Opposition to Aukus – especially from New Zealand, but also from Australia and the Pacific, and across the political spectrum
Military Initiative by Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) is Another Major Step in Prospective War on China
Covert Action Magazine, By Murray Horton, June 29, 2023
“………………………………………………“We Are Not at War, But Neither Are We at Peace”
New Zealanders may not have appreciated the degree of militarization in Australia, much more so than here. AUKUS should jolt us out of any complacency about what is going on with our nearest neighbor—it is preparing for war. Australian media commentary at the time of the AUKUS launch made that clear. “The monumental price tag of the AUKUS pact has made it clear. We are not at war, but neither are we at peace…”
“Almost $A400b, even over three decades, is not peacetime spending in anyone’s book—a fact Government ministers concede privately. Rather, we are navigating a dangerous and unpredictable new grey zone of superpower rivalry between China and the United States. It’s a contest in which we are poised to be a central player despite our geographical isolation and relatively small population.”
“Accepting such a role will require tough spending decisions the nation as a whole is not yet ready to confront. Already, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is flagging his willingness to support reduced spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme to pay for the submarine programme. Other unsettling trade-offs will need to be discussed. Even in the short term, before the big bills start arriving, difficult calls will have to be made….This is because…it will cut $A3b from existing defence programmes…This is likely to anger other branches of the military, such as the Army, while the Navy is lavished with money.”[2]
Albanese tried to put a positive spin on it,……………………………………..
Criticism from Inside the Political Elite
Pleasingly, AUKUS was not unopposed among Australia’s political elite (or, at least, former leading members of it). Paul Keating, who was Labor Prime Minister from 1991 to 1996, really put the boot into the good submarine AUKUS and all who sail in her. He did so in a March 2023 speech, the day after the AUKUS announcement. “Former prime minister Paul Keating has launched an extraordinary attack on the Albanese government over its adoption of the AUKUS pact, accusing it of making the worst foreign policy decision by a Labor government since the attempted introduction of conscription in World War I.”
“He said signing up to AUKUS had broken Labor’s long ‘winning streak’ on foreign policy over the past century and was a ‘deeply pathetic’ moment in the Party’s history. ‘Falling into a major mistake, Anthony Albanese, befuddled by his own small-target election strategy, emerges as prime minister with an American sword to rattle at the neighbourhood to impress upon it the United States’ esteemed view of its untrammelled destiny…’”
“‘Naturally, I should prefer to be singing the praises of the government in all matters, but these issues carry deadly consequences for Australia and I believe it is incumbent on any former prime minister, particularly now, a Labor one, to alert the country to the dangerous and unnecessary journey on which the Government is now embarking.’”
“‘This week, Anthony Albanese screwed into place the last shackle in the long chain the United States has laid out to contain China…I don’t think I suffer from relevance deprivation, but I do suffer concern for Australia as it most unwisely proceeds down this singular and dangerous path,’ he said.”
“Keating presented a largely benign view of China’s rise, saying it was ‘not the old Soviet Union’ and was ‘not seeking to propagate some competing international ideology’ to the United States. The fact is China is not an outrider,’ he said. ‘China is a world trading state—it is not about upending the international system,’”
“Keating said: ‘Every Labor Party branch member will wince when they realise that the party we all fight for is returning to our former colonial master, Britain, to find our security in Asia—236 years after Europeans first grabbed the continent from its Indigenous people. That of all things, a contemporary Labor government is shunning security in Asia for security in and within the Anglosphere’”[3]
Nor was Keating alone in his criticism from within the elite. “The Australian National University’s Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies, unleashed a quite extraordinary criticism of Australia’s nuclear submarine plan…Professor White, a former deputy secretary of the Defence Department, said Australia was not only going to ‘hand over some serious dollars’ to the US but also pay with ‘a promise’ to enter any future conflict with China.’”
“‘This is a very serious transformation of the nature of our alliance with the United States,’ White said in an interview recorded for the ANU’s politics podcast Democracy Sausage. ‘The US don’t really care about our submarine capability—they care deeply about tying Australia into their containment strategy against China.’”
“White said he couldn’t see why the US would sell its own submarines—of which they have fewer than they need—unless it was absolutely sure Australia’s submarines would be available to it in the event of a major conflict in Asia. He said a war between America and China over Taiwan would be ‘World War III’ and have a ‘very good chance’ of being a nuclear conflict.”
“‘Australia’s experience of war [is] shaped by the fact that we’ve tended to be on the winning side, but there is no reason to expect America to win in a war with China over Taiwan,’ he warned. He suggested there was also a high chance the AUKUS deal could fall over under [sic] a future American administration and a worsening strategic environment.”
“White said there were cheaper, quicker, less risky and less demanding ways for Australia to get the submarines it needed, labelling the AUKUS plan a waste of money that ‘doesn’t make sense. There’s going to be no actual net increase in the number of submarines available until well into the 2040s, even if it goes to plan—which it probably won’t,’ he said.”[4]……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Former New Zealand Prime Ministers from Rival Parties Dissent
When AUKUS was first announced in 2021, New Zealand, which was not invited to join, simply confined itself to saying that nuclear-powered submarines would not be allowed into New Zealand territorial waters, or ports, because of our nuclear-free law dating back to the 1980s. So, the issue flew below the radar (or sailed under the water, to put it more appropriately). However, once AUKUS really kicked off in March 2023, debate and disquiet started in New Zealand.
Helen Clark was the Labour Prime Minister (1999-2008) who has dined out for 20 years on having refused to let New Zealand join the U.S., UK and Australia in the illegal and disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq (in all other aspects Clark was a very loyal servant of the U.S.). She came out quickly and said that New Zealand is better off outside AUKUS (the word she used was “entanglement”).
She was not alone as the only former New Zealand Prime Minister to criticize it. “…[F]ormer National prime minister Jim Bolger [1990-97] participated in a forum about New Zealand’s foreign policy in Wellington, in which he is reported by the Herald’s Audrey Young to have criticised the Australian submarine buy up as ‘beyond comprehension’ because of the cost and the damage to peace in the Pacific region.”
“Bolger said that New Zealand certainly doesn’t want any such submarines, and challenged proponents of the AUKUS deal to defend it: ‘If you can find any Australian official who can explain why they need nuclear-powered submarines, come and tell me. I’d like to know.’ And Young reported Bolger asking rhetorically, ‘How mad are we getting?’ She says ‘he spoke with despair about the near-daily threats of nuclear war, which had the potential to destroy the planet.’”[7]
Opposition Across the Political Spectrum
“As part of the AUKUS deal Western Australia will play host to US and UK nuclear submarines from 2027. With nuclear-capable American B52 bombers and thousands of American marines rotating through the Northern Territory, Australia is lining up as a loyal lieutenant to the United States in the Pacific and would be expected to fight should war break out.”
“Would New Zealanders fight in a war between the nuclear superpowers? While we aren’t required by treaty obligations to act if America or Taiwan are attacked we are if Australia is. It is not an exaggeration to say Australia could be a target in a future war and already the country has been threatened with missile attacks in that scenario.”
“The risks of New Zealand being dragged in are real. Unlike in Australia, the conversation in New Zealand has been much more muted with limited discussion on the likelihood of war. Why aren’t we talking about it? New Zealand is in a difficult situation contemplating conflict between our largest trading partner and traditional security partner.”
“We weren’t invited to join AUKUS and Australian nuclear submarines won’t be allowed to berth here under our nuclear-free legislation. That same legislation sees New Zealand as only a friend and not an ally of the United States, but we are increasingly acting like we are an ally. In the years since New Zealand’s principled decision not to join the invasion of Iraq we have become more enmeshed with the United States defence apparatus.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………….. “New Zealanders need to talk more about the risks, our decision-makers need to explain why New Zealand is aligning more closely with the United States military and as a sovereign country we have to ask are we acting independently or as a cog in a machine? Our role could be focused on reducing tensions, finding solutions and building trust. War is never inevitable.”[8]
Former politicians across the spectrum have come out against AUKUS. For example, Richard Prebble, one-time Labour Cabinet Minister and later ACT Party founder and Leader.
He is currently a relentless right-wing critic of the current Labour government. His take on AUKUS is the classic mercantilist one. “China is New Zealand’s biggest trading partner. This country has joined China’s Belt and Road initiative. China has signed a free trade agreement with New Zealand, something the U.S. Senate refuses to consider.”
“Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has warned that New Zealand’s exports to China could be caught up in a ‘storm,…………….. New Zealand’s exporters are only too aware of their dependency. There is no other obvious alternative to the New Zealand-China trade.”
“New Zealand has no territorial disputes with China. When we recognised the Government of China 50 years ago, we acknowledged Taiwan is part of China. Paul Keating and Helen Clark are correct. New Zealand’s strategic interest is in the peaceful resolution of conflicts with China rather than sleepwalking into anti-Chinese alliances.”[9]
Academic Skepticism
Leading academic Robert Patman spelled it out in an article entitled “Why New Zealand Should Remain Sceptical About AUKUS.” He wrote that “the basic problem facing AUKUS is that it is based on a binary assumption that the fate of the Indo-Pacific will be largely shaped by the outcome of U.S.-China rivalry and, in particular, by the capacity of America and its closest allies to counterbalance Chinese ambitions in the region.”[10]
“Such a perspective is problematic on a number of counts. First, it exaggerates the influence of great powers in the 21st century in a large, diverse region like the Indo-Pacific. The region contains 60% of the world’s population including significant economic players like Japan, South Korea and fast-growing economies such as Vietnam and India.”
“Second, AUKUS does not factor in the Indo-Pacific and European nations’ quite distinctive security and economic interests in countering China. While countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam and EU states like Germany and France are deeply worried about China’s forceful diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific, they remain sceptical that a security arrangement involving three English-speaking states, two of whom have baggage in the region, is an adequate response.”
“Third, China’s global ambitions are very real, but they should not be over-hyped. AUKUS states depict China as a ‘systemic threat’ and, according to US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, the ‘only competitor out there with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, a power to do so.’ Really?…”
“Fourth, the provision of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia has raised very real fears in the Indo-Pacific about nuclear proliferation. In 1995, ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] member states signed the Treaty of Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ). Furthermore, Singapore is now the only ASEAN state yet to sign or ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a diplomatic initiative heavily promoted by New Zealand.”
………………………………………………………………………. New Zealand remains sceptical that China is a systemic threat to US dominance, sees a good fit between its non-nuclear security policy and the Indo-Pacific region, and views detachment from AUKUS as both consistent with the goal of diversifying New Zealand’s trade ties and building a diplomatic network of like-minded states to strengthen the international rules-based order through measures like UN Security Council reform.”
Madness to Support U.S. War Against China
Mike Treen, veteran union leader and left-wing activist, put it all very succinctly in an article in the Daily Blog on April 21, 2023. He wrote: “The US is going to war against China because it is losing the international economic competition that previously enabled its military and economic bullying to dominate the globe. The empire is in slow decline.”[11]
“China’s extraordinary rise as an economic powerhouse over the past few decades means that it is now the top international trading partner for 120 countries. This has given the world the freedom to act in ways they have never before—politically and economically.
………………………………………………………………………………. “New Zealand was wrong to join the war against Afghanistan. We were wrong to join the occupation of Iraq. We were wrong to become an ‘observer’ at NATO. And it would be foolish and dangerous to become a participant in any way with the AUKUS military provocation against China. New Zealand should be a neutral power that offers medical aid to the world not a tiny jumped-up militarised puppet of the US empire like Australia has become.”
Defence Minister Tempted by AUKUS
The AUKUS carrot that is being dangled in front of New Zealand and Defence Minister Andrew Little is keen to take a bite……………………………………………………..
But Not PM or Minister of Foreign Affairs
However, both the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nanaia Mahuta, have since “dismissed suggestions the Government has shown interest in joining aspects of the pact.”
Mahuta made a May 2023 speech stressing that New Zealand’s nuclear-free position is a “cornerstone of our independent stance” ………………………
AUKUS Causing Alarm in the Pacific.
“[T]he Pacific Islands Forum warns ‘AUKUS will bring war much closer to home and goes against the Blue Pacific narrative on nuclear proliferation and the cost to climate change.’ Forum secretary-general Mark Brown said AUKUS would heighten geopolitical tensions and disturb the peace and security of the region.”…………………………………………………………………….
New Zealand Needs to Be Aware of War Drums Next Door
…………………………. New Zealand is actively supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia. There is an irony in our government being so invested in a war, and its attendant geopolitics, on the other side of the world while, right next door to home, our Aussie Big Brother is making a major push toward war via AUKUS and accompanying militarization.
………Make no mistake—AUKUS is a major lurch toward war with China and it is unfolding before our eyes.
The Australian peace movement is waging a vigorous and very active campaign against AUKUS. Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) https://ipan.org.au/
References:………………………………………………………..
The Sky’s the Limit on Nuclear Weapons Spending, But What Does It Really Get Us?
While it might seem that delays and overruns at this level are unusual, in reality, they are just the most recent in a long history of wasteful spending on nuclear weapons programs.
Union of Concerned Scientists, Eryn MacDonald, August 2, 2023 |
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a new report on the projected cost of US nuclear weapons over the next ten years, from 2023 to 2032.
Before even reading the first line, I could have predicted two things about this report.
First, projected costs have risen considerably since the CBO released its previous report on this issue two years ago. This is par for the course for military programs in general (perhaps it might be less predictable if the Department of Defense ever managed to pass an audit—a routine requirement for every other part of government) and nuclear weapons are certainly no exception. And secondly, these costs are far higher than is necessary and do nothing to address the needs of most Americans for true human security. These lie in areas like food, housing, healthcare, or gun violence, none of which are improved by spending hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons each year.
To get to the actual numbers, CBO estimates that if the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) carry out their current plans for nuclear forces, it will cost $756 billion from 2023 to 2032—just over $75 billion per year. This is 19% ($122 billion) higher than its previous estimate of $634 billion for the period from 2021-2030. Roughly half of this increase, about $60 billion, is unavoidable: some programs have progressed to more expensive stages of development and production since the last report—this accounts for about $34 billion—while inflation accounts for about $26 billion. But the remainder, $62 billion, is attributable to increases in program budget estimates ($49 billion) and the CBO’s estimate of additional costs based on historical cost growth ($13 billion).
Historical cost growth is the norm
Of CBO’s $756 billion projection, a remarkable $96 billion, or 13 percent, comes from their assumption that current DOD and DOE budget estimates are well below what the actual costs of the nuclear weapons now in development will turn out to be. Historically, this has certainly been true, with both agencies frequently underestimating final program costs, often by significant amounts. For example, since the previous version of this CBO report, DOD has increased its estimate for the total cost of the new Sentinel ICBM by $12 billion. In its report, CBO projects the final costs will rise even more.
In another glaring example of how out of control spending on nuclear weapons programs can get, the General Accounting Office (GAO) in January 2023 found that the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA’s) plans to develop the capacity to produce at least 80 plutonium pits (the explosive core of modern nuclear weapons) per year at two sites—Savannah River Site and Los Alamos National Laboratory—by 2030 “do not follow best practices and run the risk of cost increases and delays” and that “NNSA lacks both a comprehensive cost estimate and a schedule outlining all activities it needs to achieve this capability.”
The NNSA itself acknowledges that the project cannot be completed on the planned timeline or budget. An internal NNSA document puts the cost for producing 80 pits per year between $8.7 and $16.5 billion, a significant increase over the previous public estimate of $6.9 to $11.1 billion. It also says that the Savannah River Site plant, far from meeting a congressionally mandated deadline to produce at least 50 pits per year by 2030, will not produce any pits at all until 2036.
While it might seem that delays and overruns at this level are unusual, in reality, they are just the most recent in a long history of wasteful spending on nuclear weapons programs. In fact, the plan to produce pits at Savannah River developed after the NNSA project previously planned for the site, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, was abandoned following years of delays and cost overruns. By the time it was shut down, NNSA had already spent nearly $8 billion on the facility and estimated that it would need another nearly $50 billion to complete the project.
Unfortunately, similar examples of wasteful spending at both NNSA and DOD are all too easy to find.
Deceptive decrease on the SLCM-N
One category in which projected costs appear to decrease in this report is Tactical Nuclear Delivery Systems and Weapons, which sees a drop of $11 billion. This is deceptive, however, because it comes from eliminating any spending on the new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N). …………………………..
Even though President Biden wanted to cancel the program, the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by the Democratically-controlled Congress last year included $25 million for DOD to begin work on the cruise missile and $20 million for NNSA to start on the nuclear warhead—known as the W80-4 ALT—that the cruise missile would carry…………………………..
The trend is clearly upward……………………………………………………………
The sky’s the limit?
Discouragingly, this trend may be about to get worse. If the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the US and Russia expires in 2026 without a replacement (which now seems like a best-case scenario, given Russia’s announcement in February 2023 that it is suspending the treaty and the US decision to halt data exchanges in response), it is anyone’s guess what the effect on plans for the US nuclear arsenal will be…………………………………………………………………………….
Holding the line, avoiding an arms race
It is difficult to describe the current situation as anything other than dire. Russia’s use of nuclear threats in the Ukraine war, along with a growing tendency in the US to categorize China as another peer competitor in the nuclear realm, has led to a renewed emphasis on nuclear weapons as central to US national security. This is despite the fact that these weapons are no more useful for military purposes than they have ever been, and do not address much more pressing human security needs. We must continue to urge the Biden administration and Congress not to buy into the dangerous idea that the US has no choice but to rely on nuclear weapons for security, and instead to hold the line against a new arms race. https://blog.ucsusa.org/emacdonald/the-skys-the-limit-on-nuclear-weapons-spending-but-what-does-it-really-get-us/
Nuclear war would be more devastating for Earth’s climate than cold war predictions – even with fewer weapons
Christopher Nolan’s biopic of J. Robert Oppenheimer has revived morbid curiosity in the destructive power of nuclear weapons. There are now an estimated 12,512 nuclear warheads.
A war in which even a fraction of these bombs were detonated would create blast waves and fires capable of killing millions of people almost instantly. The radiation-induced cancers and genetic damage would affect the remaining population for generations.
But what sort of world would remain amid the radioactive fallout? For the last four decades, scientists modelling the Earth system have run computer simulations to find out.
Using their knowledge of chemistry and climate modelling, atmospheric scientists Paul Crutzen and John Birks wrote a short paper in 1982 which suggested a nuclear war would produce a smoke cloud so massive that it would cause what became known as a nuclear winter. This, they claimed, would devastate agriculture and with it, civilisation.
A year later, scientists from the US and Soviet Union confirmed first that cities and industrial complexes hit by nuclear weapons would indeed produce much more smoke and dust than burning the equivalent area of forest. And second, this global layer of smog would block out sunlight, causing conditions at Earth’s surface to become rapidly colder, dryer and darker.
Climate modelling shows the reduced sunlight would plunge global temperatures by up to 10˚C for nearly a decade. These freezing conditions, combined with less sunlight for plants to photosynthesise, would have catastrophic consequences for global food production and lead to mass starvation worldwide.
Modern climate models are much more sophisticated than those used in the 1980s. And while there are fewer nukes in working order today, more recent results from computer simulations suggest that the grim prophecy delivered by scientists 40 years ago may actually have been an underestimate.
Clear and present danger
Environmental scientists led by Alan Robock at Rutgers University in the US argued in a recent paper that the nuclear winter theory helped end the proliferation of nuclear weapons during the cold war. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev took the first steps in history to reduce the number of nuclear weapons while citing the predicted consequences of a nuclear winter for all life on Earth…………………………. more https://theconversation.com/nuclear-war-would-be-more-devastating-for-earths-climate-than-cold-war-predictions-even-with-fewer-weapons-210567
Australian MPs Blast Blinken Over Assange
The MPs called the U.S. secretary of state’s remarks that Julian Assange threatened U.S. national security “nonsense” and said the U.S. is only bent on revenge, reports Joe Lauria.
SCHEERPOST, By Joe Lauria / Consortium News August 2, 2023
Three Australian members of Parliament have dismissed U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s strong statement in support of prosecuting imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange as “nonsense.”
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie told The Guardian‘s Australian edition that Assange was “not the villain … and if the US wasn’t obsessed with revenge it would drop the extradition charge as soon as possible.”
“Antony Blinken’s allegation that Julian Assange risked very serious harm to US national security is patent nonsense,” Wilkie said.
“Mr Blinken would be well aware of the inquiries in both the US and Australia which found that the relevant WikiLeaks disclosures did not result in harm to anyone,” said Wilkie. “The only deadly behaviour was by US forces … exposed by WikiLeaks, like the Apache crew who gunned down Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists” in the infamous Collateral Murder video.
Speaking at a press conference with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Brisbane on Saturday, Blinken said he understood Australians’ concerns about their imprisoned citizen, but took a hard line against any move to end his persecution. Blinken said:
“…………………………………………………….Mr Assange was charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country.
The actions that he is alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named human sources at grave risk of physical harm, grave risk of detention…………”
As was shown conclusively by defense witnesses in his September 2020 extradition hearing in London, Assange worked assiduously to redact names of U.S. informants before WikiLeaks publications on Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010. U.S. Gen. Robert Carr testified at the court martial of WikiLeaks‘ source, Chelsea Manning, that no one was harmed by the material’s publication.
Instead, Assange faces 175 years in a U.S. dungeon on charges of violating the Espionage Act, not for stealing U.S. classified material, but for the First Amendment-protected publication of it.
The Meaning of ‘National Security’
WikiLeaks has indeed threatened “national security” if the “nation” is defined as merely its rulers. If “national security” however is meant to be the security of the entire nation, then Blinken’s obsession with continuing the war in Ukraine with the risk of nuclear conflict is truly a threat to the nation’s security.
Liberal MP Bridget Archer, another co-chair of the pro-Assange parliamentary group, said: “He continues to suffer mentally and physically, as does his family, and the government should redouble their efforts to secure his release and return to Australia.”
………………………..Labor MP Julian Hill, also part of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group last week called on Assange to take a plea deal, which should not reflect badly on him. In the meantime, Hill said improving prison conditions “should not be difficult to do even while argument continues about resolution of this matter.”
A recent opinion poll shows that 79 percent of Australians want Assange released and bought home. https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/02/australian-mps-blast-blinken-over-assange/—
U.S. aggression against China ignores lessons of Hiroshima
The USA and Australia as its right-hand man in the region has worked to make the idea of war a realistic option. The truth has been distorted in order to sell the idea that it is necessary to stop China. Stop it from doing what? No rational argument has yet been made that can convince any thinking person that China is a threat. The U.S. sees things differently.
And yet China threatens no one. It has no history of expansionism or incursionary activity, effectively has no overseas bases, and its fleet and army are China-based. At the same time, we have the USA and its 800-plus bases, its ring of missiles off China’s shores and its history of blatant aggression, meddling in the affairs of states and regime change.
By William Briggs | 3 August 2023, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/us-aggression-against-china-ignores-lessons-of-hiroshima,17773
In its determination to become the superior military power, the U.S. is ignoring historical actions that many consider war crimes, writes Dr William Briggs.
SEVENTY-EIGHT years ago, the United States chose to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was and remains unjustifiable and ought to be regarded as a war crime. The war was all but over. The targets were almost exclusively civilian.
The purpose of the atomic devastation was to signal to the world that a new order was being born. We now know that order as the international rules-based order. We know who sets the rules and what happens if those rules are not obeyed.
Since establishing its new order, the USA and its allies have made the world an intensely more dangerous place to live. War with China is openly discussed. Today, the doomsday clock has its hands set at just 90 seconds to midnight. Never, since the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists put the clock in place, has the world been so close to destruction.
The sword that hangs over us has a double-edged blade. We face both the threat of nuclear destruction and a devastating climate crisis. The two – war and climate – cannot be separated. War, be it conventional or nuclear, will only make the climate crisis immeasurably worse. We are facing an existential crisis on two fronts.
While the planet burns, governments talk about reducing emissions, but emissions from the military are simply not included in the figures. The U.S. military is the single biggest emitter in America. If the U.S. military was a separate country, then it would be among the worst polluters on the planet. The link between the death of the planet by climate change and by military adventures is clear for all to see. The fault lies with those who profit from war and climate destruction and those who allegedly govern us.
Governments of whatever shade have, generation after generation, driven us to war. Lives of soldiers and civilians have been sacrificed, infrastructure wantonly destroyed and vast sums of money that could solve all of humanity’s problems have been wasted. They have been getting away with murder for an awfully long time.
Millions have died in conflict since the end of the war and millions more have been displaced by wars and now by climate destruction.
Today, people ask if war with China is inevitable and whether such a war might involve nuclear weapons. In 2020, the International Committee of the Red Cross polled millennials across 16 countries. Eighty per cent saw a real possibility of a catastrophic war in their lifetime. Fifty-four per cent believe that it will be a nuclear war.
How can this be?
Wars can only be imagined, let alone fought, if they have a degree of “popular” support. Support gives legitimacy. Support is built using a propagandised media that acts in the service of the state that has determined that war is an acceptable option. The motivation for war is almost always economic. It can include a desire to maintain and to secure hegemony, to win political outcomes and to maintain power and prestige. For all these reasons, the U.S. has determined that China is the enemy.
Our leaders accept the U.S. argument without question. Critical thought is made more difficult when enormously influential groups like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) come into play. ASPI receives about a third of its funding from the Government and the rest from the international arms industry. ASPI’s job is to advise the Government about military threats and miraculously, China is confirmed to be the enemy.
And yet China threatens no one. It has no history of expansionism or incursionary activity, effectively has no overseas bases, and its fleet and army are China-based. At the same time, we have the USA and its 800-plus bases, its ring of missiles off China’s shores and its history of blatant aggression, meddling in the affairs of states and regime change.
The road to war with China is not all that new. Since President Obama, there has been a push from the U.S. to “contain” China. This containment was designed to be both economic and military. For every action, however, there has been a reaction. Each push has been met with a reciprocal pushback and gives license for America and its allies to respond to an “assertive” China.
It is in this light that AUKUS assumes special importance. So, too, do declarations of missile production in Australia and a move to what is becoming a war economy. Few can now doubt that there is a push, a drive to war. War plans are openly discussed. It is all on show and the thinking of the Pentagon is there for all to see. U.S. generals make insane and obscene statements but are neither relieved of duty, much less locked away.
To illustrate this point, we have General Mike Minahan, head of the United States Air Force’s Air Mobility Command who recently sent a message to the world. It is blunt, threatening and sinister: ‘My gut tells me we will fight in 2025.’
The General sent his message as a memorandum to the leadership of the 110,000-strong USAF, with the unambiguous title, ‘February 2023 Orders in Preparation for — The Next Fight’.
The chief of the U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant David Berger, was in Australia a few months back. His take on things is that “we can’t slow down, we can’t back off, we can’t get comfortable with where we are”. The message is clear.
If there is a war against China, then it will be the U.S. who will start it. It will push until it gets what it wants. That wish is to hold back, contain or seriously weaken its designated rival and adversary by whatever means it feels appropriate. That includes the use of force. If it is war and it becomes a nuclear conflict, which it might well, then it will be the USA who will be the initiator. This is not being fanciful. China, just as the Soviet Union in the Cold War, has pledged a no-first-use doctrine. The USA refuses to do the same.
The USA and Australia as its right-hand man in the region has worked to make the idea of war a realistic option. The truth has been distorted in order to sell the idea that it is necessary to stop China. Stop it from doing what? No rational argument has yet been made that can convince any thinking person that China is a threat. The U.S. sees things differently.
For America, the threat is about either China as an economic power that will displace it, that China is a socialist threat, or that China is a powerful economy that is possibly moving towards establishing a socialist economy and social system. Any of these scenarios is enough to make the Americans reach for their guns.
What would the world look like if war comes and if it ends up as a nuclear conflict? This does not necessarily mean a repeat of the imagery of mushroom clouds and Hiroshima silhouettes, although that may well be the case. The war would more likely be fought with tactical and “low-yield” nuclear weapons. These are already being produced in industrial numbers and being fitted to U.S. ships and missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Significantly, Australia has placed an order for 220 of these missiles. They will fit snugly on the AUKUS submarines and any other ordinance that our masters see fit and can be fitted with nuclear warheads at a moment’s notice.
Missile installations have been strengthened across the region. Nuclear capable missiles are within a few minutes flying time of major Chinese cities. Japan, South Korea, Guam, the Philippines, Australia and importantly Taiwan are all part of the encirclement. Then there is the permanent deployment of 60% of the total U.S. Navy and Air Force, in close proximity to China.
It’s an obvious point but China simply does not threaten mainland USA. New York or San Francisco are not in danger from imminent missile attacks from Chinese offshore bases and installations. Could there be a scenario that might see the U.S. use these missiles to destroy civilian targets in China? Ask the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Nuclear Weapons: Devastation Inside the US
By William J. Kinsella , August 2, 2023
Christopher Nolan’s film Oppenheimer has focused new attention on the legacies of the Manhattan Project — the World War II program to develop nuclear weapons.
As the anniversaries of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945, approach, it’s a timely moment to look further at dilemmas wrought by the creation of the atomic bomb.
The Manhattan Project spawned a trinity of interconnected legacies. It initiated a global arms race that threatens the survival of humanity and the planet as we know it. It also led to widespread public health and environmental damage from nuclear weapons production and testing. And it generated a culture of governmental secrecy with troubling political consequences.
As a researcher examining communication in science, technology, energy and environmental contexts, I’ve studied these legacies of nuclear weapons production. From 2000 to 2005, I also served on a citizen advisory board that provides input to federal and state officials on a massive environmental cleanup program at the Hanford nuclear site in Washington state that continues today.
Hanford is less well known than Los Alamos, New Mexico, where scientists designed the first atomic weapons, but it was also crucial to the Manhattan Project. There, an enormous, secret industrial facility produced the plutonium fuel for the Trinity test on July 16, 1945, and the bomb that incinerated Nagasaki a few weeks later.
(The Hiroshima bomb was fueled by uranium produced in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at another of the principal Manhattan Project sites.)
Later, workers at Hanford made most of the plutonium used in the U.S. nuclear arsenal throughout the Cold War. In the process, Hanford became one of the most contaminated places on Earth (for more see video below). Total cleanup costs are projected to reach up to $640 billion, and the job won’t be completed for decades, if ever.
Victims of Nuclear Tests
Nuclear weapons production and testing have harmed public health and the environment in multiple ways. For example, a new study released in preprint form in July while awaiting scientific peer review finds that fallout from the Trinity nuclear test reached 46 U.S. states and parts of Canada and Mexico.
Dozens of families who lived near the site – many of them Hispanic or Indigenous – were unknowingly exposed to radioactive contamination. So far, they have not been included in the federal program to compensate uranium miners and “downwinders” who developed radiation-linked illnesses after exposure to later atmospheric nuclear tests.
On July 27, however, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and expand it to communities near the Trinity test site in New Mexico. A companion bill is under consideration in the House of Representatives.
The largest above-ground U.S. tests, along with tests conducted underwater, took place in the Pacific islands. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and other nations conducted their own testing programs. Globally through 2017, nuclear-armed nations exploded 528 weapons above ground or underwater, and an additional 1,528 underground.
Estimating how many people have suffered health effects from these tests is notoriously difficult. So is accounting for disruptions to communities that were displaced by these experiments.
Polluted Soil & Water
Nuclear weapons production has also exposed many people, communities and ecosystems to radiological and toxic chemical pollution. Here, Hanford offers troubling lessons.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is reiterating his call for the case against Julian Assange to be dropped
John Pilger @johnpilger comments:
What game is Albanese playing? The Aust. PM says he working to free Julian Assange, then it’s too hard, now it’s game on again. What is the truth? Are you ‘standing up’ or not? Or are you colluding?
- Anthony Albanese throws support behind Julian Assange
- PM has reiterated his call for case against him to be dropped
Daily Mail, By MAEVE BANNISTER FOR AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS 1 August 2023
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is reiterating his call for the case against Julian Assange to be dropped, brushing off suggestions the United States won’t be swayed on the matter.
Since winning office in 2022, the Albanese government has been advocating for the US pursuit of Assange to end.
But during a visit to Australia last week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken pushed back against the demands and said Assange was accused of ‘very serious criminal conduct’.
Assange, an Australian citizen, published a trove of classified documents more than a decade ago………………………………….
The prime minister will continue to reiterate to his US counterparts that the matter has gone on for too long, and said ‘enough is enough’. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12358859/Prime-Minister-Anthony-Albanese-reiterating-call-case-against-Julian-Assange-dropped.html?fbclid=IwAR3xlP8LNIfTykAyyqrOHlUI6uRALJVpqDiMQ0b8RGbNiKDyiAZzDfIkFQk—
Sweden’s Nuclear Power Ambitions Quashed
By Julianne Geiger – Aug 01, 2023,
Sweden’s hope to build out its nuclear power capacity was quashed this week, with German utility Uniper SE saying it had no intention of throwing more money on nuclear power.
Uniper currently operates Sweden’s largest nuclear power reactor Oskarshamn-3, and has partial stakes in Ringhals and Forsmark. But Uniper isn’t interested in spending on additional nuclear power beyond its existing plants. It instead intends to focus on natural gas and renewables, according to Bloomberg, in line with its home country’s recent mothballing of its last remaining nuclear reactor.
The subject of nuclear power in Europe has been at the center of controversy. Germany—Europe’s largest economy—has made a point to back away from nuclear power, and has argued that it has no place in Europe’s green future……….
Oil Price 1st Aug 2023
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Swedens-Nuclear-Power-Ambitions-Quashed.html
CIA Director Affirms U.S. Regime Change Strategy in Russia in Address at British Foundation
Coveet Ation MagazineBy Jeremy Kuzmarov, July 10, 2023
Advances the Fantasy that the U.S. is Winning the Ukraine War and that Putin Will Soon Fall
As the Ukrainian counteroffensive continues to sputter, CIA Director William J. Burns delivered a talk at the British Ditchley Foundation on July 1, affirming the U.S. strategy of regime change in Russia.
The talk, titled “A World Transformed and the World of Intelligence,” is available here.
The Ditchley Foundation, a force of British intelligence, was founded in 1958, in Oxfordshire to promote Anglo-American working relationships, and has connections to the British monarchy.
Burns stated in the talk that “disaffection with the [Ukraine] war will continue to gnaw away at the Russian leadership beneath the steady diet of state propaganda and practiced repression. That disaffection creates a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us at CIA—at our core a human intelligence service. We’re not letting it go to waste….”
These comments make clear that the CIA is actively trying to capitalize on disaffection with the Ukraine war in Russia to recruit new Agency assets among the anti-Putin opposition and to ramp up its efforts at regime change.
In March 2022, President Biden admitted in a speech in Warsaw that the U.S. was seeking through its proxy war against Russia to overthrow the Putin government.
In 2021, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA offshoot that has helped mobilize opposition groups to carry out color revolutions designed to install pro-Western/pro-NATO leaders in Eastern European countries, provided nearly $12 million in grants to anti-Putin forces in Russia and to support anti-Putin propaganda—up from the $10.67 million in 2020.
In the past, the NED financed an organization employing Alexei Navalny, an opposition figure who supports regional separatist movements that would weaken Russia; the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, whose director was convicted in 2008 of incitement to ethnic or racial hatred; and a Crimean Tatar leader, Mustafa Dzhemilev, whom Russia accused of helping to coordinate an energy and food blockade of Crimea after it voted to rejoin Russia in March 2014 following a U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine…………………………
The CIA’s current game, as Burns in his speech made clear, is to use Ukraine as a proxy and tool for trying to destabilize and undermine the Putin government.
This is to be achieved by bogging it down in a quagmire—like with the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s—and ratcheting up sanctions that could cripple Russia’s economy. Disaffection is to be further sown by repeatedly vilifying Putin while glorifying his adversaries………………………………………………………………
Burns was overly optimistic in his assessment regarding the success of U.S. strategy overall.
Despite the disaffection that he spoke about, the CIA is well aware that Putin’s popularity has increased since the Special Military Operation in Ukraine began.
Most Russians believe that the U.S. and Ukraine provoked the war and that Russia had to look out for its own security interests and defend the beleaguered Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine that was being subjected to bombings and invasion following the 2014 Maidan coup. ….. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/07/10/cia-director-affirms-u-s-regime-change-strategy-in-russia-in-address-at-british-foundation/?mc_cid=f5762ce44c&mc_eid=65917fb94b—
US rejects Australian plea to drop Assange case
29 July 23, https://www.rt.com/news/580512-blinken-rejects-assange-australia/
Secretary of State Antony Blinken insisted that the WikiLeaks founder caused “serious harm” to US national security
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has confirmed that Australia has raised the case of Julian Assange’s continued prosecution, but declared that Washington will not cease seeking the extradition of the former WikiLeaks boss and intends to try him for espionage.
Speaking alongside Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Brisbane on Saturday, Blinken said that while he understands “the concerns and views of Australians,” Assange’s alleged actions “risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named human sources at grave risk – grave risk – of physical harm, and grave risk of detention.”
Assange, he said, was “charged with very serious criminal conduct” and had allegedly taken part in “one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country.”
An Australian citizen, Julian Assange is currently being held in London’s Belmarsh Prison. He is fighting extradition to the US, where he faces 17 charges under the Espionage Act and potentially a 175-year prison sentence. Human-rights and press-freedom activists have demanded his release, citing his deteriorating mental and physical health, while Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in May that he was “working through diplomatic channels” to press the US into dropping the case.
The charges against Assange stem from his publication of classified material obtained by whistleblowers, including Pentagon documents detailing alleged US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 250,000 diplomatic cables exposing US efforts to – among other things – spy on its allies and influence foreign elections.
While Assange did not personally steal these documents, he is nevertheless being prosecuted for espionage. He and his supporters argue that WikiLeaks’ publication of this material is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
“We have made clear our view that Mr Assange’s case has dragged on for too long,” Foreign Minister Wong said on Saturday. “We’ve said that publicly and you would anticipate that that reflects also the position we articulate in private.”
The extradition of Assange from Britain to the US was approved in 2020 by then-UK Home Secretary Priti Patel. The publisher lodged his final appeal against the decision in June, after all eight grounds of a previous appeal were rejected by a British High Court judge.
Responding to Blinken’s comments on Saturday, Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, said that it is now up to Prime Minister Albanese to make a public appeal for Assange’s freedom, during his upcoming visit to the US.
The unpalatable facts of the costs to consumers of electricity from new nuclear power
ATLANTA (AP) — The first American nuclear reactor to be built from scratch in decades is sending electricity reliably to the grid, but the cost of the Georgia power plant could discourage utilities from pursuing nuclear power as a path to a carbon-free future.
Georgia Power Co. announced Monday that Unit 3 at Plant Vogtle, southeast of Augusta, has completed testing and is now in commercial operation, seven years late and $17 billion over budget.
……………………………………………………. In Georgia, almost every electric customer will pay for Vogtle. Georgia Power currently owns 45.7% of the reactors. Smaller shares are owned by Oglethorpe Power Corp., which provides electricity to member-owned cooperatives, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and the city of Dalton. Oglethorpe and MEAG plan to sell power to cooperatives and municipal utilities across Georgia, as well in Jacksonville, Florida, and parts of Alabama and the Florida Panhandle.
Georgia Power’s residential customers are projected to pay more than $926 apiece as part of an ongoing finance charge and elected public service commissioners have approved a rate increase. Residential customers will pay $4 more per month as soon as the third unit begins generating power. That could hit bills in August, two months after residential customers saw a $16-a-month increase to pay for higher fuel costs.
The high construction costs have wiped out any future benefit from low nuclear fuel costs in the future, experts have repeatedly testified before commissioners.
“The cost increases and schedule delays have completely eliminated any benefit on a life-cycle cost basis,” Tom Newsome, director of utility finance for the commission, testified Thursday in a Georgia Public Service Commission hearing examining spending.
The utility will face a fight from longtime opponents of the plant, many of whom note that power generated from solar and wind would be cheaper. They say letting Georgia Power make ratepayers pay for mistakes will unfairly bolster the utility’s profits.
“While capital-intensive and expensive projects may benefit Georgia Power’s shareholders who have enjoyed record profits throughout Vogtle’s beleaguered construction, they are not the least-cost option for Georgians who are feeling the sting of repeated bill increases,” Southern Environmental Law Center staff attorney Bob Sherrier said in a statement.
Commissioners will decide later who pays for the remainder of the costs of Vogtle, including the fourth reactor. Customers will pay for the share of spending that commissioners determine was prudent, while the company and its shareholders will have to pay for spending commissioners decide was wasteful.
Georgia Power CEO Kim Greene said the company hasn’t decided how much it will ask customers to pay. https://apnews.com/article/georgia-power-nuclear-reactor-vogtle-9555e3f9169f2d58161056feaa81a425
UK government must come clean, to tax-payers and consumers, on the financial figures before signing up to new nuclear programme
Full report. See in particular paras 41 -44. “The Government should show
how this offers value for money to taxpayers … So far, the Government has
not published financial figures which allow the cost of this risk transfer
to be known. The Government must publish figures, before signing contracts
for new gigawatt-scale nuclear, which allow a proper assessment of value
for money to be made, including setting out the level and potential cost of
construction risk to be borne by the consumer or taxpayer …
The Government should publish details of how the estimated savings from using
the RAB model for funding Sizewell C were calculated, and provide clarity
for the funding structure, by publishing the Heads of Terms for the agreed
RAB funding model for that project.”
Science, Innovation, Technology Committee 31st July 2023
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41092/documents/200069/default/
Campaigners against Sizewell C nuclear plan welcome call for financial clarity from Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
Campaigners against the Sizewell C nuclear power plant project in Suffolk
welcomed the committee’s call for Government clarity on the financing of
gigawatt-scale nuclear projects. A spokesperson for the Stop Sizewell C
campaign said:
“We’re appalled that the committee has ignored
legitimate concerns about whether nuclear can deliver reliable, affordable
electricity.” The group said it supported “the committee calling for
the Government to publish Sizewell C’s cost and value for money, as doing
so will expose just how unjustifiable this slow, risky, expensive project
is”.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said:
“We have already made clear we will publish a nuclear roadmap and consult
on alternative routes to market by the end of the year.
Nation Cymru 31st July 2023
Another kick in the teeth for UK taxpayers as EDF pockets another £170m of public money for their Sizewell C White Elephant.
In another lame attempt to prop up French adventurism into the UK’s energy sector, the UK
government has handed a further £170m from the public purse (note 1) to
EDF. With the CGN buy-out costing UK plc close to £700m and subsequent
‘encouragements’ to tempt reluctant investors to part with funding for
the doomed development at Sizewell, this brings the total amount of public
money handed over to EDF close to £1bn. East Suffolk residents could be
forgiven for thinking that Sizewell C is ‘shovel ready’: it is not. It
is, in fact, a long way from the Final Investment Decision (FID), the point
at which construction can begin. Even if the UK government and EDF can each
stump up £6bn the project will still be 60% short of the estimated £30bn
– a matter of £18bn to find. But that’s not all: dozens of licences
and permits have yet to be issued by the regulatory authorities, including
the site licence from the Office of Nuclear Regulation, and there is the
small matter of finding 2.2 million litres of mains water every day for 60
years of operation here in the driest county in the country, already
experiencing drought conditions.
TASC 31st July 2023
Protests held in Tokyo against nuclear water discharge
By Jiang Xueqing in Tokyo | chinadaily.com.cn 2023-07 https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202307/31/WS64c7b5d8a31035260b819829.html
—
Japanese and South Korean civic groups gathered in front of the Japanese Prime Minister’s official residence on Monday in opposition to the administration’s plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean.
People attending the rally said the Japanese government’s insistence on discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea is an irresponsible move.
They raised doubts about the Japanese government’s claim the nuclear-contaminated water will be diluted before being released. Whether diluted or not, the protesters said, the overall radioactive substance level in the water remain unchanged.
They stressed discharging the water into the ocean will have a significant impact on the global marine environment.
Last week, a similar protest was held by Japanese people in front of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in Tokyo.
Protesters said on Friday the ocean discharge plan is unacceptable because it poses a significant danger of radioactive contamination and will adversely affect the marine ecosystem and human health.
Some expressed concerns about Japan’s economy, which they believe will be affected by a boycott movement in neighboring countries and regions.
-
Archives
- October 2026 (120)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
