was built in 2018. But thanks to intense opposition from local people, including some members of Parliament and city councillors, Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC) has been under pressure not to grant planning permission. Nearly 650 objections were submitted to the application.

The local campaign against the arms factory, StopL3Harris, is asking people to call on their political representatives to join the calls to refuse the planning request. It was due before BHCC’s planning committee in March but was delayed as the Council seeks legal advice. Two out three of the city’s MPs: the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas and Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle have submitted objections. The third MP, Labour representative Peter Kyle, has not.

Brighton is not the only British city where this kind of manufacturing is taking place. CAAT estimates that British industry makes 15 per cent of every F35 combat aircraft that Israel uses in its assault on Gaza. The campaign has mapped UK companies involved in manufacturing components for the F35 and estimates that the value of Britain’s supplies to be worth at least $422 million since 2016. 

EXPORTS TO ISRAEL CAN BE STOPPED

In response to growing pressure, a number of countries have already stopped sending arms to Israel. ‘Denmark and Canada have both recently ruled to halt arms sales to Israel – so why not the UK?’ said Marnie, a Brighton & Hove resident who is taking part in the Peace Camp.

In February, a court of appeal in the Netherlands ordered the Dutch government to stop arms exports to Israel within the F35 programme, stating that it would violate the EU Common Rules for Arms Exports and the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

The UN welcomed the decision and called for arms exports to Israel to ‘stop immediately’, as any transfer of weapons or ammunition that would be used in Gaza is likely to violate international humanitarian law.

More than 600 lawyers have also warned the British government that arms exports to Israel risk legal violations. A senior MP for the leading Conservative party has said that the government has kept under wraps advice from its own lawyers that Israel has broken international law.


Too many of our elected representatives seem to be living in a parallel universe, dismissive of international law and apparently unperturbed by the suffering of the Palestinian people.  Yet those of us who support a weapons ban, continue to watch in horror the endless stream of  videos of crying children carrying their dead siblings, images of skeletal children starved to death, and the massacres of civilians and aid workers in the simple act of delivering food.

Cameron should be more than ‘concerned’ about the six children killed each day during the current offensive in Gaza. If our politicians were serious about the humanitarian situation, our politicians would be pushing for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, an end to the blockade of the Gaza strip, and an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

Until then, as the money keeps flowing and the bombs keep dropping, we will continue to march, boycott, protest, donate, camp and cry until Palestine is free.

April 13, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hunterston: Scottish National Party see no nuclear future due to terrorism risk.

Largs and Millport, 11th April, By Calum Corral @CalumCorral, Senior Reporter

The SNP has warned of a possible terrorism risk in North Ayrshire if Scotland were to return to nuclear power.

 The warning came after one of the party’s North Ayrshire Council opponents raised a motion asking the authority to back calls to consider Hunterston and Ardeer as sites for
‘small modular nuclear reactors’ (SMRs). Todd Ferguson (Conservative, North
Coast) lodged a motion asking that the council’s chief executive write to
the UK Government asking them to consider the two North Ayrshire sites for
SMR developments, “thereby protecting our excellent nuclear workforce and
providing vital employment for generations to come.”

During the debate in the council chamber, Councillor Eleanor Collier (SNP, North Coast) praised the contribution of Hunterston A and B nuclear power stations to the
Scottish electricity supply since 1964 and 1976 respectively.

But she said it was “time to move to a safer more acceptable zero carbon alternatives to
meet our energy requirements and look at renewable employment
opportunities”. Cllr Collier added: “The Scottish Government is clear that
nuclear power is not wanted nor needed. “The objective of energy policy is
to progressively increase the generation of renewables and clean energy and
renewables to migrate away from dependency on nuclear power.

“I think we all know that nuclear power generation is more expensive than renewables,
and it leaves the problem of nuclear waste and how to deal with the
redundant facilities afterwards. There are inherent risks with the
process.

“It is important to note that Sellafield [in Cumbria] has shut its
doors to taking in spent nuclear fuel rods, so if we did have nuclear rods
to deal with they would have to be disposed of locally, not to mention the
risk of theft and misuse by terrorists of uranium products.

“There are many questions around the cost effectiveness and safety of these new SMR
designs. “SMRs are smaller, but because of that they lose the economy of
scale, and the unit price rises.” Cllr Collier also cited scientific
studies which stated that SMRs generate more radioactive waste than
conventional nuclear power stations, and use more plutonium.

She said that zero carbon and renewables were the way ahead for Hunterston and pointed to the £1.4bn XLCC cable manufacturing project, which is projected to bring
900 jobs to the area over the coming years. Conservative councillor Tom
Marshall said; “We are talking about a climate change emergency. “The
Scottish Government is missing its targets, but nuclear power could help
meet those targets.

 Largs & Millport Weekly News 11th April 2024

https://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/24245944.hunterston-snp-see-no-nuclear-future-due-terrorism-risk

 **CoRWM**

 CoRWM Minutes of Meeting 12th Sept 2023.

 CoRWM 11th April 2024

Click to access corwm-open-plenary-minutes-12-september-2023.pdf

 CoRWM Minutes of Meeting 28th November 2023 CoRWM 11th April 2024

Click to access corwm-open-plenary-minutes-28-november-2023.pdf

April 13, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C joins Community Interest Company “Passion for Somerset”

MNR Journal, By Jacob Manuschka, AI Assisted Reporter, 11th April

A NUCLEAR power station that will provide zero-carbon electricity has joined a not-for-profit Somerset organisation as a principal partner.

Hinkley Point C, the first in a new generation of nuclear power stations providing electricity for around six million homes, has teamed up with Passion for Somerset.

Passion for Somerset is a not-for-profit Community Interest Company that works with individuals, communities and businesses throughout the county.

Stacy Walker, Hinkley Point C stakeholder relations manager, said: “Britain’s new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C has seen another year of incredible engineering from under the seabed to the top of the world’s largest land-based crane, Big Carl…………………………………  https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/24246032.hinkley-point-c-joins-passion-somerset-organisation/

April 13, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza

thousands of Palestinians — most of them women and children or people who were not involved in the fighting — were wiped out by Israeli airstrikes, especially during the first weeks of the war, because of the AI program’s decisions.

The Israeli army has marked tens of thousands of Gazans as suspects for assassination, using an AI targeting system with little human oversight and a permissive policy for casualties, +972 and Local Call reveal.

By Yuval Abraham, April 3, 202, + 972 Magazine,

In 2021, a book titled “The Human-Machine Team: How to Create Synergy Between Human and Artificial Intelligence That Will Revolutionize Our World” was released in English under the pen name “Brigadier General Y.S.” In it, the author — a man who we confirmed to be the current commander of the elite Israeli intelligence unit 8200 — makes the case for designing a special machine that could rapidly process massive amounts of data to generate thousands of potential “targets” for military strikes in the heat of a war. Such technology, he writes, would resolve what he described as a “human bottleneck for both locating the new targets and decision-making to approve the targets.”

Such a machine, it turns out, actually exists. A new investigation by +972 Magazine and Local Call reveals that the Israeli army has developed an artificial intelligence-based program known as “Lavender,” unveiled here for the first time. According to six Israeli intelligence officers, who have all served in the army during the current war on the Gaza Strip and had first-hand involvement with the use of AI to generate targets for assassination, Lavender has played a central role in the unprecedented bombing of Palestinians, especially during the early stages of the war. In fact, according to the sources, its influence on the military’s operations was such that they essentially treated the outputs of the AI machine “as if it were a human decision.”

Formally, the Lavender system is designed to mark all suspected operatives in the military wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), including low-ranking ones, as potential bombing targets. The sources told +972 and Local Call that, during the first weeks of the war, the army almost completely relied on Lavender, which clocked as many as 37,000 Palestinians as suspected militants — and their homes — for possible air strikes.

During the early stages of the war, the army gave sweeping approval for officers to adopt Lavender’s kill lists, with no requirement to thoroughly check why the machine made those choices or to examine the raw intelligence data on which they were based. One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. This was despite knowing that the system makes what are regarded as “errors” in approximately 10 percent of cases, and is known to occasionally mark individuals who have merely a loose connection to militant groups, or no connection at all.

Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

The result, as the sources testified, is that thousands of Palestinians — most of them women and children or people who were not involved in the fighting — were wiped out by Israeli airstrikes, especially during the first weeks of the war, because of the AI program’s decisions.

“We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,” A., an intelligence officer, told +972 and Local Call. “On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.”

The Lavender machine joins another AI system, “The Gospel,” about which information was revealed in a previous investigation by +972 and Local Call in November 2023, as well as in the Israeli military’s own publications. A fundamental difference between the two systems is in the definition of the target: whereas The Gospel marks buildings and structures that the army claims militants operate from, Lavender marks people — and puts them on a kill list. 

In addition, according to the sources, when it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers. Another source said that they had personally authorized the bombing of “hundreds” of private homes of alleged junior operatives marked by Lavender, with many of these attacks killing civilians and entire families as “collateral damage.”

The following investigation is organized according to the six chronological stages of the Israeli army’s highly automated target production in the early weeks of the Gaza war. First, we explain the Lavender machine itself, which marked tens of thousands of Palestinians using AI. Second, we reveal the “Where’s Daddy?” system, which tracked these targets and signaled to the army when they entered their family homes. Third, we describe how “dumb” bombs were chosen to strike these homes. 

Fourth, we explain how the army loosened the permitted number of civilians who could be killed during the bombing of a target. Fifth, we note how automated software inaccurately calculated the amount of non-combatants in each household. And sixth, we show how on several occasions, when a home was struck, usually at night, the individual target was sometimes not inside at all, because military officers did not verify the information in real time.

STEP 1: GENERATING TARGETS

‘Once you go automatic, target generation goes crazy

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… once the list was expanded to include tens of thousands of lower-ranking operatives, the Israeli army figured it had to rely on automated software and artificial intelligence. The result, the sources testify, was that the role of human personnel in incriminating Palestinians as military operatives was pushed aside, and AI did most of the work instead……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

STEP 2: LINKING TARGETS TO FAMILY HOMES

‘Most of the people you killed were women and children’

…………………………… in the case of systematic assassination strikes, the army routinely made the active choice to bomb suspected militants when inside civilian households from which no military activity took place.

…………………………………………………….. these programs track thousands of individuals simultaneously, identify when they are at home, and send an automatic alert to the targeting officer, who then marks the house for bombing. One of several of these tracking softwares, revealed here for the first time, is called “Where’s Daddy?” 

………………………………. Evidence of this policy is also clear from the data: during the first month of the war, more than half of the fatalities — 6,120 people — belonged to 1,340 families, many of which were completely wiped out while inside their homes, according to UN figures. 

………………………………….. “In the end it was everyone [marked by Lavender],” one source explained. “Tens of thousands…………………………. Lavender and systems like Where’s Daddy? were thus combined with deadly effect, killing entire families, sources said………………………………………………

STEP 3: CHOOSING A WEAPON

‘We usually carried out the attacks with “dumb bombs”’

……………………………. In December 2023, CNN reported that according to U.S. intelligence estimates, about 45 percent of the munitions used by the Israeli air force in Gaza were “dumb” bombs, which are known to cause more collateral damage than guided bombs.

…………………….. we usually carried out the attacks with dumb bombs, and that meant literally destroying the whole house on top of its occupants. But even if an attack is averted, you don’t care — you immediately move on to the next target. Because of the system, the targets never end. You have another 36,000 waiting.”

STEP 4: AUTHORIZING CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

‘We attacked almost without considering collateral damage’

…………………………………………………………………………….. Sources told +972 and Local Call that now, partly due to American pressure, the Israeli army is no longer mass-generating junior human targets for bombing in civilian homes. The fact that most homes in the Gaza Strip were already destroyed or damaged, and almost the entire population has been displaced, also impaired the army’s ability to rely on intelligence databases and automated house-locating programs. 

……………………………………………………………………………… ‘Entire families were killed’

Intelligence sources told +972 and Local Call they took part in even deadlier strikes. In order to assassinate Ayman Nofal, the commander of Hamas’ Central Gaza Brigade, a source said the army authorized the killing of approximately 300 civilians, destroying several buildings in airstrikes on Al-Bureij refugee camp on Oct. 17, based on an imprecise pinpointing of Nofal.

………………………………………………………………………………………………… Such a high rate of “collateral damage” is exceptional not only compared to what the Israeli army previously deemed acceptable, but also compared to the wars waged by the United States in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. ……………………………………………………………………………

STEP 5: CALCULATING COLLATERAL DAMAGE

‘The model was not connected to reality’

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… “the collateral damage calculation was completely automatic and statistical” — even producing figures that were not whole numbers.

STEP 6: BOMBING A FAMILY HOME

‘You killed a family for no reason’

The sources who spoke to +972 and Local Call explained that there was sometimes a substantial gap between the moment that tracking systems like Where’s Daddy? alerted an officer that a target had entered their house, and the bombing itself — leading to the killing of whole families even without hitting the army’s target. “It happened to me many times that we attacked a house, but the person wasn’t even home,” one source said. “The result is that you killed a family for no reason.”……………………………………………………………………. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

April 12, 2024 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Mutually Reinforcing U.S. and Israeli Empires

By Ralph Nader, April 5, 2024,  https://nader.org/2024/04/05/the-mutually-reinforcing-u-s-and-israeli-empires/

The U.S. government’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s annihilation of Gaza – torrents of heavy weaponry, diplomatic and political cover, and vast majorities in Congress swearing fealty to Netanyahu’s extremist regime – is usually attributed to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the powerful domestic pro-Israeli government lobby, organized in every Congressional District, with its abundant campaign cash and its many personal contacts in Congress and the Executive Branch.

This is only a partial explanation of the US-Israel alliance. A far more formidably entrenched factor is that Israel and the U.S. have overlapping Empires – one in the Middle East and the other globally – with deep common purposes. Here are some examples of how these empires operate in tandem.

Both Empires violate international laws with impunity. The U.S. sends special forces, drones, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, anywhere and anytime it wants – especially the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. National boundaries and sovereignty mean nothing. Similarly, Israel completely dominates the Middle East militarily, bombing, sabotaging, and killing whomever it wants in neighboring countries. It has attacked Lebanon and Syria routinely with its air force, artillery, and invaded Lebanon on the ground, prompting feeble responses it always labels “terrorism.”

Both Empires consider every military operation defensive. They say they never conduct offensive attacks, but when they do, they invariably describe them as self-defense. Israel slaughters Palestinians decade after decade in the Palestinian territories while claiming self-defense. With the second most modern military in the world, backed by the U.S., Israel invades, engages in nightly destruction of Palestinian homes, seizes Palestinian land and water for their colonies, imprisons thousands without charges, including women and children, inflicts collective punishment, operates many checkpoints and imposes embargoes, sieges and blockades. All of these unlawful actions are claimed to be taken in the name of self-defense.

The U.S. has 750 military bases in over 80 countries, 26 military installations in the Middle East, runs the provocative NATO military alliance, and digs into the South China Sea. All this is also claimed to be done in the name of self-defense.

Both Empires have collaborating military-industrial complexes and are major arms exporters. As the chief innovator in weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. and its companies like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing welcome feedback from the Israeli military on how their weapons fare in its attacks. Palestine has become a major testing ground for the most super-modern surveillance technology. (Check out the book, The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World by Antony Loewenstein, 2023).

Both Empires wield “force projection” as atomic bomb powers, though Israel refuses to join the non-proliferation treaty.

Despite their many wars and raids on defenseless populations, both incurred a rare counter-attack (9/11 & October 7) when advance warnings by advisors were ignored (GW Bush and Netanyahu) and military defenses were AWOL. After being attacked, both Empires went berserk and responded with massive killing of civilians by overwhelming invasions.

Both Empires lie repeatedly regarding their tactics and strategies. Recall Rep. Ron Paul’s terse recognition that Bush and Cheney “lied us into invading Iraq.”

Both Empires control the United Nations Security Council with the U.S. veto shielding whatever Israel does. Both occupy or control land that is not theirs, violating international laws.

Both Empires violate their legal duty as occupiers to protect the civilian population’s well-being. Both have restricted humanitarian assistance and critical civilian imports – Israel savagely in Gaza and Palestine, and the U.S. in Iraq under Bill Clinton. Both decline to estimate their aggregate civilian casualties.

Both Empires’ leaders, Biden and Netanyahu, profess to practice their respective religions, though they are violating the basic precepts of both their religions in implementing their violent wars.

Both Empires spend little time pressing for ceasefires, peace negotiations, and the stability of peace treaties. They find such restraints as unacceptable curbs on their freedom to wage war.

Both Empires, contrary to their fundamental juridical documents, in the case of the U.S., our Constitution, operate as elected dictatorships in conducting military and foreign policy. The Congress and the Knesset become supine and surrender to the Executive and, for Israel, the ruling executive coalition. In the U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court has long ruled that no citizens of our country, not even individual members of Congress, “have legal standing to sue” the U.S. government for either initiating illegal wars or engaging in additional illegal tactics like torture or corruption.

To remove the challenges from “We the People” against a lawless government, the Supreme Court has endorsed the “state secrets” doctrine. It authorizes the government to demand the dismissal of constitutional claims, in federal court, based on killings, torture, kidnapping, or otherwise by alleging the defense would require disclosure of national security information.

The Israeli Supreme Court doesn’t worry about the Israeli military machine.

Both Empires have a so-called free mainstream media that mostly toes the Empire party line and knows its permissible place in the overall profit-making power structure. Both have a small independent media that is still able to dissent, however futilely, though the U.S. has no counterpart to the outspoken Israeli newspaper HAARETZ.

There are some differences between the two Empires. Israel attacked the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171, and mostly got away without consequences. (See, The Intercept article: Fifty Years Later, NSA Keeps Details of Israel’s USS Liberty Attack Secret by Miriam Pensack).

Prosperous Israel persuades the U.S. Congress yearly to provide Israel with billions of dollars, mostly for military arms, and is about to get an additional $14.1 billion – the Biden genocide tax on Americans – as Netanyahu’s terror state continues intensifying his Palestinian Holocaust. (The reported casualty toll is lethally undercounted. See the March 5, 2024 column: “Stop the Worsening UNDERCOUNT of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza”).

If Biden’s people privately object to some Israeli off-the-wall slaughter of courageous journalists, United Nations staff, aid workers, patients in hospitals, and the starvation of babies, Netanyahu can softly say to Biden and Blinken, “Joe, Tony, why don’t you take up your complaints with OUR Congress.”

April 12, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Space Command adopts multipronged approach to prepare for ‘a conflict that has never happened’

April 9, 2024, Sandra Erwin.  https://spacenews.com/u-s-space-command-adopts-multipronged-approach-to-prepare-for-a-conflict-that-has-never-happened/

COLORADO SPRINGS – U.S. Space Command seeks to expand international collaboration by inviting Germany, France and New Zealand to join Operation Olympic Defender. Olympic Defender, a U.S.-led initiative to jointly strengthen defenses and deter hostility, already includes England, Australia and Canada.

“We share intelligence, we plan together and work to ensure space is safe for all,” Gen. Stephen Whiting, commander of U.S. Space Command,­ said April 9 at the 39th Space Symposium here. “We’re working to even improve our integration through improved command and control and planning. I’ve been proud to work alongside Germany, France and New Zealand for many years, and I look forward to their consideration of our invitation to join Operation Olympic Defender.”

Preparing for military operations with U.S. allies and partners is one of U.S. Space Command’s top priorities.  

Other priorities for the Colorado-based organization are making its constellations more resilient, defending them against a growing array of threats, protecting the joint force from space-enabled attack, and conducting tests and training “that convinces us that these capabilities will work in a conflict which has never happened,” Whiting said.

Strategic Competition

As the combatant command responsible for military operations in outer space, U.S. Space Command is closely tracking military moves by China and Russia.

China is rapidly expanding space-based intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities, and building a “range of counterspace weapons from reversible jamming all the way up to kinetic hit-to-kill direct-ascent and co-orbital” anti-satellite weapons, Whiting said.

Russia, meanwhile, “continues to invest in counterspace weapons,” Whiting said. “Russia appears more and more to be relying on asymmetric capabilities like space, cyber and nuclear.”

2027 Deadline

U.S. Space Command is focused on maximizing combat readiness by 2027.

“All of us at U.S. Space Command are laser-focused on improving all of our existing forces and capabilities, so that we can stitch them together seamlessly when called upon,” Whiting said.

U.S. Space Command also intends to draw on commercial space technology.

“Our commercial industry will deliver innovative state-of-the-art capabilities,” Whiting said. “We have to modernize our legacy systems, ensure they all work together seamlessly and deliver new capabilities by 2027 to counter the threats that we now see.”

Beyond 2027

At the same time, U.S. Space Command is eager to adopt technology that is likely to pay off in the longer term.

“It’s time to bring dynamic space operations and on-orbit logistics and infrastructure to the space domain,” Whiting said. “Sustained space maneuver will change how we operate, opening up new tactics, techniques, procedures and operating concepts, and allowing operations until the mission is complete, not until the fuel we launched with runs out.”

With an eye toward future conflict, U.S. Space Command also is expanding its reliance on modeling and simulation.

Whiting announced that Space Command’s Capability Assessment and Validation Environment, a modeling and simulation laboratory known as CAVE, has achieved minimum viable capability.

CAVE “enables us to perform analysis on warfighting, on plans, on campaigning,” Whiting said. Space Command will rely on CAVE to help plan “operations for a war that’s never happened and a war we don’t want to happen. We’ll also use it to figure out our combatant command requirements and gain insights into multi-domain joint-warfighting concepts.”

April 12, 2024 Posted by | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »