US congressional report explores option of not delivering any Aukus nuclear submarines to Australia.
COMMENT – What a typical USA plan?
They reneg on delivering the “goods” sold, but keep the $368 billion!
the Congressional Research report describes an alternative “military division of labour”, under which the US would not sell any Virginia-class submarines to Australia.
Report offers alternative of the US navy retaining boats and operating them out of Australian bases
Ben Doherty, Guardian, 6 Feb 26
A new United States congressional report openly contemplates not selling any nuclear submarines to Australia – as promised under the Aukus agreement – because America wants to retain control of the submarines for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan.
The report by the US Congressional Research Service, Congress’s policy research arm, posits an alternative “military division of labour” under which the submarines earmarked for sale to Australia are instead retained under US command to be sailed out of Australian bases.
One of the arguments made against the US selling submarines to Australia is that Australia has refused to commit to supporting America in a conflict with China over Taiwan. Boats under US command could be deployed into that conflict.
The report, released on 26 January, cites statements from the Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, and the chief of navy that Australia would make “no promises … that Australia would support the United States” in the event of war with China over Taiwan.
“Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs [nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarines] to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that would be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict,” the report argues.
“This could weaken rather than strengthen deterrence and warfighting capability in connection with a US-China crisis or conflict.”
Under the existing Aukus “optimal pathway’, Australia will first buy between three and five Virginia-class nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines, the first in 2032.
Following that, the first of eight Australian-built Aukus submarines, based on a UK design, is slated to be in the water “in the early 2040s”.
But the Congressional Research report describes an alternative “military division of labour”, under which the US would not sell any Virginia-class submarines to Australia.
The boats not sold to Australia “would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia” alongside US and UK attack submarines already planned to rotate through Australian bases.
The report speculated Australia could use the money saved to invest on other defence capabilities, even using those capabilities as a subordinate force in support of US missions.
“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities – such as … long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers … or systems for defending Australia against attack … so as to create an Australian capacity for performing other missions, including non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States.”
The report also raises cybersecurity concerns, noting that “hackers linked to China” are “highly active” in attempting to penetrate Australian government and contractors’ computers.
It argues that sharing nuclear submarine technology with another country “would increase the attack surface, meaning the number of potential digital and physical entry points that China, Russia, or some other country could attempt to penetrate to gain access to that technology”.
The debate over whether the US should sell boats to Australia is also grounded in ongoing concern over low rates of shipbuilding in the US: the country’s shipyards are failing to build enough submarines to supply America’s own navy, let alone build boats for Australia.
For the past 15 years, the US Navy has ordered boats at a rate of two a year, but its shipyards have never met that build rate “and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built”.
The US fleet currently has only three-quarters of the submarines it needs (49 boats of a force-level goal of 66). Shipyards need to build Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year to meet America’s own needs, and to lift that to 2.33 boats a year in order to be able to supply submarines to Australia.
Legislation passed by the US Congress prohibits the sale of any submarine to Australia if the US needs it for its own fleet. The US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities”.
The report argues that Australia’s strict nuclear non-proliferation laws could also weaken US submarine force projection under the current Aukus plan.
Australian officials have consistently told US counterparts that, in adherence to Australia’s commitments as a non-nuclear weapon state under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Australia’s attack submarines can only ever be armed with conventional weapons.
“Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that could in the future be armed with the US nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile with an aim of enhancing deterrence,” the report states……………………………………………………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/not-delivering-any-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia-explored-as-option-in-us-congressional-report
Iran’s mysterious Pickaxe Mountain a ‘candidate’ for new nuclear activities
By Annika Burgess, ABC, 7 Feb 26
Hidden among the mountains in central Iran, work has been continuing on a mysterious underground facility believed to be buried beyond the range of US “bunker buster” bombs.
The site, known as Pickaxe Mountain, or Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, has never been accessed by international nuclear inspectors, and its exact purpose remains unclear.
Analysts monitoring its development via satellite imagery have witnessed security walls growing, spoil piles expanding and tunnel entrances being reinforced as engineers dig deeper into the mountain.
“We don’t have internal schematics to really judge what the inside will look like,” says Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the US Institute for Science and International Security.
“But given the size of the spoil piles, the amount of construction they’re doing, it wouldn’t be incomprehensible to see them establish an enrichment facility inside it.”
Located near the peak of the Zagros Mountains, the site is just 1.6 kilometres south of Natanz, which was Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility.
But Pickaxe Mountain was not affected when Natanz and two other key Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordow and Isfahan — were targeted in US strikes that aimed to disrupt Tehran from potentially developing nuclear bombs.
US President Donald Trump said the three sites were “obliterated” in the June 2025 attacks, but has renewed demands for Iran to make a deal over its nuclear program or face fresh strikes that would be “far worse”.
Negotiators from both countries held indirect talks in Oman on Friday, with Iran’s top diplomat striking a cautiously optimistic note after their conclusion.
However, the US delegation, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Mr Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, did not offer any immediate comment.
Recent assessments show Tehran’s nuclear program was severely damaged by the US during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, but it could be built up again.
And satellite imagery revealed Pickaxe Mountain could be a “potential candidate” for new uranium enrichment activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Where are the uranium stockpiles?
Iran’s stockpiles of 60 per cent enriched uranium remain missing.
Trucks observed outside Fordow and Isfahan before and after the US strikes suggested Iran may have moved the material.
But the IAEA director said there was a “general understanding” the enriched uranium was likely still buried under the damaged facilities.
“We need to go back there and to confirm that the material is there and it’s not being diverted to any other use,” Mr Grossi said in October…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-07/iran-nuclear-sites-program-us-strikes-pickaxe-mountain-uranium/106288446
No evidence to support US claim China conducted nuclear blast test: Monitor
Robert Floyd, executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, said in a statement on Friday that the body’s monitoring system “did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion” at the time of the alleged Chinese test, adding that that assessment remains unchanged after further detailed analyses.
Washington wants Beijing to join a new nuclear weapons treaty after expiration of the New START accord between the US and Russia.
By Al Jazeera and News Agencies, 6 Feb 26, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/7/no-evidence-to-support-us-claim-china-conducted-nuclear-blast-test-monitor
An international monitor said it has seen no evidence to support the claim by a senior United States official who accused China of carrying out a series of clandestine nuclear tests in 2020 and concealing activities that violated nuclear test ban treaties.
US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno made the assertions about China at a United Nations disarmament conference in Geneva, Switzerland, on Friday, just days after a nuclear treaty with Russia expired.
“I can reveal that the US government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tonnes,” DiNanno said at the conference.
China’s military “sought to conceal testing by obfuscating the nuclear explosions because it recognised these tests violate test ban commitments,” he said.
“China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020,” he said.
DiNanno also made his allegations on social media in a series of posts, making the case for “new architecture” in nuclear weapons control agreements following the expiration of the New START treaty with Russia this week.
“New START was signed in 2010 and its limits on warheads and launchers are no longer relevant in 2026 when one nuclear power is expanding its arsenal at a scale and pace not seen in over half a century and another continues to maintain and develop a vast range of nuclear systems unconstrained by New START’s terms,” he said.
Robert Floyd, executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, said in a statement on Friday that the body’s monitoring system “did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion” at the time of the alleged Chinese test, adding that that assessment remains unchanged after further detailed analyses.
China’s ambassador on nuclear disarmament, Shen Jian, did not directly address DiNanno’s charge at the conference but said Beijing had always acted prudently and responsibly on nuclear issues while the US had “continued to distort and smear China’s national defence capabilities in its statements”.
We firmly oppose this false narrative and reject the US’s unfounded accusations,” Shen said.
“In fact, the US’s series of negative actions in the field of nuclear arms control are the biggest source of risk to international security,” he said.
Later on social media, Shen said, “China has always honored its commitment to the moratorium on nuclear testing”.
Diplomats at the conference said the US allegations were new and concerning.
China, like the US, has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bans explosive nuclear tests. Russia signed and ratified it, but withdrew its ratification in 2023.
US President Donald Trump has previously instructed the US military to prepare for the resumption of nuclear tests, stating that other countries are conducting them without offering details.
The US president said on October 31 that Washington would start testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with Moscow and Beijing, but without elaborating or explaining what kind of nuclear testing he wanted to resume.
He has also said that he would like China to be involved in any future nuclear treaty, but authorities in Beijing have shown little interest in his proposal.
Possibility of US ever selling Australia nuclear submarines is increasingly remote, Aukus critics say.
“The Aukus deal is a very attractive one for the Americans because they get a submarine base and dockyard at Australia’s expense in Western Australia, and they do not have any obligation to sell any Virginia-class submarines to us unless their navy can spare them.
“If the US say ‘there are no subs for you Australia’, it is not reneging on the deal: that is the deal, that is what Australia signed up to. That’s why it’s always been a bad deal for Australia.”
“The Australian government seems to be engaged in an exercise of denial: whenever these figures come out they have apologists who say ‘everything’s fine, there’s nothing see here’.
Malcolm Turnbull says government is ‘engaged in an exercise of denial’, as defence minister insists $368bn deal is ‘full steam ahead’
Ben Doherty, 6 Feb 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-us-australia
Australia’s submarine agency insists the Aukus agreement is progressing “at pace and on schedule”, but sceptics of the $368bn deal argue the chances of the US ever selling promised Virginia-class submarines to Australia are increasingly remote.
The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has said the Australian government is engaged “in an exercise of denial” about the parlous state of Aukus’s progress, while the Greens senator David Shoebridge said the deal was a “pantomime”, hopelessly one-sided in the US’s favour.
A new United States congressional report has openly contemplated the US navy not selling any nuclear submarines to Australia – as promised under Aukus – because the US wants to retain control of the submarines for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan.
The US fleet currently has only three-quarters of the submarines it needs (49 boats of a force-level goal of 66). Shipyards need to build Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year to meet the US’s own needs, and to lift that to 2.33 boats a year in order to be able to supply submarines to Australia.
Legislation passed by the US Congress prohibits the sale of any submarine to Australia if the US needs it for its own fleet. The US commander in chief – the president of the day – must certify that the US relinquishing a submarine “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities”.
Turnbull said US shipbuilding rates had “remained stubbornly set at that low level for a long time, despite many billions of dollars of extra investment”, and that expecting build rates to almost double within a couple of years in order to supply Australia with vessels was unrealistic.
“The Australian government seems to be engaged in an exercise of denial: whenever these figures come out they have apologists who say ‘everything’s fine, there’s nothing see here’.”
The January report by the US Congressional Research Service, Congress’s policy research arm, posits an alternative “military division of labour” under which the submarines earmarked for sale to Australia are instead retained under US command to be sailed out of Australian bases.
The report argues both for and against the US selling three Virginia-class submarines to Australia, beginning in 2032. But it makes the case that, in the event of a “conflict or crisis” with China over Taiwan, submarines under Australian command could not be ordered into operation, whereas US-commanded vessels, operated out of Australian bases, could be immediately deployed. Australia has consistently maintained it could offer no guarantees of supporting the US in a conflict with China.
“This could weaken rather than strengthen deterrence and warfighting capability in connection with a US-China crisis or conflict,” the report says.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, dismissed the report as “commentary” when asked on Thursday, insisting Aukus was “full steam ahead”.
“You’re going to hear a whole lot of commentary at the end of the day from the US Congress,” Marles said.
“We’ve heard the US president make clear the position of the United States in respect of this question, and he has said that we are full steam ahead in respect of this, and it includes the transfer of the Virginias.”
A spokesperson for the Australian Submarine Agency told the Guardian that Aukus remained firmly in the strategic interests of its three partners – Australia, the US and the UK – and that “Australia’s commitment to the Aukus partnership is unwavering”.
“All three Aukus partners are investing significantly in our respective industrial bases to ensure the success of Aukus, to meet respective requirements and timelines, including the delivery of three Virginia-class submarines to Australia by the US.”
The spokesperson said Aukus was progressing “at pace and on schedule”.
“The optimal pathway has been designed to ensure a methodical, safe and secure transition from Australian conventional submarines, drawing on more than 70 years’ experience and expertise of our Aukus partners in the safe and effective operation of naval nuclear propulsion.”
Turnbull: ‘It’s always been a bad deal for Australia’
Politically, in the US the Aukus agreement won approval from a Pentagon review last year, which supported the deal continuing. President Donald Trump – who won’t be the president to decide whether or not to sell US submarines to Australia – told reporters the deal was “full steam ahead”.
But Turnbull, the prime minister whose deal to buy submarines from the French group Naval was torn up by Scott Morrison in favour of Aukus, has long argued the Aukus agreement has always been irretrievably lop-sided in the US’s favour.
“The Aukus deal is a very attractive one for the Americans because they get a submarine base and dockyard at Australia’s expense in Western Australia, and they do not have any obligation to sell any Virginia-class submarines to us unless their navy can spare them.
“If the US say ‘there are no subs for you Australia’, it is not reneging on the deal: that is the deal, that is what Australia signed up to. That’s why it’s always been a bad deal for Australia.”
The congressional research report highlighted, again, the lagging rates of US shipbuilding.
For the past 15 years, the US navy has ordered Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year, but its shipyards have never met that build rate “and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built”.
Senator David Shoebridge, the Greens’ defence and foreign affairs spokesperson, said the US’s division of labour proposal exposed the “pantomime” that the Aukus agreement was concerned with Australia’s defence.
“No matter what flag is painted on the side of any nuclear submarines Australia gets, they will be US-controlled and US-directed.
“Critics of Aukus have always assumed that the US will not hand over any nuclear submarines unless Australia guarantees they will use them in a US war with China. This report now confirms this is the dominant view in Washington.”
Shoebridge said the Aukus deal was dangerously compromising Australian sovereignty to US interests, at the cost of billions in public funds.
“The fact that Trump, with his ‘America first’ approach to squeezing and humiliating US allies, is willing to press on with Aukus tells you all you need to know about the one-sided deal. If Trump wants it, we should resist it.”.
NASA wants a nuclear reactor on the Moon. What would happen during a meltdown?
With NASA announcing plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon, what would happen if a meltdown strikes?
Hayley Bennett, BBC Science Focus, February 7, 2026
NASA has announced plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon – a milestone that could power future lunar bases and long-term missions. But it also raises some big questions.
How much will it cost? Will someone need to stay up there to operate it? And, for the doom-mongers among us, what happens if it fails?……………………………………………………………………
its demise is a fascinating hypothetical.
What if it blew up?
We’ve really no idea what a nuclear meltdown on the Moon would look like – and, with current plans, there’s no indication it would even be big enough to be considered a meltdown.
But we can speculate, of course. It’s not just the size of the reactor that determines what happens if it blows – it’s the environment.
A reactor accident on the Moon would unfold very differently to one on Earth.
As the Moon has no atmosphere, no weather and one-sixth of Earth’s gravity, we might expect that instead of the explosion, mushroom cloud and aftershock (triggered by reactions with molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere) it would be something somewhat less dramatic.
Instead, the reactor might simply overheat, perhaps producing an initial flash, then a glowing pool of molten metal that cools and solidifies in silence.
That’s not to say that such an event wouldn’t be dangerous for anyone manning the station. They would still be exposed to a strong surge in radiation.
That radiation would still be dangerous nearby, but without air or wind to carry radioactive dust, fallout would remain largely local.
A near miss
Thankfully, we don’t have a better answer to the question, though we might have done if certain US scientists had got their way back in the 1950s.
Project A119 was a secret plan to drop a hydrogen bomb on the Moon as part of the escalating ‘space race’ between the US and the Soviet Union.
Fortunately, it never really got beyond the planning stage. https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/moon-nuclear-reactor-meltdown
In nuclear race with Russia, Trump goes back to a Cold War future
After letting New START expire, Trump threatens to replace the era of arms control with a new arms race against Russia and China.
Aaron Maté, Feb 07, 2026
As if the lingering prospect of a new attack on Iran is not dangerous enough, the Trump administration is toying with a greater threat to global security.
With Thursday’s expiration of the New START treaty, the US and Russia no longer have any legal constraints on their arsenals of nuclear weapons. President Trump let the treaty collapse rather than accept a Kremlin offer to extend for one year, the maximum possible. This removes the last formal constraint on a renewed arms race between two states that already can destroy the world many times over.
There are unconfirmed reports that the two sides have reached an informal understanding to observe the treaty’s terms for at least six months. And, in a rare sign of progress, Moscow and Washington have announced a resumption of high-level military-to-military dialogue. The Biden administration suspended those contacts in late 2021 as Russia built up its forces on Ukraine’s borders.
Yet the news is far from reassuring…………………………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.aaronmate.net/p/in-nuclear-race-with-russia-trump?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=187111056&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Northwatch Comments on the NWMO’s Initial Project Description of a Proposed Deep Geological Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste
7 Feb 26, https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88774/contributions/id/64898
The following points summarize Northwatch’s comments on the NWMO’s Initial Project Description of a Proposed Deep Geological Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste to be located at the Revell site in Treaty 3 territory in northwestern Ontario:
- NWMO’s Deep Geological Repository Project should be designated for a full impact assessment and public hearing
- The long-distance transportation of nuclear fuel waste from the reactor stations to the proposed repository site must be included in the impact assessment
- NWMO’s Initial Project Description is inadequate and does not provide the information required, including and particularly it does not sufficiently describe or otherwise demonstrate that it has adequately examined alternatives to the project or alternative means of carrying out the project, and the IPD largely goes off course in its description of the need and purpose of the project.
- As directed by the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act the need or purpose of the project is to effectively isolate the nuclear fuel wastes from people and the environment.
- The NWMO has not provided a clear statement of the need and purpose for the project, and when it discussed the need and purpose of the project in its IPD it muddied the waters by including unsupported promotional statements and out-of-scope policy statements about the future role of nuclear power.
- Instead of setting out careful consideration of alternative means of meeting the project need (to safely contain and isolate the nuclear fuel waste from people and the environment) the NWMO simply summarized some aspects of their 2003 studies. The IPD should include a contemporary assessment of alternative means of meeting the project need.
- The NWMO’s consideration of alternative means of carrying out the project is too limited; the alternative means examination should also include alternative sites, alternatives in repository access (ramp vs shaft), transportation in used fuel containers instead of in transportation packages, the alternative means of in-water transfer of used fuel at repository site (vs “in air” ie. in hot cells), alternative mining methods, alternatives in waste emplacement (in-room vs in-floor) and alternatives in used fuel container design
- The NWMO’s description of the project and project activities is too limited, and at times is promotional rather than factual in its approach.
- The NWMO has misrepresented the fuel waste inventory, upon which repository size, years of operation, and resulting degrees of risk and contamination all hinge.
- The NWMO excluded the first step in their project, which is the transfer of the used fuel waste from dry storage containers into transportation containers at the reactor site; this is consistent with past practice.
- Without foundation the NWMO is attempting to exclude long-distance transportation from the Impact Assessment process; this is inconsistent with the impact assessment law in Canada and with the manner in which the NWMO has been describing their project over the last twenty years.
- The Initial Project Description inadequately describes major project components and activities, including the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, waste placement and repository design and construction and closure, decommissioning and monitoring.
- The description of the Project Site, Location and Study Area(s) is flawed and in some respects inaccurate.
- The potential effects of the project are poorly described and in some instances the NWMO text is promotional rather than factual.
- The description of the site selection process is very selective in the information it presents and creates a false impression of community experience through the siting process in the 22 communities that the NWMO investigated.
- There are significant gaps and deficiencies in the Initial project description; several subject areas fundamental to the assessment of the deep geological repository are extremely limited or fully absent including the subjects of long-term safety, emergency response and evacuation plans, accidents and malevolent acts and security.
- The Initial Project Description was poorly organized and was not copy edited; it lacked an index and there was no glossary included.
“Journalism Deserves Better”: Ex-Washington Post Staffers Slam Billionaire Bezos for Gutting Paper
Democracy Now, February 06, 2026
The Washington Post has laid off more than 300 journalists, dismantling its sports, local news and international coverage. “Everybody is grieving, and it’s a loss for our readers,” says Nilo Tabrizy, one of the paper’s recently laid-off staff, who describes a “robotic” meeting announcing the cuts. “They didn’t have the dignity to look us in the eye.” The shocking staff culling has been widely attributed to the paper’s leadership under Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who bought the nearly 150-year-old institution in 2013. Karen Attiah, the former global opinion editor at the Post, was hired soon after Bezos’s arrival. She recounts how the arrival of a billionaire backer initially revitalized the paper with resources and creative freedom, before souring over the next decade.
“We thought [he] shared the same values that we had,” says Attiah, who was fired from the Post last fall over comments she made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. “Journalism deserves better than a billionaire owner who decides that partying in Europe is more important than people’s lives.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://www.democracynow.org/2026/2/6/karen_altiah_washington_post_layoffs_journalists
In Australia The Police Beat You Up For Opposing Genocide.
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 10, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/in-australia-the-police-beat-you?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187467234&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Australian authorities were fully aware that inviting Israel’s president for a visit was going to ignite unrest and furious opposition. They invited him anyway, and sent in the police to assault the protesters.
I saw a video of two cops pinning a kid in a keffiyeh face down on the ground and proceeding to punch him over and over again long after he’d been subdued.
I saw another video of police repeatedly punching a middle-aged man who was holding his hands in the air until he fell to the ground.
I saw another video of police repeatedly pepper spraying a demonstrator directly in the face as he was visibly complying with their demands to move and providing no resistance whatsoever.
I saw another video of police manhandling Muslim men who were literally on their knees praying, presenting no possible threat of any kind.
That’s right kids, welcome to Australia, where the government invites the head of a genocidal apartheid state for a happy cuddle party and then beats the shit out of anyone who opposes this.
It’s a testament to the courage and vitality of the pro-Palestine movement in Australia that people keep showing up to anti-genocide protests even as authorities do everything they can to create a chilling effect on them.
After all, this happens as the state of Queensland moves to make it illegal to utter the pro-Palestine phrases “from the river to the sea” or “globalise the intifada”, with violations punishable by two years in prison. This is easily the single most bat shit insane speech suppression legislation in Australian history, and that’s an extremely high bar.
To be clear, not one person sincerely believes that “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a genocidal or antisemitic statement. This is one of those many, many instances in which Israel supporters are pretending to believe something they do not actually believe in order to further outlaw criticism of Israel.
They’re trying to make it so that nobody feels comfortable opposing Israel’s abuses without first consulting with a lawyer about what exactly they are legally permitted to say in that moment, thereby throwing a chilling effect on pro-Palestine activism throughout the nation.
This comes weeks after the Australian government passed frightening new “hate speech” laws in the name of “combatting antisemitism” which will make it much easier to designate activist groups as “hate groups”. Australian officials have conspicuously refused to say that the new laws will not be used to ban groups for speech that is critical of Israel, which tells you all you need to know about the real intentions at work here.
This also comes as the state of New South Wales cracks down on protests with extreme aggression, banning protests in certain areas and seeking to outlaw the use of the phrase “globalise the intifada” to appease Australia’s obscenely powerful Israel lobby. Premier Chris Minns is presently defending the actions of the police he sent in to crack skulls at the Herzog protests on Monday.
Just two months ago a prominent member of the Australian Israel lobby publicly announced that he wants a total ban on pro-Palestine protests throughout the nation, and said it is criticism of Israel that is the problem, not just hatred toward Jews. Joel Burnie, Executive Manager of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), explicitly said that what he wants is “No more protests! No more protests!” in Australia.
“I for one as a Jewish leader will no long talk about antisemitism in isolation from Israel, because it’s the rhetoric and language on Israel that motivates the people to come and kill us,” Burnie said during a video conference, later adding that “ language on Israel invading all of our social spaces in Australia have made this country a very unsafe space and place for Jews.”
Increment by increment, Joel Burnie and his ilk have been getting their wish ever since. Australian civil rights are indeed being disintegrated to protect the information interests of a genocidal apartheid state.
Albanese v Albanese
Then there is the damning evidence of Anthony Albanese’s Italian namesake, Francesca Albanese, by now an expert and fearless forensic rapporteur on Gaza, genocide and Israel.
She bows to no president or prime minister and wears the onslaught of their wrath as a badge of honour.
A United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Albanese’s courageous reports have become a reliable touchstone for historians, academics, students, journalists, so-called ‘ordinary people’ humanitarians, intelligence personnel and key actors of all involved in the Gaza ‘Crime Scene.’
10 February 2026, Tess Lawrence, https://theaimn.net/albanese-v-albanese/
ALBANESE v ALBANESE
HERZOG, GENOCIDAL TERRORIST?
The Australian Government has rolled out the red carpet for Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, a carpet sodden in the blood of more than 71,000 people murdered in Gaza since the Hamas led terrorist invasion of October 7, 2023.
That audacious Hamas massacre and hostage taking of mostly civilians attending the Nova Festival, was a precision operation that easily penetrated Israel’s so-called invincible ‘iron dome’ in what was indisputably a monumental military embarrassment and collective security fail by all of Israel’s lauded security tiers as well as by self lauded ‘Mr Security’ himself, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, indicted on criminal charges in his own country and cited as a genocidal criminal, outside of it.
In an untidy and hasty attempt to assuage volatile community anger, unrest and widespread political dissent caused by Australia’s own security fail, the Bondi Beach Islamic State inspired terrorist attack on December 14, that also targeted Jews and others celebrating the festival – Hanukkah – Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese thought it wise to capitulate to a babel of political, religious and public dialects and invite a racist man of war to Australia, rather than a person of peace.
The notion that a visit by the rabid war mongering Herzog will help ameliorate swelling anti-semitism is preposterous. He may well bring comfort to some Australian jews and those who support Netanyahu’s fascist Far Reich but the reality is that not all Australian jews want this avowed genocidal terrorist to visit Australia or indeed for him to be deemed as representative of all jewish Australians, let alone jews in Israel. The constants protests and marches against Netanyahu in Israel atest to the latter.
Netanyahu’s Take On Nazism
Typically, jewish dissenters do not receive as much attention in both mainstream and indie media and endure all manner of toxic insult, including being branded by jewish Netanyahu supporters in the diaspora, as Hamas stooges, jewish traitors, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Hurled epithets of being ‘self-loathing jews’ have long worn thin as a horrified world – including horrified jews – are confronted with the ugly reality of Netanyahu’s latter day take on nazism and industrial strength ethnic cleansing.
Last month, a number of groups, the majority of them representing jewish organisations, wrote to Governor-General Sam Mostyn and Prime Minister Albanese, asking that Herzog’s invitation to visit Australia, be retracted:
Her Excellency the Honourable Ms Sam Mostyn AC
Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
Government House
Dunrossil Drive
YARRALUMLA ACT 2600The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600Monday, 5 January 2026
Dear Governor-General and Prime Minister,
We write to urgently ask for the retraction of the Australian Government’s invitation to President Isaac Herzog of Israel.
This invitation risks violating Australia’s international obligations and exacerbating racism and antisemitism during an incredibly fragile moment.
President Herzog is not a neutral or ceremonial head of state. The UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded in September 2025 that Israeli President Isaac Herzog had “incited the commission of genocide and that Israeli authorities have failed to take action against them to punish this incitement.”
In October 2023, he publicly attributed collective responsibility to the civilian population of Gaza, stating: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not being involved – it’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up… And we will fight until we break their backbone.”
Herzog’s comments have been cited by international legal scholars and human rights organisations as normalising collective punishment, prohibited under international humanitarian law, and form part of the evidentiary context before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are clear. Article 1 imposes an obligation to prevent genocide that arises once a State becomes aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of a serious risk that genocide may be committed. Article III further prohibits not only genocide itself but also complicity, including conduct that knowingly aids, abets, or legitimises the commission or incitement of genocidal acts. The International Court of Justice’s provisional measures in South Africa v Israel place all States Parties on notice of a plausible risk of acts falling within the scope of the Convention. In these circumstances, proceeding with an official visit by President Isaac Herzog would expose Australia to credible claims that it has engaged in conduct inconsistent with its obligations under international law.
Herzog has been fully implicated in Israel’s military aggression. In December 2023 he was witnessed signing an artillery shell bound for Gaza and in 2024 he falsely denied Israeli responsibility for the illegal attacks using pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon, killing twelve people, including children, and wounding three thousand.
Facilitating this visit does nothing to support the healing of Jewish communities in Australia, following the horrific massacre in Bondi. Hosting a figure publicly associated with the continuation of the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and the ongoing occupation and displacement within Palestinian territories, risks further deepening divisions within a community already grappling with the harmful conflation of Zionism (a political ideology), Judaism (a religion), and Jewish identity and will further alienate our own community while increasing the risk of antisemitism. Publicly hosting this head of state risks exacerbating antisemitism by implicitly associating Jewish Australians with alleged war crimes over which they have no control.
Jewish communities are not united. Some, both religious and secular, are not Zionist or identify as anti-Zionist. Many fundamentally disagree with Israel’s brutal occupation and apartheid regime and are outspoken about the Gaza genocide and Australia’s complicity in it.
Mass protests must be expected if President Herzog arrives in Australia. Protests will include a very large contingent of Jewish participants, reflecting moral opposition to ongoing atrocities.
Official engagement in the face of such demonstrable community opposition would risk inflaming tensions, fracturing social cohesion, and undermining public safety. It would further undermine Australia’s credibility as a defender of international law and inflame anti-Palestinian racism by further dehumanising Palestinians. These consequences are foreseeable, preventable, and incompatible with Australia’s legal and moral responsibilities.
A principled decision to retract the invitation would affirm the Australian Government’s commitment to ethical values, international law and the protection of all communities from racism and antisemitism.
Yours sincerely,
Jewish Council of Australia
Jews for Palestine (WA)
Loud Jew Collective
Jews Against the Occupation ’48
Jewish Voices of Inner Sydney
Coalition of Women for Justice and Peace
Jewish Advocates for Understanding Antisemitism
Jews for Justice
Anti-Zionism Australia
Jews for a Free Palestine
Jewish Women 4 Peace Action Ready Group
Jews Who Do Not Support Netanyahu And Who Do Support
Two State Solution Don’t Get Equal Media Time
Typically, in mainstream and even indie media at times, the views of jews who support a two state solution for Palestine and Israel and who do NOT support Netanyahu, Herzog et al or their murderous genocidal implementation of a final solution to annihilate Palestine and Palestinians in this Holocaust 2, perpetrated by the Netanyahu Government, simply don’t get equal media time.
“Inviting a foreign head of state who is implicated in an ongoing genocide as a representative of the Jewish community is deeply offensive and risks entrenching the dangerous and antisemitic conflation between Jewish identity and the actions of the Israeli state. This does not make Jews safer. It does the opposite.” Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer of the Jewish Council of Australia.
The Jewish Council of Australia
DIGNITY. EQUALITY. FREEDOM. FOR ALL.
‘The Jewish Council of Australia is an organisation of Jewish people in Australia who are committed to the Jewish values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), calling out injustice, challenging assumptions and promoting debate. We work towards ending antisemitism and all forms of racism and we support Palestinian freedom and justice.’
On January 28th, the Jewish Council of Australia issued a second statement condemning Herzog’s visit:
Read more: Albanese v AlbaneseJewish Council calls on Albanese to rescind Herzog invitation
28 January, 2026 / Media Release
The President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, has confirmed today that he will visit Australia from 8 to 12 February and will meet with members of the Australian Jewish community.
The Jewish Council of Australia as expressed outrage that the Albanese Government would fuel the flames of division by inviting Herzog to visit Australia, warning that his trip is completely inappropriate and offensive and will rightly spark mass protests.
President Isaac Herzog is directly implicated in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. He has made public statements, including that an “entire nation is responsible” for October 7, which have been cited by the International Court of Justice and other international bodies examining breaches of the Genocide Convention.
This should be a moment for collective mourning, reflection and care. It is not a moment to host the head of a state which has been found to have committed a genocide in Gaza.
“By inviting Herzog to visit, Albanese is using Jewish grief as a political prop and diplomatic backdrop,” said Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer of the Jewish Council of Australia.
“Inviting a foreign head of state who is implicated in an ongoing genocide as a representative of the Jewish community is deeply offensive and risks entrenching the dangerous and antisemitic conflation between Jewish identity and the actions of the Israeli state. This does not make Jews safer. It does the opposite.”
Instead of proceeding with this visit, the Jewish Council urges the Government to pursue concrete actions, supported by over 60,000 Australians who have signed the Jewish Council’s petition, that address the root causes of violence, racism and impunity, and that uphold international law.
“Our safety will not come from aligning with Netanyahu or Trump,” said Schwartz. “It will come from dismantling racism, rejecting collective punishment, and standing consistently for human rights and justice for all.”
“Growing numbers of Jews in Australia and globally oppose the actions of the Israeli government and reject its attempts to speak in our name. We refuse to be ignored or silenced.”
“Conflating Judaism with the policies of a state accused of genocide and crimes against humanity erases our voice and fuels antisemitism rather than combating it.”
The last time I visited their website, 63,885 people had signed the JCA petition for Australians to unite against attempts to divide the community.
From the website:
”… Pitting Jewish safety against Palestinians, Muslims and migrant communities, and eroding all of our civil liberties, doesn’t make Jews safer. It makes the real fight against antisemitism harder… “
On January 30th, Medianet published a press release by The Jewish Council of Australia, the Australian National Imams Council and The Hind Rajab Foundation announcing that esteemed barrister Robert Richter KC had filed a formal legal complaint sent to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) alleging that “Herzog has incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.”
The 30 page submission warns that the visit of President Herzog is “highly infammatory.”
From the press release:
The groups are calling on the AFP to initiate a criminal investigation of Herzog under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The urgent request details a “sustained pattern of incitement and hate speech” by the President, specifically citing:
- The “Entire Nation” Declaration: Herzog’s October 2023 statement that there are no “uninvolved” civilians in Gaza, which the groups argue stripped 2.3 million people of their protected status under international humanitarian law and urged the IDF to treat the entire population as a military target.
- Famine Denial: Herzog’s August 2025 claims that images of starving Gazan children were “staged – a statement made while famine was setting in and which the brief describes as a “conscious effort to obscure war crimes.”
- Endorsement of Military Operations Involving War Crimes: A December 2023 visit to the Nahal Oz military base where Herzog reportedly “encouraged” troops 48 hours before the “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the Palestinian town of Khuza’a.
The submission rejects any claim that Herzog has diplomatic immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law to argue that heads of state have no shield against charges of genocide or war crimes. The groups warn that if the government fails to act, it would signal “acquiescence to genocidal rhetoric.”
“If the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate,” the complaint states, referencing the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Bilal Rauf, Senior Advisor, Australian National Imams Council (ANIC):
“In recent times, Australia’s social cohesion has been under threat. Now more than ever, it is incumbent upon all of us, particularly our political leaders, to seek to protect our social cohesion as a country and society and ensure that individuals who may inflame the situation by their very presence, are not permitted into our country. The proposed visit by the Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a highly controversial foreign head of state accused of serious international crimes, risks inflaming social tensions, undermining Australia’s hate-speech protections, and placing Australian communities at risk. ANIC calls on the Government, which has hurriedly passed laws in the name of social cohesion, to refuse or cancel any visa held by President Herzog. In pursuing this, among other outcomes, ANIC joins with the Jewish Council of Australia and the Hind Rajab Foundation, in pursuing the complaint.”
Dyab Abou Jahjah, Hind Rajab:
“When a head of state publicly denies civilian protection, dismisses famine, and encourages military operations marked by widespread civilian harm and destruction, those acts carry legal consequences everywhere. No country – including Australia – should become a safe haven for individuals credibly accused of inciting genocide or aiding and abetting war crimes. Australia has a duty to uphold the rule of law and protect its communities from such threats.”
Ohad Kozminsky, Executive Member, Jewish Council of Australia:
“President Herzog represents a state found to be committing genocide in Gaza. His presence in Australia would identify this state with Australian Jews, which risks exacerbating social division and endangering Australian Jewish communities. We stand firmly against all forms of racism, and President Herzog’s statements attributing collective guilt to an entire people are a textbook manifestation of anti-Palestinian racism and Israel’s ongoing campaign of dehumanisation.”
Francesca Albanese
Then there is the damning evidence of Anthony Albanese’s Italian namesake, Francesca Albanese, by now an expert and fearless forensic rapporteur on Gaza, genocide and Israel.
She bows to no president or prime minister and wears the onslaught of their wrath as a badge of honour.
A United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Albanese’s courageous reports have become a reliable touchstone for historians, academics, students, journalists, so-called ‘ordinary people’ humanitarians, intelligence personnel and key actors of all involved in the Gaza ‘Crime Scene.’
AIMN will publish some of her work in full, so readers can learn from the source herself, without filters and without selective reduction by we journalists.
You will come to understand why she is feared by both the Hamas led terrorist cohort in Gaza and Netanyahu and his Far Reich.
She exposes the atrocities of these murderous thugs without fear or favour and goes to war against genocide and perpetrators, weaponless and without flak jacket, armed only with her brief to bear witness for the world. For us. For them. For the least of us.
Palestine Action protesters found not guilty of Elbit burglary
“It shows how out of step this government is with public opinion, which is revulsed by the Government and Elbit’s complicity in genocide.”
Campaigners claim ‘huge blow’ to government after landmark prosecution of direct action group fails.
PHIL MILLER and DANIA AKKAD, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-protesters-found-not-guilty-of-elbit-burglary/
- Update: Five out of the six defendants were granted bail late on Wednesday; a sixth defendant, Sam Corner, was not granted bail
- Defendants had to apply for bail because the prosecution will seek a retrial on charges where jury were unable to reach a verdict
Six Palestine Action protesters have been found not guilty of aggravated burglary at an Elbit weapons site near Bristol.
Zoe Rogers, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Jordan Devlin were also not convicted of any other charges by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court on Wednesday.
The group were on trial for a break-in at an Israeli-owned arms factory on 6 August 2024 at the height of the genocide in Gaza.
Keir Starmer’s Labour government only placed partial restrictions on arms exports to Israel the following month.
The activists spent 18 months on remand before their trial began in November 2025.
Jurors did not convict them of any charges despite the judge trying to limit defences available to the activists.
The jury could not reach verdicts on some charges, opening the door for the prosecution to seek a possible retrial and forcing the defence to apply for bail.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said the not guilty verdicts for the aggravated burglary charges were “a huge blow to government ministers who have tried to portray Palestine Action as a violent group to justify banning it under badly drafted terrorism legislation.
“Despite government efforts to prejudice this trial, citing the allegations of violence to justify treating Palestine Action as ‘terrorists’, as if they were already proved, the jury which heard the evidence has refused to find the defendants guilty of anything, not even criminal damage.
“It shows how out of step this government is with public opinion, which is revulsed by the Government and Elbit’s complicity in genocide.”
Woolwich Crown Court, hugging and crying.
Inside bail hearings were ongoing for the six with rulings expected before 3pm. Friends said they hoped they would be coming out today.
Moved to a patch of grass outside the court, several in the crowd shared a meal on paper plates and greeted an increasing number supporters who arrived by public transport.
“I’m so happy,” one supporter shouted.
A truck carrying prisoners passed by with an audible banging sound from inside. The crowd welped and started to cheer. One drummed.
A supporter acknowledged the truck probably didn’t hold the defendants. “We’re just excited,” they said.
UK ignores corruption scandals when awarding major military contracts.
Freedom of Information requests reveal Britain’s trade department collected “no information” about fines issued to UK military suppliers for corruption.
JOHN McEVOY, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-ignores-corruption-scandals-when-awarding-major-military-contracts/
The Ministry of Defence is reportedly set to award a £2 billion contract to a consortium led by Raytheon UK despite major corruption and fraud violations recently levelled against its American parent company RTX.
The contract, which aims to modernise the army’s training infrastructure using “advanced simulation”, will be awarded through a competitive process in which Raytheon UK seeks to displace a rival bid led by Israel’s Elbit Systems UK.
RTX is already a major supplier to the UK Ministry of Defence, having completed integration trials for the Paveway precision-guided missile on the Typhoon aircraft in 2025.
The company says it has a “decades-long partnership with the British army”, and holds licences to export F-35 fighter jet components which are used by Israel.
Yet in 2024, RTX faced significant legal sanctions in the US relating to alleged bribery of foreign officials, defective pricing, and export control violations.
The company settled several federal investigations with overall penalties exceeding $950 million.
Crucially, Freedom of Information requests suggest that UK export-licensing authorities have taken no action in response to these developments.
The Department for Business and Trade and the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) said in October 2025 they hold no internal correspondence, briefs, or risk assessments relating to the RTX enforcement actions.
This is despite the UK’s own guidelines for military export licences explicitly requiring ongoing assessment of risk of diversion, misuse, and breach of international humanitarian law.
The guidelines also direct authorities to consider exporter conduct and compliance history.
In response to further FOI requests, the Ministry of Defence also refused to clarify whether RTX’s enforcement actions abroad were internally discussed when deliberating the award of major contracts to the company.
This apparent inaction raises fundamental questions about whether systemic reassessment of exporter behaviour takes place when serious misconduct comes to light.
It also comes as the UK’s National Audit Office has found in a new report released last week that the defence ministry could “make significant savings” if it better managed losses from economic crimes, including procurement fraud.
The business and trade department and defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment about whether they consider foreign corruption scandals when awarding export licences or training contracts to firms.
Raytheon has been the subject of past enforcement controversies in Britain, with the company refusing to explain its activities to the government’s committees on arms export control in 2019 while arming Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen.
Its competitor for the army training contract, Elbit Systems, is also facing accusations of breaching business appointment rules while continuing to hold export licences granted by the ECJU.
Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) spokesperson Emily Apple told Declassified: “Time and again successive governments have lied, repeatedly telling us the UK has one of the most robust arms export control systems in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth”.
The business and trade department said: “The UK operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.
“All export licensing decisions are made in line with our Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, and our assessments take all information relevant to the risk of diversion or misuse into account”.
Moog
The issue is not unique to RTX.
Another defence contractor, Moog Inc., resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) administrative order in October 2024 involving bribery by its Indian subsidiary.
The FCPA is a US federal law which makes it illegal for US persons or companies to bribe foreign government officials to gain a business advantage.
However, the ECJU also holds “no information” about any discussions relating to that FCPA order, according to the FOI documents seen by Declassified.
Together, the RTX and Moog cases represent the only publicly reported defence industry FCPA-related enforcement actions in 2024.
Moog currently holds UK licenses to export components for trainer aircraft used by the Israeli air force, and contributes to the global F-35 programme.
Public information raises further questions about how Moog’s compliance oversight function was structured during the period in which these violations allegedly occurred.
According to a LinkedIn profile, Moog’s compliance manager has had oversight of both Moog UK and Moog India since before 2020 — the period during which the company’s Indian subsidiary was later found by US authorities to have engaged in bribery of state officials.
“While the existence of a group-level compliance function does not itself imply wrongdoing, it underscores that Moog’s UK operations were not operating in isolation from wider corporate compliance arrangements at the time, and raises legitimate questions about how compliance risks were identified, escalated, and addressed across the group”, said Emily Apple from CAAT.
Despite these questions, Moog Wolverhampton has not been subject to an ECJU compliance visit since 2022, according to further FOI requests issued in November.
This is notable given that the site was inspected twice within a two-month period that year, a pattern potentially associated with follow-up or remedial reviews.
Yet the company’s sites in Britain have apparently not been revisited in the three years since, including after Moog’s US parent company agreed a major FCPA settlement in 2024.
Emily Apple added: “Whether it’s ignoring corruption scandals, or trampling over international law, it appears there are no limits to the steps the government is prepared to take to prioritise arms dealers’ profits. This is a system beyond reform. It is out of control, devoid of ethics and operating beyond the law”.
Moog and RTX did not respond to requests for comment.
The 24-site US military network in Britain worth £11 billion
America’s War Department owns more military and intelligence sites in Britain than the government has told parliament
MARK CURTIS, DECLASSIFIED UK, 3 February 2026
The US military owns 22 sites in Britain whose “replacement value” is $15.6bn (£11.4bn), according to a US War Department document found by Declassified UK.
This number of sites is larger than previously believed and more than UK governments have told parliament.
A US document published online identifies 16 of the US military’s locations in the UK and notes six “other sites” which are not specified. The document, published last year, outlines the US military’s “property portfolio” around the world as of September 2024.
Declassified has identified other locations in Britain that are likely to be hosting US military or intelligence personnel, bringing the total to at least 24.
This doesn’t cover the full scale of the US military presence in the UK, since it is believed that US military personnel are frequently, if not permanently, stationed at still more sites, such as the key Royal Navy bases at Coulport, Devonport and Faslane.
The 16 locations in Britain specified by the US War Department include the major US air bases at Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Croughton and Fairford but also lesser-known sites.
The smaller locations include a 35-acre US Air Force (USAF) site at RAF Bicester in Oxfordshire and a location said to comprise 35,397 square feet of buildings at RAF Oakhanger in Hampshire.
The document also notes US ownership of facilities at the top secret Fylingdales spy station in Yorkshire, where it possesses 5,860 square feet of building space.
Fylingdales is a joint enterprise between the US and UK and “provides a 24/7 missile warning and space surveillance capability for the UK and its allies”.
While most of the locations are operated by the USAF, the single site where the US Navy is said to be active is Lossiemouth near Inverness, the only location mentioned in Scotland.
A recent investigation by The Ferret found the US established a base there in May 2024, with the US navy helping to fund the construction of facilities for its Poseidon P8 anti-submarine spy and warplanes at the site.
The investigation also found the Scottish government was not consulted about stationing US aircraft at Lossiemouth.
Other US sites mentioned in the War Department document include a 736-acre ammunition storage location at RAF Welford in Berkshire and a “transmitter annex site” at RAF Barford St John in Oxfordshire.
These US sites stretch over 20 square miles, which is equivalent to around 11,500 football pitches, or an area larger than the city of Oxford.
Successive UK governments have failed to mention in parliament some of these 16 sites as being US military operating locations, such as RAF Oakhanger and RAF Bicester. The last time Oakhanger was mentioned in parliament was in November 1996.
More recently, in answer to a parliamentary question in February 2022, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) mentioned only eight sites from where US personnel were operating, along with “undisclosed locations”.
Two years earlier, in June 2020, a minister listed 11 bases which were “designated for use by the United States Visiting Forces” in the UK. This form of words appears to keep open the possibility that US personnel are also based elsewhere.
Where are the six other sites?
The US document specifies sites in Britain that are larger than ten acres or have a replacement value of over $10m (£7.3m)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-24-site-us-military-network-in-britain-worth-11-billion/
On the road to nuclear war
February 5, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/on-the-road-to-nuclear-war/
It’s 85 seconds to midnight. The collapse of the New START Treaty hasn’t helped but there is still time to turn things around, writes Lawrence S.Wittner
On January 27, 2026, the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of their famous “Doomsday Clock” to 85 seconds to midnight―the closest setting, since the appearance of the clock in 1946, to nuclear annihilation.
This grim appraisal has impressive evidence to support it.
The New Start Treaty, the last of the major nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties between the United States and Russia, expired on February 5, without any serious attempt to replace it. New Start’s demise enables both nations, which possess about 86 percent of the world’s 12,321 nuclear weapons, to move beyond the strict limits set by the treaty on the number of their strategic nuclear weapons (the most powerful, most devastating kind), thus enhancing the ability of their governments to reduce the world to a charred wasteland.
Actually, a nuclear arms race has been gathering steam for years, as nearly all the governments of the nine nuclear powers (which, in addition to Russia and the United States, include China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) scramble to upgrade existing weapons systems and add newer versions. China’s nuclear arsenal is the fastest-growing among them. “The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world . . . is coming to an end,” observed Hans Kristensen, a highly regarded expert on nuclear armament and disarmament. “Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric, and the abandonment of arms control agreements.”
The U.S. government is currently immersed in a $1.7 trillion nuclear “modernization” program that President Donald Trump has championed and repeatedly lauded. As early as February 2018, he boasted that his administration was “creating a brand-new nuclear force. We’re gonna be so far ahead of everybody else in nuclear like you’ve never seen before.” In late October 2025, to facilitate the U.S. nuclear buildup, Trump ordered the Pentagon to prepare to resume U.S. nuclear weapons testing, which had ceased 33 years before. In line with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996, signed by 187 nations (including the United States), no nuclear power (other than the rogue nation of North Korea) has conducted explosive nuclear testing in over 25 years.
Another sign of the escalating nuclear danger is the revival of implicit and explicit threats to initiate nuclear war. Such threats, which declined with the end of the Cold War, have resurfaced in recent years. When angered by the policies of other nations, Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un, and Vladimir Putin have repeatedly and publicly threatened them with nuclear destruction. According to the U.S. government’s Voice of America, the Russian government, in the context of its invasion of Ukraine, issued 135 nuclear threats between February 2022 and December 17, 2024. Although some national security experts have discounted most Russian threats as manipulative rather than serious, in November 2022 Chinese leader Xi Jinping thought the matter serious enough to publicly chide his professed ally, Putin, for threatening to resort to nuclear arms in Ukraine.
Underlying this drift toward nuclear war are the growing conflicts among nations―conflicts that have significantly weakened international cooperation and the United Nations. As the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists put it, rather than heed past warnings of catastrophe, “Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic.” Consequently, “hard-won global understandings are collapsing, accelerating a winner-takes-all great power competition and undermining the international cooperation critical to reducing the risks of nuclear war.”
But this is not necessarily the end of the story―or of the world.
After all, much the same situation existed in the second half of the twentieth century, when conflicts among the great powers fueled a dangerous nuclear arms race that, at numerous junctures, threatened to spiral into full-scale nuclear war. And, in response, a massive grassroots campaign emerged to save the world from nuclear annihilation. Although that campaign did not succeed in banning the bomb, it did manage to curb the nuclear arms race, reduce the number of nuclear weapons by more than 80 percent, and prevent a much-feared nuclear catastrophe.
Furthermore, in the early twenty-first century, there have been new and important developments. The worldwide remnants of the nuclear disarmament movement regrouped as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and, joined by farsighted officials in smaller, non-nuclear nations, drew upon the United Nations to sponsor a series of antinuclear conferences. In 2017, by a vote of 122 to 1 (with 1 abstention), delegates at one of these UN conferences adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Although all nine nuclear powers strongly opposed the TPNW―which banned the use, threatened use, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, stationing, and installation of nuclear weapons―the treaty secured sufficient national backing to enter into force in January 2021. Thus far, it has been signed by 99 countries―a majority of the world’s nations.
In addition to the efficacy of public pressure for nuclear disarmament and the existence of a treaty banning nuclear weapons, at least one other factor points the way toward a non-nuclear future: the self-defeating nature—indeed, the insanity―of nuclear war. With even a single nuclear bomb capable of killing millions of people and leaving the desperate survivors crawling painfully through a burnt-out, radioactive hell, even a nuclear “victory” is a defeat. In the aftermath of a nuclear war, as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev is believed to have said, “the survivors would envy the dead.” It’s a lesson that most people around the world have learned, although not perhaps the lunatics.
Lunatics, of course, exist, and some of them, unfortunately, govern modern nations and ignore international law.
Even so, although we are on the road to nuclear war, there is still time to take a deep breath, think about where we are going, and turn around.
Lawrence S. Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).
Iran’s Comprehensive Peace Proposal to the United States
The Middle East stands at a crossroads between endless war and comprehensive peace. A framework for peace does exist. Will the US finally seize it?
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Sybil Fares, Common Dreams, Feb 09, 2026
History occasionally presents moments when the truth about a conflict is stated plainly enough that it becomes impossible to ignore. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s February 7 address in Doha, Qatar (transcript here) should prove to be such a moment. His important and constructive remarks responded to the US call for comprehensive negotiations, and he laid out a sound proposal for peace across the Middle East.
Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for comprehensive negotiations: “If the Iranians want to meet, we’re ready.” He proposed for talks to include the nuclear issue, Iran’s military capabilities, and its support for proxy groups around the region. On its surface, this sounds like a serious and constructive proposal. The Middle East’s security crises are interconnected, and diplomacy that isolates nuclear issues from broader regional dynamics is unlikely to endure.
On February 7, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi’s responded to the United States’ proposal for a comprehensive peace. In his speech at the Al Jazeera Forum, the foreign minister addressed the root cause of regional instability – “Palestine… is the defining question of justice in West Asia and beyond” and he proposed a path forward.
The Foreign Minister’s statement is correct. The failure to resolve the issue of Palestinian statehood has indeed fueled every major regional conflict since 1948. The Arab-Israeli wars, the rise of anti-Israel militancy, the regional polarization, and the repeated cycles of violence, all derive from the failure to create a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. Gaza represents the most devastating chapter in this conflict, where Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine was followed by Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then by Israel’s genocide against the people of Gaza.
In his speech, Araghchi condemned Israel’s expansionist project “pursued under the banner of security.” He warned of the annexation of the West Bank, which Israeli government officials, as National Security Minister Ben Gvir, continually call for, and for which the Knesset has already passed a motion.
Araghchi also highlighted another fundamental dimension of Israeli strategy which is the pursuit of permanent military supremacy across the region. He said that Israel’s expansionist project requires that “neighboring countries be weakened—militarily, technologically, economically, and socially—so that the Israeli regime permanently enjoys the upper hand.” This is indeed the Clean Break doctrine of Prime Minister Netanyahu, dating back 30 years. It has been avidly supported by the US through 100 billion dollars in military assistance to Israel since 2000, diplomatic cover at the UN via repeated vetoes, and the consistent US rejection of accountability measures for Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law.
Israel’s impunity has destabilized the region, fueling arms races, proxy wars, and cycles of revenge. It has also corroded what remains of the international legal order. The abuse of international law by the US and Israel with much of Europe remaining silent, has gravely weakened the UN Charter, leaving the UN close to collapse.
In the concluding remarks of his speech, he offered the US a political solution and path forward. “The path to stability is clear: justice for Palestine, accountability for crimes, an end to occupation and apartheid, and a regional order built on sovereignty, equality, and cooperation. If the world wants peace, it must stop rewarding aggression. If the world wants stability, it must stop enabling expansionism.”
This is a valid and constructive response to Rubio’s call for comprehensive diplomacy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/comprehensive-peace-plan-middle-east
-
Archives
- February 2026 (228)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
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 