TODAY. Forget Oppenheimer. The real nuclear hero is Joseph Rotblat
If only other scientists had followed his example.
If only scientists could learn from Joseph Rotblat, and abandon their dogmatic belief that science is “neutral”
To the end of his life, he believed scientists have personal responsibility for their inventions.
Yeah – you’ve never heard of him, have you? That’s because we have all been brainwashed, in the patriarchy, into believing that heroes are brave tough guys. Joseph Rotblat was brave, but, alas, not a tough guy. So – he don’t qualify.
Robert Oppenheimer might have regretted it later, but he was in favor of using the atomic bomb, seeing it as a terror weapon, that would need to be used only once
Leo Szilard was a “wimp” who did not want the atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima.
But Joseph Rotblat went further than Slizard. In 1943, when it was clear that Germany was not developing atomic weapons, Rotblat saw the danger of atomic warfare, and risk of a nuclear clash with Russia. Rotblat abandoned his role in the Manhattan Project, and left America. USA army intelligence tried hard to depict Rotblat as a Russian agent
After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Rotblat was determined to prevent the development of future nuclear weapons. He devoted the rest of his life to protesting nuclear testing and weapons production.
During the post-war period, Joseph Rotblat did an enormous amount of work in the cause of peace, dialogue and disarmament through the Pugwash movement, with which he shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.
Joseph Rotblat passed away on August 31, 2005. To the end of his life, he believed scientists have personal responsibility for their inventions. Rotblat implored: “Above all, remember your humanity.”
TODAY. Pro nuclear spin – the perfect examples of deception in language and logic.
I did find, in the reporting of the finally-in-operation Vogtle nuclear power plant, a fine example of the nuclear lobby’s brilliant, but twisted and irrational, logic.
Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office director, Jigar Shah, was “optimistic and thinks Vogtle is a nuclear turning point, with a pivot toward smaller-scale projects that will be easier and cheaper to replicate.” “I also think it sets up the U.S. nuclear renaissance very well in small modular reactors,” “The beauty of the small modular reactor is it fits within that $2 [billion] to $4 billion price range,” Shah said.
(That’s the suggested price to build one smr). Upon completion, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are expected to generate 17,200,000 megawatt-hours . The only Small Modular Reactor (SMR) to receive “design certification”, is the NuScale, which generates 77 megawatts electric (MWe). So – you’d need an awful lot of them to match the Vogtle output, – like over 20,000? At $2 – $4billion each – cost would be? NuScale does put 12 together, to make quite a big nuclear plant ( you’d still need quite a lot of these no-longer-small-plants) . I await some nuclear tech genius to enlighten me on how SMRs are going to produce electricity more cheaply.
But no matter – the logic is – large nuclear reactors produce expensive electricity: therefore small nuclear reactors will produce cheap electricity.
So – we don’t need to discuss other forms of electricity generation (like solar, for example)
Which brings me to another clever aspect of pro nuclear spin, – which is – you just ignore the bits that you don’t like, especially where there might be a comparison with non-nuclear technologies. This is done by concentrating on one aspect that might have popular appeal.
For example: the operating nuclear reactor emits almost no carbon emissions. That point, (excluding the total fuel-cycle) is the focus for claiming that nuclear is “clean” and “safe”. The focus on that claim leaves out altogether other aspects, like safety, security, long-lasting radioactive wastes, potential for nuclear/radioactive weapons, terrorism risks.
And then there’s language. The nuclear lobby used to dazzle us with science. And they still do, especially when the subject of ionising radiation comes up- a beaut collection of jargon words and initials- a confusion of “Intermediate Level” “Restricted Solid Wastes” “Class B Wastes” and many radiation terms.
But today – in this fast-changing world – repetitive, fast, meaningless words and phrases are the order of the day – game-changing, climate-change solution, clean, reliable, affordable, good-paying jobs, ………… most often quoted without any facts supplied to support them
The financial catastrophe that has been the Vogtle nuclear power project – is just another challenge/opportunity for the nuclear lobby. Like Fukushima, like Chernobyl, even like “Oppenheimer” – ’twill be another occasion for the nuclear spin-doctors and their loyal media to broadcast the coming success and benefits of new nuclear power.
USA flexes its belligerent muscles in Western Australia, showing off its nuclear submarines
US military shows off nuclear capable submarine in Western Australia By 9News Staff Aug 4, 2023 https://www.9news.com.au/national/us-military-shows-off-nuclear-capable-submarine-in-western-australia/9b152141-2e3f-4a2a-a73f-37b7a02738cb
The United States military is flexing its nuclear fleet of submarines in Western Australia.
The arrival of the USS North Carolina is the first visit since a landmark defence deal was signed earlier this year.
Australia is buying eight of the nuclear-powered Virginia class submarines in a deal costing $368 billion.
Australia’s Ambassador to the US Kevin Rudd was on Garden Island touring the 110-metre vessel which can go three months underwater.
WA will permanently house nuclear subs from next decade.
HMAS Stirling is set for an upgrade as thousands more submariners file through Perth.
The public is not allowed to know how long the North Carolina will be docked in Perth – that information is classified even from Australia’s defence minister.
However, there have been reassurances the AUKUS deal is watertight regardless of who is in the White House.
Advisor to the US secretary of defence Abe Denmark said there has been broad bipartisan support.
Rudd described the move as an opportunity to step up the capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy and the sovereign capabilities of Australia “in a highly uncertain period strategically”.
Veterans, descendants of nuclear testing era urged to apply for British medal
Sapeer Mayron, Stuuf NZ, Aug 05 2023
When 85-year-old Gerald ‘Gerry’ Wright was 19, he saw his own skeleton through his momentarily transparent skin.
He was standing on board a Royal New Zealand Navy frigate, hands over his eyes, 130 kilometres away from the spot a nuclear bomb was tested off Kiribati, then called Christmas Island.
As the bomb, Grapple Y, went off with the force of 3 mega tonnes of TNT it caused such intense radiation that Wright and his company saw the bones in their hands – even if only for a moment.
Wright was deployed to Operation Grapple: a British mission of nine nuclear tests all told between March 1957 and September 1958. Grapple Y was the largest nuclear weapon the British ever tested.
He joined in 1958, and witnessed five of the nine hydrogen bomb tests. His job: send a balloon skyward and monitor the weather, ensuring calm skies for the nuclear tests.
Along with some 500 other New Zealanders on Operation Grapple, Wright was exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, not only during the tests but afterwards when the nuclear cloud remained overhead.
If it rained – even through the bomb’s cloud – the Navy sailors were told to shower outside on the frigate deck to save on fresh water, he said.
In 2005, The New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans’ Association commissioned Dr Al Rowland from Massey University to study 50 Operation Grapple veterans’ chromosomes.
His study “unequivocally” proved the effects of the radiation had long term effects on the veterans and their families.
Wright counts himself lucky he doesn’t face the cancers and health problems of so many of his peers, and doesn’t waste energy being angry about the exposure. “It’s a fact of life,” he said.
“It was quite spectacular. And at the time I personally was very pleased that here I was at the cutting edge of modern technology and very glad of what was going on.
“It was only later on we found there were lots of side effects.”
Now, 65 years after his deployment he’ll finally have a medal honouring his service.
In November 2022, the government of the United Kingdom announced it would be awarding medals to anyone – or anyone’s kin – involved in the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Test Programme between 1952 and 1967.
The medal itself is the result of a hard-fought campaign by non-government organisation Labrats International (which stands for Legacy of the Atomic Bomb. Recognition for Atomic Test Survivors).
Speaking from Wales, co-founder Alan Owen said they have been campaigning since 2020 for this medal………………………………………………..
Owen said whether nuclear weapons should even be used is a separate issue – honouring the people who served their country’s orders should be non-negotiable.
“A lot of them are suffering ill health. The few thousand that are left feel that they’re the lucky ones.”
But the work doesn’t end with the medal. Labrats are working to integrate the stories of nuclear veterans and the weapons testing era into the UK’s school curriculum and public education like in museums and libraries.
They also want compensation for veterans and their families, as well as the indigenous tribes of Pacific islands, New Zealand and Australia who were displaced or wrongfully treated during the tests.
“These indigenous tribes, especially in Australia that were just treated as third class citizens, and they were affected… they’ve received nothing.
“There needs to be a big plan and push for compensation across the communities affected by UK testing, definitely.”
It’s hoped the first medals will be delivered ahead of Remembrance Sunday 2023, November 12.
To apply for a medal, visit the UK Ministry of Defence website. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/132583004/veterans-descendants-of-nuclear-testing-era-urged-to-apply-for-british-medal
AUKUS, Australia and the drive to war
By John Minns, Aug 2, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-australia-and-the-drive-to-war/
My fear is not that AUKUS SSNs, if they arrive, will be late, ineffective, and obsolete. My fear is that they will arrive and will be effective and even lethal. Because, if that is the case, they will play a part in the drive to a potentially devastating war with China that would be a disaster for the entire world.
This was a speech given at an anti-AUKUS protest at the ANU on 28 July 2023
Friends, I have been proud to have been part of a number of protests against the AUKUS alliance and the nuclear submarine deal that is part of it. However, to be truthful, I haven’t always completely agreed with everything that has been said at them.
I heard at one of the protests a speaker opposing the subs deal because they might never arrive, or might be delivered very late, or that, by then, they would be ineffective and obsolete. Apart from the enormous cost, my concern is not that they will be late or obsolete. My fear is that they will arrive and will be effective and even lethal. Because, if that is the case, they will play a part in the drive to a potentially devastating war with China that would be a disaster for the entire world.
In a war with China – what would victory look like? It would certainly not end, like the Second World War, with allied troops occupying Germany and Japan. Even to imagine Australian, British and US troops patrolling the streets of Shanghai is to realise what a ludicrous prospect that is. China – a vast and nuclear-armed country – is not going to be physically occupied.
Would victory mean that China’s dynamic economy would no longer stock the shelves of Kmart and the like around the world and that it would revert to a poor semi-agricultural country. Hardly – unless it is turned into a nuclear wasteland – it will clearly go on to be the largest economy in the world.
Would victory be the successful defence of Taiwan. Well, China has claimed Taiwan since 1949. But it has made no attempt to invade it. In any case, are we prepared to go to war to defend the independence of a place whose independence we don’t recognise and don’t support. It makes no sense.
Would victory mean that China is prevented from interfering in the affairs of other countries – something which every large or wealthy power does – including Australia in the Asia-Pacific. I study Latin America and, when US politicians talk about China’s interference in the domestic affairs of others, I hear, somewhere in my head, roars of bitterly ironic laughter from all over Latin America. Because the US has interfered in the affairs of every country in Latin America and the Caribbean – instigating coups, supporting military dictatorships, blockading harbours, embargoing trade and even military invasion. And it has done so for the last two hundred years – ever since President James Munro in 1823 proclaimed the doctrine that only the US had the right to interfere in the region.
Would victory mean that so-called Chinese military expansionism is halted. Well, it’s true that China has set up military bases on a number of artificial islands. But the US has around 750 foreign military bases in more than 80 countries. To my knowledge, China has one – in Djibouti. If bases and the ability to project military force is the problem, then China is not the main culprit.
Also, the US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined and most of them are US allies.
The chances of being killed by the US military are enormously higher than by any other country. A recent research project from Brown University in the US showed that, since 2001, about 900,000 people have been killed directly by the US military – nearly half of those were civilians. On top of that, what the project calls “the reverberating effects” of US military action – such as famine, destruction of sanitation, health care and other infrastructure has led to several times as many civilian deaths as caused directly.
Would victory in a war with China mean the successful defence of our trade routes and shipping lanes. Where do our trade routes and shipping lanes lead? Largely to China! So, would we fight China to defend our trade with China?
Another thing I’ve heard said that I disagree with is that the AUKUS deal might drag Australia into a war with China. Australia is not being dragged anywhere. The Australian government is eagerly jumping into this alliance – with eyes wide open – rather than being forced into something not of its own making.
There has never been a war conducted by our great and powerful friends that Australia has not been eager to join – whether to the Maori Wars in New Zealand, to Sudan and to South Africa in the 19th century, to the First and Second World Wars, to Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq – twice. We should not be protesting calling for Australia’s independence – it is independent – we should be calling for it to use that independence to help halt the drive to war – rather than to enthusiastically join it.
I’ve heard some on the other side of this argument repeat the old cliché – “if you want peace, prepare for war”. It sounds good – a nice juxtaposition of opposites etc. But it is logical and historical rubbish. It is essentially the argument of the National Rifle Association of America. The NRA says that to be safe, we need to have everyone armed. Security comes from allowing all to buy AR-15 assault rifles. We know how that has worked out in practice. Preparing for war to ensure peace is the same argument on an international scale.
When we look at the great periods of arms build-up, we see that they led to war rather than peace. It was the case with the arms build-up – especially the naval build-up – before World War One, with rearmament in the 1930s, with the Cold War arms economy which was accompanied by very hot and devastating wars – in Vietnam and Korea for example – which were among the most destructive on a per capita basis in modern history..
The world today contains great possibilities. We have the resources and the human ingenuity to deal with some of our real problems – like housing, poverty, health, education, climate. Some of that ingenuity is right here at the ANU. Let us set that ingenuity to the task of solving the real problems which affect our lives and our society rather than to the exacting but grisly science of blowing human bodies apart.
How Have Nuclear Weapons Evolved Since Oppenheimer and the Trinity Test?
currently the nine states possessing nuclear weapons have approximately 13,000 nuclear weapons, with US and Russia accounting for almost 90% of the inventory These modern nuclear warheads are significantly more lethal compared to the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
despite sometimes being referred to as “small nukes”, tactical nuclear weapons weapons still cause devastating destruction. The explosive yield of tactical nuclear weapons today ranges from anywhere below one kt to above 100 kt: the high-end surpasses the yield of Little Boy and Fat Man by up to five times.
Sulgiye Pak, Senior Scientist, August 4, 2023 https://blog.ucsusa.org/sulgiye-park/how-have-nuclear-weapons-evolved-since-oppenheimer-and-the-trinity-test/
It took the Manhattan project three years to develop a nuclear bomb: and only weeks between the first nuclear test explosion and the use of a nuclear weapon in war. Almost 80 years later – how have nuclear weapons evolved?
A brief history of nuclear testing
In 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. The first bomb, codenamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.Three days later, the US dropped the second bomb, “Fat Man,” on Nagasaki. The two bombs, each with an estimated yield of around 15 and 21 kilotons (15,000 and 21,000 tons of TNT equivalent), respectively, caused widespread destruction, resulting in the loss of more than 100,000 lives.
After the war, the US conducted atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands and in Nevada and many more underground. The Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea tested nuclear weapons of their own. Since the first development of nuclear weapons, the total number of nuclear tests exceeds 2,000, with 528 tests conducted above ground. These above ground tests had a destructive force of more than 400,000 kilotons TNT. The tests provided the information to increase the sophistication of nuclear weapons designs. But the nuclear tests, and particularly the atmospheric tests, were enormously destructive to the land and communities that were exposed to their explosive power and radiation.
The largest bomb ever made
Today’s modern nuclear warheads have undergone significant advancements in terms of design, technology, and destructive power. Notably, modern warheads are almost exclusively thermonuclear bombs, or hydrogen (H) bombs, which use both fusion and fission reactions to generate higher release of energy – tens of kilotons to several megatons TNT equivalent, or tens of times more powerful than the early atomic bombs. These bombs essentially use an atomic bomb as a trigger for the powerful fusion explosion.
The largest nuclear weapon to ever been tested, Tsar Bomba, had an estimated yield of 50 megatons (although it had a capacity double that) – an explosive yield greater than that of the Little Boy by a factor of 3,500. Literally translated as “King of bombs,” this monster atomic bomb, designed by the Soviet Union, generated a fireball that reached a diameter of 4 km (2.5 miles), and a mushroom cloud that rose over 60 km (40 miles) into the atmosphere.
The blast wave was felt over 1,000 km away (over 620 miles), and its shockwave was detected 4,000 km away from its source, or nearly 2,500 miles away. To illustrate the increased scale of destructive power, if the same bomb dropped on Hiroshima was detonated in a major US city like New York City, 264,000 lives will be lost, along with 512,000 injuries. Tsar Bomba, on the same city, would kill more than 7.6 million people while injuring additional 4.2 million (Figure 2 on original).
Notably, however, such weapons are too large to be considered ‘operational’. Tsar Bomba, for example, weighed 27 tons with a size of 8 meters length and 2 meters diameter – making it impractical to be deployed in a ballistic missile.
Smaller, lighter, faster
Nuclear states have not just pursued larger and more powerful weapons. They have pushed to make weapons that are lighter and more compact, so that they can be carried in multiples, and lower yield, so that they can plausibly be used on a battlefield.
60 years after the biggest nuclear test, nuclear weapons have become smaller and more compact – a process of miniaturization that allows integration into various delivery systems. Some modern weapons are also designed with multiple warheads, with enhanced precision for guidance and targeting systems, allowing a single delivery vehicle to carry multiple independent nuclear payloads.
Alongside high-yield strategic nuclear weapons, there has been significant development of non-strategic, or tactical nuclear weapons designed for limited use scenarios. These weapons are generally of lower yield and intended for use on the battlefield i.e., strikes against relatively close and specific targets that minimize collateral damage affecting the civilian population.
But despite sometimes being referred to as “small nukes”, these weapons still cause devastating destruction. The explosive yield of tactical nuclear weapons today ranges from anywhere below one kt to above 100 kt: the high-end surpasses the yield of Little Boy and Fat Man by up to five times. Despite the lower yield and smaller size, the use of tactical nuclear weapons carries a high risk of escalation from potential misinterpretation, miscalculation, or an unintended response from adversaries, all of which can lead to a full-scale nuclear war. The availability of weapons, especially at low yields designed to facilitate battlefield use, increases the probability of their use in a conflict scenario.
In addition to the nuclear weapons themselves, the nuclear weapons state and non-weapons state have invested heavily in many delivery systems – strategic missile and conventional missile capabilities, as well as in missile defense systems. Nuclear strategists and scientists have long argued that the development and deployment of missile defense systems are ineffective against determined adversaries, but the US budget requested for $10.9 billion to strengthen and expand the deployment of missile defenses in 2023. Such development of missile defense systems has potential for encouraging an arms race dynamic and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty’s role in trying to arrest that dynamic.
Almost 80 years after the first nuclear weapon was dropped on Japan, there hasn’t been any use of nuclear weapons on another country. But since then, nuclear states accumulated as many as 60,000 weapons in total at one time, and currently the nine states possessing nuclear weapons have approximately 13,000 nuclear weapons, with US and Russia accounting for almost 90% of the inventory These modern nuclear warheads are significantly more lethal compared to the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The radius of devastation and the resulting blast effects, such as firestorms, radioactive fallout, and thermal radiation, would be significantly larger, amplifying the casualties and long-term environmental and health consequences. Despite the danger posed by nuclear weapons, the US continues programs to build new nuclear weapons, including a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM-N).
The use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian, environmental and geopolitical consequences. As we continue to invest and enhance nuclear weapons technologically, the global community continues to grapple with the challenges and risks associated with their existence. The pursuit of disarmament, nonproliferation, arms control, and diplomatic dialogues remains more crucial today than ever in promoting peace and global security.
Oppenheimer’s nuclear fallout: How his atomic legacy destroyed my world
We, the hidden casualties of the Cold War, have been fighting for recognition and just compensation for years. Expanding the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act gives us a glimmer of hope.
Mary Dickson 4 Aug 23 https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2023/08/04/oppenheimer-atomic-bomb-legacy-us-victims-nuclear-fallout/70508212007/
Leading up to the the very first atomic explosion in Los Alamos, New Mexico, Manhattan Project scientists took bets on the possibility that the detonation might ignite the atmosphere and destroy the planet.
While they determined that the risk was minimal, they pressed the button nevertheless and 78 years later, my family, friends and likely hundreds of thousands or more across this country are still living with the devastating consequences.
J. Robert Oppenheimer’s Trinity test sent a cloud of fallout over communities downwind of Los Alamos and into 46 states, according to a new study, catapulting the world into the nuclear age.
“Oppenheimer” director Christopher Nolan says fans have left theaters “devastated” by the movie’s depiction of the test. I can only imagine their horror if they learned what came next: Trinity was only the first of hundreds of nukes detonated on American soil, and it wasn’t until 1992 that the United States exploded the last.
We, the hidden casualties of the Cold War, have been fighting for recognition and just compensation for years. We finally have a glimmer of hope.
How nuclear bomb tests affected my family
Driven in part by Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” and the cries of affected communities nationwide, the Senate recently passed an amendment to expand compensation for victims of radiation exposure from the production and testing of nuclear weapons. It’s well past time that we are recognized as the true legacy of Oppenheimer’s bomb.
During the Cold War, the United States detonated 928 nuclear bombs in the Nevada desert, many of which were more powerful than those that decimated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The nuclear threat is real:Our nuclear weapons are much more powerful than Oppenheimer’s atomic bomb
Of these, 100 were detonated above ground. A Navy meteorologist warned that the prevailing winds would blow eastward, carrying a “certain amount” of radioactivity, but expediency and convenience won the day.
The wind indeed carried fallout across the country, colliding with rain and snow and falling to the land below. There, it threaded its way into the food chain and, ultimately, our bodies. The Atomic Energy Commission’s decision to ignore, and then cover up, the danger has left a trail of suffering and death that continues to this day.
As a child in Salt Lake City, my thyroid absorbed this radiation. Years later, I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and suffered other health complications that left me unable to have children. For others, the poison went into the teeth, bones, liver, lungs, pancreas, breasts, soft tissue and reproductive organs. The damage caused can take decades to manifest as life-threatening illnesses.
My older sister and I counted 54 people in our childhood neighborhood who developed cancer, tumors, leukemia and autoimmune disorders. My 10-year-old classmate died of a brain tumor in 1964. A few weeks later, her 4-year-old brother died of testicular cancer.
My sister died in 2001 after a nine-year battle with an autoimmune disease. And now another sister is fighting a rare stomach cancer.
We are all downwinders. Nuclear fallout ravaged New Mexico – but we’re all still living with it.
I have buried and mourned the dead and comforted and advocated for the living, worrying with each ache, pain and lump that I am getting sick again.
And the damage continues. Cancers return, new cancers develop, other health complications arise. And, even more troubling, the DNA damage could affect future generations.
A Princeton study recently released mapped how fallout from atmospheric testing in New Mexico and Nevada spread across the country. It’s at once shocking and unsurprising, confirming the experience of so many who have suffered the consequences.
We will forever be living with the fallout of nuclear weapons. Essentially, we are all downwinders.
Tragically, the U.S. government has yet to do right by those whose lives and health were sacrificed to national security. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) – passed in 1990 as “compassionate payment” to a very narrow group of those affected in some counties of Utah, Nevada and Arizona – was always flawed. For decades, downwinders have fought to expand eligibility to include those most heavily impacted in seven Western states and Guam, as well as additional categories of uranium miners.
The Senate’s passage of a last-minute expansion amendment through the National Defense Authorization Act is vital progress. Now, the defense bill must be conferenced by the House. If the measure doesn’t move forward, RECA will expire next June, cutting off lifesaving compensation for thousands. Time is running out, and more of us die every day.
At the end of “Oppenheimer,” the scientist revisits with Albert Einstein the concern about the bomb’s potential to destroy the world and solemnly laments, “I believe we did.”
Oppenheimer was right – my world and those of my friends and neighbors, and people across the country, have been destroyed by the bomb. Expanding the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act can’t bring my loved ones back to life, but it would provide the recognition, support and justice that the survivors in our community desperately deserve.
Is the US preparing to dump the proxy war in Ukraine so it can start another in Taiwan?
4 Aug 23 https://sputnikglobe.com/20230803/is-biden-preparing-to-dump-ukraine-for-taiwan-1112361859.html
US President Joe Biden is reportedly seeking congressional approval for financing military aid for Taiwan as part of the supplemental budget for Ukraine. What’s behind the move?
The White House is going to ask the US Congress to fund the arming of the island of Taiwan via the Ukraine budget in order to speed up weapons transfers to Taipei, as per Western media. The request followed the Biden administration’s announcement that the US would deliver $345 million worth of weapons to the island through a mechanism known as the “presidential drawdown authority.” The mechanism has long been used by the US to send arms to Ukraine.
Taiwan, an island located at the junction of the East and South China Seas in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, is regarded by Beijing as an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China.
“Well, what it shows is that the Biden administration has no regard or concern for angering China,” Larry Johnson, a veteran of the CIA and the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism, told Sputnik.
“China has made it very clear that it views any effort by the United States to provide weapons or military training to Taiwan as a direct threat to China. And for some reason, the Biden administration refuses to accept or acknowledge the position of the Chinese. In submitting this aid package, I don’t think the Biden administration will have any problem getting it passed. We’ve still not reached a point in the United States where there is opposition to funding the war in Ukraine, or the potential for war in China. So, I think it’s likely to go through, which means it’s going to make relations between China and the United States worse, not better.”
At the same time, the CIA veteran does not consider the development as lessening support for Ukraine. It’s likely that the Biden administration has come under pressure to show support for Taiwan, per Johnson. The expert sees the funding maneuver “as a convenient legislative vehicle to get approval for the funding in a way that expedites it, doesn’t delay it.”
“I’m still not clear that it represents a cut in funds for Ukraine and a shifting of those funds to Taiwan. I think it’s more a function of the US legislative process, that Congress must appropriate money before the administration, in theory, can spend it. Because this legislation had already been presented, they were able, I think, decided to carve out some of the funds in that for Taiwan, because they had made prior commitments to Taiwan to provide some kind of support,” Johnson explained.
China has repeatedly urged the US to stop escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Nonetheless, US government officials and congressional leaders continue to send mixed signals to the island and meet with Taiwan’s leadership. Furthermore, the US is encouraging its allies to beef up their military presence in the Asia Pacific, citing the “China threat” to the island. To cap it off, President Joe Biden has repeatedly pledged to protect Taiwan “militarily,” with the White House then downplaying his vows as gaffes. Why is Washington continuing to develop the conflict around Taiwan?
“Well, because, number one, the United States continues to believe that it is the most powerful country in the world and can dictate to other countries reality. It’s a consequence of arrogance and hubris. The United States refuses to accept the fact that China and Russia have an equal say in matters. And I think, unfortunately, the United States, if it persists in taking actions like this, will provoke a conflict that will be very damaging to the United States and will weaken it, not make it stronger. The United States can’t even fund the one proxy war in Ukraine right now. It’s been losing. It can’t provide sufficient artillery shells, for example. The United States fails to recognize that it’s reached the limits of its power,” Johnson concluded.
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:………………………………………………………..
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
Peace groups in all three nations need to rally against provocative alliance that is a pivotal component of war planning.
The AUKUS pact (military initiative among Australia, the UK and U.S.) came out of nowhere in 2021 when Australia broke a $A90 billion contract to buy French submarines.
Instead, it signed up with the U.S and UK to form AUKUS, which will build eight nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) submarines for Australia.
The first get-together of AUKUS leaders did not go well for Australia, when President Biden could not remember the name of its then-Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.
Morrison went behind the backs of the French in order to do a deal, instead, with the U.S. and UK. It led to the most extraordinary diplomatic bust up between those countries—France recalled its ambassadors from both Australia and the U.S. (it is America’s oldest ally, dating back to the American Revolution); President Macron called Morrison a “liar.” When Morrison was voted out a few months later, France’s outgoing foreign minister said: “I can’t stop myself from saying that the defeat of Morrison suits me very well.”…………………………………………………
In May 2022 Scott Morrison’s government was resoundingly voted out of office, but Anthony Albanese’s Labor government wholeheartedly carried on with his Tory predecessor’s foreign policy, including being committed to AUKUS. The last time that an Australian Labor government offered a markedly different foreign policy was the 1972-75 government led by Gough Whitlam, which was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup.[1]
Both Whitlam and Albanese had themselves sworn in as Prime Minister immediately after their respective election wins, but the contrast could not be starker. Whitlam wanted to get go forward with his radically different foreign policy; Albanese wanted to immediately scurry off to Tokyo to meet Joe Biden and reassure him of Australia’s continued loyalty as a good and obedient servant.
The Australian Labor Party has not questioned the American alliance since Whitlam.
The year 2022 came and went but two of the original three AUKUS leaders—Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson—were kicked out of office and AUKUS carried on, building up to its big launch in March 2023, which was hosted by President Biden, alongside Prime Ministers Sunak and Albanese, in front of a massive U.S. nuclear submarine at a San Diego Navy base. Australia will build eight nuclear-powered subs in Adelaide; they will have a British design but American technology.
Eyewatering Cost
The cost is truly eye-watering—anywhere between $A268 billion and $A368b, by 2055. Yes, that’s right—those eight subs will not be ready for more than 30 years.
The first of these eight subs is unlikely to be ready until the 2040s so, to fill that gap, Australia will buy three existing U.S. subs from the early 2030s, at a cost of up to $A58b, with an option to buy two more. There has been zero official discussion about the multitude of things that are likely to change over the next 30 years, militarily, let alone in the wider global society. Think about what has changed in the last 30 years. I would put money on these monstrosities being obsolete long before they are built.
But the politicians and military leaders who commissioned them will be long gone, leaving future taxpayers to shoulder the costs—and the highly likely adverse consequences of such a major push toward war with China. Because that is what AUKUS and its nuclear submarines, and all others, following military technology developments, are aimed at. It has nothing to do with defending Australia, and everything to do with projecting power far from home. That is the point of nuclear-powered subs—they do not need to return to home port to refuel……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Breakneck Militarization
AUKUS is only part, albeit a very big part, of Australia’s breakneck militarization. “Flying under the radar of last week’s AUKUS submarine announcement was the revelation that the United States had agreed to sell Australia up to 220 Tomahawk cruise missiles.”
“This follows Australia’s purchase in January [2023] of ‘high mobility artillery rocket systems,’ known as HIMARS, which have been used by Ukraine on the battlefield in response to Russia’s invasion. And in 2020, the US approved the sale of up to 200 long-range anti-shipping missiles (LRASM) to Australia.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Shortly after Albanese was elected as prime minister in May 2022, he initiated the Defence Strategic Review. It was classified but a redacted version was publicly released in April 2023. It was billed as Australia’s biggest defence overhaul since World War II. “Australia has said the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, long-range strike capabilities and its northern bases will be among the country’s six priority areas after a major review of its defence strategy found the armed forces were not ‘fully fit for purpose.’”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/06/29/military-initiative-by-australia-the-united-kingdom-and-the-united-states-aukus-is-another-major-step-in-prospective-war-on-china/?mc_cid=f5762ce44c&mc_eid=65917fb94b
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.
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/—
The Day Australian Sovereignty Died
Australian Independent Media, August 2, 2023, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark
If a date might be found when Australian sovereignty was extinguished by the emissaries of the US imperium, July 29, 2023 will be as good as any. Not that they aren’t other candidates, foremost among them being the announcement of the AUKUS agreement between Australia, UK and the US in September 2021. They all point to a surrender, a handing over, of a territory to another’s military and intelligence community, an abject, oily capitulation that would normally qualify as treasonous.
The treason becomes all the more indigestible for its inevitable result: Australian territory is being shaped, readied, and purposed for war under the auspices of closer defence ties with an old ally. The security rentiers, the servitors, the paid-up pundits all see this as a splendid thing. War, or at least its preparations, can offer wonderful returns.
The US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin III, was particularly delighted, though watchful of his hosts. His remit was clear: detect any wobbliness, call out any indecision. But there was nothing to be worried about. His Australian hosts, for instance, proved accommodating and crawling.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles, for instance, standing alongside Austin, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, declared that there was “a commitment to increase American force posture in respect of our northern bases, in respect to our maritime patrols and our reconnaissance aircraft; further force posture initiatives involving US Army watercraft; and in respect of logistics and stores, which have been very central to Exercise Talisman Sabre.” To the untutored eye, Marles might have simply been another Pentagon spokesman of middle-rank…………….
Australian real estate would be given over to greater “space cooperation”, alongside creating “a guided weapons and explosive ordnance enterprise in this country, and doing so in a way where we hope to see manufacturing of missiles commence in Australia in two years’ time as part of a collective industrial base between the two countries.” Chillingly, Marles went on to reiterate what has become something of a favourite in his middle-management lexicon. The efforts to fiddle the export-defense export control legislation by the Biden administration would create “a more seamless defence industrial base between our countries.” Seamless, here, is the thick nail in the coffin of sovereignty.
Moves are also underway to engage in redevelopment of bases in northern Australia, in anticipation of the increased, ongoing US military presence. The RAAF Base Tindal, located 320km south-east of Darwin in the Northern Territory, is the subject of considerable investment “to address functional deficiencies and capacity constraints in existing facilities and infrastructure.” The AUSMIN talks further revealed that scoping upgrades would take place at two new locations: RAAF Bases Scherger and RAAF Curtin.
Australia’s Defence Intelligence Organisation will also be colonised by what is being termed a “Combined Intelligence Centre – Australia” by 2024. This is purportedly intended to “enhance long-standing intelligence cooperation” while essentially subordinating Australian intelligence operations to their US overlords. Marles saw the arrangement as part of a drive towards “seamless” (that hideous word again) intelligence ties between Canberra and Washington. “This is a unit which is going to produce intelligence for both of our defence forces … and I think that’s important.”
……….. Under the Albanese government we have reverted completely to our worst selves on defence. We’re going to do almost nothing consequential over the next 10 years other than get the Americans to do more on our land.” ……… Australia might be at war with China under US-direction before a decade is up, vassalized warriors eager to kill and be killed. https://theaimn.com/the-day-australian-sovereignty-died/
A Client State
Mary Kostakidis on Twitter 2 Aug 23
Our leadership has handed over stewardship of Australia to a war machine. The US now decides how our budget is to be spent, what we will manufacture and what equipment we will purchase and in whose interests Australian lives and Australian national security will be risked.
We are to become a financial sponsor of the American hegemony’s forever wars and producer of weapons that will be aimed at our own destruction – we are to be used much like Ukraine and Europe.
The cherry on top was to be lectured, on Australian soil, of the primacy of US interests over the wishes of Australians to save the life of an Australian citizen. While no one has been punished for the lies and crimes, evidently he has not been punished enough for publishing the truth.
Can you think of anything that matters to our leadership more than ensuring nothing stands in the way of their being walked all over? Among other things, they are a disgraceful example for Australia’s children – whose safety should be at the fore of their minds. That, would be national security.
Why is Australia so intimidated by the American war hawks.
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
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—
Nuclear news – week to 31 July
Some bits of good news – Syrian refugees in Jordan empowered through heritage restoration work, employed by UNESCO. “A Thousand Colours” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz4pLmi6tDY This new UNESCO-Khalili Foundation film “A Thousand Colours” aims to humanize the notion of cultural diversity. Why is cultural diversity important? What are some of the current challenges that undermine it? And what can we do to protect and promote cultural diversity? These are some of the questions addressed by the short film, which gathers testimonies from a number of key global actors including UNESCO Goodwill Ambassadors and advocates. Saving the world is cheaper than ruining it.
TOP STORIES
If Albanese’s such a buddy of Biden’s, why is Assange still in jail? Australia Agrees To Build US Missiles; US Dismisses Australian Concerns About Assange.
William Hartung, Cashing in on a Perpetual Nuclear Arms Race.
Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are supported by ideology alone.
Aboriginal Australians defeat nuclear dump,
Western media as cheerleaders for war.
Climate. ‘Era of global boiling has arrived,’ says UN chief . ‘Project 2025’: plan to dismantle US climate policy for next Republican president.
Nuclear. Militarism rules – not always nuclear-related, but pretty much so. I am currently feeling overwhelmed by the speed of my own country, Australia, in its hurtling rush to be a servant of the USA’s NUCLEAR-MILITARY-COMPLEX. No voice from the people – just a straightout government sellout.
Christina’s Notes. Jobs! jobs! jobs! – IN THE DEATH INDUSTRY. Aliens in outer space – a little sad on watching earthlings.
CIVIL LIBERTIES. AUSMIN and Assange: The Great Vassal Smackdown
ECONOMICS. Money talks: 109 global institutions restrict investments in nuclear weapons. There’s no such thing as a new nuclear golden age–just old industry hands trying to make a buck. Keeping contentious nuclear plant open could cost Californians $45B: report. As UK’s Hinkley nuclear plants costs rise to £32 billion ($41.5 billion) EDF Sees Higher Risk of Delays. Government must back Rolls-Royce on nuclear, says ex-boss Sir John Rose.
EDUCATION. University of New Mexico Course Expands Understanding of Nuclear Impact.
ENERGY. Oppenheimer and nuclear energy: Is India and the world moving away from this power source? Old Nuclear Weapons Sites Targeted for Clean Energy Projects.
ENVIRONMENT. Failed Fukushima System Should Cancel Wastewater Ocean Dumping.
HISTORY. St. Louis link in ‘Oppenheimer’ is latest reminder of city’s nuclear legacy. Oppenheimer sent ‘chilling message’ to Jawaharlal Nehru about US building a deadly weapon, ‘begged’ him not to give access to raw material available in India.
LEGAL. Key British Assange supporter says Wikileaks founder could cut deal to secure freedom.
MEDIA. Oppenheimer’s Long Shadow- Reads on the atomic bomb and its creator. Nauseating subservience of Australia’s media and politics to American militarism. Readers disgusted with pro militarism report on Australia getting a “missiles industry”. Australian media’s alarm over Chinese spy ship highlights stark double-standard.
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. To avoid nuclear instability, a moratorium on integrating AI into nuclear decision-making is urgently needed: The NPT PrepCom can serve as a springboard
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . 90 Seconds to Midnight – nuclear weapons are still a threat, not a lesson in history.
POLITICS.
- USA. More Warmongers Elevated In The Biden Administration. Massachusetts rejects Holtec’s request to discharge radioactive water from closed nuclear plant into bay. Past and Future Collide over Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant . No new nuclear facilities along vulnerable coasts, Alaska regulators say. Connecticut governor should veto bill funding unneeded nuclear.
- UK. UK govt to pour another £170million of taxpayers’ cash into planned Sizewell C nuclear plant: is it value for money? UK’s nuclear power ambitions for 2050 lack clear plan, say MPs. UK Government’s infrastructure advisors cast doubt over UK’s biggest energy projects including nuclear clearup. Now, not in 15 years’: Call for public vote on Theddlethorpe nuclear waste dump. Cumbria set for more nuclear reactors as questions are raised over why land isn’t being used for renewable energy.
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.
- Japan Doesn’t Want to Fight for Taiwan and Neither Do Other US Allies. Will the small states of Oceania be able to maintain their independence in the face of a new Sino-American Cold War?
- Russia prepared to seek diplomatic solution in Ukraine, NATO refuses to talk. The coming Russian-Polish war.
- Iran says ready to settle remaining dispute with IAEA over nuclear program. Rising Global Interest to Join Nuclear Damage Compensation Treaty.
SAFETY. The misguided push to weaken nuclear safety standards is gaining steam. The Global Crisis at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Site Demands Immediate United Nations Intervention. Will this experimental nuclear reactor escape federal scrutiny? Aware people in Suffolk are astonished that very few people or organisations are consulted about changes to Sizewell C Nuclear’s Emergency Plan.
SECRETS and LIES. UPDATE – The Zaporozhiya Nuclear Plant: Zelenskiy’s Next Simulacra? CIA-Linked Security Company Targeted Former Ecuador President Who Granted Assange Asylum.
SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. NASA solving climate crisis by facilitating escape to Mars? Funny How The UFO Narrative Coincides With The Race To Weaponize Space. Legal action over dangerous crowding of satellites and debris in space. NASA is planning to use nuclear power for the first human trip to Mars. Military interest in nuclear-powered space travel, but solar-powered is just as good, -and safer.
WASTES. IAEA report on Fukushima waste-water is wrong – nuclear scientist. Not in our backyard: Securing a referendum over Canada’s plan for a nuclear waste dump. AUKUS nuclear dump deal decades in the making by nuclear evangelists with prescience.
WAR and CONFLICT. Overnight drone attack on Moscow injures one and temporarily closes an airport as Russia suffers ‘consequences’. US admits to pushing Ukraine into a fight it can’t win . Discarding Illusions, Ending Wars. Nuclear weapons on the table if Ukraine counteroffensive succeeds: Russia’s Medvedev. Ukrainian drone attack on Moscow is ‘international terrorism’ – Russia’s Foreign Ministry.
70 Years Later, The Korean War Must End. Washington’s looming war against China. The vanishing profession of preventing nuclear war.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Trident nuclear project can’t be delivered, says watchdog. Bombs away: Confronting the deployment of nuclear weapons in non-nuclear weapon countries. Following the pattern of weapons to Ukraine, Pentagon to send $1billion of weapons to Taiwan . What would George Washington do? He would have audacity to end nuclear weapons.
1.This month.
Antinuclear 