Is The Nuclear “Green”? “CO2- And Climate Neutral”? – Global Research

is-the-nuclear-“green”?-“co2-and-climate-neutral”?-–-global-research

30-11-19 07:25:00,

On the 28th of November 2019 the European Parliament in Brussels voted in favor of nuclear energy, because it is defined as CO2- and climate-neutral.

This happened when a resolution proposal for the coming UN Climate Conference in Madrid had to be approved (1). The leader of the Green Parties in the EP, Ska Keller, voted in favor, whereas a majority of the Greens did not, because the nuclear question is the most basic one for green politics, historically speaking. It seems however that this is going to change and a division of the green parties over the issue seems to be inevitable.

This decision was taken on the same day as the declaration about a „European climate emergency“ which was accompanied by another decision about a trillions of € budget for the climate in relation to a „Green New Deal“ and „digitization“ as the major issues of the new European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen who had her very first day as the new President of this Commission in the EP.

What does all this mean? At this point some questions have to be asked:

Since its beginnings in World War II the nuclear question has, first of all, always to do with the military. So, is the military behind the CO2-climate change-theses?

Is the „Green New Deal“ that propagates the change toward a new „green“ civilization globally, related to the interests of the military?

So, are the Green parties who are just now coming to power in Europe and are propagating the same Green New Deal, themselves related to the military, as well?

Do green voters and party members know about these potential relationships?

What is „green“ about that Deal, the military, digitization and nuclear energy?

What does it mean for the credibility of the CO2-thesis that the military joins the chorus of the UN and its IPCC, and at the same time uses its own technologies to manipulate and weaponize the weather, worldwide and for decades, already?

Do the youth movement of Fridays for Future, Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion never mention the military and nuclear weapons, readioactivity, uranium mining and nuclear waste as dangers for the Planet,

 » Lees verder

Nuclear Outlaw Israel Slams Iran’s Legitimate Uranium Enrichment – Global Research

nuclear-outlaw-israel-slams-iran’s-legitimate-uranium-enrichment-–-global-research

07-11-19 07:42:00,

On Tuesday, Iranian President Rouhani announced his nation’s  4th JCPOA pullback — permitted under the deal’s Articles 26 and 36 when other signatories breach their obligations.

That’s precisely what happened. The Trump regime illegally abandoned the internationally binding agreement.

Europe followed suit by breaching its JCPOA obligations. At the same time, the US and Brussels slammed Iran’s legitimate rollbacks while continuing to ignore their own obligations.

Double standards define Western and Israeli policies, a do as we demand, not as we do agenda.

For well over half a century, Israel has been nuclear armed and dangerous — its well-known open secret the official narrative conceals.

Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Research Center and other nuclear facilities are involved in developing and producing “bombs.”

Pursuit of them began under David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, ordering future MK Ehud Avriel to recruit East European Jewish scientists who could “either increase the capacity to kill masses or to cure masses. Both are important,” he stressed.

Ben-Gurion was determined to have a nuclear option against Arab nations. Noting what was accomplished in his farewell address, he said:

“I am confident…that our science can provide us with the weapons that are needed to deter our enemies from waging war against us.”

He and former prime minister Shimon Peres were the driving forces behind Israel’s development of nuclear, chemical, biological, and other banned weapons.

Secretly completed in 1964, Israel’s Dimona nuclear site was built exclusively for making nuclear weapons, not electricity generation.

By the early 1970s, Israel had advanced nuclear technology, world class scientists, and several dozen bombs in its arsenal — today likely hundreds of thermonukes with delivery capability to strike anywhere regionally.

France, South Africa, and the US were Israel’s main bomb-making collaborators.

Notably in the 1950s, the US launched Israel’s program by supplying the country with a five-megawatt/highly enriched uranium research reactor as part of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program.

Israeli scientists were trained at US universities. They had access to domestic weapons labs. Since the early 1970s, advanced US technology transfers were made to the Jewish state, including supercomputers able to design sophisticated nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

 » Lees verder

Interview with Legendary Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Following His 89th Arrest for Resisting Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear War and Government Secrecy – Global Research

interview-with-legendary-whistleblower-daniel-ellsberg-following-his-89th-arrest-for-resisting-nuclear-weapons,-nuclear-war-and-government-secrecy-–-global-research

15-10-19 08:37:00,

Dennis Bernstein: We are honored to have Daniel Ellsberg here, the man who blew the whistle on the corrupt and illegal Vietnam War and has been blowing whistles and inspiring others ever since. Daniel Ellsberg gained notoriety in the early 1970s by leaking the Pentagon Papers, the Defense Department’s top-secret history of the Vietnam War, and then for outspokenly protesting the war and the government secrecy that sustained it. Yet few know that he has spent most of the previous decade immersed in highly classified studies of the U.S. nuclear war machine. Daniel, welcome. You were just arrested, weren’t you, at Lawrence Livermore Labs? 

Daniel Ellsberg: Yes, I’ve gone there nearly every year, around Hiroshima Day and Nagasaki Day, to send the message that no more weapons should be made in this country without having to arrest people to do it. It is wrong to be doing what Livermore is doing right now – in good conscience, I’m sure. But then I worked on war plans in good conscience. I was conned and so are they. The public was conned about Hiroshima.

Still today, hardly any people know just how much falsehood was fed to them to justify what we did. And when people protest the bomb now, I would say that most Americans would wonder why was it wrong to save a million American lives? After all, wasn’t that the only alternative to an invasion of Japan? That’s what they have heard from people in positions of authority. But in fact, it was not the only alternative. In fact, it was not a serious alternative to invasion.

The American people have believed killing 140,000 people immediately and 300,000 by the end of the year was necessary and therefore justified. If that is justified, what isn’t? What we are doing right now isn’t justified, threatening first use of nuclear weapons and preparing attacks that, if carried out, would destroy most life on earth. But it is not questioned, morally or practically.

Dennis Bernstein: Dan, how would you evaluate the dangers we face now in terms of a nuclear conflagration? Are we worse off now than we were thirty years ago?

Daniel Ellsberg: Well, in 1989-1991, things began to look better.

 » Lees verder

If 4 Nuclear WMD Are More than Adequate for Israel’s Defence – Why Is It Armed with an Estimated 400? – Global Research

if-4-nuclear-wmd-are-more-than-adequate-for-israel’s-defence-–-why-is-it-armed-with-an-estimated-400?-–-global-research

07-10-19 02:24:00,

Because the Israeli government refuses to be a party either to the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the internationally agreed Chemical Weapons or Biological Weapons Conventions (CWC) (BWC), means that unlike the vast majority of UN Member States including America, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany etc., the state of Israel is uniquely able to mount a nuclear/chemical attack upon any country in the Middle East (or Europe), at any time, without warning.

Israel is, of course, the only undeclared nuclear-weaponised state in the world and is estimated by US scientists to have up to 400 nuclear weapons plus substantial stocks of banned chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  Furthermore, the Israeli state is NOT a member of either NATO or the EU.

Frighteningly, it now has a second-strike capability through its nuclear-armed cruise missiles that can be delivered by land, submarine-launched or aircraft. That fact alone makes it, arguably, the most dangerous state on the planet with the ability to destroy and contaminate whole swathes of Europe and the Middle East, for more than a generation.

However, instead of meeting this threat with a national defence planning campaign, the U.K. government exports military equipment to the Netanyahu Likud administration to assist in its potential for regional military domination.

Why? That is a question that must remain unanswered for there is no valid explanation for a British government helping to further arm a potential future enemy that is the only undeclared nuclear state in the world and which already has a fleet of German-built, Dolphin-class submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles plus its Jericho series of intermediate to intercontinental range ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The status quo would appear to be both political and military madness.

There can be but one explanation: the powerful influence of the friends of Israel lobby at Westminster – and, of course, that of its sister lobby, AIPAC, in Washington.

And, it is noted here that at least one member of the current British cabinet of Boris Johnson, has been established in the public domain as a known collaborator with the hard-Right, settler-controlled, Netanyahu government.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below.

 » Lees verder

‘Nuclear weapon of bad ideas’: US, UK & Australia demand Facebook give backdoor access to WhatsApp & other encrypted messengers

‘nuclear-weapon-of-bad-ideas’:-us,-uk-&-australia-demand-facebook-give-backdoor-access-to-whatsapp-&-other-encrypted-messengers

04-10-19 08:01:00,

US Attorney General William Barr and other western officials are calling on Facebook to provide authorities backdoor access to its encrypted messenger platforms, used by hundreds of millions of people around the world every day.

In an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Barr and his British and Australian counterparts will argue that law enforcement requires access to encrypted applications, effectively asking the company to hand over the keys to the private communications of 300 million daily WhatsApp users, as well as 1.5 billion who log into Facebook every day. The letter is dated Friday, but An advance copy was seen by the New York Times.

“Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content, even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes,” the officials wrote.

Though the Facebook-owned messenger WhatsApp is already protected by end-to-end encryption, the open letter will also urge the company to delay rolling out similar features for its other chat platforms, Facebook Messenger and Instagram Direct, asking for access akin to a phone wiretap.

Also on rt.com
US-led ‘Five Eyes’ intel alliance says end-to-end encryption creates terrorism & child abuse threats

The officials argued the request on the grounds of fighting crime and terrorism, but privacy advocates warned the move could seriously damage, or even “destroy,” the ability to communicate privately online, and empower governments with vast, easily abusable spying powers.

National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden – who leaked classified material on the agency’s sweeping mass surveillance programs in 2013 – slammed the officials for what he said “may be the largest overnight violation of privacy in history.”

Oh hey, turns out it’s even worse; it’s more than just #WhatsApp, it’s all FB-owned messaging: “Attorney General William P. Barr is set to press @Facebook on Friday to create a so-called back door to its end-to-end encryption on WhatsApp ***AND OTHER MESSAGING PLATFORMS***”

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 3, 2019

Any politician asking for backdoor access to your private information is a politician that doesn’t give a damn about you or your safety.

 » Lees verder

Can Nuclear War Be Avoided? – PaulCraigRoberts.org

can-nuclear-war-be-avoided?-–-paulcraigroberts.org

18-09-19 07:42:00,

Can Nuclear War Be Avoided?

Paul Craig Roberts

This is a repost from March 19, 2018, prompted by Washington’s insistence that Iran is responsible for the attack on the Saudi oil facility.  Even if it were true, what business is it of Washington?  Iran did not attack the US.  Why is it a matter of war for Americans if Iran were to attack Saudi Arabia.  Why this announcement: ” The Trump administration is weighing a range of options for a retaliatory action against Iran, including a cyberattack or physical strike on Iranian oil facilities or Revolutionary Guard assets, U.S. officials and others briefed on the deliberations told NBC News.”

Two factors are driving the world to nuclear war. One is the constant stream of insults, false accusations and broken agreements that the West has been dumping on Russia year after year. The other is Russia’s response, or, perhaps more correctly, the lack thereof.

Articles documenting Washington’s betrayals and provocations of Russia are available online and on my website. There is no point in repeating them here.

I have pointed out that the Russian government’s factual, diplomatic, and legal responses actually produce more provocations and insults. See, for example, https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/03/17/war-is-on-the-horizon/ Stephen Lendman agrees (http://stephenlendman.org/2018/03/russia-expelling-23-uk-diplomats-way-inadequate/ ) and so does Peter Koenig ( https://thesaker.is/russias-reaction-to-the-insults-of-the-west-is-political-suicide/ ).

Russia has two alternatives to the self-defeating response the government has chosen. One, recommended by Peter Koenig and myself, is to turn her back on the West, cleanse herself of all Western embassies, businesses, media, and NGOs, and cease relying on Western communication systems and bank clearing mechanisms. The West has nothing Russia needs. The West is exhausted and corrupt. The future lies in the East of which Russia is a part. Russia should focus on the partnership with China and relationships in the East and simply stop responding to blatantly false accusations and provocative insults.

Russia can be part of the West only if Russia surrenders to Washington’s hegemony. One would have thought that by now the Russian government would have figured out that Washington is determined to marginalize and isolate Russia, discredit Russia’s government, dislodge Putin and install a puppet like May, Macron, and Merkel, and failing these efforts to push Russia to the point that her only alternatives are to surrender or go to war.

 » Lees verder

Nuclear War With Russia “Winnable” Said Trump’s Incoming National Security Advisor

nuclear-war-with-russia-“winnable”-said-trump’s-incoming-national-security-advisor

15-09-19 07:48:00,

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Questioning “mutual assured destruction,” Charles Kupperman called nuclear conflict “in large part a physics problem.”

Incoming National Security Advisor, Charles Kupperman, made the claim Nuclear War With USSR Was Winnable.

He made those statements in the 1980s. I do not know his views today, but let’s review what he said then.

President Donald Trump’s acting national security adviser, former Reagan administration official Charles Kupperman, made an extraordinary and controversial claim in the early 1980s: nuclear conflict with the USSR was winnable and that “nuclear war is a destructive thing but still in large part a physics problem.”

Kupperman, appointed to his new post on Tuesday after Trump fired his John Bolton from the job, argued it was possible to win a nuclear war “in the classical sense,” and that the notion of total destruction stemming from such a superpower conflict was inaccurate. He said that in a scenario in which 20 million people died in the U.S. as opposed to 150 million, the nation could then emerge as the stronger side and prevail in its objectives.

His argument was that with enough planning and civil defense measures, such as “a certain layer of dirt and some reinforced construction materials,” the effects of a nuclear war could be limited and that U.S. would be able to fairly quickly rebuild itself after an all-out conflict with the then-Soviet Union.

At the time, Kupperman was executive director of President Ronald Reagan’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament. He made the comments during an interview with Robert Scheer for the journalist’s 1982 book, “With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War.”

The National Security Council did not immediately respond to questions on whether Kupperman, 68, still holds the same views of nuclear conflict as he did in the early 1980s. Kupperman’s seemingly cavalier attitude toward the potential death of millions of people was criticized at the time both by Democratic politicians and arms control experts.

The article posts excerpts so let’s look at a couple of precise statements.

Kupperman Statements

  • If the objective in a war is to try to destroy as many Soviet civilians and as many American civilians as is feasible,

 » Lees verder

Iran Will Be A Full Nuclear Power By End Of 2020: Report

iran-will-be-a-full-nuclear-power-by-end-of-2020:-report

10-09-19 01:22:00,

Authored by Elijah Magnier, Middle East based chief international war correspondent for Al Rai Media

French President Emmanuel Macron failed to promote successfully his Iranian initiative with the US administration despite the initial blessing of his US counterpart. This failure led Iran to make a third gradual withdrawal from its JCPOA nuclear deal commitment, raising two main issues.

Iran has become a regional power to be reckoned with, so we can now scrap from reactions to its policies the words “submit,” or “bow to the international community”. Moreover, since Europe is apparently no longer in a position to fulfill its commitments, Iran will now be headed towards a total pull-out following further gradual withdrawal steps. Just before the US elections due in November 2020, Iran is expected to become a nuclear country with the full capability of producing uranium enriched to more than 20% uranium-235, weapons-usable and therefore in a position to manufacture dozens of nuclear bombs (for which uranium must be enriched to about 90%). However, this does not necessarily mean that this is Iran’s ultimate objective.

Screenshot of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani inspecting and touring a facility. 

Industry data shows that half of the effort goes into enriching from 0.7% to 4%. If Iran reaches the level of 20%, the journey towards 90% is almost done. A few thousand centrifuges are needed to reach 20% enrichment while a few hundred are enough to cross from 20% to the 90% needed for a nuclear bomb.

When Iran announces it is reaching a level which is considered critical by the west, there is the possibility that Israel might act militarily against Iran’s capability as it did in Iraq in 1981, in Syria in 2009, and in assassinating nuclear scientists. If this happens, the Middle East will be exposed to a mega earthquake whose outcome is unpredictable. But if Israel and the US are not in a position to react against Iran’s total withdrawal from the JCPOA (nuclear deal), Iran will no longer accept a return to the 2015 deal. Its position will become much stronger and any deal would be difficult to reach.

Sources within the decision-making circle have said “Iran will become a state with full nuclear capability.

 » Lees verder

Nuclear 9/11 Can No Longer Be Ignored, It is Killing Us All | New Eastern Outlook

nuclear-9/11-can-no-longer-be-ignored,-it-is-killing-us-all-|-new-eastern-outlook

03-09-19 08:18:00,

It is all about lying. Few knew what a shield truth had been until it was gone.

We don’t have to go back so many years to find a painful example, in fact August 2019 gives us lots of material to deal with. Let’s look at the Hezbollah missile attack on what was claimed to be an Israeli command convoy. Hezbollah claims they hit a general.

Here is what Hezbollah did, they released a poor-quality video from miles away, showing smoke only.

Believing this was all there was, Israel announced that a missile landed “near an Israeli village” and that the IDF staged a fake rescue of wounded at an imaginary missile hit scene, just as a joke. This story was carried in the mainstream media as it was sourced to the IDF high command and directly to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. In a time of liars, these will do as well as any.

Almanar, a media organization in Lebanon, then published the real video which is also hosted at Veterans Today with commentary by Jim W. Dean. Hezbollah had gotten right up to the Israeli base, we can see the command vehicles loaded from so very close up. Then they drive down the road and it happens. We see one of two missiles fired and both hit with devastating effect.

Hezbollah’s intelligence organization, one few know rivals the Mossad, had waited for days for Israel’s top military commander to leave his headquarters. He was assassinated.

Hezbollah says they used two Russian Kornet missiles to destroy his Wolf type mine resistant command vehicle. Our sources say tehse are Iranian Dehalivieh missiles, copied from the Russian design and manufactured in Iran.

Hezbollah, of course, was retaliating against Israel for two drone assassination attacks inside Beirut only days before. Instead of reporting the truth, that Hezbollah, as shown in 2006, can defeat Israeli defenses at will, Israel chose to lie to its own people, as it always does.

Israel withholds any “bad news,” like the sinkings of two of its Dolphin submarines or the loss of planes including one shot down over Yemen.

Lies make anything possible, hiding the truth from the public for sure,

 » Lees verder

NATO Nuclear Gaff, by Manlio Dinucci

nato-nuclear-gaff,-by-manlio-dinucci

26-08-19 08:03:00,

It’s a stale old secret. But it is also one of the most formidable denials of the Atlantic Alliance: nuclear bombs are stored in violation of international law in Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. By mistake, a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly wrote it in a report immediately withdrawn.

JPEG - 57.5 kb

That the United States keeps nuclear bombs in five NATO countries – Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey – has long been proven (especially by the Federation of American Scientists – FAS) [1]. But NATO never officially admitted it. However something has just gone off the rails.

In the document titled “A new era for nuclear deterrence? Modernization, Arms Control and Alien Nuclear Forces”, by Canadian Senator Joseph Day on behalf of the Defense and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the’ secret ’has been revealed. Through the “cut and paste” function, the Senator inadvertently reported in his document the following paragraph (number 5), taken from a confidential NATO report:

In the NATO context, the United States has deployed in advanced positions in Europe about 150 nuclear weapons, specifically B61 gravity bombs. These bombs are stored in six US and European bases – Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Buchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Torre in Italy, Voikel in the Netherlands and Incirlik in Turkey. In the hypothetical scenario where they would be necessary, B61 bombs can be transported by US or European dual capacity aircraft“(photo).

Accusing Russia of keeping many tactical nuclear weapons in its own arsenal, the document states that the US nuclear weapons deployed in advanced positions in Europe and Anatolia (ie near Russian territory) serve “To ensure the full involvement of the Allies in NATO’s nuclear mission and the concrete confirmation of the US nuclear commitment to the security of the European allies of the Alliance”.

As soon as Senator Joseph Day’s document was published online, NATO intervened by deleting it and then republishing it as an amended version. Too late though. Some sites (above all the Belgian De Morgen) had already recorded it in its complete original version [2]. At this point the reckless writer ran for cover,

 » Lees verder

Hair-trigger Nuclear Alert over Kashmir – Global Research

hair-trigger-nuclear-alert-over-kashmir-–-global-research

12-08-19 05:12:00,

Two of the world’s most important powers, India and Pakistan, are locked into an extremely dangerous confrontation over the bitterly disputed Himalayan mountain state of Kashmir. Both are nuclear armed.

Kashmir has been a flashpoint since Imperial Britain divided India in 1947. India and Pakistan have fought numerous wars and conflicts over majority Muslim Kashmir. China controls a big chunk of northern Kashmir known as Aksai Chin. (see map below)

In 1949, the UN mandated a referendum to determine if Kashmiris wanted to join Pakistan or India. Not surprisingly, India refused to hold the vote. But there are some Kashmiris who want an independent state, though a majority seek to join Pakistan.

India claims that most of northern Pakistan is actually part of Kashmir, which it claims in full. India rules the largest part of Kashmir, formerly a princely state. Pakistan holds a smaller portion, known as Azad Kashmir. In my book on Kashmir, ‘War at the Top of the World,’ I called it ‘the globe’s most dangerous conflict.’ It remains so today.

I’ve been under fire twice on the Indo-Pak border in Kashmir, known as the ‘Line of Control,’ and once at 15,000 feet atop the Siachen Glacier on China’s border. India has over 500,000 soldiers and paramilitary police garrisoning its portion of Kashmir, whose 12 million people bitterly oppose often corrupt and brutal Indian rule – except for local minority Hindus and Sikhs who support it. A bloody, bitter uprising has flared on against Indian rule since 1989 in which some 42,000 people, mostly civilians, have died.

About 250,000 Pakistani troops are dug in on the other side of the ceasefire line.

What makes this confrontation so dangerous is that both sides have important tactical and nuclear forces arrayed against one another. These are mostly short/medium-ranged nuclear tipped missiles, and air-delivered nuclear bombs. Strategic nuclear weapons back up these tactical forces. A nuclear exchange, even a limited one, could kill millions, pollute much of Asia’s ground water, and spread radioactive dust around the globe – including to North America.

India’s new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is a Hindu hardliner who is willing to confront Pakistan and India’s 200 million Muslims,

 » Lees verder

Hair-Trigger Nuclear Alert Over Kashmir

hair-trigger-nuclear-alert-over-kashmir

10-08-19 01:48:00,

Two of the world’s most important powers, India and Pakistan, are locked into an extremely dangerous confrontation over the bitterly disputed Himalayan mountain state of Kashmir. Both are nuclear armed.

Kashmir has been a flashpoint since Imperial Britain divided India in 1947. India and Pakistan have fought numerous wars and conflicts over majority Muslim Kashmir. China controls a big chunk of northern Kashmir known as Aksai Chin.

In 1949, the UN mandated a referendum to determine if Kashmiris wanted to join Pakistan or India. Not surprisingly, India refused to hold the vote. But there are some Kashmiris who want an independent state, though a majority seek to join Pakistan.

India claims that most of northern Pakistan is actually part of Kashmir, which it claims in full. India rules the largest part of Kashmir, formerly a princely state. Pakistan holds a smaller portion, known as Azad Kashmir. In my book on Kashmir, ‘War at the Top of the World,’ I called it ‘the globe’s most dangerous conflict.’ It remains so today.

I’ve been under fire twice on the Indo-Pak border in Kashmir, known as the ‘Line of Control,’ and once at 15,000 feet atop the Siachen Glacier on China’s border. India has over 500,000 soldiers and paramilitary police garrisoning its portion of Kashmir, whose 12 million people bitterly oppose often corrupt and brutal Indian rule – except for local minority Hindus and Sikhs who support it. A bloody, bitter uprising has flared on against Indian rule since 1989 in which some 42,000 people, mostly civilians, have died.

About 250,000 Pakistani troops are dug in on the other side of the ceasefire line.

What makes this confrontation so dangerous is that both sides have important tactical and nuclear forces arrayed against one another. These are mostly short/medium-ranged nuclear tipped missiles, and air-delivered nuclear bombs. Strategic nuclear weapons back up these tactical forces. A nuclear exchange, even a limited one, could kill millions, pollute much of Asia’s ground water, and spread radioactive dust around the globe – including to North America.

India’s new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is a Hindu hardliner who is willing to confront Pakistan and India’s 200 million Muslims, who make up over 14% of the population. In February, Modi sent warplanes to attack Pakistan after Kashmir insurgents ambushed Indian forces.

 » Lees verder

Cold War ‘nuclear coffin’ leaking radioactive waste from US tests into Pacific Ocean – UN chief

cold-war-‘nuclear-coffin’-leaking-radioactive-waste-from-us-tests-into-pacific-ocean-–-un-chief

16-05-19 02:49:00,

A massive concrete dome built during the Cold War to contain waste from US Nuclear testing has degraded and began leaking nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has confirmed.

While the imposing structure at Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands may look like something from a James Bond movie, Guterres described it as a “kind of coffin:” a stern reminder of the aftermath of American atomic weapons testing.

The soil irradiated by the tests and ash from the fallout were dumped into a crater which was then capped with 18 inches of concrete, measures that have proved ineffective at containing the waste in the long run. The bottom of the crater was reportedly never lined at all.

Guterres confirmed the disturbing information while speaking to students in Fiji as a part of a tour of the South Pacific focusing on climate change and environmental issues. The leakage, according to Guterres, has already begun to have its effect.

Our oceans are in serious trouble, from coral bleaching to biodiversity loss. Healthy oceans save lives and livelihoods. We need urgent #ClimateAction to protect our oceans – and our future. pic.twitter.com/vakISTezL8

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) May 15, 2019

The consequences have been quite dramatic, in relation to health, in relation to the poisoning of waters in some areas.

Aside from being used to store the dangerous atomic waste, Guterres discussed how the Pacific had been victimized while under US administration. The islands and atolls far off the south east coast of Japan such as Enewetak were the sites of 67 American nuclear weapons tests that took place between 1946-58.

One such test was the 1954 ‘Bravo’ hydrogen bomb, which remains the most powerful US-tested atomic weapon. Its explosion was 1,000 times bigger than the atomic bombs used on Japan.

Also on rt.com
US used Hiroshima atomic bomb victims as ‘guinea pigs’, survivor tells RT

The native people who lived on the Marshall Islands had to be forcibly evacuated and resettled by the US administration. Nonetheless, many ended up exposed to nuclear fallout from the tests.

 » Lees verder

Pre-emptive Nuclear War: The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran – Global Research

pre-emptive-nuclear-war:-the-role-of-israel-in-triggering-an-attack-on-iran-–-global-research

11-05-19 08:18:00,

The text below is Chapter III of Michel Chossudovsky book entitled:  The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity, Global Research Publishers, Montreal, 2015.  To order the book directly from Global Research click here

This chapter provides a historical perspective of US war plans directed against Iran, including the use of a preemptive nuclear attack, using low yield, “more usable” tactical nuclear weapons.  Emphasis added

***

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.”

The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the U.S. in liaison with NATO and Israel.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S. “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.1

“Theater Iran Near Term” (TIRANNT)

Code named by U.S. military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.”2

The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg:

The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force.

 » Lees verder

March 11, 2011: Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation – Global Research

march-11-2011-fukushima-a-nuclear-war-without-a-war-the-unspoken-crisis-of-worldwide-nuclear-radiation-8211-global-research

11-03-19 10:21:00,

The Fukushima-Daiichi Disaster, Eight Years ago, March 11, 2011. 

In the light of reports pertaining to “unimaginable” levels of radiation, we are reposting this I-Book on the Fukushima tragedy, which has been the object of media coverup and distortion. In the words of Dr. Helen Caldicott, “one millionth of a gram of plutonium, if inhaled can cause cancer”.  

The Fukushima disaster in March 2011 resulted in 16,000 deaths, causing some 165,000 people to flee their homes in the Fukushima area.

Both the Japanese and Western media tend to downplay the impacts of nuclear radiation which has spread to vast areas in Northern Japan, not to mention the contamination of the food chain. The Abe government casually points to “harmful rumors”.

Moreover, the dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination.

Amply documented the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) was involved in a coverup. And so was the Japanese government. 

Originally published in  January 2012, this study by Michel Chossudovsky confirms what is now unfolding: a Worldwide process of nuclear radiation.

Note to Readers: Remember to bookmark this page for future reference.

Please Forward the GR I-Book far and wide. Post it on Facebook.

[scroll down for I-BOOK Table of Contents]

Originally published in January 2012. The introduction of the I-Book is contained as a chapter in Michel Chossudovsky’s 2015 bestseller:  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity, Global Research, Montreal 2015

*       *       *

GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE READER SERIES
The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation
Michel Chossudovsky (Editor)

I-Book No. 3, January 25  2012

Global Research’s Online Interactive I-Book Reader brings together, in the form of chapters, a collection of Global Research feature articles and videos, including debate and analysis, on a broad theme or subject matter. 

In this Interactive Online I-Book we bring to the attention of our readers an important collection of articles, reports and video material on the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe and its impacts (scroll down for the Table of Contents).

 » Lees verder

‘Time to end the nuclear threat’: Graham hints at war hours after Trump-Kim summit stalls

time-to-end-the-nuclear-threat-graham-hints-at-war-hours-after-trump-kim-summit-stalls

01-03-19 10:15:00,

Sen. Lindsey Graham is already saber-rattling at North Korea less than a day after President Donald Trump and leader Kim Jong-un ended their summit amicably without a signed agreement. Graham, it seems, doesn’t handle peace well.

While the South Carolina Republican applauded Trump for walking away from the negotiating table rather than agreeing to anything less than “complete denuclearization” from the DPRK, Graham didn’t seem to grasp the concept of incremental progress, or improved diplomatic relations, resorting to threats and dusting off Trump’s own puerile name-calling from over a year ago.

Also on rt.com
Kim willing to denuclearize, allow US liaison in Pyongyang as 2nd day of Hanoi summit begins

We must not go back to the status quo,” Graham warned, even getting in a jibe at “Rocket Man” – though Kim has not conducted a missile test since 2017 and reportedly told Trump he has no plans to do so.

If negotiations fail, it would be time to end the nuclear threat from North Korea – one way or the other,” Graham said ominously. Both Kim and Trump, meanwhile, left the summit looking full of optimism that a deal would be struck in the future.

Graham has historically been among the most trigger-happy of his trigger-happy party, eclipsed perhaps only by his friend the late Sen. John McCain, who never met a country a good bombing wouldn’t fix. Graham famously predicted in 2017 that there was a 30-percent chance Trump would preemptively nuke North Korea to prevent Kim from developing a weapon capable of hitting the US, and he has been among the most strident voices excoriating the president whenever Trump hints at pulling troops out of Syria, Afghanistan, or any of the other endless conflicts in which the US military is involved around the globe.

Also on rt.com
Lindsey Graham warns of ‘Iraq on steroids’ if Trump doesn’t delay Syria withdrawal

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

 » Lees verder

Will France pay for its nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean? | New Eastern Outlook

will-france-pay-for-its-nuclear-testing-in-the-pacific-ocean-new-eastern-outlook

28-01-19 09:25:00,

FR4t53422

French Polynesia comprises a multitude of islands in the center of the Pacific Ocean, which are a part of France. The biggest and the most famous of these is the island of Tahiti. As in other “overseas” territories that remain under France’s dominion since colonial times, there is a powerful movement for independence in French Polynesia. Islanders take special issue with their parent country when it comes to numerous nuclear tests, which France conducted in the region in the second half of the 20th century.

Based on available data, during the period from 1966 to 1998, the French military performed 193 tests of nuclear weaponry in the atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa, which comprise the Tuamotu Archipelago. It is public knowledge that 46 tests, conducted from 1966 to 1974, were atmospheric in nature, i.e. nuclear warheads were positioned in special towers on the Earth’s surface, on barges in lagoons, on aerostats in the air, and were also dropped from planes and detonated in the air. It is noteworthy that in 1963, the USSR, the USA and Great Britain signed the Treaty of Moscow, which banned nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space, but France chose not to participate in this agreement.

The other 147 tests were performed underground from 1975 to 1998, with detonations taking place in 500 to 1,100-meter-deep closed vertical shafts.

It is worth mentioning that both atmospheric and underground nuclear tests were conducted on the two atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa.

It is difficult to say which approach is more harmful to the environment and population’s health. A nuclear detonation in the atmosphere causes a rapid dispersion of radioactive substances over a large area, which soon have an effect on well-being of residents living in this area. After an underground test, a lot of harmful compounds could remain in a shaft, where the detonation took place, for quite a number of years. However with time, these substances, via various routes, such as underground waters, could pollute the surrounding area, and their effect may be more long-lasting and permanent than after-effects following a detonation in the atmosphere, which gradually subside with the help of winds and rains.

Either way,

 » Lees verder

“Financial Nuclear Warheads” – The Yellow Vests Get It Right

8220financial-nuclear-warheads8221-8211-the-yellow-vests-get-it-right

15-01-19 09:08:00,

Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

The mainstream media has degenerated irreparably. Here’s a reliable rule of thumb: if it’s important it’s not covered; if it’s covered it’s not important. Stories in the American mainstream press about Yellow Vest protests have been few. One aspect of the protests, transcendently important, has received scant coverage.

The Yellow Vest protestors have called for a coordinated run on French banks. Whether they realize it or not, they’re playing with nuclear warheads that could annihilate not just the French, but Europe’s and the entire world’s financial system. Because inextricably linked to the ends of contemporary governments―how much they can screw up the lives of those who must live under them—is the question of means―how do they fund their misrule? The short answer is taxes and debt.

Since 1971, when President Nixon 
“temporarily” suspended international convertibility of dollars for gold (it’s never been reinstated), the monetary basis of the global economy has been fiat debt. Neither government or central bank debt nor currencies are tethered to any real constraint, like precious metals (see “Real Money,” SLL). Thus, politicians and monetary officials can create as much debt as they want: debt by fiat.

Government and central bank debt is at the apex of the global debt pyramid. The next tier is commercial banks that have accounts at central banks. Those accounts are bank assets and central bank liabilities, or debts. Central banks expand their fiat liabilities to banks in exchange for banks’ fiat government debt, an exchange called debt monetization, which is a bit of a misnomer since no “Real Money” is involved. The “monetization” is the central bank’s fiat expansion of banks’ accounts with the central bank in exchange for fiat government debt, which expands banks’ assets available for loans to governments, businesses, and individuals.

In “Real Money,” money was defined, in part, as that which has intrinsic value and is not a liability of an individual or entity. This part of the definition is controversial; it invalidates everything we currently think of as money. Popularly accepted definitions are essentially: money is as money does,

 » Lees verder

Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Enewetak Atol: Rising Sea Levels Add to the Toxic Legacy – Global Research

nuclear-weapons-tests-in-the-enewetak-atol-rising-sea-levels-add-to-the-toxic-legacy-8211-global-research

10-01-19 03:13:00,

The Enewetak Atoll, in the Marshall Islands, is about halfway between Australia and Hawaii. After WWII, the atoll came under control of the US, and in 1948 the first nuclear test was carried out. For 10 years, as part of the Cold War, 43 nuclear bombs were detonated on Enewetak – twice as many tests as its neighbour, Bikini Atoll.  

The US sent around 4000 personnel to the area in 1977 to clean the site. During the three-year process, they mixed contaminated soil and debris with cement and buried it in one of the blast craters on the beach. The concrete dome was added and in 1980 the atoll was said to be safe for habitation. Local residents returned the same year. But the effect of rising sea levels due to climate change had not been anticipated. 

In 2013, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories issued a disturbing report commissioned by the US Department of Energy which examined the ‘Cactus’ dome on Runit Island, one of 40 islands of the Enewetak Atoll, recorded the cracks and ordered repairs. 

Double standards? 

It noted (p2) that “If the Cactus crater concrete containment structure on Runit Island were located in the United States proper (or subjected to U.S. regulatory authority), it would be formally classified as a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site and be subject to stringent site management and monitoring practices”. 

A reader sent a link to an article by Australian journalist Phoebe Loomes, who reports that rising sea levels have added to the degradation of the large, concrete-dome holding the toxic materials which are leaking into the Pacific Ocean.

Mike Willacy, an investigative journalist, travelled to the Marshall Islands for the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent program in 2017. He said that the dome was only meant to be a temporary solution until the US came up with a permanent plan – a cost-cutting exercise.

He saw the cracks in the concrete dome and was told that residents feared for their lives if the structure collapsed. They warned of the fallout that could arise from the water flowing into the Pacific Ocean.

 » Lees verder

The U.K.’s Nuclear Dream Is Now Its Worst Nightmare

the-uk.8217s-nuclear-dream-is-now-its-worst-nightmare

16-12-18 05:27:00,

Thirty years ago it seemed like a dream: now it is a nuclear nightmare. A project presented to the world in the 1990s by the UK government as a £2.85 billion triumph of British engineering, capable of recycling thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel into reusable uranium and plutonium is shutting down – with its role still controversial.

Launched amid fears of future uranium shortages and plans to use the plutonium produced from the plant to feed a generation of fast breeder reactors, the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant, known as THORP, was thought to herald a rapid expansion of the industry.

In the event there were no uranium shortages, fast breeder reactors could not be made to work, and nuclear new build of all kinds stalled. Despite this THORP continued as if nothing had happened, recycling thousands of tons of uranium and producing 56 tons of plutonium that no one wants. The plutonium, once the world’s most valuable commodity, is now classed in Britain as “an asset of zero value.”

Over its lifetime the giant plant at Sellafield in Cumbria, north-west England, has taken spent fuel from eight countries as well as the UK and succeeded in producing a small mountain of plutonium and uranium of which only a tiny fraction has ever been re-used as intended. Instead most has been stockpiled and is now stored under armed guard with no use or purpose in sight.

White elephant

From the start, THORP was lampooned by cartoonists as a balloon in the shape of a great white elephant hovering over the English Lake District. The UK government maintained then − and still insists − that it was a major foreign currency earner, bringing £9 bn (US$11.4 bn today) to the UK over its lifetime.

There is though no publicly available profit and loss account for the plant. (Most of the prices and costs quoted here are those reported by the owners of THORP in their publicity at the time, but the total of foreign currency earnings and some of the 2018 figures below are new ones provided to the Climate News Network).

All that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which runs THORP on behalf of the government,

 » Lees verder

New US Nuclear Missiles Will Be Deployed In NATO Countries To Hit Moscow?, by Valentin Vasilescu

new-us-nuclear-missiles-will-be-deployed-in-nato-countries-to-hit-moscow-by-valentin-vasilescu

30-11-18 09:42:00,

JPEG - 73 kb

NATO’s Trident Junction 18 exercise took place in Norway in late October and early November and was the largest Western exercise since 1980. It was the first exercises, in the winter conditions in the Arctic zone, after the announcement of United States to withdraw from the INF Treaty. It is likely NATO would to open a second front against Russia in the Arctic, in addition to the Baltic region. The purpose of this Arctic ballistic corridor is to facilitate the naval and air offensive against Moscow. For example, once withdrawn from the INF Treaty, the United States could place intermediate-range and medium-range ballistic missiles on the territory of some NATO member states in the Arctic. Taking advantage of a lower number detection systems at the northern border of Russia.

From the north of Norway, a NATO member country, the distance to Moscow is 1500 km, and 1000 km to St. Petersburg. The distance between the Svalbard archipelago, administered by Norway, and Moscow is 2000 km. The distance to Russian border from Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, another NATO member country, is 1500 km from and 3000 km between Greenland and Moscow. The distance from Canada’s North, a NATO member country, to the Russian Arctic coast is 2300 km, and 3900 km to Moscow, by North Pole route.

Due this reason, Russia was forced to adopt measures to protect the Arctic.

The Anti-Ballistic radars Voronezh DM/ M at Dunayevka (Kaliningrad enclave) and Lekhtusi (St. Petersburg) have been updated to compensate the deactivation of Skrunda (Latvia) radar. These Russian radars have a range of 6,000 km. The Volga anti-ballistic radar located at Hantsavitchy (Belarus) has a range of 2000 km and has been upgraded. Another Russian anti-ballistic radar Voronezh VP, operates in Olenegorsk, Kola peninsula ( at border of Finland). Another new-generation Daryal-type radar was placed at Pechora, in the Arctic Circle. Finally, in 2018 a new radar was made operational in the island of Novaya Zemlya.

All these early warning and control radars operate in an alert network (code 590), controlled by the 29b6 Container system, located in Nizhny Novgorod (250 km north-east of Moscow).Although the detection range of the 29b6 Container is only 3000 km, it has multiple dedicated storage memory facilities and servers, using the latest generation microprocessors and satellite communication equipment.

 » Lees verder

NATO’s Largesse: “Nuclear Sharing” – Global Research

natos-largesse-nuclear-sharing-8211-global-research

29-11-18 05:08:00,

On November 10, a 5,290-ton Norwegian warship sank into one of the country’s inner fiords after colliding with a 62,557-ton tanker carrying almost 100 million liters of oil. CNN reported, “Now all that remains above the waterline is the frigate’s top, antennas and radar, leading local media to speculate how a ship designed for war failed to avoid a slow-moving, 62,557-ton tanker.”

Good question, and it will cost Norwegians an estimated $100 million to recover and repair its warship, but that’s minor compared to the damage that could be done by more military mistakes within its borders. In 1949, Norway joined NATO, and NATO nations have since enjoyed its “nuclear sharing” largesse, by which member nations without nuclear weapons of their own participate in nuclear force planning, train their armed forces to use nuclear weapons, and store nuclear weapons in their territories. United States Air Force (USAF) personnel guard the nuclear weapons “shared” with NATO nations, and the codes for deploying and firing them also remain under US control.

In October 2016, Norway voted against a UN nuclear disarmament resolution, saying that it “will not support proposals that would weaken NATO’s role as a defence alliance.” A month later, a Russian official warned that Norway, which shares a border with Russia, had become a nuclear target due to the deployment of 330 US Marines in its territory.

Exercise Trident Juncture prepares for Russian invasion of Scandinavia

Norway’s ill-fated frigate sank at the end of the war-games phase of Trident Juncture, NATO’s massive military exercise on Russia’s Scandinavian and Arctic borders. The first phase of Trident Juncture was deployment, from August to October. The second phase, war games, lasted from October 25 to November 7, and was based on the premise that Russia had invaded Scandinavia by ground, by air, and by sea. The third phase was a command post exercise to rehearse control of a real military operation from within Norway and Italy. The exercise included 50,000 participants from 31 NATO and partner countries, 250 aircraft, 65 naval vessels, and up to 10,000 tanks and other ground vehicles. Its “modular combined petroleum unit” provided 25,000 gallons of jet fuel and 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

 » Lees verder

The nuclear lies of Jens Stoltenberg, by Manlio Dinucci

the-nuclear-lies-of-jens-stoltenberg-by-manlio-dinucci

28-11-18 04:03:00,

Just as NATO denounces the boarding of Ukrainian ships by Russia, without noting that they had violated its maritime space, so its Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, denounces the danger of Russian missiles. The principles of propaganda never change – avoid the context and distort the scale of the facts.

JPEG - 28.1 kb

« Russian missiles are a danger » – the alarm was sounded by the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, in an interview with Maurizio Caprara published in the Corriere della Sera, three days before the « incident » in the Sea of Azov which added fuel to the already incandescent tension with Russia [1]. « There are no new missiles in Europe. But there are Russian missiles, yes », began Stoltenberg, ignoring two facts.

- First : as from March 2020, the United States will begin to deploy in Italy, Germany, Belgium, and Holland (where B-61 nuclear bombs are already based), and probably also in other European countries, the first nuclear bomb with precision guidance in their arsenal, the B61-12. Its function is primarily anti-Russian. This new bomb is designed with penetrating capacity, enabling it to explode underground in order to destroy the central command bunkers with its first strike. How would the United States react if Russia deployed nuclear bombs in Mexico, right next to their territory? Since Italy and the other countries, violating the non-proliferation Treaty, are allowing the USA to use its bases, as well as its pilots and planes, for the deployment of nuclear weapons, Europe will be exposed to a greater risk as the first line of the growing confrontation with Russia.

- Second : a new US missile system was installed in Romania in 2016, and another similar system is currently being built in Poland. The same missile system is installed on four warships which, based by the US Navy in the Spanish port of Rota, sail the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea close to Russian territory. The land-based installations, like the ships, are equipped with Lockheed Martin Mk41 vertical launchers, which – as specified by the manufacturer himself – are able to launch « missiles for all missions : either SM-3’s as defence against ballistic missiles, or long-range Tomahawks to attack land-based objectives ».

 » Lees verder

Does US Withdrawal from another Nuclear Treaty Really Benefit Russia? | New Eastern Outlook

does-us-withdrawal-from-another-nuclear-treaty-really-benefit-russia-new-eastern-outlook

30-10-18 06:53:00,

THAAD5746522

No. Obviously Russia does not benefit from the scrapping of yet another treaty designed to prevent a nuclear exchange amid a war with the United States.

Yet, as an attempt to frame blatant US provocations as somehow “Russia’s fault,” a narrative has begun circulating – claiming that not only does the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty somehow benefit Russia – it was via Russia’s “puppet” – US President Donald Trump – that saw the treaty scrapped.

Spreading this scurrilous narrative are political provocateurs like former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul who has re-branded himself recently as a prominent anti-Trump voice – feeding into and feeding off of America’s false left-right political paradigm.

In one post on social media, McFaul would claim:

Why can’t Trump leverage his close personal relationship with Putin to get Russia to abide by the INF Treaty?

In other posts, he would recommend followers to read commentary published by US corporate-financier funded think tank – the Brookings Institution – on how the US withdrawal “helps Russia and hurts US.”

The commentary – penned by former US ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer – admitted that no evidence has been made public of supposed “Russian violations.” It also admits that America’s European allies – those who would be in range of Russian intermediate range missiles if deployed – have not raised a “stink” with the Kremlin, publicly or privately.

But Pifer claims that the US has no missiles to match those supposedly being developed by Russia, and even if it did, the US would have no where to place them – claiming that NATO, Japan, and South Korea would not allow the US to place such systems on their shores. This, he and McFaul suggest, is why the US’ withdrawal from the treaty “benefits” Russia by granting it a monopoly over intermediate range missiles.

Washington’s Other Withdrawals Prove Otherwise 

Yet the US has already withdrawn from treaties and twisted the arms of allies to allow newly developed missile systems to be deployed on their shores.

In the aftermath of Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from another Cold War-era agreement – the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty scrapped by US President George Bush Jr.

 » Lees verder

America’s Nuclear Death Wish – Europe Must Rebel

americas-nuclear-death-wish-europe-must-rebel

29-10-18 08:49:00,

“It is time for the Europeans to step up to the plate and to exert some sense on the Americans”

The Trump administration’s declared scrapping of a crucial arms control treaty is putting the world on notice of a nuclear war, sooner or later.

Any such war is not winnable. It is mutually assured destruction. Yet the arrogant American rulers – some of them at least – seem to be deluded in thinking they can win such a war.

What makes the American position even more execrable is that it is being pushed by people who have never fought a war. Indeed, by people like President Donald Trump and his hawkish national security advisor John Bolton who both dodged military service to their country during the Vietnam War. How’s that for macabre mockery? The world is being pushed to war by a bunch of effete cowards who are clueless about war.

Trump announced last this week that the US was finally pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a move confirmed by Bolton on a follow-up trip to Moscow. That treaty was signed in 1987 by former President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It was a landmark achievement of cooperation and trust between the nuclear superpowers. Both sides removed short and medium-range nuclear missiles from Europe.

With Trump intending to rip up the INF Treaty, as his predecessor GW Bush had done with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, Europe is now facing the disastrous prospect of American missiles being reinstalled across its territory as they were in the 1980s. However, a big distinction between then and now is that after years of expansion by NATO, European territory is at an even sharper interface with Russia’s heartland.

When the INF Treaty was implemented three decades ago, the US and Russian nuclear arsenals were seriously dialed back to the strategic level of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) confined on respective landmasses separated by thousands of kilometers. As Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of Natsionalnaya Oborona, told Russia’s Vesti news channel, the ICBMs typically have a flight time of 30 minutes from launch. That time gap would give Russian defense systems time to respond effectively to an incoming strike from the US,

 » Lees verder

Trump To Pull U.S. Out Of 1987 Nuclear Weapons Treaty With Russia

Trump To Pull U.S. Out Of 1987 Nuclear Weapons Treaty With Russia

21-10-18 09:21:00,

As Russia continues to outmaneuver the US by developing new ballistic missiles like the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile, as well as hypersonic weapons capable of carrying a nuclear payload, President Trump said Saturday that he plans to abandon a 1987 arms-control treaty that has (on paper, at least) prohibited the US and Russia from deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles as Russia has continued to “repeatedly violate” its terms according to the president, the Associated Press reports.

“We’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement,” Trump said Saturday after a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada. “We’re going to terminate the agreement.”

In a report that undoubtedly further complicated John Bolton’s weekend trip to Moscow, the Guardian revealed on Friday that the national security advisor – in what some described as an overreach of the position’s typical role – had been pushing Trump to abandon the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The announcement comes after the U.S. had been warning Russia it could resort to strong countermeasures unless Moscow complies with international commitments to arms reduction under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a pact struck in the 1980s.

When first signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev following their historic 1986 meeting, the INF was touted as an important deescalation of tensions between the two superpowers. But it has since become a flashpoint in the increasingly strained relationship between the US and Russia, as both sides have accused the other of violating its terms.

But for the US, Russia is only part of the problem.

The New York Times reported that the pact has limited the US from deploying weapons to counter the burgeoning military threat posed by China in the Western Pacific, where the country has ignored claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea and transformed reefs into military bases. And since China was never a party to the treaty, Beijing can hardly cry foul when the US decides to withdrawal, especially because Russia is already openly using the treaty as toilet paper.

Speaking at a rally in Elko Nevada, President Trump accused Russia of violating the agreement and said he didn’t want to leave the US in a position where Russia would be free to “go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.”

 » Lees verder

US nuclear missiles in Italy, as well as their bombs?, by Manlio Dinucci

US nuclear missiles in Italy, as well as their bombs?, by Manlio Dinucci

19-10-18 07:22:00,

As we might have expected, the de facto abandon of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) – concluded between Washington and Moscow at the end of the Cold War – has now rebooted the competition. Except that this time, it’s even more complicated, since the United States violated the Treaty first, while they were already violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Meanwhile, Russia has discreetly forged ahead with its technological progress while pretending to allow the problem to drag on.

JPEG - 80.8 kb
Elisabetta Trenta

The B61-12, the new US nuclear bomb which replaces the B-61 deployed in Italy and other European countries, will begin production in less than a year. The announcement was made officially by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). It reveals that the revision of the final project has now been completed with success, and the qualification stage will begin this month at the Pantex Plant in Texas. Production will be authorised to begin in September 2019.

In March 2020, the first unit of production will begin fabricating a series of 500 bombs. As from that time, in other words in about a year and a half, the United States will begin the anti-Russian deployment in Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland and probably certain other European countries, of the first nuclear bomb in their arsenal with a precision guidance system. The B61-12 is designed with penetrating capacity, built to explode underground in order to destroy bunkers housing command centres.

Since Italy and the other countries, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are offering the USA the bases, the pilots and the aircraft for the deployment of the B61-12, Europe will soon be exposed to a greater risk as the front line of the developing nuclear confrontation with Russia.

An even more dangerous situation appears at the same moment – the return of the Euromissiles, meaning the nuclear missiles which are similar to those deployed in Europe in the 1980’s by the USA, with the official aim of defending against Soviet missiles.

This category of ground-based nuclear missiles of intermediate range (between 500 and 5,500 km) were eliminated with the INF Treaty of 1987. But in 2014, the Obama administration accused Russia of having experimented with a cruise missile (# 9M729) whose category was forbidden by the Treaty.

 » Lees verder

Israel: The Nuclear Hegemon That Poses a Potential Threat to Europe – Global Research

Israel: The Nuclear Hegemon That Poses a Potential Threat to Europe – Global Research

30-09-18 07:11:00,

It is calculated that in addition to the secret arsenal of up to 400 nuclear warheads, according to American Scientists, the Israeli state also reportedly possesses chemical and/or biological WMD, making it a dangerous nuclear hegemon that poses a potential threat not only to the Middle East but also to Europe.  Neither France nor Britain nor Germany can equal Israeli state nuclear weaponisation on both land and sea.

This calculation is based on the fact that the state of Israel is the only WMD state to refuse to be a party to either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) which are international arms control treaties that outlaw the production, stockpiling, and use or transfer of chemical or biological weapons and their precursors.

These conventions are administered by the OPCW international, intergovernmental Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons  based in The Hague, Netherlands to which virtually every U.N. member state is a party, with the exception of Israel.

Furthermore, the state of Israel is the only nuclear weapons state in the world that is undeclared and which is also outside of the inspection of the U.N. and the authority of the Security Council.

It is armed and funded by the joint efforts of the Christian and Jewish Zionist Lobby of the US Congress together with the Trump White House but Israel also receives military equipment and assistance from the UK and some other European states such as Germany.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has unilaterally altered the balance of power in the region by supplying Netanyahu with a fleet of German-built and subsidised, state-of-the-art submarines reported to have been retro-fitted with cruise-missile nuclear weapons.  These undersea war vessels of the Israeli navy are uninspected by the UN or the IAEA and are now assumed to be covertly patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and the Iranian Gulf with their dangerous armaments.

We now have the ludicrous position whereby heavily nuclear-armed Israel is accusing non-nuclear Iran of being armed and dangerous in a transparent effort to destroy the Iranian economy. The U.N. Security Council needs to take urgent action before we are all in danger from a nuclear war provoked by Netanyahu with co-operation from the dysfunctional Trump White House.

 » Lees verder

US Nuclear Safety: A Critical Problem That Has Largely Been Kept Out Of The Public Eye

US Nuclear Safety: A Critical Problem That Has Largely Been Kept Out Of The Public Eye

23-09-18 07:33:00,

Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The issue of nuclear safety has been a hot topic in the second half of 2018. It has just been discussed in detail at the 62nd International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference in Geneva, which was held Sept. 17-21. The international conference on “The Security of Radioactive Material: The Way Forward for Prevention and Detection,” which is scheduled for Vienna, Dec. 3-7, is going to be a landmark international event that will be a focus for the media spotlight.

It is true that poor storage conditions and low nuclear-safety standards threaten the environment and increase the possibility of nuclear materials getting into the wrong hands.

Russia can be proud of its achievements in this area. The days of the 1990s when it needed outside help to tackle this problem are long gone. In 2013, Moscow ended the joint Russian-US Cooperative Threat Reduction program (the Nunn-Lugar program) because it is now able to manage these issues on its own. The cooperation over the secure storage of weapons-grade materials was suspended in 2014. The IAEA reports that today Russia boasts high nuclear-safety standards. Sophisticated protection equipment has been installed and all nuclear sites are jointly safeguarded by the military, ROSATOM’s security agency, and on-site security teams. The materials are properly safeguarded during transportation. A special program to upgrade the transportation infrastructure has been in place since 2010.

The report “The Use of Highly Enriched Uranium as Fuel in Russia,” issued by the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), a group based at Princeton University, admits that the country has made great progress to ensure the safety of uranium stockpiles and transportation. It also includes criticism, the absence of which would be odd in any report prepared by a US think tank. It states that “highly enriched uranium (HEU) poses special concerns, as it can be used relatively easily in simple nuclear explosive devices by states with limited nuclear weapon expertise or even by non-state actors … [Russia] has not made highly enriched uranium minimization a priority.” The paper concludes that it is essential to secure Russia’s commitment to the development of a comprehensive,

 » Lees verder

Never Go Nuclear — The EU Goes After Hungary

Never Go Nuclear — The EU Goes After Hungary

14-09-18 09:22:00,

Authored by Tom Luongo,

If there is one thing people with power always do when confronted with intransigence it is they always go nuclear.

As a parent we’ve all been there.  That moment when your child calls your bluff on a particular thing you’ve been arguing over and you’re left with no other option than to go through with some terrible threat or back down.

Backing down is usually the right call, but the right course of action was to never get to that situation in the first place.

Because when you do go nuclear the damage from that is invariably far worse than whatever it was you were fighting about in the first place.  Because the nuclear option creates scars.  It builds layers of distrust which cannot be smoothed over with an apology later.

Well, now the EU has invoked their version of nuclear option against Hungary for refusing to accept migrants as part of the Soros/Merkel plan to import chaos and unrest into all corners of the European Union.

Hungarian President Viktor Orban has steadfastly refused to budge one inch on this issue.  He has politically gone after George Soros directly by passing a strong anti-NGO law that takes its structure from a similar one passed in Russia championed by President Vladimir Putin.

Orban’s refusal to accept one migrant is where the rubber of national sovereignty meets the road of globalism.  Orban knows exactly what he is doing.  And he knows the consequences of this course of action.

The EU’s response is a symptom of a much deeper problem that persists due to its fundamentally anti-democratic structure.  With the veneer of democracy here, calling for a vote to ratify a biased report on Hungary’s human rights abuses, 487 MEPs voted to pursue stripping Hungary of its voting rights within the EU, which is what the ultimate result of an Article 7 invocation would entail.

But the catalyst for this series of events lies with the unilateral decision of German Chancellor Angela Merkel who let in millions of migrants without the consent of other EU members, knowing she had the backing of a majority of the EU parliament should anyone balk.

 » Lees verder

Defunct Nuclear Power Plant On California Coast Is A “Fukushima Waiting To Happen”

Defunct Nuclear Power Plant On California Coast Is A “Fukushima Waiting To Happen”

17-08-18 01:50:00,

Authored by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.com,

A nuclear power plant in Southern California that was shut down in 2012 continues to leak radioactive material and poses a threat to nearby communities.

The aging San Onofre, located in San Clemente, CA, was shut down in 2012 amid a leak that occurred due to malpractice. According to a report released in 2016, the plant “operated the reactor outside the allowable limits for pressure and temperature, causing the radiation leak that shut down the facility for good,” the San Diego Tribune noted. The shutdown also launched extensive investigations that implicated both the power company and state regulators.

Though the plant is out of operation, it still stores 3.6 million pounds of lethal radioactive waste, and according to a worker who blew the whistle on the plant just last week, a near catastrophe just occurred. As local outlet the Dana Pointer reported, plant worker David Fritch explained what happened at a public meeting:

On 3 August 2018, a 100-ton canister filled with highly radioactive nuclear waste was being ‘downloaded’ into a temporary transport carrier to be moved a few hundred yards from inside the plant to a storage silo buried near the world-famous San Onofre beach. As the thin-walled canister was being lowered into the transport cask, it snagged on a guide ledge four feet from the top. Crane operators were unaware that the canister had stopped descending and the rigging went completely slack, leaving the full weight of the heavy canister perched on that ledge by about a quarter-inch.

“Had the ledge not held for the hour or more it took workers to realize and address the error, the thin-walled canister of highly toxic nuclear waste would have fallen 18 feet to the ground below.”

Each canister reportedly has as much radiation as was released during the infamous Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Fritch says the staff is too small — and also undertrained. According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times this week by Steve Chapple,

 » Lees verder

Why Nuclear Energy Is Critical For Russia

Why Nuclear Energy Is Critical For Russia

16-07-18 07:09:00,

Authored by Vanand Meliksetian via Oilprice.com,

As the world’s largest natural gas and oil producer and exporter, Russia plays an important role in setting the global geopolitical agenda. The recent agreement with OPEC is evidence of Moscow’s ability to set prices. However, in another field of energy production Russia captures an even more dominant position: nuclear technology.

The Russian nuclear industry is one of the oldest and most mature in the world. After the end of the Second World War and the start of the Cold War, nuclear technology was not only essential for security purposes as a deterrent towards the competing power bloc, but also as a sign of prestige. The first nuclear power plant connected to the grid was opened in 1954 in the USSR. Global nuclear power plant construction in later years was dominated by three countries: France, the U.S., and the Soviet Union.

The demise of communism and the end of the Cold War significantly reduced the development of nuclear technology by the Soviet Union’s successor: the Russian Federation. In 2007 President Putin signed a decree in which a government owned holding company was created to solidify the domestic civil nuclear technology sector. The downward spiral steadily reclined and has turned out to be a resounding success.

The order book of Russia’s state owned Rosatom has steadily increased to $300 billiondollars in recent years. Currently, 34 reactors in 12 countries are under construction while several other states have shown interest. The order book adds up to a global market share of 60% of all nuclear power plants planned or under construction.

(Click to enlarge)

China also hosts an ambitious civil nuclear power sector where the largest number of reactors in a single country is under construction. Beijing’s export-oriented nuclear power technology development, renders risks for Rosatom in the long term. However, despite significant progress made by Chinese developers, Russian reactors remain popular in the Asian country – as illustrated by the recent approval of another four reactors during a state ceremony in Beijing.

Russian civil nuclear technology appeals to a host of customers due to attractive agreements.

 » Lees verder

Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine Is Being Distorted Once Again

Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine Is Being Distorted Once Again

27-06-18 08:09:00,

Authored by Vladimir Kozin via Oriental Review,

On June 13, 2018, the Washington Post published an original piece by Paul Sonne that describes America’s potential use of the low-yield nuclear warheads that are to be installed on the future US B-61-12 nuclear bombs, as well as on the ballistic missiles carried by the Trident II submarines in the form of W76-2 warheads, in accordance with Washington’s 2018 nuclear doctrine.

The article claims that the introduction of low-yield warheads and the idea of their potential use is being justified by the Pentagon as necessary due to the fact that Russia is allegedly prepared to use similar warheads against NATO countries, based on that nation’s current nuclear doctrine and because a purported strategy of “escalate to de-escalate” has apparently been “approved” by Moscow.

It should be kept in mind that the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, which has sections covering the potential use of nuclear weapons, says nothing about the power of the nuclear weapons that might be utilized, nor is there any mention of warheads with either high or “low” yields in TNT equivalents. Those sections of the official doctrine do not even categorize Russian nuclear weapons into strategic vs. tactical varieties.

Only one term is specified in Russia’s military and strategic posture: “nuclear weapons.” And only two circumstances are listed as a basis for their potential use: the first — only in response to the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against the Russian Federation and/or its allies; and the second — in the event of aggression against Russia that employs conventional weapons to the point that “the very existence of the state is threatened.” In other words, only reciprocal actions are permitted in either case.

Nor does the Russian nuclear doctrine list the countries or alliances against which nuclear weapons can be used.

It seems odd that the US still does not understand the basic tenets of Russia’s nuclear posture. And it must be said that this is not the first time that Western analysts have taken such an unprofessional approach. This has become especially glaring in the run-up to the next NATO summit,

 » Lees verder