‘Target Oz’: Defence Strategic Review must address nuclear risks
Pine Gap near Alice Springs, RAAF Base Tindal for US B-52’s near Katherine, Darwin Harbour, North-West Cape near Exmouth, and the Stirling submarine base near Fremantle are all potential targets for a strike by China in a conflict with the US over Taiwan or the South China Sea
Pearls and Irritations, By David Noonan, Nov 3, 2022
The Defence Strategic Review must act in accordance with Australia’s commitment to sign the UN “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” (the ‘Ban Treaty’) and not seek to compromise that path by supporting roles in nuclear warfare alongside the US.
Anthony Albanese made a commitment in his “Changing the World” Speech (ALP National Conference, 18 Dec 2018), stating:
“We have on our side the overwhelming support of the Australian people. …
Our commitment to sign and ratify the nuclear weapons ban treaty in government is Labor at our best”
The ALP National Platform (2021, p.117) commits “to sign and ratify the Ban Treaty” and Australia must do so in this term of the ALP in federal office.
The Ban Treaty Article 1 Prohibitions require nations to never under any circumstance use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, OR to assist or encourage, in any way, anyone to do so.
To come into compliance with the Ban Treaty, the Defence Review must evolve our Alliance with the US to put an end to defence reliance on US ‘nuclear deterrence’.
The US ‘nuclear weapons umbrella’ is a threat to use nuclear weapons in Australia’s defence policy – a threat that has long been contrary to International Humanitarian Law and is now illegal since the Ban Treaty came into force as a permanent part of International Law from 22 January 2021.
The roles of Pine Gap and the North-West Cape communications base must evolve to exclude military operations related to the use, or threat to use, nuclear weapons.
The ICAN Report “Choosing Humanity” (July 2019) best sets out the case for Australia to sign the Ban Treaty. Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong should now refer the Ban Treaty to an Inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as a proposed treaty action.
Australians have a right to know the risk exposure we face in peace time and in war:
While preparing for war, a second lead task for the Defence Review is to provide transparency on the consequences for Australia as a target in an escalating conflict between the US and China.
The Review must report on the scenarios, risks, and consequences of a nuclear or conventional attack by China on bases in Australia and on the potential resultant health calamity.
Both China and Russia’s priority and capacity to attack US bases in Australia has long been recognised. An ASPI Report (Sept 2022) states Pine Gap is a high-level nuclear target, noting:
“We need to understand what the implications would be for Alice Springs, which is a town of 32,000 people only 18 kilometres from the base.”
The lead author of the report, Paul Dibb has stated: “The risk of nuclear war is now higher than at any time since the Cold War. … Australia should not feel its geographic distance from the epicentre of conflict affords it any significant protection. … We need to plan on the basis that Pine Gap continues to be a nuclear target, If China attacks Taiwan, Pine Gap is likely to be heavily involved.”
A Lowy paper (09 August 2021) also cites Darwin as a potential target in a US-China conflict:
“The arena of hostilities for any such conflict would be mostly confined to East Asia, with the possible exception of strikes against US forces using Darwin as a rear-area staging base.”
No doubt Australia acquiring nuclear powered attack submarines and visits or basing US or UK nuclear subs at Stirling naval base near Fremantle escalates the risk profile we face.
Beijing’s Global Times “China needs to make a plan to deter extreme forces of Australia” (07 May 2021) threatened “retaliatory punishment” with missile strikes “on the military facilities and relevant key facilities on Australian soil” if Australia coordinates with the US in a war over Taiwan:
“China has a strong production capability, including producing additional long-range missiles with conventional warheads that target military objectives in Australia when the situation becomes highly tense.”
Pine Gap near Alice Springs, RAAF Base Tindal for US B-52’s near Katherine, Darwin Harbour, North-West Cape near Exmouth, and the Stirling submarine base near Fremantle are all potential targets for a strike by China in a conflict with the US over Taiwan or the South China Sea……………………more
David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St., is an Independent Environment Campaigner and was a long-term campaigner for Australian Conservation Foundation.
See the public submission to the Defence Review by David Noonan (29 Oct 2022).
War and Regrets in Ukraine
The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow’s rising military strength.
Washington may regret its role in the war in Ukraine.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-and-regrets-in-ukraine/ Douglas Macgregor, Oct 19, 2022
Of the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger, former national security advisor and secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, said, “We should never have been there.” Before long, Americans, even the politicians inside the Beltway, will reach the same conclusion about Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war against Russia.
No one in the White House, the Senate, or the House consciously set out to turn the proxy Ukrainian war with Moscow into a contest of “competitive societal collapse” between Russia and NATO. But here we are. No one imagined that the Biden administration and the bipartisan war party would drive Americans and Europeans into a political, military, and economic valley of death, from which there is no easy escape. Yet that is precisely what is happening.
For the moment, Washington remains blind to these developments. Whether in print, radio, television, or online, the narrative is clear: despite horrific losses—at least 400,000 Ukrainian battlefield casualties including 100,000 soldiers killed in action—Ukrainian forces are winning. Moreover, the narrative says, America’s financial and economic dominance will ultimately overwhelm the deceptively weak Russian economy.
The Ukrainian-victory narrative admittedly benefits hugely from Western media that actively “tune out” opposing views and depict Russia and its armed forces in the worst possible light. The fact that nearly half a century of the Cold War conditioned Americans to think the worst of Russians certainly helps.
Yet there is also a measure of “true faith” at work, a condition of national narcissism, inside the Beltway that believes Washington can control what happens thousands of miles away in Eastern Ukraine. The message resonates in Congress because it rests on a critical strategic assumption that American citizens have yet to challenge: that American national power is limitless and unconstrained—as though a series of strategic failures, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, never happened.
Given that American politicians are always more preoccupied by domestic affairs than foreign policy, members of Congress are quick to adopt the “true faith.” This faith explains why for the last eight years members thought a future war with Russia was a low-risk affair. Ukrainians would provide the cannon fodder and Washington would provide the expensive weaponry and munitions.
Predictably, Washington’s governing strategic principles are unchanged from previous U.S. interventions around the world. Muddle through: masses of soldiers—in this case Ukrainians advised by U.S. and allied officers—and huge infusions of cash, equipment, and technology can and will permanently alter strategic reality in America’s favor.
The stupefying air of self-righteousness the Biden administration assumes when it attacks erstwhile strategic partners such as Saudi Arabia or delivers moralizing lectures to Beijing’s leadership, or when its media surrogates express contempt for the Russian state, is downright dangerous. Political figures in Washington are ready to indulge any transgression if it is committed in the name of destroying Russia. They do not view U.S. foreign policy in the context of a larger strategy, nor do they comprehend Russia’s capacity to hurt the United States, a bizarre judgment of Russia’s actual military and economic potential.
The result is a toxic climate of ideological hatred making it hard to imagine a contemporary U.S. secretary of State ever signing an international agreement renouncing war as an instrument of U.S. national policy, as Secretary of State Frank Kellogg did in 1928. But as one of Shakespeare’s characters in the Merchant of Venice warned, “The truth will out.”
The ongoing buildup of 700,000 Russian forces with modern equipment in Western Russia, Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia is a direct consequence of Moscow’s decision to adopt an elastic, strategic defense of the territories it seized in the opening months of the war. It was a wise, though politically unpopular choice in Russia. Yet, the strategy has succeeded. Ukrainian losses have been catastrophic and by November, Russian Forces will be in a position to strike a knockout blow.
Today, there are rumors in the media that Kiev may be under pressure to launch more counterattacks against Russian defenses in Kherson (Southern Ukraine) before the midterm elections in November. At this point, expending what little remains of Ukraine’s life blood to expel Russian forces from Ukraine is hardly synonymous with the preservation of the Ukrainian state. It’s also doubtful that further sacrifices by Ukrainians will assist the Biden administration in the midterm elections.
The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow’s rising military strength.
In retrospect, it is easy to see how Congress was beguiled by the denizens of think tanks, lobbyists, and retired generals, who are, with few exceptions, people with a cocktail level of familiarity with high-end conventional warfare. Members of the House and Senate were urged to support dubious strategies for the use of American military assistance, including reckless scenarios for limited nuclear war with Russia or China.
For some reason, U.S. politicians have lost sight of the reality that any use of nuclear weapons would overwhelm the ends of all national policy.
Carbon-14: Another underestimated danger from nuclear power reactors
https://beyondnuclear.org/carbon-14-another-underestimated-danger-from-nuclear-power-reactors/ 1 Nov 22,
There are a number of radionuclides released from nuclear energy facilities. This paper highlights carbon-14 for a number of reasons:
- Carbon-14 is radioactive and is released into air as methane and carbon dioxide.
- Before 2010, carbon-14 releases from nuclear reactors were virtually ignored in the United States. Today only estimates are required and only under certain restrictive circumstances.
- There is no good accounting of releases to date, so its impact on our health, our children’s health, and that of our environment remains unknown, yet environmental measurement is possible, but can be challenging under certain conditions.
- Carbon-14 has a half-life of over 5700 years and the element carbon is a basic building block for life on earth. Therefore, “it constitutes a potential health hazard, whose additional production by anthropogenic sources of today will result in an increased radiation exposure to many future generations.”
- Like tritium, it can collect in the tissues of the fetus at twice the concentration of the tissues in the mother, pointing to its disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable human lifecycle: the developing child.
Why does Australia still sell uranium to China?
‘Target Oz’: Defence Strategic Review must address nuclear risks, Pearls and Irritations, By David Noonan, Nov 3, 2022“…………… War with China is in open debate. China has potential to attack Australia with nuclear weapons.
Australia banned sale of uranium to Russia in 2014, with Prime Minister Tony Abbott stating:
“Australia has no intention of selling uranium to a country which is so obviously in breach of international law as Russia currently is.”
China should be disqualified from receiving Australian uranium sales given China’s severe breaches of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law against the Uighur and Tibetan peoples.
I have campaigned against uranium sales to China “Uranium policy a hypocrisy” (Opinion, The Age & SMH, 5 Oct 2009) and raised Human Rights cases:
“Australian uranium will effectively disappear off the safeguards radar on arrival in China, a country whose military is inextricably linked to the civilian nuclear sector and where nuclear whistle-blowers and critics are brutally suppressed and jailed. This alone is reason to disqualify China from acquiring Australian uranium.”
The routine “substitution” of Australian uranium in China, and the Illusion of Protection in ASNO safeguards, warrant an exit from uranium sales to China.
Transparency is a core pre-requisite to any ‘trust’ in nuclear issues but is sorely lacking in China.
BHP Olympic Dam is the only outfit still selling Australian uranium to China.
At best this frees up China to divert its own limited supply of uranium for use in its military nuclear regime, at worst, it directly contributes to nuclear weapons. This is a Defence Review issue.
Australia has no leverage on China and must end our exposure in BHP’s risky uranium sales to China. https://johnmenadue.com/target-oz-the-defence-strategic-review-and-our-risk-exposure-with-the-us-and-china/
USA’s deliberate ambiguity on use of nuclear weapons really means “don’t mess with us or we’ll nuke you”
Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us.
But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.
We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind
US Holds World Hostage to Its Nukes, Ex-American Intel Officer Says
Sputnik International, 29.10.2022
Earlier this week, Pentagon released nuclear posture, which suggests that the US doesn’t rule out use of the nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear threats – which contradicts previous pledges by the Biden administration.
Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, explained Sputnik why Washington adopted new nuclear policies and what do they mean for regular Americans.
Sputnik: Why are Russia and Сhina to be blamed for the Biden’s administration failure to reduce nuclear weapons?
Scott Ritter: We have to look for somebody to blame. We can’t blame ourselves. That’s normally what happens. But we are solely to blame. President Biden ran on a platform that said that he would be seeking what’s called the single-use policy for nuclear deterrence. And what that means is its a single-purpose policy. And the single purpose would be that the sole purpose of the US nuclear weapons arsenal is deterrence. And that’s it; that we would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstance other than to respond to somebody using nuclear weapons against us; that we are here to deter a nuclear attack on the United States.
He’s broken that promise. The strategy that he has propagated recently is a strategy that continues the past practice of having deliberate ambiguity about the conditions and circumstances under which America could use nuclear weapons, up to and including a pre-emptive nuclear attack by the United States in response to a non-nuclear incident.
Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us. But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.
This has nothing to do with China and Russia. China and Russia have nuclear weapons arsenals. Which would be covered under the sole purpose doctrine. But this is about blackmailing the world. But we can’t tell the world that we’re blackmailing it. We have to blame it on China and Russia. But there’s no linkage whatsoever between the nuclear posture, as published by the Biden administration, and the nuclear arsenals of China and Russia. If that was it, then we’d have a bold purpose doctrine.
Sputnik: What’s the reason for the West to escalate the nuclear rhetoric?
Scott Ritter: That’s a separate question, separate from the issue of the nuclear posture in the National Security Strategy. We have a current situation right now where Ukraine is losing this conflict. The West is recognizing that ultimately Ukraine will lose this conflict and that there’s nothing they can do to forestall this defeat. And so what they’ve done is they have created in terms of an information warfare, propaganda driven exercise, the threat of a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine. It makes no sense. I think Vladimir Putin addressed this in his presentation to the Valdai conference, that it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about a Russian nuclear weapon used in Ukraine. There’s no reason for this. It’s not part of their doctrine. It isn’t going to happen.
But this isn’t about reality. This is about shaping perception. And so that’s where this nuclear crisis is coming from today – talks of a dirty bomb, talks of a Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike, President Zelensky begging NATO to carry out their own pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia, NATO holding an annual exercise that trains the use of the very weapons President Zelensky asked NATO to use against Russia. NATO should have cancelled that exercise or at least postponed it to a later date, but they didn’t. Russia has now responded with its own strategic nuclear exercise. Again, an annual exercise, this one testing not tactical nuclear weapons, but strategic nuclear weapons.
And people are trying to make a linkage between all of this. There isn’t. But this is where the heightened rhetoric and the heightened threat and the heightened crisis comes from. This is independent from the publication of the National Security Strategy. The National Security Strategy isn’t designed to do anything different than what past national security strategies have done, which is to put the world on notice that the United States has a nuclear weapons arsenal, that it will use any time it determines, whether or not the threat is nuclear in nature. We’re holding the world hostage, but we’ve been holding the world hostage for decades.
Sputnik: In the 2022 NPR, the Pentagon refuses to back away from the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” – what were the reasons to obliterate main agreements in the sphere of strategic security?
Scott Ritter: This is not a new position by the Pentagon. This is actually a posture that emerged during the presidency of George W. Bush. That was the first time that this notion that we would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear threat emerged.
The Obama administration talked about walking away from that, but it’s very difficult for presidents to disentangle their desires from the pressures of the establishment. And when we’re dealing with nuclear weapons and the issue of nuclear deterrence, the establishment is extraordinarily powerful because they can always say that you’re weakening. You can tell a president that you’re weakening America, you’re putting American lives at risk…………………………………………………………………………
We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind. https://sputniknews.com/20221029/us-holds-world-hostage-to-its-nukes-ex-american-intel-officer-says-1102824182.html
Victoria – Nationalising State Energy?
2 Nov 2022Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ is bringing back the government-owned State Electricity Commission to reverse the decades-long privatisation of Australia’s energy market. Some media outlets are ramping faux outrage whilst cooler heads know if done right, it should prove wrong long espoused benefits of neoliberal economics.
A gas reservation policy will cut electricity prices, and still make money for gas companies — RenewEconomy
Implementing a gas reservation policy would reduce electricity prices for all businesses and households on Australia’s east coast. Here’s how. The post A gas reservation policy will cut electricity prices, and still make money for gas companies appeared first on RenewEconomy.
A gas reservation policy will cut electricity prices, and still make money for gas companies — RenewEconomy
Neoen to use wind and big battery in “first of its kind” baseload contract with BHP — RenewEconomy
Neoen signs landmark, and first of its kind, baseload contract with BHP to supply Olympic Dam mine with 24/7 power from wind and battery storage. The post Neoen to use wind and big battery in “first of its kind” baseload contract with BHP appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Neoen to use wind and big battery in “first of its kind” baseload contract with BHP — RenewEconomy
Most Australians want coal power phased out, and no new fossil fuel projects — RenewEconomy
Most Australians support a phase-out of coal-fired power stations, a windfall tax on fossil fuels, and policies that favour EVs, bikes and public transport. The post Most Australians want coal power phased out, and no new fossil fuel projects appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Most Australians want coal power phased out, and no new fossil fuel projects — RenewEconomy
Australia’s carbon report card smeared in red ink as climate action goes backwards — RenewEconomy
Australia has spent more on fossil fuel subsidies and done less on climate disclosure. Will the new government change this? The post Australia’s carbon report card smeared in red ink as climate action goes backwards appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australia’s carbon report card smeared in red ink as climate action goes backwards — RenewEconomy
Japanese energy giant joins rush to offshore wind in Australia as rules take shape — RenewEconomy
Japan’s biggest energy company becomes latest global heavyweight to claim a stake in Australia’s untapped offshore wind energy market, as government rules take shape. The post Japanese energy giant joins rush to offshore wind in Australia as rules take shape appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Japanese energy giant joins rush to offshore wind in Australia as rules take shape — RenewEconomy
Nowhere for polluters to hide: Satellites track power station emissions in real-time — RenewEconomy
With big polluters in Australia severely underreporting their emissions, the country is in need of this kind of independent data. The post Nowhere for polluters to hide: Satellites track power station emissions in real-time appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Nowhere for polluters to hide: Satellites track power station emissions in real-time — RenewEconomy
November 2 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Natural Gas Power Plants Begin Their Inevitable Decline” • Natural-gas-fired power plants are expected to provide 38% of the nation’s electricity in 2022, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Though nearly a net 6,900 MW of capacity will be added this year, natural gas is expected to be 36% of the power […]
November 2 Energy News — geoharvey
USA’s new nuclear policies: first strike OK, “usable”weapons, nukes for Europe, for any purpose USA likes, and against non-nuclear nations.
Brandon’s “Usable Nukes” Are the Fast-Track to Jopocalypse MIKE WHITNEY • OCTOBER 31, 2022
“The Biden administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is, at heart, a terrifying document. It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk. Citing rising threats from Russia and China, it argues that the only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.” Stephen Young, Union of Concerned Scientists
Maybe you’re one of the millions of people who think the US would never use its nuclear weapons unless the threat of a nuclear attack was imminent.
Well, you’d be wrong, because according to the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review, the bar for using nukes has been significantly lowered. The new standard reads like this: (nukes can be used) “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”
“Defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies”??
That’s a pretty broad net, isn’t it? That could include anything from a serious threat to national security to an ordinary economic competitor. And that loosy-goosy definition appears to be just what the authors were looking for. The hardliners wanted to fundamentally change US nuclear doctrine so the conditions under which nukes could be used was greatly expanded. The obvious objective of this dramatic policy-shift is to eliminate any obstacle to the free and unfettered use of nuclear weapons. Which is precisely what the neocons have always wanted; a green light to Armageddon. Now they got what they wanted. Here are a few of the changes in policy that suggest that a full-blown nuclear war is no longer a remote possibility, but an increasingly likely prospect.
1– First-Strike Use: Biden refuses to rule out first-strike use of US nuclear weapons …in reversal of his campaign promise. This is from The Daily Mail:
“… on the campaign trail, Biden had vowed to switch to a ‘sole purpose’ doctrine, which maintains that the US would only use nuclear weapons to respond to another nation’s nuclear attack….
President Joe Biden is abandoning a campaign vow to alter longstanding US nuclear doctrine, and will instead embrace existing policy that reserves America’s right to use nukes in a first-strike scenario, according to multiple reports.” (Daily Mail)
2– Nuclear Escalation: The Biden team has accelerated the deployment of modernized U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons to NATO bases in Europe. (The B61-12 carries a lower yield nuclear warhead than earlier versions but is more accurate and can penetrate below ground.) This is from Reuters:
Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernised U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the “nuclear threshold” and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning.
Amid the Ukraine crisis, Politico reported on Oct. 26 that the United States told a closed NATO meeting this month that it would accelerate the deployment of a modernised version of the B61, the B61-12, with the new weapons arriving at European bases in December, several months earlier than planned.
“We cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency. (Reuters)
3– ‘Tactical’ means ‘Usable’: Biden’s new regime of low-yield nukes (which can still blow up a city the size of New York.) are called “tactical” weapons because they are designed for use on the battlefield, which is to say, Biden no longer limits the use of nukes for national defense but also supports their use in conventional wars. (like Ukraine?) This is from Aljazeera:
“Tactical nuclear warheads were created to give military commanders more flexibility on the battlefield. In the mid-1950s, as more powerful thermonuclear bombs were being built and tested, military planners thought smaller weapons with a shorter range would be more useful in ‘tactical’ situations,” according to Al Jazeera’s defence analyst Alex Gatopoulos. (Aljazeera)
4– Fasttrack to Nuclear War: Biden’s New Euro-Nukes have lowered the threshold for nuclear war. This is from MSN:
Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernized US B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the “nuclear threshold” and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning…
“The United States is modernizing them, increasing their accuracy and reducing the power of the nuclear charge, that is, they turn these weapons into ‘battlefield weapons’, thereby reducing the nuclear threshold,” Grushko said….
Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, said on Saturday on Telegram that the new B61 bombs had a “strategic significance” as Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons were in storage, yet these U.S. bombs would be just a short flight from Russia’s borders.
“We cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency. (MSM)
5– Increasing the Reasons for using Nukes: The Nuclear Posture Review abandons Biden’s promise to ensure that US nuclear weapons would be used for the “sole purpose” of deterring or responding to a nuclear attack. Instead, the NPR states that the US will consider the use of nuclear weapons “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”
Sole purpose could significantly reduce the risk of unintended escalation and increase the credibility of more flexible and realistic nonnuclear response options in a range of importance contingencies.” (Federation of American Scientists)
6– More Escalation: The US now reserves the right to use its nukes against non-nuclear weapon countries. This is from an article at Bloomberg News:
The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy rejected limits on using nuclear weapons long championed by arms control advocates and in the past by President Joe Biden.
Citing burgeoning threats from China and Russia, the Defense Department said in the document released Thursday that “by the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.” In response, the US will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies.” (“Pentagon’s Strategy Won’t Rule Out Nuclear Use Against Non-Nuclear Threats”, Bloomberg)………………………………………………………………………….
The White House, the Pentagon and the entire US foreign policy establishment now march in lockstep behind the most fanatically-lethal defense policy in the nation’s 246-year history. The National Defense Strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review and the National Security Strategy all embrace the same reckless warmongering policy that will inevitably lead to mass annihilation and civilizational collapse. The doves and critical thinkers have all been removed from the foreign policy apparatus while the madmen and warhawks drag the world inexorably towards catastrophe. God help us. https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/brandons-usable-nukes-are-the-fast-track-to-jopocalypse/
French nuclear corporation EDF – facing huge debts, but cosily enmeshed with UK government
But what about the future? EDF is predicted to stack up 100 billion Euros (£87.8 billion) in debt this year and the French government already pumped €3 billion (£2.6 billion) into the company in Spring.
But as you’ll see below, no matter how bad things are there’s always room to give the CEO a pay rise.
In 2020, CEO Lévy was listed as the 9th highest-paid CEO in the utility sector worldwide taking home a salary of €450,000 (£389,500) and €3,660 (£3,150) in benefits.
EDF has been getting cosier and cosier with the government.
And the cosiness isn’t set to end anytime soon, EDF stands in good stead under Liz Truss. The new PM nominated former EDF lobbyist Michael Stott as Downing Street’s new business liaison. Stott, who is also an ex-Tory press officer, is expected to lead the government’s new-build nuclear programme.
EDF: WHEN THE STATE GOES FULL CAPITALIST. https://newint.org/features/2022/10/31/edf-when-state-goes-full-capitalist 31 October 2022
What happens when a state energy company goes multinational? In the second installment of its Heat the Rich series on Britain’s big six energy giants, Corporate Watch puts the spotlight on EDF Energy.
EDF is the fifth biggest energy supplier in the UK currently controlling over 10% of the market. The French multinational is best known for “leading the UK’s nuclear renaissance” operating all eight of the UK’s nuclear power stations.
It’s owned by Electricity of France S.A. (Électricité de France, EDF). A multinational energy producer and supplier primarily (and soon to be solely) owned by the French government. It is one of the world’s top five utility companies.
Created in 1946 by the French government, EDF was set up with the intention of rebuilding France’s power grid following World War Two. Now, 70 years on, EDF has branched out a lot further than France, cashing in on energy users from the USA to India. The group is now made up of 144 subsidiaries.
Despite its name, EDF isn’t just in the energy business. EDF is also involved in the data software, vehicle traceability, investment, and real estate sectors, to name just a few.
EDF uses strategic partnership deals to build its brand, for example, the company is a ‘premium partner’ (and official energy supplier) for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Paris in 2024.
HOW MANY UK ENERGY CUSTOMERS DOES EDF HAVE?
Electricity (excluding pre-payment): 3 million
Gas (excluding pre-payment): 2.1 million
WHO OWNS IT?
EDF Energy (UK) Ltd is ultimately owned by EDF SA, a French company which is majority owned (84%) by the French government and listed on Euronext, the French stock exchange.
In July 2022, the French government announced it would buy out the outstanding 16% of EDF’s shares, reversing the partial privatization of the company in 2005. But it hit a brick wall when investors threatened to sue the government for losses. The French state started finalising their buyout of 100% shares in EDF in September. But at what price? The other shareholders are demanding a fortune, with the government set to pay a total of 9.7 billion euros (£8.7 billion) of French taxpayers’ money. It’s worth noting that the shareholders set to cash in from this nationalization are investment giants Blackrock and Vanguard Group.
IS EDF SUFFERING AS A RESULT OF THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS?
On the face of it, it does seem like EDF profits have nose-dived in recent years. According to EDF Energy (UK) Ltd’s 2021 accounts, EDF operated a €4.8 billion (£4.2 billion) loss compared to €268 million (£239 million) in 2020. No dividends were paid by EDF Energy (UK) Ltd. in 2021 nor in 2020. However, another UK subsidiary, EDF Energy Holdings Ltd did pay dividends of £1 million in 2021, and £60 million in 2020.
Despite these losses, at the end of 2021 EDF Energy (UK) Ltd still had net assets of €17.9 billion (£16 billion).
Regardless of the UK subsidiary’s accounts, the EDF Group achieved all its financial targets in 2021. Group sales for the year amounted to £8,720m, an increase of 8%. The Group reaped profits of €360 million (£324 million) in 2021, a total reverse in performance from 2020 when the Group made a loss of €2.6 billion (£2.3 billion).
But what about the future? EDF is predicted to stack up 100 billion Euros (£87.8 billion) in debt this year and the French government already pumped €3 billion (£2.6 billion) into the company in Spring. But as you’ll see below, no matter how bad things are there’s always room to give the CEO a pay rise.
WHO RUNS EDF?
Jean-Bernard Lévy, the current CEO of the Group, is due to leave six months early after a fallout at the top between Lévy and French president, Emmanuel Macron, over nuclear energy. Lévy is – however – unlikely to be out of a job after EDF. He was formerly CEO of weapons company Thales, and media company Vivendi, and even did a stint as a technical adviser to a government ministry. In 2020, Lévy was listed as the 9th highest-paid CEO in the utility sector worldwide taking home a salary of €450,000 (£389,500) and €3,660 (£3,150) in benefits.
Moreover, Lévy’s probable successor, Luc Remont, cherrypicked by Macron (whose appointment is just waiting for parliamentary approval), will start on on a lucrative footing after the French Government announced that it would like to increase the new EDF CEO’s salary to attract more candidates. The company CEO’s salary is currently capped at €450,000 (£389,500). Whilst no figure has been publicly stated, the EDF Group is known to pay high salaries. In 2013 it was revealed that former UK CEO, Vincent de Rivaz, received a pay package of £1 million annually in remuneration.
Simone Rossi has been at EDF since 2004, Rossi switched roles from Head of the International Division to UK CEO in 2017. But Rossi’s influence goes far beyond the British Isles. As a member of the Executive Committee, Rossi is at the very top of the EDF Group. At first it appears Rossi accepted a big pay cut, with a 2017 payment package capped at just over £100,000. A modest salary in comparison to his predecessor, de Rivaz, who was on £1 million a year. But it is highly probable that Rossi’s remuneration is now identical to de Rivaz at £1 million, as the highest-paid director in EDF Energy Holdings Ltd.
EDF
It’s not just customers at the receiving end of EDF’s profit-led strategy. Kashmir Singh, a Prospect trade union organizer, has been fighting against workplace racism and discrimination for half a century. Singh was presented with a 50-year long-service award in 2021 by Simone Rossi. But Singh’s union released a statement explaining how, during his career, he had been subject to two grievance and disciplinary proceedings for daring to raise EDF’s failure to hire and promote staff from Asian or Black Ethnic (ABLE) backgrounds.
SUBSIDIARIES IN TAX HAVENS
EDF Energy (UK) Ltd owns EDF Energy Holdings Ltd, the top holding company for EDF’s UK subsidiaries. Whilst EDF Energy (UK)’s accounts from 2021 detail tax payments of €905m (£780m) of corporation tax in 2021, some of its subsidiaries are registered in notorious tax havens including a holdings company registered in Hong Kong and an insurance company in Guernsey.
Over the last two decades, EDF has funded the Conservative party to the tune of £38,499.
Most recently, last October EDF Energy Renewables Ltd donated £4,999 to the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen. And like clockwork, by March 2022, EDF announced its plan to construct a new hydrogen production centre near the former Redcar steelworks in Teeside. The centre is called Tees Green Hydrogen.
EDF also made two £6,000 in donations to the Labour Party in October 2003 and September 2005. The timing of these donations coincided with Labour PM Tony Blair’s announcement in November 2005 that the government was looking into new nuclear for the UK’s future energy supplies. This set the ball rolling for EDF’s £18 billion government contract for the construction of Hinkley Point C power station.
Over the last decade, EDF has been getting cosier and cosier with the government. The company has had at least five independent opportunities to promote its agenda in meetings with UK prime ministers, once with David Cameron and four times with Boris Johnson. Company representatives even had an intimate one-to-one with Johnson in January 2022 to chat about the UK’s nuclear energy supply, which EDF holds the monopoly over.
Since 2012, company representatives have also attended at least 151 meetings with government ministers, including 24 solo meetings with the former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Kwasi Kwarteng, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the person in charge of UK economic policy.
And the cosiness isn’t set to end anytime soon, EDF stands in good stead under Liz Truss. The new PM nominated former EDF lobbyist Michael Stott as Downing Street’s new business liaison. Stott, who is also an ex-Tory press officer, is expected to lead the government’s new-build nuclear programme.
Antinuclear 