USA government, Pentagon, happy to escalate to a nuclear war – at the behest of Volodymyr Zelensky ?
As I really dislike Rupert Murdoch’s News Corpse, Tucker Carlson, and the whole pro Trump brigade, it pains me to have to promote them in any way. BUT – if they happen to be telling the facts, with a credible interpretation of what is going on in Ukraine – can we afford to just dismiss them, while the “respectable” corporate Western media idolises Zelensky, and promotes the escalation of the war?
What are tactical nuclear weapons? An international security expert explains and assesses what they mean for the war in Ukraine
I believe Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not achieve any military goal. It would contaminate the territory that Russia claims as part of its historic empire and possibly drift into Russia itself. It would increase the likelihood of direct NATO intervention and destroy Russia’s image in the world.
The Conversation, Nina Srinivasan Rathbun, Professor of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, 28 Sept 22,
Tactical nuclear weapons have burst onto the international stage as Russian President Vladimir Putin, facing battlefield losses in eastern Ukraine, has threatened that Russia will “make use of all weapon systems available to us” if Russia’s territorial integrity is threatened. Putin has characterized the war in Ukraine as an existential battle against the West, which he said wants to weaken, divide and destroy Russia.
U.S. President Joe Biden criticized Putin’s overt nuclear threats against Europe. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg downplayed the threat, saying Putin “knows very well that a nuclear war should never be fought and cannot be won.” This is not the first time Putin has invoked nuclear weapons in an attempt to deter NATO.
I am an international security scholar who has worked on and researched nuclear restraint, nonproliferation and costly signaling theory applied to international relations for two decades. Russia’s large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, which are not governed by international treaties, and Putin’s doctrine of threatening their use have raised tensions, but tactical nuclear weapons are not simply another type of battlefield weapon.
Tactical by the numbers
Tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes called battlefield or nonstrategic nuclear weapons, were designed to be used on the battlefield – for example, to counter overwhelming conventional forces like large formations of infantry and armor. They are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons like the warheads carried on intercontinental ballistic missiles.
While experts disagree about precise definitions of tactical nuclear weapons, lower explosive yields, measured in kilotons, and shorter-range delivery vehicles are commonly identified characteristics. Tactical nuclear weapons vary in yields from fractions of 1 kiloton to about 50 kilotons, compared with strategic nuclear weapons, which have yields that range from about 100 kilotons to over a megaton, though much more powerful warheads were developed during the Cold War.
For reference, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, so some tactical nuclear weapons are capable of causing widespread destruction. The largest conventional bomb, the Mother of All Bombs or MOAB, that the U.S. has dropped has a 0.011-kiloton yield.
Delivery systems for tactical nuclear weapons also tend to have shorter ranges, typically under 310 miles (500 kilometers) compared with strategic nuclear weapons, which are typically designed to cross continents.
Because low-yield nuclear weapons’ explosive force is not much greater than that of increasingly powerful conventional weapons, the U.S. military has reduced its reliance on them. Most of its remaining stockpile, about 150 B61 gravity bombs, is deployed in Europe. The U.K. and France have completely eliminated their tactical stockpiles. Pakistan, China, India, Israel and North Korea all have several types of tactical nuclear weaponry.
Russia has retained more tactical nuclear weapons, estimated to be around 2,000, and relied more heavily on them in its nuclear strategy than the U.S. has, mostly due to Russia’s less advanced conventional weaponry and capabilities.
Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons can be deployed by ships, planes and ground forces. Most are deployed on air-to-surface missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs and depth charges delivered by medium-range and tactical bombers, or naval anti-ship and anti-submarine torpedoes. These missiles are mostly held in reserve in central depots in Russia.
Russia has updated its delivery systems to be able to carry either nuclear or conventional bombs. There is heightened concern over these dual capability delivery systems because Russia has used many of these short-range missile systems, particularly the Iskander-M, to bombard Ukraine.
Tactical nuclear weapons are substantially more destructive than their conventional counterparts even at the same explosive energy. Nuclear explosions are more powerful by factors of 10 million to 100 million than chemical explosions, and leave deadly radiation fallout that would contaminate air, soil, water and food supplies, similar to the disastrous Chernobyl nuclear reactor meltdown in 1986. The interactive simulation site NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein depicts the multiple effects of nuclear explosions at various yields………………………………
Tactical nuclear weapons are substantially more destructive than their conventional counterparts even at the same explosive energy. Nuclear explosions are more powerful by factors of 10 million to 100 million than chemical explosions, and leave deadly radiation fallout that would contaminate air, soil, water and food supplies, similar to the disastrous Chernobyl nuclear reactor meltdown in 1986. The interactive simulation site NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein depicts the multiple effects of nuclear explosions at various yields…………………….
While there is disagreement among experts, Russian and U.S. nuclear strategies focus on deterrence, and so involve large-scale retaliatory nuclear attacks in the face of any first-nuclear weapon use. This means that Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to conventional war is threatening an action that would, under nuclear warfare doctrine, invite a retaliatory nuclear strike if aimed at the U.S. or NATO.
Nukes and Ukraine
I believe Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not achieve any military goal. It would contaminate the territory that Russia claims as part of its historic empire and possibly drift into Russia itself. It would increase the likelihood of direct NATO intervention and destroy Russia’s image in the world.
Putin aims to deter Ukraine’s continued successes in regaining territory by preemptively annexing regions in the east of the country after holding staged referendums. He could then declare that Russia would use nuclear weapons to defend the new territory as though the existence of the Russian state were threatened. But I believe this claim stretches Russia’s nuclear strategy beyond belief.
Putin has explicitly claimed that his threat to use tactical nuclear weapons is not a bluff precisely because, from a strategic standpoint, using them is not credible. In other words, under any reasonable strategy, using the weapons is unthinkable and so threatening their use is by definition a bluff. https://theconversation.com/what-are-tactical-nuclear-weapons-an-international-security-expert-explains-and-assesses-what-they-mean-for-the-war-in-ukraine-191167
September 29 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Hay! Alfalfa Is The Biggest Issue For Western Water” • All the reductions of water use cities can do will not be nearly enough to restore the Colorado River. But alfalfa farmers in one California irrigation district use far more water than the allotment for the state of Nevada. Alfalfa farms use almost […]
September 29 Energy News — geoharvey
AGL is quitting coal: What now on renewables, workers and the bottom line? — RenewEconomy
AGL Energy’s plan to quit coal power generation a decade ahead of schedule means a much bigger and faster pivot to renewables. How will it work? The post AGL is quitting coal: What now on renewables, workers and the bottom line? appeared first on RenewEconomy.
AGL is quitting coal: What now on renewables, workers and the bottom line? — RenewEconomy
Federal government tips $43m into decarbonising “hard to abate” sectors — RenewEconomy
ARENA launches grants program offering funds to companies in hard-to-abate sectors to integrate renewables and energy efficiency technologies. The post Federal government tips $43m into decarbonising “hard to abate” sectors appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Federal government tips $43m into decarbonising “hard to abate” sectors — RenewEconomy
Consumers want out of coal: De Brenni explains Queensland switch to renewables — RenewEconomy
Queensland energy minister tells the Energy Insiders podcast the plan to switch from coal to renewables was driven by climate impacts and consumer demand. The post Consumers want out of coal: De Brenni explains Queensland switch to renewables appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Consumers want out of coal: De Brenni explains Queensland switch to renewables — RenewEconomy
Energy Insiders: De Brenni on Queensland’s flip to renewables — RenewEconomy
Energy minister Mick de Brenni outlines how Queensland will make the switch from coal to 80 per cent renewables. Plus: Victoria’s storage target, and the latest from AGL. The post Energy Insiders: De Brenni on Queensland’s flip to renewables appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Energy Insiders: De Brenni on Queensland’s flip to renewables — RenewEconomy
Australia’s last coal holdout surrenders to the green energy revolution — RenewEconomy
The pace at which the defense of coal is falling by the wayside is extraordinary. Even Queensland, the state seen as the last hold out, has now mapped its exit. The post Australia’s last coal holdout surrenders to the green energy revolution appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australia’s last coal holdout surrenders to the green energy revolution — RenewEconomy
September 27 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Electric Vehicle Good, E-Bike Better, Cargo E-Bike Even Better” • “One bike that can do almost anything – commutes, trips to the store, daycare drop-off, leisure rides, and more.” So said the e-bike maker CERO, as it unveiled its CERO One. It’s all true! The CERO One feels like silk in motion to […]
September 27 Energy News — geoharvey
Australia’s last coal holdout surrenders to the green energy revolution — RenewEconomy
The pace at which the defense of coal is falling by the wayside is extraordinary. Even Queensland, the state seen as the last hold out, has now mapped its exit. The post Australia’s last coal holdout surrenders to the green energy revolution appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australia’s last coal holdout surrenders to the green energy revolution — RenewEconomy
“A broken system allows nine nations to hold the world hostage” — IPPNW peace and health blog
Molly McGinty speaks for IPPNW at the UN: “We reject the complacency of nuclear-armed states and their allies, and thank those who have paved the path to abolition.” [IPPNW’s Associate Program Director Molly McGinty delivered the following remarks at the High-Level Meeting of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on 26 […]
“A broken system allows nine nations to hold the world hostage” — IPPNW peace and health blog
Australian and more – Nuclear news -week to 26 September
Some bits of good news – Good News on AIDS, Ocean Conservation in Indonesia, and Clean Air Zones in Spain.Coronavirus. World –
over 609 million confirmed cases and over 6.5 million deaths. USA 395 117 new cases . The highest numbers of new weekly deaths were reported from the United States of America. President Joe Biden says “The pandemic is over” . As the Americans say – Go figure.
AUSTRALIA
Aukus plan to expedite Australia’s nuclear sub construction an act of nuclear proliferation under ‘naval nuclear propulsion’ cover: Chinese mission to UN . South Australia’s premier says buying nuclear submarines directly from US would degrade Australian shipbuilding.
25 September – anniversary of nuclear bombing at Maralinga – causing Aboriginal deaths, and later deaths of soldiers exposed to radiation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0MgVjCEwd0
Australia’s foreign minister warns of ‘catastrophic’ impact of Indo-Pacific war during UN address.
Greens Senator Barbara Pocock calls on the Federal Government to suspend work on South Australian nuclear waste site. Kimba community groups need to pose these hard questions to Ministers Madeleine King and Ed Husic.
‘A huge victory’: Traditional owners win court challenge against $4.7b Santos gas project
Crikey and Media Watch v Friendlyjordies and Independent Australia.
Consumers reap rewards of 100 pct renewables as wind and solar farms hand back windfall profits
INTERNATIONAL
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons: dismantle the warheads and build a common security. International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons 2022: History, Significance and Celebration.
SCOTT RITTER: Reaping the Whirlwind
‘Naïve’ to think Russia will lose war, says Dr Jordan Peterson – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxxELn00gk The Ukraine war could open the nuclear Pandora’s box. The deadly game of nuclear escalation. Unlocked: NATO prolongs the Ukraine proxy war, and global havoc. World powers must take Putin’s threat seriously, stop the escalation and seek a diplomatic solution.
Small modular reactors: What is taking so long?
World’s richest countries fall short on renewable energy targets.
UKRAINE. Holding ground, losing war. War fears at another Ukraine nuclear site . In effect if not juridically, Ukraine was becoming a member of the NATO alliance.THE WORLD SPLIT APART.
Vladislav Ugolny: Ukraine is targeting civilians for retribution in the east while its Western backers turn a blind eye. HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE REFERENDA
.
Aukus plan to expedite Australia’s nuclear sub construction an act of nuclear proliferation under ‘naval nuclear propulsion’ cover: Chinese mission to UN.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202209/1276076.shtml By Leng Shumei and Hu Yuwei , Sep 26, 2022 , The Chinese mission to the UN in Vienna warned in an exclusive statement sent to the Global Times on Sunday that the latest move by AUKUS to plan to expedite Australia’s nuclear submarine construction is a blatant defiance of and trampling on the international nuclear non-proliferation system, and is an act of nuclear proliferation under the pretext of “naval nuclear propulsion.”
A spokesperson of the Chinese mission to the UN and other international organizations in Vienna made the comment after leaders of the US, UK and Australia said on Friday marking the one-year anniversary of the AUKUS security pact that they have made “significant progress” toward Australia acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine.
In disregard of the serious concerns of the international community on the trilateral nuclear submarine deal, the US is insisting on and even making reckless remarks about accelerating the deal, which is a blatant defiance of and trampling on the international nuclear non-proliferation system, the spokesperson told the Global Times in the statement.
China has repeatedly pointed out that the nuclear submarine deal among the three countries violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) and Additional Protocols (AP). It is an act of nuclear proliferation under the pretext of “naval nuclear propulsion,” the statement noted.
The US regards China as an “imaginary enemy.” The act of inciting Indo-Pacific competition seriously undermines regional peace and stability, which shows that the US has a wrong understanding of China, of the world and of itself, it said.
We hope that the US side will abandon the Cold War mentality, abandon the use of nuclear submarine cooperation among the three countries to contain China, abandon the trampling of international rules for geopolitical purposes, and work with China to implement the important consensus of the two heads of state, and practice mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, win-win cooperation, and shoulder the responsibility of a major country, read the statement.
Leaders of the US, UK and Australia said in a statement on Friday “We are steadfast in our commitment to Australia acquiring this capability at the earliest possible date,” according to Reuters.
The Biden administration is exploring an arrangement to expedite Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines to respond to China’s growing military might by producing the first few submarines in the US, The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, citing some Western officials.
The idea is to provide Australia with an initial nuclear-powered fleet by the mid-2030s, while a longer-term effort is under way to give Australia the capability to produce nuclear-power submarines at home, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Chinese experts warned that Australia should also be alert that it is sleepwalking into a US trap to serve as the latter’s pawn in the US’ strategy against China. But they also believed that it would not be easy to implement the plan given the lack of spare shipbuilding capacity in the US and in Britain.
In August, the US admiral in charge of building new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines said producing nuclear-power subs for Australia would interfere with the US’ efforts to build its own submarines unless a major effort was made to expand the American industrial base, according to the Wall Street Journal.
It is questionable how feasible the plan actually is, Chen Hong, president of the Chinese Association of Australian Studies and director of the Australian Studies Centre at East China Normal University, told the Global Times on Sunday.
The nuclear-powered submarine deal under AUKUS is a blatant, irresponsible act of nuclear proliferation, and once again proves that AUKUS countries are practicing a “double standard” on nuclear non-proliferation and using the deal as a tool for geopolitical gamesmanship, Ambassador Wang Qun, China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Vienna, told the Global Times in a recent exclusive interview.
Song Zongping, a Chinese TV commentator, warned it is already a fact that the US is dedicated to nuclear weapons proliferation.
But more importantly, the US is pushing its frontier against China to Australia by weaponizing Australia with nuclear submarines. The Australia’s nuclear-submarine fleet would be a squadron of and be controlled by the US, Song noted.
In the Friday statement, the AUKUS leaders – US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Liz Truss and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese – also said they had made “significant strides” in other areas, including hypersonic weapons, cyber, electronic warfare capabilities and additional undersea capabilities, according to Reuters.
Chen warned that by enhancing cooperation under AUKUS in these aspects, Australia does not understand that it is actually sleepwalking into a trap to serve as a pawn for the US’ strategy against China.
Currently, the nuclear-powered submarine deal under AUKUS attracts the most attention, but cooperation under AUKUS is far more complex as the organization’s long-term strategic aim is to contain China’s development, Chen noted.
Australia is being pushed into the teeth of the storm in the US’ strategy against China. It should be on high alert that it probably is sacrificing its own national security for other countries’ national interests, Chen warned.
South Australia’s premier says buying nuclear submarines directly from US would degrade Australian shipbuilding
Proposal to fast-track submarines by having them produced by US ‘would not be acceptable’, Peter Malinauskas says
Guardian Sarah Martin, @msmartoSun 25 Sep 2022
The South Australian premier, Peter Malinauskas, has criticised a proposal for Australia to buy nuclear submarines directly from the US, saying it would “not be acceptable” for his state to miss out on promised submarine manufacturing jobs.
A report in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday suggested the Biden administration was considering a plan with the UK and Australia to fast-track nuclear-powered submarines for Australia by the mid-2030s by producing the first few submarines in the US.
However, given existing production constraints at US shipyards, the deal would depend on Australia making a financial commitment to expand the US’s submarine-production capacity to ensure it could also meet its domestic demands.……………………………………….
When asked if it would be acceptable for the Australian government to purchase submarines from the US without training an Australian workforce as part of the deal, Malinuaskas was clear.
“No, that would not be acceptable from the state government’s perspective, because that would represent a degradation of what has been promised, and that is that these subs are being built in Australia,” he said.
“It all depends on the pathway, and that detail really matters here – not just for the economic interests of the state, but also from our sovereign submarine-building capacity, which is such a central tenet of de-risking Australia’s security position.”
How Australia intends to fill the capability gap between its existing Collins Class fleet and the new fleet of up to 12 nuclear-powered submarines is the subject of a federal government review that is due to report by March next year.
On Sunday the defence minister, Richard Marles, said the review, being undertaken by former defence minister Stephen Smith and former Australian defence force chief Angus Houston, would consider how best to fill the capability gap that would otherwise see Australia wait until the mid-2040s for new submarines……………………………………………………………
In a joint statement released last week to mark one year of the Aukus pact, the leaders of Australia, the UK and the US said that the group had made significant progress towards Australia acquiring conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines.
“We are steadfast in our commitment to Australia acquiring this capability at the earliest possible date,” the statement said. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/25/sa-premier-says-buying-nuclear-submarines-directly-from-us-would-degrade-australian-shipbuilding
HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE REFERENDA IN UKRAINE.
Popular Resistance, By Moon of Alabama., September 24, 2022, Educate!
Voting for membership in the Russian Federation has started in four oblast of Ukraine:
………………….. The Ukrainian regime has resorted to pure terrorism to prevent the votes from happening:
” Ukrainian partisans, sometimes working with special operations forces, have blown up warehouses holding ballots and buildings where Russian proxy officials preparing for the vote held meetings. Ukrainian officials have acknowledged that they are engaged in a campaign to assassinate key Russian administration officials; more than a dozen have been blown up, shot and poisoned, according to Ukrainian and Russian officials.“
Such behavior by the Zelenski regime against its still Ukrainian compatriots will only encourage the people in the four oblast to vote for an alignment with Russia.
The propaganda in the ‘west’ will declare that the vote is irregular and that the results, likely to be pro-Russian, will be fake.
But a view on historic election outcomes since Ukrainian independence in 1991 show clear geographic preferences in east and south Ukraine for pro-Russian policies:
[ The original here shows a graphic chart illustrating voting patterns over the years]
The graphic above is from research published by the Eurasian Research Institute of the International Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Turkish-Kazakh University. Its author writes:
“As we can see, the have always been a clear-cut geographical split in the way the regions of Ukraine vote for particular candidates. The East and West division or also referred as Southeast and Northwest division was always present throughout the electoral history of the independent Ukraine. It is conventionally believed that the eastern part of Ukraine is more influenced by Russia politically, economically and culturally. Therefore, the presidential candidates proposing more pro-Russian agenda usually gain much more political support in eastern regions than in other parts of Ukraine.
On the other hand, the western part of the country has traditionally been more pro-European with strong reference to traditional core Ukrainian ethnic traditions and values. Consequently, presidential candidates with pro-European political agenda and traditional Ukrainian appeal usually had strong support in western regions of the country. It is interesting to note that preferences of the electorate were not related to the geographical origin or background of the presidential candidates and any candidate could easily become popular in the east as well as in the west. Moreover, the same candidate could be both pro-eastern and pro-western in different periods of time as did Leonid Kuchma in 1994 and 1999, who is the only Ukrainian president to serve two consecutive terms from 1994 to 2005.“
The division is consistent with ethnic and linguistic differences between those parts of Ukraine.
In 2014, after the violent fascist coup in Kiev, one of the first laws implemented by the new government removed the Russian language from official use. Instead of overcoming the differences between its people it only sealed the predominant split in Ukraine.
The election promise of the current Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelenski to make peace with the Russia aligned rebellious Donbas region by adhering to the Minsk 2 agreements was rewarded with a large share of southeastern votes for his presidency. However, after having been threatened with death by fascists, Zelenski has made a 180 degree turn and has since posed as Ukrainian nationalist. In consequence he has lost all support in southeastern Ukraine.
The southeastern parts of today’s Ukraine have for centuries been part of the central Russian empire. They were only attached to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine under Lenin’s rule in 1922 and, in the case of Crimea, in 1954 under Nikita Khrushchev who himself had grown up in the Donbas region.
A likely high turnout and majority vote for membership in the Russian Federation will only correct the historic misalignment created by those illogical transfers.
https://popularresistance.org/historic-context-of-the-referenda-in-ukraine/
1 This month
17 October, Free Public Talk on Nuclear Issues in South Australia
David Noonan will speak on public interest concerns over the new Roxby Downs Indenture Act 2026 on BHP copper-uranium mining and ore processing in SA, and on how AUKUS may face SA with a High-Level nuclear waste agenda.
Dr Jim Green will discuss international developments in the field of nuclear power including ‘small modular reactors’ and Generation 4 ‘advanced’ nuclear reactor concepts.
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
