Canada, Sweden Restore UNRWA Funds as Report Accuses Israel of Torturing Agency Staff
“The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated,” said Canadian lawmaker Salma Zahid. “It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable.”
JON QUEALLY, Mar 09, 2024 https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/09/canada-sweden-restore-unrwa-funds-as-report-accuses-israel-of-torturing-agency-staff/
The governments of Canada and Sweden have announced they will resume funding for the United Nation’s agency that provides humanitarian aide and protection to Palestinians living in Gaza and elsewhere—a move that other powerful nations, including Israel’s most powerful ally the United States, continue to refuse.
Calling the lack of humanitarian relief inside Gaza “catastrophic,” Canadian Minister of International Development Ahmed Hussen said Friday his nation would restore funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in order to help address the “dire” situation on the ground living.
Sweden made its announcement Saturday and said a $20 million disbursement would be made to help UNRWA regain its financial footing.
The restoration of funds follows weeks of global criticism and protest for the decision by many Western nations to withhold UNRWA funds after Israel claimed, without presenting evidence, that a few members of the agency—the largest employer in the Gaza Strip—had participated in the Hamas-led attacks of October 7.
As a result, UNRWA has said it’s ability to provide aid and services to Gaza—where over 100,000 people have been killed or wounded in five months of constant bombardment and blockade by the Israeli military—has been pushed to the “breaking point” as malnutrition and starvation has been documented among the displaced population of over 2 million people.
“Canada is resuming its funding to UNRWA so more can be done to respond to the urgent needs of Palestinian civilians,” Hussen said. “Canada will continue to take the allegations against some of UNRWA’s staff extremely seriously and we will remain closely engaged with UNRWA and the UN to pursue accountability and reforms.”
“I welcome Canada lifting the pause on funding for UNWRA,” said Canadian MP Salma Zahid, a member of the Liberal party representing Scarborough Centre in the House of Commons. “The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated. It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable.”
Earlier this week, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini told a special meeting of the U.N. General Assembly the agency was “facing a deliberate and concerted campaign” by Israel “to undermine its operations, and ultimately end them.”
On Friday, Reutersreported on an internal UNRWA report that included testimony of employees who said they were tortured by Israeli officers while in detention to make false admissions about involvement in the October 7 attack.
This week in nuclear news
A vertical garden at Medellin’s City Hall.
Ralph Nader: Stop the Worsening Undercount of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza.
The horrors of nuclear weapons testing.
March 11 – reflecting on Fukushima.
********************************************
Climate. Climate change is warping the seasons. The world is not moving fast enough on climate change — social sciences can help explain why.Europe unprepared for rapidly growing climate risks, report finds.
Noel’s notes. The need for clear thinking on the Holocaust in Gaza. Oh for a bit of sanity and genuine leadership! Normalising the unthinkable – the 16th Annual Nuclear (so-called) Deterrence Summit.
AUSTRALIA.
- The Campaign to Free Assange: Reflections on ‘Night Falls’.
- Prime Minister of Australia, and Henchmen, Referred to International Criminal Court for Support of Gaza Genocide. Shock as Australian Prime Minister learns that he is not above international law.
- AUKUS: Are nuclear-powered submarines a good idea for Australia?
- Australia has had many significant inquiries into nuclear power, over the past 60 years.
- The Coalition wants nuclear power. Could it work – or would it be an economic and logistical disaster? Peter Dutton’s climate denial is morphing into a madcap nuclear fantasy. The ban should stay. Nuclear power: Peter Dutton changes gear in favour of big reactors not small modular ones. Peter Dutton’s nuclear implosion after Dunkley byelection loss. Tell him he’s dreaming’: Bowen rubbishes Coalition claim Australia could have nuclear power in a decade. Peter Dutton won’t back down on the Coalition’s desire to take its nuclear energy policy to the next election. Nuclear slow and expensive, renewables fast and cheap: Bowen slaps down Coalition “fantasy”. Dutton’s nuclear option would condemn us to pricey power and blackouts. Market has ‘made its decision’ about nuclear energy being too expensive. Coalition must come clean on how its nuclear vision would work.
- Coalition’s plan to go nuclear puts five regions on the table as favoured locations for nuclear reactors. MP says coalition ‘must’ explain plan for nuclear power near Anglesea on the Victorian Surf Coast. Top scientist explains nuclear process and risks: Sunshine Coast previously considered for facility. Talk of nuclear power plant sites ‘conjecture’, says Liberal MP amid internal division on Dutton’s policy. Western Australia’s Premier Cook goes nuclear on Dutton’s ‘simplistic, ridiculous’ power plan.
- Senior Western Australia Liberal calls for Australia to become nuclear weapons power.
- Australia nuclear facility installs massive rooftop solar system to save $2 million.
- Events. Peace! – No AUKUS, No War! Australia wide events and protest actions for Peace, end AUKUS, cancel nuclear submarines and mobilise against war 14 – 24 March
NUCLEAR ISSUES
| EMPLOYMENT. Fukushima fishers strive to recover catches amid water concerns. | ENVIRONMENT. Hinkley Point Responds to Environmental Concerns Over Bristol Channel Eel Populations. | ETHICS and RELIGION. Aiding Those We Kill: US Humanitarianism in Gaza. The West has set itself on a path of collective suicide — both moral and economic’ Oceans. Could Fukushima’s radioactive water pose lasting threat to humans and the environment? |
| HISTORY. The lesson from the criminal H Bomb Bravo “test”– Hibakusha remind us. Oppenheimer feared nuclear annihilation – and only a chance pause by a Soviet submariner kept it from happening in 1962 | MEDIA. New York Times: Nuclear Risks Have Not Gone Away.US Media and Factcheckers Fail to Note Israel’s Refutation of ‘Beheaded Babies’ Stories. ‘Mr Dutton is right’: Murdoch’s News Corp papers grant nuclear power glowing coverage. NewsGuard AI Censorship Targets People Who Read Primary Sources To Fact-Check The News. – (a pro-Trumpist article?- but probably true) | OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . ‘It’ll be a shortlist of one!’ Villagers in England fear nuclear dump proposal. An Open Letter from Hollywood On Oppenheimer and Nuclear Weapons. Kenya. Senator Omtatah to take the Uyombo nuclear power plant war international. |
| POLITICS Australia’s Opposition party’s nuclear red herring is a betrayal of the Australian people . – also at https://antinuclear.net/2024/03/11/1-a-coalitions-nuclear-red-herring-is-a-betrayal-of-the-australian-people/ . Scottish National Party ministers to set out plans for removing nuclear weapons after independence. UK Labour versus Green. UK Budget: Government confirms £160m deal to acquire Hitachi nuclear sites. U.S. Congress about to fund revival of nuclear waste recycling to be led by private start-ups. | SAFETY. Greenpeace warns on danger of restarting Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant . Improvement notice served over storage of hazardous materials at Dounreay. ‘Sometimes I can’t sleep at night’: Adi Roche warns of nuclear risks of Ukraine conflict as she picks up peace award. Aberdeen shipping logistics company warned over nuclear transport safety failings.. | SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. China outlines position on use of space resources. Russia says it is considering putting a nuclear power plant on the moon with China. Russia and China announce plan to build shared nuclear reactor on the moon by 2035, ‘without humans’. |
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
- The West’s over-involvement in Ukraine.
- F-35A aeroplanes officially certified to carry thermonuclear bomb. NATO bringing missiles closer to Russia – member state.
- Plutonium. Plutonium pit ‘panic’ threatens America’s nuclear ambitions. Does the US Need New Plutonium Pits?.
- Biden is building for Israel a super weapon to replace the Iron Dome.
- Coalition Kill Chain for the Pacific: Lessons from Ukraine. U.S. Sells ‘Link 16’ Battlefield Communications System to Taiwan – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfF4In5Q99Q
WOMEN. Our International Women’s Day Heroine: Rosalie Bertell.
March 11 – reflecting on Fukushima
by Linda Pentz Gunter https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/10/reflecting-on-fukushima/
The lesson learned should be an end to nuclear power. Japan is going in the opposite direction
On March 11 this year, and every year since 2011, we reflect on what happened on that day at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan — and the impacts that continue. The never-ending tragedy.
The news cycle was 24/7 on the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011. Gradually, the media lost interest. Fresh catastrophes — also human-caused — came to dominate the headlines.
The stories of ongoing harm, of physical and psychic pain, disease and death, displacement, family separation, and lawsuits dismissed or lost, are often told through the megaphones of desperate Japanese mothers, determined not to let such a fate befall another generation. They are the new Hibakusha, the Cassandras of Japan, sounding the warning but doomed to be disbelieved or ignored.
Because there will be another major nuclear disaster. And Japan, shockingly, is lining itself up to be a strong candidate. A country that has now experienced the second worst nuclear disaster of all time, and is heavily seismically active, is seeking not only to reopen its old reactors but to explore building new ones, including small modular reactors.
The only lesson from the Fukushima nuclear disaster that successive Japanese governments seem to have learned is how to minimize, cover-up and even dismiss and deny its devastating environmental and health effects.
It has done this by consistently whitewashing the Fukushima aftermath — holding the Summer Olympics (delayed a year only due to covid, not the unacceptable radiation levels); moving people back into still contaminated areas; ascribing the high thyroid cancer rates to increased testing; forbidding schools to teach children about the harms of radiation; and, of course, pouring radioactive water from the site into the Pacific Ocean so the unsightly waste water storage casks — a perpetual reminder of the continued build-up of radioactive water at the site — will vanish from view along with the bad PR.
Japan got another reminder of just what kind of gamble it is taking when a 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck the Noto Peninsula on January 1st of this year, not far from the Shika nuclear power plant. Buildings fell, 100,000 people were evacuated and tsunami warnings were posted. Conflicting stories emerged as to whether the Shika reactors, mercifully shut down at the time, had suffered lasting damage or whether there were radioactive spills. Area residents have demanded an investigation.
Catastrophe was averted because luck prevailed. Next time, it might not.
All of this should serve as a warning and not only to Japan of course. It doesn’t take an earthquake or a tsunami— or even a war as we are seeing in Ukraine whose reactors remain at perpetual risk —to cause a nuclear disaster. The safety margins are so fragile at nuclear power plants, that even something as minor as a falling tree limb could set an accident in motion if both offsite and then onsite power is lost to the reactors.
There was no war or earthquake or tsunami in Ukraine in 1986 when Chernobyl Unit 4 exploded. Nor in Pennsylvania in 1979 when the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor melted down. Nor in New Mexico later in 1979 when 90 million gallons of radioactive liquid and eleven hundred tons of solid mill waste burst from the Church Rock uranium mill tailings pond, permanently contaminating the Puerto River.
What was there, on each occasion, were human beings who made catastrophic mistakes with a highly dangerous, obsolete technology that even on a good day, causes harm to human health and on a bad one can leave a deadly, longlasting legacy as we have seen in Fukushima.
All of those human errors were preventable. And they still are — provided we remove the object of fallible human responsibility: inherently dangerous nuclear power plants.
The only worthy legacy of the Fukushima disaster, now 13 years on and still going, is to abandon the use of nuclear technology permanently.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. All opinions are her own.
Saying “Hamas Just Needs To Surrender” Is Saying “We’ll Kill Kids Until We Get What We Want”
“It’s heartbreaking,” added Biden, referring to the genocide that he himself is actively backing and could choose to end at any time.
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAR 9, 2024
Of the many awful warmonger comments President Biden made in his State of the Union address Thursday night, arguably the worst was when he reiterated the US empire’s position that it is fine and good for the IDF to keep murdering Gazan civilians until Hamas bows to all of Israel’s demands.
Biden did this by lamenting the “heartbreaking” death and starvation of civilians in Gaza while in the same breath stating that Hamas could end all of this violence by laying down arms and surrendering those responsible for the October 7 attack.
“Israel has a right to go after Hamas,” Biden said. “Hamas ended this conflict by releasing the hostages, laying down arms — could end it by — by releasing the hostages, laying down arms, and surrendering those responsible for October 7th.”
“This war has taken a greater toll on innocent civilians than all previous wars in Gaza combined,” Biden went on to say. “More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of whom are not Hamas. Thousands and thousands of innocents — women and children. Girls and boys also orphaned. Nearly 2 million more Palestinians under bombardment or displacement. Homes destroyed, neighborhoods in rubble, cities in ruin. Families without food, water, medicine.”
“It’s heartbreaking,” added Biden, referring to the genocide that he himself is actively backing and could choose to end at any time.
(Democrats love babbling about how “heartbreaking” Gaza is. It’s their favorite thing to do. They love nothing more than to weep publicly over the death and starvation and unfathomable human suffering they themselves are directly responsible for, as though it’s some kind of natural disaster and not a US-backed genocide that is only happening because this Democrat-run administration actively facilitates it.)
We don’t talk enough about how horrifyingly evil it is that the actual, stated position of Israel and its immensely powerful allies is that all of the killing and starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is entirely the fault of Hamas, because Hamas has not acquiesced to the military demands made by Israel. In effect, it is saying “We will kill thousands and thousands of children until you give us everything we want.”
I mean, imagine if Russia did that. Imagine if Putin started raining military explosives on parts of Ukraine known to be densely packed with children, and then saying the mass-scale child-killing will continue until Ukraine surrenders and that all of the child deaths are actually the fault of the Ukrainians because they still haven’t given Putin everything he wants.
I think we all know that if such a thing were to happen it would be the subject of worldwide condemnation, and justifiably so. Such a tactic is not meaningfully different from lining up children on their knees on the battlefield and shooting them one by one in the back of the head until the enemy unconditionally surrenders.
They’re not just doing this with airstrikes and bullets — they’re doing it with food as well. Aaron Maté has a new article out titled “The Biden doctrine in Gaza: bomb, starve, deceive” which picks apart statements from White House officials about the temporary pier this administration is planning to build on Gaza’s coast over the next several weeks, ostensibly to allow for the arrival of more aid into the enclave………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Maté explains that Vice President Kamala Harris recently gave a speech in which she said Hamas needs to agree to a hostage deal in order to “get a significant amount of aid in,” which is the same as saying Israel and its allies will help starve Gazan civilians until Hamas capitulates to their demands.
“The very fact that the delivery of ‘a significant amount’ of aid is conditional on Hamas accepting Israeli demands underscores that Israel, with US backing, is using that aid as a tool of coercion,” Maté writes, noting that this directly contradicts Biden’s admonishment to Israeli leaders in his State of the Union address that “Humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip.”
Washington’s role in the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza makes a lot more sense when you stop looking at it as a reluctant passive witness to Israel’s crimes and begin viewing it as an active participant. US officials will occasionally wag their fingers at the Netanyahu government and act like Israel’s worst atrocities are being carried out against the beneficent humanitarian wishes of the United States, but if you mentally mute all the narrative spin that’s being placed on this thing you just see a giant concentration camp packed full of children being murdered at mass scale by the most powerful empire that has ever existed. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/saying-hamas-just-needs-to-surrender
Our International Women’s Day Heroine: Rosalie Bertell
ON BY MARIANNEWILDART, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2024/03/08/our-international-womens-day-heroine-rosalie-bertell/
Rosalie Bertell, PhD (1929-2012), was a biometrist – a mathematician who analyzed risks to health from radiation and pollution. In this interview she mainly tells about her research on radiation and cancer, which led to restricting X-rays to diagnostic uses, revealed how above-ground nuclear testing had led to elevated breast cancer cohorts, and helped prevent the establishment of nuclear power plants in several communities.
http://www.radio4all.net/files/wingsradionews@gmail.com/WINGS-33-23CancerMath-28_58-128kbps.mp3
Rosalie Bertell was one of the first to raise concerns about military geoengineering and her book “Planet Earth – Latest Weapon of War” was re-published in 2020 as an updated version thanks to another heroine Dr. Claudia von Werlhof. The book’s first appearance in 2000 did not reach the international reader, because the publisher, The Women´s Press, London, went bankrupt and the book was available only in Canada (Black Rose 2001).
Dr Werlhof said “Rosalie and I, we met only once, in Bonn, Germany, in 2010 at the 30th Anniversary of the Right Livelihood Award, where she proposed to sign the following petition:
“It is morally reprehensible and an offense against humanity and the Earth to interfere with the normal function of the planetary system – to cause or enhance storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, monsoons, mud slides, draught, flooding, earth quakes or volcano eruptions”.
The 22 laureates present from different parts of the world, all of them signed it.
Meeting Rosalie Bertell in person was for me like meeting a very old friend. It is because I share with her the same motivation, feeling and thinking about our Mother Earth: the indignation and pain about her ongoing destruction, the immense love for her, and the necessity of a general planetary upheaval in support of Mother Earth. For this we need exactly what Rosalie Bertell embodied: a burning heart, a very clear mind and a ”planetary consciousness“ that knows about the Planet, our Mother Earth, as a huge living being, the ways she is endangered today, and the firm decision to fight for her life. What else? Mother Earth or Death!
This is what the reader of ”Planet Earth” should learn from its author. We need a world in which it is not necessary to write books like ”Planet Earth”, anymore!”
F-35A aeroplanes officially certified to carry thermonuclear bomb
The designation marks the first time that a stealth fighter can carry a nuclear weapon, in this case the B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bomb.
Breaking DEFENSE, By MICHAEL MARROW, March 08, 2024
WASHINGTON — The F-35A Joint Strike Fighter has been operationally certified to carry the B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) tells Breaking Defense.
In a statement, JPO spokesman Russ Goemaere said the certification was achieved Oct. 12, months ahead of a pledge to NATO allies that the process would wrap by January 2024. Certain F-35As will now be capable of carrying the B61-12, officially making the stealth fighter a “dual-capable” aircraft that can carry both conventional and nuclear weapons.
“The F-35A is the first 5th generation nuclear capable aircraft ever, and the first new platform (fighter or bomber) to achieve this status since the early 1990s. This F-35 Nuclear Certification effort culminates 10+ years of intense effort across the nuclear enterprise, which consists of 16 different government and industry stakeholders,” Goemaere said. “The F-35A achieved Nuclear Certification ahead of schedule, providing US and NATO with a critical capability that supports US extended deterrence commitments earlier than anticipated.”
Responding to follow-up questions from Breaking Defense, Goemaere said US disclosure policy prohibits the release of information on dual-capable aircraft among NATO partners. According to analysis by the Federation of American Scientists, as of 2023 approximately 100 older variants of B61 bombs are housed by NATO allies Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, who share the alliance’s nuclear strike mission. The first four nations are all planned F-35 operators, with the need to have a nuclear-capable aircraft a key reason for Germany signing onto the program.
The F-35A is certified to only carry the newer B61-12 variant, which will replace the older models………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists, noted the announcement is another milestone in America’s ongoing nuclear modernization effort.
“The stage is set for the tactical nuclear weapons upgrade in Europe with full-scale production of the B61-12 and four NATO allies and the US fighter wing at Lakenheath upgrading to operate the bomb on the F-35A,” he said……………….. more https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/exclusive-f-35a-officially-certified-to-carry-nuclear-bomb/—
[Episode #219] – Nuclear Illusions
Energy Transition Show 6th March 2024 https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-219-nuclear-illusions/—
In Episode #209, we peeled back the layers on civilian nuclear power, revealing its history as a facade for the nuclear weapons industry with a corresponding legacy of deception.
Yet, the allure of small modular reactors (SMRs) has recently been touted as the nuclear industry’s saving grace and a beacon of hope with the potential to sidestep a muddled past. Despite all the fanfare and substantial investments, the crumbling of prominent SMR initiatives exposes the continuation of the industry’s tradition of overpromising and underdelivering, a pattern all too familiar to those who’ve been watching closely.
Joining us in this episode is Jim Green from Friends of the Earth Australia, a seasoned nuclear journalist with three decades of experience in critiquing nuclear energy. Jim offers an unparalleled depth of insight into the industry’s persistent shortcomings and the realities behind the SMR hype. Together, we delve into the track record of conventional nuclear power, the latest trends in nuclear plant construction and retirements worldwide, and examine the companies at the forefront of the SMR push, offering a candid exploration of the nuclear power industry’s claims versus its actual performance.
Guest:
Jim Green is the National Nuclear-Free Campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group (nuclearconsult.com), and former editor of the World Information Service on Energy’s ‘Nuclear Monitor’ newsletter. He has a First Class Honours degree in Public Health and a Doctorate in Science and Technology Studies for his thesis on the debates over the replacement of Australia’s nuclear research reactor.
New York Times: Nuclear Risks Have Not Gone Away
The overriding question is how to reduce the risk of nuclear war, a topic that will no doubt be addressed as the Times series continues to be rolled out
William Hartung, https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhartung/2024/03/06/new-york-times-nuclear-risks-have-not-gone-away/?sh=1a2848863efe
For most Americans, nuclear weapons are a relic of the Cold War, out of sight and out of mind. But a surge of attention over the past year may put these world-ending weapons on the public agenda again, in a way that has not been seen since the rise of the disarmament movement of the 1980s.
First came the announcement that the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – which expresses the view of a panel of experts of how close we are to ending life as we know it through a nuclear conflagration or the accelerating impacts of climate change – was maintained at an uncomfortably close 90 seconds to midnight.
Then came the release a few months later of Christopher Nolan’s biopic Oppenheimer, which told the story of the man pundits of his time called “the father of the atomic bomb.” The film followed the arc of Oppenheimer’s life and career, including his support for the dropping of the bombs on HIroshima and Nagasaki because he thought that once their sheer destructive power was understood, the human race would abandon war as a way of resolving disputes. He was tragically wrong, but the success of Oppenheimer and its prominent place in Hollywood’s awards season offers an opportunity to reflect anew on the history and consequences of the bomb, including issues that were largely ignored in the film, like the plight of the people exposed to lethal radiation from bomb tests in the U.S. and the Pacific, the devastating health problems of uranium miners, and, most terribly of all, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a death toll estimated by independent experts of over 140,000 people.
In the wake of these reminders of the nuclear danger, The New York Times NYT +1.2% has come out with a timely and urgently important series called At the Brink, which looks at current day nuclear risks based on nearly a year of reporting and research. It is a much needed corrective to our false sense of security regarding the continued presence and costly “modernization” of the world’s nuclear arsenals.
The opening essay of the series, written by longtime national security journalist and current New York Times opinion writer W.J. Hennigan, notes up front that “In the fall of 2022, a U.S. intelligence assessment put the odds at 50-50 that Russia would launch a nuclear strike to halt Ukrainian forces if they breached its defense of Crimea.” He later notes that the risk of nuclear escalation in Ukraine is now relatively low, but that the overall state of the world has created the greatest risk of the use of nuclear weapons since the height of the Cold War. Hennigan also gives a graphic presentation of the devastating impact of even a relatively small nuclear weapon – the exact kind of sobering depiction that was omitted from Oppenheimer.
The Times piece reminds us of the vast scope of the Cold War nuclear arms race, as well as the current one among the U.S., Russia, and China – a competition that is all the more dangerous because the last U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control treaty, New START, is hanging by a thread, set to expire in February 2026.
The overriding question is how to reduce the risk of nuclear war, a topic that will no doubt be addressed as the Times series continues to be rolled out. The only way to be truly safe from nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether, as called for in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in January 2021 and has been ratified by 70 nations. Conspicuously missing from that list are the world’s nuclear weapons states, which still hold onto the illusion that a nuclear balance of terror can be sustained indefinitely. As wars proliferate from Ukraine to Gaza to Sudan and beyond, the added risk posed by nuclear weapons underscores the need to move beyond outmoded rationales for continuing to build and deploy these devastating weapons. As the issue of nuclear weapons returns to public consciousness after years of denial, there is an opportunity to have a serious debate about whether and how to eliminate them before they eliminate us. We can’t afford to miss that chance.
Today. My dilemma in writing about nuclear issues.
This might be a peculiarly Australian dilemma. I don’t know. The thing is – most people seem able to tolerate a bit of criticism of the nuclear industry. And indeed, when I post articles on my websites – nuclear-news.net and antinuclear.net, or on my newsletter, – that’s OK.
But if I bring in the subject of Ukraine, or especially of Gaza and Israel, – people get upset. What has that got to do with the nuclear industry? (Well, a lot really – as both situations bring us ever closer to the brink of nuclear war).
The big problem is this. As part of an Australian, and indeed worldwide, movement, for a safe clean nuclear-free world, my stuff is accepted as worthwhile. But, when I digress into examining what is going on in Ukraine, or worse, in Israel – then I am no longer to be trusted. Indeed, I am sometimes being called a Putin-lover, a communist. a terrorist – and especially anti-semitic.
As a consequence, then my anti-nuclear coverage is not to be trusted, either. It’s OK to be anti-nuclear – that’s a respectable opinion, as long as you’re pro Ukraine and pro Israel.
I really don’t know how to deal with this. It seems that, to be respected at all, it is necessary to conform to certain dogmas, such as “Russia is always evil” and “Israelis are holy victims”.
In my view – Putin is a murderous thug, but Russia is not always to blame, and Russian policies and aspirations should be viewed fairly.
Similarly, I think that the Jews, over history, have been terribly persecuted and murdered, but that doesn’t give Israel the licence to now do mass murder of the Gazan people.
There’s a dreadful conformity in Australia, and perhaps in all supposedly-white, English speaking countries. We must side with Ukraine, no matter what. And we must not be seen to be anti-semitic, no matter what.
So – I am left with the dilemma – should I ignore those two nuclear-war-trigger situations, in order to sound credible about nuclear matters?
Should I act “nice” about what Israel is doing, and pretend that I don’t notice? That is all too easy to do, in Australia, with its relentless media focus on sport.
Get These Rich People Off the Moon
Other than allowing billionaires and private companies to benefit from taxpayer-funded pipe dreams and advertising, the value of going to the moon for all mankind is not at all clear.
The US military has also expressed an interest in renting Starships for their Space Force cargo and troops — delivering war to poor countries anywhere in the world within one hour.
Despite the mess it makes on Earth, NewSpace investments are growing in popularity among everyman-for-himself superrich techies
BY PETER HOWSON,on behalf of Koohan Paik-Mander
Texas start-up Intuitive Machines has achieved the first moon landing by a private firm. It’s dumping rich people’s detritus on the lunar surface — a grim sign of how the superrich plan to plant their flag beyond our own planet.
Amid tears of joy at their Houston control room, the Texas start-up Intuitive Machines successfully landed on the moon. Their uncrewed lander, known as Odysseus, hitched a ride on a SpaceX rocket last week, touching down near the moon’s south pole on Thursday. After many failed attempts by various private outfits, Intuitive Machines is the first private company to plant a free-market flag on the moon
In January, a different US private venture crashed back to Earth. Astrobotic’s Peregrine lander had been supposed to dispose of at least seventy dead rich people (and one rich dog) on the lunar surface.
Spending billions of dollars dumping odd things in space has become a tradition among the lunar classes. Elon Musk famously sent a Tesla Roadster as the dummy payload for the 2018 Falcon Heavy test flight. Driven by a mannequin in a spacesuit dubbed “Starman,” the car is now an enduring satellite of the sun. You can track him, if you like.
The Japanese isotonic drinks company Pocari Sweat has been trying to leave a can of pop on the moon since 2014. It finally crashed with Astrobotic’s failed $100 million lander. The Japanese still plan to send a hydrogen-powered Toyota “Lunar Cruiser” up there, despite a few explosive setbacks.
Toxic Effects
Other than allowing billionaires and private companies to benefit from taxpayer-funded pipe dreams and advertising, the value of going to the moon for all mankind is not at all clear. British astronaut Tim Peake suggests the microgravity up there might one day enable exotic treatments for all sorts of diseases, albeit expensive treatments for those who can afford them. Aside from body parts, fizzy pop, and “art,” the squillion-dollar landers are packed full of instruments designed for exploring the unknown, before anyone else gets their mitts on it.
So called “NewSpace” companies are on the prowl for profitable rare earth metals, helium-3, and water. Just like the spice of Arrakis, helium-3 is being pitched as “the most precious resource in the universe.” At least it might be if someone invents a use for it. Getting large quantities of water to space is pricey. A stable reservoir will keep plebs alive while they mine for spice. And both hydrogen and oxygen can make the rocket fuel needed to search for shiny things further afield.
It all sounds very exciting. But realizing these fantasies has costs for the rest of us. According to Atrium, a big insurer for rocket-makers, early space-faring outfits should typically expect 30 percent of their launches to end in catastrophic failure. When two separate SpaceX Starship launches in Texas went south last year, toxic particulates rained down on people’s homes. Debris broke windows and caused fires that burned across Boca Chica Park, home to endangered birds and ocelot cats.
“We never gave our consent,” said one indigenous Carrizo-Comecrudo representative at a SpaceX protest in South Texas. “Yet they [SpaceX] are moving forward. It’s colonial genocide of native people and native lands.” Bekah Hinojosa of the Texas environmental group Another Gulf Is Possible claims environmental deregulation, tax breaks, and subsidies have been used by the Texas state government to lure SpaceX in. Meanwhile local indigenous communities who rely on Boca Chica’s fish to feed their families feel their customary land is being sacrificed.
For the Navajo people, the costly blunders are no bad thing. The Navajo hold the moon to be sacred, and consider fly-tipping and mining there an act of profound desecration. According to the Navajo Nation’s president Dr Buu Nygren, “The sacredness of the Moon is deeply embedded in the spirituality and heritage of many Indigenous cultures, including our own.”
Wars on Our Home Planet
Yet, despite the mess they’re making, SpaceX plans on going bigger and bigger.
SpaceX will soon be moving its monster Starship boosters from Boca Chica to the much larger Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Like the Falcon 9, SpaceX’s Starship is designed as a workhorse for frequent, repeated flights. Instead of only a couple of launches per year, Kennedy will start to resemble an airport. The same powerful and destructive super heavy-lift rockets that devastated Boca Chica will be lifting off on a near daily basis from the Florida coast.
The US military has also expressed an interest in renting Starships for their Space Force cargo and troops — delivering war to poor countries anywhere in the world within one hour.
NewSpace is scaling up US geopolitical influence behind a facade of free-market competition. In Indonesia, SpaceX has edged out Beijing to become the country’s satellite launch partner of choice. The partnership was achieved through the personal relationship Musk nurtured with outgoing Indonesian president Joko Widodo. The deal marks a rare instance of a US company making inroads in Indonesia, whose telecommunications sector is dominated by Chinese outfits offering low costs and easy financing. Some see the SpaceX deal as just a sweetener for Musk to build a new Tesla factory somewhere in Indonesia. The electric vehicle-maker has so far signed contracts worth billions for Indonesia’s nickel and other essential materials for the company’s car batteries.
As well as ripping up Indonesia’s pristine forests for luxury car bits, plans to furnish Musk with a new spaceport on the island of Biak, Papua, is fermenting anger among indigenous Warbon peoples. Clearances for the spaceport are reigniting ethnic tensions and military violence. Somewhere between 40 and 150 Papuans protesting the spaceport have been killed by the Indonesian military since the plans were originally unveiled.
Real People Are Gross
Despite the mess it makes on Earth, NewSpace investments are growing in popularity among everyman-for-himself superrich techies.
For them, dealing with today’s real social and environmental problems tends to involve paying icky taxes and/or remunerating their workers fairly. Meanwhile, finding solutions for potential future problems is far more profitable. For billionaires, “longtermism” packages up this predicament beautifully.
Factoring future populations into decision-making models is just a nice, sustainable thing to do. Longtermism on the other hand, is too much of a good thing. It’s an extreme utilitarian, accelerationist ideology asking us to drastically increase rates of economic growth and technological advancement to ensure humanities’ long-term survivability as a multiplanetary species.
Meanwhile, taxes and government interventions are framed as an impediment to growth and innovation. For these longtermists, someone potentially not being born on Mars in the far distant future is in many ways far worse than someone actually dying of a preventable disease or poverty today. Mars guy is super smart and loaded. Unlike the stinky real person, Mars guy is likely to live a long happy life free of dysentery. He’s white because rich people tend to be that way.
If this all sounds a bit fascist, that’s because it is. According to Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, widely considered the founding father of longtermism, “blacks are more stupid than whites,” as he once said on an extropian community message board. “I like that sentence and think it is true.” Bostrom then used an offensive slur beginning with “N.” “It seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility,” he argued. “If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species.” He later apologized for coming across as “racist.”
Thanks in part to Musk, the cost of space travel has dropped considerably. A seat on a Falcon 9 rocket and an eight-day stay on the International Space Station (ISS) now only costs $82 million. Musk predicts his one-way tickets to Mars will cost somewhere between $500,000 to $1 million, a price at which he thinks “it’s highly likely that there will be a self-sustaining Martian colony.” For the poors, Musk has an indentured labor package where workers take out a loan to pay for their tickets, paying them off later by mining for spice or something.
Life on Earth will end one day (we have somewhere between one and five billion years). But the universe will also end. What then? We could just keep on running through the vacuum of a dying universe. Or, instead of living as slaves obsessing over spice and birth quotas for some odious space baron, we could take a leaf from the Navajo’s book, taking the moon for sacred, and mountains, lakes, and rivers, too. If we treat our planet right, we might just live longer and better.
I’ll admit: I wrote two versions of this article, depending on the fate of the Intuitive Machines lander. In 1969, President Richard Nixon did something similar, just in case everyone died onboard Apollo 11. But when it comes to NewSpace, there’s no need for tears or alternative endings.
Private space missions will only ever serve the billionaires, not us.
If we make no effort to change direction, we will end up where we are heading.”
Texas wildfires continue to pose threat to Pantex nuclear weapons plant, and climate change will bring further threats to nuclear facilities
By Jessica McKenzie, François Diaz-Maurin | February 28, 2024
A wildland fire in the Texas Panhandle forced the Pantex plant, a nuclear facility northeast of Amarillo, to temporarily cease operations on Tuesday and to evacuate nonessential workers. Plant workers also started construction on a fire barrier to protect the plant’s facilities.
The plant resumed normal operations on Wednesday, officials said.
“Thanks to the responsive actions of all Pantexans and the NNSA Production Office in cooperation with the women and men of the Pantex Fire Department and our mutual aid partners from neighboring communities, the fire did not reach or breach the plant’s boundary,” Pantex said in a social media post on Wednesday afternoon.
At a press conference Tuesday evening, Laef Pendergraft, a nuclear safety engineer with the National Nuclear Security Administration production office at Pantex, said the evacuations were out of an “abundance of caution.”
“Currently we are responding to the plant, but there is no fire on our site or on our boundary,” Pendergraft told reporters.
The 90,000-acre Windy Deuce fire burning four to five miles to the north of the Pantex plant was 25 percent contained as of late Wednesday afternoon.
Until the fire is fully contained, it will continue to pose a threat to the nearby Pantex plant, says Nickolas Roth, the senior director of nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. “I think the sign that the coast is clear is that the fire is no longer burning,” he told the Bulletin. “One can imagine many reasons operations would resume.”……………………………………….
While the specific cause of the Smokehouse Creek fire has not yet been identified, climate change is making explosive wildfires more likely, with serious implications for the country’s nuclear weapons programs.
Since 1975, the Pantex plant has been the United States’ primary facility responsible for assembling and disassembling nuclear weapons. It is one of six production facilities in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Nuclear Security Enterprise.
In addition to warhead surveillance and repair, the plant is currently working on the full scale production of the B61-12 guided nuclear gravity bomb and 455-kiloton W88 Alteration (Alt) 370 warhead as part of the broader US nuclear weapons life-extension and modernization programs. The plant handles significant quantities of uranium, plutonium, and tritium, in addition to other non-radioactive toxic and explosive chemicals.
If a wildfire were to impact the site directly, the health and safety implications could be enormous.
“I don’t like to speculate in terms of worst-case scenarios,” Roth told the Bulletin. “The potential for danger if a fire ever broke out at a site with weapons usable nuclear material is quite great.”
“The danger from plutonium really comes from inhaling particulates,” Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist in the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, explained on a podcast in 2023. “So if powder is inhaled, or if somehow powder were to be dispersed through, say, a big fire or some kind of incident at the site, that would certainly pose a risk for surrounding communities.”
Up to 20,000 plutonium cores, or “pits,” from disassembled nuclear weapons can be stored on site. (The exact figure is classified, but experts contacted by the Bulletin said the current number of “surplus” plutonium pits already dismantled is likely to be around 19,000, plus an additional unknown number of backlog pits awaiting disassembly.)
But as Robert Alvarez wrote in the Bulletin in 2018, the plutonium is stored in facilities built over half a century ago that were never intended to indefinitely store nuclear explosives. After extreme rains flooded parts of the facility in 2010 and 2017, some of the containers began showing signs of corrosion.
A 2021 review by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board of the Pantex plant’s operations found that an increasing number of plutonium pits are stored in unsealed containers. These pits are either “recently removed from a weapon, planned to be used in an upcoming assembly or life extension program, or pending surveillance,” the board explained. The board previously recommended that these pits be repackaged into sealed insert containers for their safe long-term staging. But the plant personnel “stated it is only achieving approximately 10 percent of its annual pit repackaging goals, citing a lack of funding and priority.”…………………………………………………………………………..
A Department of Energy report published in April 2022 on fire protection at the Pantex, which identified several weaknesses within the plant, did not discuss risks from wildland fires.
“The event is obviously a stark reminder of the dangers of climate change on even high security nuclear weapons facilities,” said Kristensen.
But as other authors have previously argued in the Bulletin, climate change is a blind spot in US nuclear weapons policy. “All of these [nuclear] structures were built on the presumption of a stable planet. And our climate is changing very rapidly and presenting new extremes,” Alice Hill, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Bulletin in 2021……….. https://thebulletin.org/2024/02/texas-wildfires-force-major-nuclear-weapons-facility-to-briefly-pause-operations/
When The Imperial Media Report On An Israeli Massacre
there is no atrocity Israel could possibly commit where it wouldn’t frame itself as the victim.
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAR 1, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/when-the-imperial-media-report-on?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=142205540&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
In what many are now calling the Flour Massacre, at least 112 Gazans were killed and hundreds more injured after Israeli forces opened fire on civilians who were waiting for food from much-needed aid trucks near Gaza City on Thursday.
Initial investigations by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor found that the crowd was fired upon by both IDF automatic rifles and by Israeli tanks, and that dozens of gunshot victims were hospitalized after the incident.
Israel’s version of events has of course changed over the course of the day as narrative managers figure out how best to frame publicly available information in a way that doesn’t harm Israel’s PR interests. Currently we’re at Israel admitting that IDF troops did indeed fire upon the crowd after previously denying this, but claiming that this isn’t what caused most of the the casualties, saying it was actually the Palestinians trampling each other in a human “stampede” which caused them harm. Essentially the current argument is “Yes we shot them, but that’s not why they died.”
The IDF claims Israeli troops only began firing on the Palestinians because the soldiers “felt threatened” by them, which goes to show that there is no atrocity Israel could possibly commit where it wouldn’t frame itself as the victim. Israel’s Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir took the opportunity to praise the IDF for heroically fighting off the dangerous Palestinians and to argue that the incident proves it’s too dangerous to keep allowing aid trucks into Gaza.
As terrible as the Israeli spin machine has been on this atrocity, the western imperial media have been even worse. The verbal gymnastics they’ve been performing in their headlines to avoid saying Israel massacred starving people who were waiting for food would be genuinely impressive if it wasn’t so ghoulish.
“As Hungry Gazans Crowd a Convoy, a Crush of Bodies, Israeli Gunshots and a Deadly Toll” reads one New York Times header, like the summary of an episode of a Netflix murder mystery show.
“Chaotic aid delivery turns deadly as Israeli, Gazan officials trade blame,” says an indecipherably cryptic headline from The Washington Post.
“Biden says Gaza food aid-related deaths complicate ceasefire talks,” says The Guardian. “Food aid-related deaths”? Seriously?
“More than 100 killed as crowd waits for aid, Hamas-run health ministry says,” reads a BBC headline. The UK’s state broadcaster is here using a tried and true tactic for casting doubt on death counts by deliberately associating them with Hamas, despite the fact that the Gaza health ministry’s death counts are considered so reliable that Israeli intelligence services use them in their own internal records.
“At least 100 killed and 700 injured in chaotic incident” says CNN, like it’s describing a frat party that got out of control.
“Carnage at Gaza food aid site amid Israeli gunfire” reads another CNN headline, as though the carnage and the Israeli gunfire are two unrelated phenomena which just unluckily occurred at around the same time.
CNN also repeatedly refers to the killings as “food aid deaths”, as though it’s the food aid that killed them and not the military of a very specific and very nameable state power.
(It’s probably worth noting at this point that CNN staff have been anonymously reporting through other outlets that there’s been a uniquely aggressive top-down push within the network to slant reporting heavily in favor of Israeli information interests, driven largely by the new CEO Mark Thompson.)
So that’s what happens when the imperial media report on an Israeli massacre, in case you were curious and haven’t been paying attention since October 7 or the decades which preceded it. The propaganda services of the western press operate in a way that is typically indistinguishable from the spinmeistering of officials in western governments, framing the western empire and its allies in a positive light and their enemies in a negative one.
This happens because the western mass media do not exist to report the news and give you information about what’s been going on in the world, but to manufacture consent for the political status quo and the globe-dominating power structure it supports. The only difference between our propaganda and the propaganda of a ruthless dictatorship is that the people who live under a dictatorship know they are being fed propaganda, whereas westerners are trained to believe they are ingesting impartial factual reporting.
The demolition of Gaza is alerting more and more westerners to the fact that this is happening, though, because the more blatant the atrocities the more ham-fisted the propaganda machine needs to be about running cover for them. It’s even opening eyes within the propaganda machine itself, which is why we’re seeing things like CNN staff blowing the whistle on their own CEO and New York Times staff telling The Intercept that their bosses committed extremely egregious journalistic malpractice in producing atrocity propaganda alleging mass rapes by Hamas on October 7.
The only good thing about what’s happening in Gaza is that it’s waking westerners up to the fact that everything they’ve been told about their society, their media and their world is a lie. Cracks are appearing in the illusion, and those of us who care about truth, peace and justice need to help draw attention to them. From there, real change becomes a genuine possibility.
Buried Nuclear Waste From the Cold War Could Resurface as Ice Sheets Melt
Decades after the U.S. buried nuclear waste abroad, climate change could unearth it.
By Anita Hofschneider, Grist, https://gizmodo.com/buried-nuclear-waste-from-the-cold-war-could-resurface-1851286777
Ariana Tibon was in college at the University of Hawaiʻi in 2017 when she saw the photo online: a black-and-white picture of a man holding a baby. The caption said: “Nelson Anjain getting his baby monitored on March 2, 1954, by an AEC RadSafe team member on Rongelap two days after ʻBravo.ʻ”
Tibon had never seen the man before. But she recognized the name as her great-grandfatherʻs. At the time, he was living on Rongelap in the Marshall Islands when the U.S. conducted Castle Bravo, the largest of 67 nuclear weapon tests there during the Cold War. The tests displaced and sickened Indigenous people, poisoned fish, upended traditional food practices, and wrought cancers and other negative health repercussions that continue to reverberate today.
A federal report by the Government Accountability Office published last month examines what’s left of that nuclear contamination, not only in the Pacific but also in Greenland and Spain. The authors conclude that climate change could disturb nuclear waste left in Greenland and the Marshall Islands. “Rising sea levels could spread contamination in RMI, and conflicting risk assessments cause residents to distrust radiological information from the U.S. Department of Energy,” the report says.
In Greenland, chemical pollution and radioactive liquid are frozen in ice sheets, left over from a nuclear power plant on a U.S. military research base where scientists studied the potential to install nuclear missiles. The report didn’t specify how or where nuclear contamination could migrate in the Pacific or Greenland, or what if any health risks that might pose to people living nearby. However, the authors did note that in Greenland, frozen waste could be exposed by 2100.
“The possibility to influence the environment is there, which could further affect the food chain and further affect the people living in the area as well,” said Hjalmar Dahl, president of Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland. The country is about 90 percent Inuit. “I think it is important that the Greenland and U.S. governments have to communicate on this worrying issue and prepare what to do about it.”
The authors of the GAO study wrote that Greenland and Denmark haven’t proposed any cleanup plans, but also cited studies that say much of the nuclear waste has already decayed and will be diluted by melting ice. However, those studies do note that chemical waste such as polychlorinated biphenyls, man-made chemicals better known as PCBs that are carcinogenic, “may be the most consequential waste at Camp Century.”
The report summarizes disagreements between Marshall Islands officials and the U.S. Department of Energy regarding the risks posed by U.S. nuclear waste. The GAO recommends that the agency adopt a communications strategy for conveying information about the potential for pollution to the Marshallese people.
Nathan Anderson, a director at the Government Accountability Office, said that the United States’ responsibilities in the Marshall Islands “are defined by specific federal statutes and international agreements.” He noted that the government of the Marshall Islands previously agreed to settle claims related to damages from U.S. nuclear testing.
“It is the long-standing position of the U.S. government that, pursuant to that agreement, the Republic of the Marshall Islands bears full responsibility for its lands, including those used for the nuclear testing program.”
To Tibon, who is back home in the Marshall Islands and is currently chair of the National Nuclear Commission, the fact that the report’s only recommendation is a new communications strategy is mystifying. She’s not sure how that would help the Marshallese people.
“What we need now is action and implementation on environmental remediation. We don’t need a communication strategy,” she said. “If they know that it’s contaminated, why wasn’t the recommendation for next steps on environmental remediation, or what’s possible to return these lands to safe and habitable conditions for these communities?”
The Biden administration recently agreed to fund a new museum to commemorate those affected by nuclear testing as well as climate change initiatives in the Marshall Islands, but the initiatives have repeatedly failed to garner support from Congress, even though they’re part of an ongoing treaty with the Marshall Islands and a broader national security effort to shore up goodwill in the Pacific to counter China.
Pentagon’s New Military Satellite Program Poses Threat to Russia
Ekaterina Blinova, 24 Feb 24 https://sputnikglobe.com/20240222/pentagons-new-military-satellite-program-poses-threat-to-russia-1116925932.html—
Washington recently raised a great fuss over the alleged “Russian threat”, citing, in particular, possible space-based nuclear deployments. Moscow shredded the speculations, suggesting that the US is using the rumors as a smokescreen for its own military programs.
Hours after the US press published groundless claims of Russia’s space-based nuclear program, the Pentagon sent “a missile-tracking system” into orbit – part of the Department of Defense’s new plan dubbed Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture that aims to fill the low-Earth orbit with myriads of small and cheap satellites.
The New York Times broke the Pentagon’s new initiative on February 15, explaining that the US military had adopted an approach similar to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite constellation. If America’s adversaries knock down even a dozen of those small and cheap Pentagon satellites, the system would continue operating shifting to other units, according to the media outlet. As Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen H. Hicks stated last month, the Pentagon will be able to launch those small cost-effective satellites “almost weekly.”
“Now, as you all know, SPACECOM is DoD’s newest combatant command,” Hicks said at a US Space Command gathering on January 10. “Every day, SPACECOM delivers tremendous value across our Joint Force, with satellite communication, early warning radars, GPS that enable not only navigation for people, planes, trucks, and ships – but also the precision-guided munitions that have become a hallmark of how the US military fights in the modern era.”
The Pentagon’s new satellite program poses a challenge to Russia, according to Sputnik’s interlocutors, Ivan Moiseev, the head of the Russian Institute of Space Policy, and Dr. Natan Eismont, a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Space Research Institute.
Starting from 2014, the Pentagon has been dramatically increasing its capabilities in space, according to Moiseev. In December 2019, then-US President Donald Trump authorized the establishment of the US Space Force (USSF), as a special military service branch of the US Armed Forces.
In addition, the Pentagon boosted cooperation with commercial firms specializing in space technologies which dramatically enhanced the DoD’s capabilities, the scientist pointed out. To illustrate his point Moiseev referred to the Pentagon’s cooperation with Musk’s SpaceX, which operates over 5,400 satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO). Commercial satellites can be used by the Pentagon as any dual-use equipment, but formally they would not be considered “military satellites”, he continued.
These satellites are controllable. And if there is a tense situation, because in order to do this, you need a very tense situation – virtually a war or at least a hybrid war – then these satellites can target any of [Russia] 160 satellites. This has never been announced, it is simply clear because such a possibility exists,” Moiseev presumed.
Presently, the United States has approximately 9,000 satellites in space with 70% of them being communication satellites to “connect the world,” as USSF Maj. Gen. Gregory Gagnon, deputy chief of Space Operations for Intelligence, outlined at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Warfare Symposium on February 13.
However, the number of US satellite constellations is rapidly growing, noted Dr. Natan Eismont.
“The composition of these [satellite] groups is growing, and literally within five years, Musk alone is expected to increase the number of these devices to more than 10,000. Does this create any additional problems? Of course it does, yes,” Eismont told Sputnik.
On the one hand, one cannot rule out collisions of various spacecraft as the low orbit would become “crowded”. On the other hand, myriads of satellites could be used for military purposes, he noted.
“That is, these are both civilian and military [satellites]. It is almost impossible to separate them. Although there were attempts to separate. And not only attempts, in general, and implementation, when these tasks were divided. But still, one cannot say that these devices are exclusively for military purposes, and those are for civilian purposes. If the device was intended for civilian purposes, then converting it for use by military structures is simple. The device will remain the same. This is something that has to be considered and taken into account,” the leading researcher continued.
Eismont agreed that in this respect, US satellite constellations pose a threat to Russia. However, he resolutely rubbished the possibility of Russia using space-based nuclear weapons, promoted by the US press: “There will be no winners here. There will only be losers,” he stressed. When it comes to space, great powers need to sit and talk; these issues should be solved solely diplomatically, Eismont concluded.
Assange’s final appeal – Your man in the public gallery, part 2
Craig Murray, Sott.net, Wed, 21 Feb 2024
Comment: This is the continuation of Craig Murray’s coverage of Julian Assange’s final extradition hearing in the UK Royal Court on February 21, 2024. Read the first part here.
Julian Assange is a person in political conflict with the view of the United States, who seeks to affect the policies and operations of the US government.
Section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003 provides that a court must interpret it in the light of the defendant’s human rights as enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. This definitely brings in the jurisdiction of the court. It means all the issues raised must be viewed through the prism of the ECHR and from not other angle.
To depend on the treaty yet ignore its terms is abuse of process and contrary to the ECHR. The obligation in UK law to respect the terms of the extradition treaty with the USA while administering an extradition under it, was comparable to the obligation courts had found to follow the Modern Slavery Convention and Refugee Convention
(quotes given here)
Mark Summers KC then arose to continue the case for Assange. A dark and pugnacious character, he could be well cast as Heathcliff. Summers is as blunt and direct as Fitzgerald is courteous. His points are not so much hammered home, as pile-driven.
This persecution, Summers began, was “intended to prohibit and punish the exposure of state level crime”. The extradition hearing had heard unchallenged evidence of this from many witnesses. The speech in question was thus protected speech. This extradition was not only contrary to the US/UK Extradition Treaty of 2007, it was also plainly contrary to Section 81 of the Extradition Act of 2003.
(quotes given here)
This prosecution was motivated by a desire to punish and suppress political opinion, contrary to the Act. It could be shown plainly to be a political prosecution. It had not been brought until years after the proposed offence; the initiation of the charges had been motivated by the International Criminal Court stating that they were asking the Wikileaks publications as evidence of war crimes. That had been immediately followed by US government denunciation of Wikileaks and Assange, by the designation as a non-state hostile intelligence agency, and even by the official plot to kidnap, poison, rendition or assassinate Assange. That had all been sanctioned by President Trump.
This prosecution therefore plainly bore all of the hallmarks of political persecution.
The magistrates’ court had head unchallenged evidence that the Wikileaks material from Chelsea Manning contained evidence of assassination, rendition, torture, dark prisons and drone killings by the United States. The leaked material had in fact been relied on with success in legal actions in many foreign courts and in Strasbourg itself.
The disclosures were political because the avowed intention was to affect political change. Indeed they had caused political change, for example in the Rules of Engagement for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and in ending drone killings in Pakistan. Assange had been highly politically acclaimed at the time of the publications. He had been invited to address both the EU and the UN.
The US government had made no response to any of the extensive evidence of United States state level criminality given in the hearing. Yet Judge Baraitser had totally ignored all of it in her ruling. She had not referred to United States criminality at all.
At this point Judge Sharp interrupted to ask where they would find references to these acts of criminality in the evidence, and Summers gave some very terse pointers, through clenched teeth.
Summers continued that in law it is axiomatic that the exposure of state level criminality is a political act. This was protected speech. There were an enormous number of cases across many jurisdictions which indicate this. The criminality presented in this appeal was tolerated and even approved by the very highest levels of the United States government. Publication of this evidence by Mr Assange, absent any financial motive for him to do so, was the very definition of a political act. He was involved, beyond dispute, in opposition to the machinery of government of the United States.
This extradition had to be barred under Section 81 of the Extradition Act because its entire purpose was to silence those political opinions. Again, there were numerous cases on record of how courts should deal, under the European Convention, with states reacting to people who had revealed official criminality.
In the judgment being appealed Judge Baraitser did not address the protected nature of speech exposing state criminality at all. That was plainly an error in law.
Baraitser had also been in error of fact in stating that it was “Purely conjecture and speculation” that the revelation of US war crimes had led to this prosecution. This ignored almost all of the evidence before the court.
The court had been given evidence of United States interference with judicial procedure over US war crimes in Spain, Poland, Germany and Italy. The United States had insulated its own officials from ICC jurisdiction. It had actively threatened both the institutions and employees, of the ICC and of official bodies of other states. All of this had been explained in detail in expert evidence and had been unchallenged. All of it had been ignored by Baraitser.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Political persecution was also apparent in the highly selective prosecution of the appellant. Numerous newspapers had also published the exact same information, as had other websites. Yet only Assange was being prosecuted. Baraitser had simply ignored numerous facts which were key to the case, and therefore her judgment was plainly wrong.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Separately, the Secretary of State had failed in her specific duty to obtain assurances that the death penalty would not be implemented, before agreeing an extradition. The United States could add further charges at any time were Assange in the US, including aiding and abetting treason or other Espionage Act charges which attract the death penalty. It was routine in these circumstances to obtain assurances against the death penalty, and it was sinister they had not been obtained.
The law on this point was very clear; in the absence of assurances against the death penalty, the extradition must be stopped by the Home Secretary and the defendant discharged.
On this rather sombre point, Judge Sharp called the end of the day, and we staggered out into a wet London evening. It was a huge amount to pack into our heads in a day for those of us with brains smaller than Mr Fitzgerald, and the large crowd that roared its approval as we emerged hardly registered with me at all.
It had gone better than I expected……………………………………………. https://www.sott.net/article/489199-Assanges-final-appeal-Your-man-in-the-public-gallery-part-2
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 