Author: Metta Spencer
Even before our primate ancestors began to walk upright, there were wars—times when whole human communities or groups within a community tried to kill each other. Scholars have reached this conclusion partly on the basis of Jane Goodall’s discovery that our closest primate relative, the chimpanzee, engages in war,(1) and partly on the basis of archaeological evidence. One site of skeletons was found in Kenya dating back 9,500 to 10,500 years showing that a group of 27 people had been massacred together.(2) Indeed, there is strong evidence that levels of violence were higher in prehistoric times than today.(3) One example is a cemetery about 14,000 years old where about 45 percent of the skeletons showed signs of violent death.(4) An estimated 15 percent of deaths in primitive societies were caused by warfare.
But life did not consistently become friendlier as our species spread and developed. By one estimate, there were 14,500 wars between 3500 BC and the late twentieth century. These took around 3.5 billion lives.(5)
Can we conclude, then, that war is simply an intrinsic part of “human nature,” so that one cannot reasonably hope to overcome it? No, for there is more variation in the frequency and extent of warfare than can be attributed to genetic differences. In some societies, war is completely absent. Douglas Fry, checking the ethnographic records, identified 74 societies that have clearly been non-warring; some even lacked a word for “war.” The Semai of Malaysia and the Mardu of Australia are examples.(6)
We may gain insights about solutions to warfare by exploring the variations in its distribution, type, and intensity. We begin with the best news: We are probably living in the most peaceful period in human history!
Infographic, Global Day of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS)
Steven Pinker is the scholar who most convincingly argues that violence has declined, both recently and over the millennia. Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now, contains a graph showing the numbers of battle deaths by year from 1945 to 2015. A huge spike represents World War II, of course, for that was most lethal war in human history, causing at least 55 million deaths. How can we reconcile that ghastly number with any claim that the modern era is a peaceful epoch?
Pinker’s proof is based on distinguishing sharply between absolute numbers and rates. To be sure, 55 million is a huge number, but the Mongol Conquests killed 40 million people back in the thirteenth century, out of a world population only about one-seventh the size of the world’s 1950 population. Pinker says that if World War II had matched the Mongols’ stupendous rate of killing, about 278 million people would have been killed.
And there was an even worse war than the Mongol Conquest: the An Lushan Revolt of eighth century China, an eight-year rebellion that resulted in the loss of 36 million people — two-thirds of the empire’s population, and a sixth of the world’s population at the time. Had it matched that level of atrocity, considering the size of the world’s population in the 1940s, World War II would have killed 419 million people! Pinker calls An Lushan the worst war in human history. By his calculations, based on rates or percentages, World War II was only the ninth worst in history and World War I was the 16th worst.(7)
Moreover, Pinker shows that the two world wars were huge spikes in a graph of war deaths that has declined remarkably since 1950. There has been a slight upward bump since 2010, representing the civil war in Syria, but even that increase is minuscule in comparison to the rates of battle deaths over the preceding centuries.(8)
Pinker admits that there is no guarantee that this civilizing trend will continue, but he marshals much empirical evidence to explain it in terms of several historical changes. One was the transition to agriculture from hunting and gathering. This brought about a fivefold decrease in rates of violent death from chronic raiding and feuding.(9)
A second factor occurred in Europe between the Middle Ages and the 20th century when feudal territories were consolidated into large kingdoms with centralized authority and an infrastructure of commerce. This led to a tenfold-to-fiftyfold decline in homicide rates. There have been numerous other changes since then, including the abolition of such practices as slavery, dueling, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals. Since the end of World War II the downward trend has been remarkable.(10)
Unlike Steven Pinker, who attributes the current relatively wonderful degree of peacefulness to cultural and social changes in history, Dave Grossman attributes it to nature itself. In contrast to those who claim that human nature destines us to be killers, Grossman argues that people are “naturally” reluctant to kill members of their own species. In this respect we resemble other animals, for it is normal for animals to avoid killing their own species. When, for example, two male moose bash each other with their horns, they rarely do much real damage.
In fact, the human reluctance to kill their own kind poses a real problem for military leaders, who must induce their soldiers to fight wars. Lt. Col. Grossman himself had been responsible for training US Army Rangers, and he seems to have taken considerable pride in overcoming nature’s inhibitions.
Grossman cites Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall’s book Men Against Fire, which showed that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier.(11) Similar results can be shown in earlier wars as well, including for example the battlefield of Gettysburg, where of the discarded muskets later found there, 90 percent were still loaded.(12)
On the other hand, soldiers who work together as crews (e.g. in launching cannon-fire or flamethrowers together) do not show the same hesitation, nor do soldiers whose officers stand nearby, ordering them to fire. And distance matters too; stabbing an enemy is harder to do than shooting one a few meters away, and the farther away the enemy is, the easier it is to shoot him. Bombardiers rarely hesitate to drop shells on the people below, nor do drone operators sitting at controls in a different continent. Distance, team spirit and authority can apparently overcome nature’s misgivings.
In response to Marshall’s discovery, the U.S. military developed new training measures to break down this resistance. For example, instead of having soldiers fire at bulls-eye targets, the army now provides realistic human-shaped silhouettes that pop up suddenly and must be shot quickly. The training also relies on repetition; soldiers are required to shoot many, many times so they stop thinking about the possible implications of each shot.(13)
The best technological innovation for inuring fighters for battle is the video training simulator. As a result of using the equivalent to violent videogames, the military successfully raised soldiers’ firing rates to over 90 percent during the Vietnam War. Because of this “superior training,” Grossman claims that today “non-firers” are almost non-existent among U.S. troops.
While lauding the military for developing such excellent training systems, Grossman is scathing in criticizing the use of video games as entertainment. He maintains that the very methods that turn soldiers into superb killers will, and do, influence the players to become violent in real life. He blames the epidemic of school shootings, for example, largely on the exposure of teen-aged boys to violent films and especially violent video games.(14)
Moreover, the training of soldiers for battle does not protect them from the psychological consequences of fighting. In a study of World War II soldiers, after sixty days of continuous combat, 98 percent of all those surviving had become psychiatric casualties. One-tenth of all American military men were hospitalized for mental disturbances between 1942 and 1945.[14] Moreover, upon their return to civilian life, the incidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder remains high, and more veterans commit suicide than had been killed during the war. Also, the U.S. Army dismissed more than 22,000 soldiers for misconduct between 2009- 2016 after they returned from war with mental health problems or brain injuries.(15)
These facts clearly disprove the assertion that human nature itself destines us all to be killers; indeed, one might argue that, on the contrary, nature intends for us all to be peaceful. However, even that assertion is hard to sustain when we look at the evidence showing how widespread is the cultural pattern of glorifying war and warriors.
Not everyone is reluctant to kill. On the contrary. For example, consider Mr. L, an Asian friend of ours whose brother was found decapitated on a forest trail. Mr. L knew who had done it — the army of Burma — so he went to the jungle and joined the resistance army. For seventeen years he was a sniper. Now living in Canada, he finds the memory hard to explain:
“Actually, I loved it. I probably killed about thirty men in all, and it was the greatest feeling! I was always so elated after killing an enemy soldier that I couldn’t sleep that night. That’s what I went to there to do, after all. But now? Well…”
No one in Canada glorifies Mr. L’s achievements, but in another time or place he might be considered a war hero. Brave, effective warriors have been honored by their own societies at least as far back as the ancient Assyrians and Greeks.
There were good reasons for it. When our ancestors still lived in caves, presumably some strong fellow volunteered to stand guard at night to keep out the saber-toothed tigers. His mother must have felt proud of him, and perhaps also praised him and his brave buddies for raiding the neighbors’ cave and bringing home valuable loot.
The Iliad is one long bloodcurdling story about heroes seeking to outdo each other in courage and brutality. Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values.(16) Among the most intelligent militarists who glorified war was the philosopher Georg Hegel,(17) whose views were perfectly ordinary in the Prussian society of his day.
A century later in America militarism was not quite as popular, but the great American psychologist William James, who was a pacifist, could nevertheless understand and even respect it as a moral stance. He pointed out that young males need a thrilling opportunity to test their capacity for enduring physical hardship and surmounting obstacles. That is what sports are for, but James wanted this experience to involve sacrifice and a sense of service as well. He was seeking to innovate a rigorous substitute for military discipline whereby youths could instead contribute positively to society. James understood the emotional value and even romance of militarism, as shown in his sardonic depiction of war from the militarists’ point of view:
“Its ‘horrors’ are a cheap price to pay for rescue from the only alternative supposed, of a world of clerks and teachers, of co-education and zoophily, of ‘consumer’s leagues’ and ‘associated charities,’ of industrialism unlimited, and feminism unabashed. No scorn, no hardness, no valor any more! Fie upon such a cattleyard of a planet!”(18)
James believed that this “manly” yearning for hard challenges ought to be fulfilled. He proposed a system of national service whereby all young males would be conscripted to serve in a challenging role. (He called it a “war against nature,” which is a shocking notion today; we’d prefer to call it a “war for nature.”) He thought that privileged youths should have to experience at least once the hardships that poor people endure throughout their lives. And indeed, since James’s day, the United States and many other prosperous societies have developed programs such as the Peace Corps to fill that need. It is unlikely, however, that the challenges they offer overseas are comparable to the emotions of killing or stepping onto a landmine.
If Pinker’s fond hopes (and our own) could be fulfilled, the planet might indeed resemble what James’s militarists consider a boring “cattleyard” — but that seems unlikely to occur. Our war heroes are still celebrities. And many of them still commit suicide.
Pinker’s statistics are correct, but it is far too early to celebrate the impending death of war. Weaponry continues to become ever more deadly, and the history of warfare is best described in terms of the evolutionary improvement of weapons. We present in Table 1 the summary of those developments provided by Dave Grossman and Loren Christensen— who, oddly, have omitted today’s worst weapons of mass destruction, as well as the future of autonomous weapons and cyber weapons. These innovations require our utmost concern.
Dates generally represent century or decade of first major, large-scale introduction
c. 1700BC Chariots provide key form of mobility advantage in ancient warfare
c. 400BC: Greek phalanx
c. 100BC: Roman system (pilum, swords, training, professional leadership)
c. 900AD: Mounted knight (stirrup greatly enhances utility of mounted warfare)
c. 1300: Gunpowder (cannon) in warfare
c. 1300: Wide scale application of long bow defeats mounted knights
c. 1600: Gunpowder (small arms) in warfare, defeats all body armor
c. 1800: Shrapnel (exploding artillery shells), ultimately creates renewed need for helmets, c. 1915
c. 1850: Percussion caps permit all-weather use of small arms *
c. 1870: Breech-loading, cartridge firing rifles and pistols
c. 1915: Machine gun
c. 1915: Gas warfare
c. 1915: Tanks
c. 1915: Aircraft *
c. 1915: Self-loading (automatic) rifles and pistols
c. 1940: Strategic bombing of population centers
c. 1945: Nuclear weapons
c. 1960: Large scale introduction of operant conditioning in training to enable killing *
c. 1960: Large scale introduction of media violence begins to enable domestic violent crime
c. 1965: Large scale introduction of helicopters in battle
c. 1970: Introduction of precision-guided munitions in warfare
c. 1980: Kevlar body armor provides first individual armor to defeat state-of-the-art small arms in over 300 years *
c. 1990: Large scale introduction of operant conditioning through violent video games begins to enable mass murders in domestic violent crime
c. 1990: First extensive use of precision guided munitions in warfare (approximately 10 percent of all bombs dropped), by Unites States forces in the Gulf War
c. 1990: Large scale use of combat stress inoculation in law enforcement, with the introduction of paint bullet training
c. 2000: Approximately 70 percent of all bombs used by United States forces in conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq are precision-guided munitions
c. 2000: Large scale use of combat stress inoculation in United States military forces, with the introduction of paint bullet combat simulation training *
* Represents developments influencing domestic violent crime.
Source: Grossman and Christensen, Evolution of Weaponry. Loc. 2058 in Kindle version
In a nutshell, weapons keep get more and more effective at killing, and the population keeps increasing (especially during the past century), so this might suggest a gloomy prediction: that we must expect a world war vastly larger than either of the two previous ones.
But neither Pinker nor Grossman have concluded that the magnitude of a war will inevitably be determined by either the population or the effectiveness of weapons. Pinker believes that the records of history show that war is rather randomly distributed over time and space, not following any discernable pattern.
Scholars know quite a lot about warfare in early civilizations, for we have epic stories such as Gilgamesh in Mesopotamia (about 2500 BCE) and Achilles versus Hector in Homer’s Greece (supposedly 1184 BCE).
The Hittites invented the chariot, and the Egyptians adopted it from them, though there were long intervals when chariots were not used in any Middle Eastern wars. Though the Greeks often used chariots, they would sometimes stop and dismount for hand-to-hand combat. The Greeks invented the phalanx, or row of middle-class citizen-soldiers(19) fighting side by side with their shields overlapping, with long pikes against an enemy’s phalanx.
But the elite warriors worked differently. Achilles, for example, would individually single out the enemy he considered a worthy match. Such a noble warrior might stroll across the battlefield to the enemy’s side, and call out their best fighter by name to come and fight him to the death. This kind of semi-organized warfare also has been practiced until recently in some paleolithic societies, such as in Papua New Guinea.(20)
We need not trace the complete evolution of weaponry from ancient times to now, except to mention a few dramatic innovations. One was the invention of gunpowder, which of course made it easy to kill large numbers of opponents. It was discovered in China during the late ninth century, but was not used in that country except for fireworks. It was adopted in the West, and ironically, much later, the Chinese were defeated by Westerners with firearms.
Historians debate why the Chinese did not use gunpowder(21) for military purposes, but the more interesting point is simply the fact that they did not. We can take this as evidence that technological innovation does not take an inevitable course, for sometimes a society opts not to perfect a weapon that offers the every prospect of improved effectiveness.
Much later, there were other extraordinary military discoveries that have been prohibited almost everywhere. Chemical weapons (notably chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas.) were used in World War I. Although the Germans soon developed powerful nerve agents such as sarin, no chemical weapons were used in World War II. Some say that Hitler ruled out using them against troops because he had experienced gas poisoning during World War I. However, he did not hesitate to use them in his death camps. In the Geneva Protocol of 1925 the international community banned the use of chemical and biological weapons. In 1973 and 1993 the prohibition was even strengthened by the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the development, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons. By now 193 states have ratified that treaty and the whole world expresses shock whenever it is violated, as in the Syrian civil war in 2017.(22)
Likewise, biological agents could be, and have sometimes been, used effectively in warfare. For example, in 1763 the British forces defending Fort Pitt, near Philadelphia, gave blankets from smallpox patients to Indian chiefs who had come to negotiate an end to their conflict.(23)
Epidemics of disease have been a regular feature of warfare throughout the ages. Indeed, more people died of “Spanish flu” during World War I — between 20 million and 50 million(24) — than were killed by military action. When troops move around, they may be exposed to pathogens and carry them with them. However, such epidemics are not spread intentionally, and there is not only a norm against the use of biological agents to kill enemies, but it is also prohibited by the same treaty that bans the use of chemical weapons.
Thus it is evident that at times even the most horrible technological means of killing — gunpowder, chemical, and biological weapons — have been banned and the prohibitions against them have generally been obeyed. People sometimes opt not to use weapons that are available to them. Take heart, for this proves that war is not inexorable.
Yet not all of the worst weapons have been banned, and until they are abolished, one cannot be as optimistic as Steven Pinker in expecting the end of warfare. There are four crucial initiatives going on now to ban weapons. If all are fulfilled, such optimism will be wholly justified. These propose to (a) regulate the trade in conventional arms among nations to prevent the violation of human rights; (b) ban the existence of nuclear weapons, and (c) prohibit the development of lethal autonomous weapons — those sometimes called “killer robots” — and (d) regulate the potential for cyberattacks. Our Platform for Survival promotes each of these bans in specific planks.
It is not now realistic to ban all firearms or other conventional weapons, if only because we depend on states to authorize the use of weapons by police to protect citizens whenever necessary. Nevertheless, it is possible to reduce the incidence and violence of contemporary wars by preventing the transfer of conventional weapons (e.g. assault rifles and other military hardware such as armored personnel carriers) to insurgent groups or lawless states.
Most of the real wars in today’s world differ from what we previously thought of as war. Mary Kaldor calls them “new wars.”(25) For centuries, war had meant conflicts between states with the maximum use of violence. But these “new wars” combine war, organized crime, and human rights violations. They are sometimes fought by global organizations, sometimes local ones; they are funded and organized sometimes by public agencies, sometimes private ones. They resort to such tactics as terrorism and destabilizing the enemy with false information on the Internet.
What is a suitable response to such wars, given our historical assumption that, according to Max Weber’s definitions, a sovereign state is any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory.(26) In a time of globalization, Kaldor insists that the monopoly of legitimate organized violence must be shifted from a national to a transnational level and that international peacekeeping must be redefined as law enforcement of global norms. Kaldor’s proposal is consistent with our Platform for Survival’s plank 25, which promotes the cosmopolitan notion of “sustainable common security.”
This approach can begin with the development of a treaty regulating (though not completely banning) the international trade in conventional weapons. Such an international law — the Arms Trade Treaty — was adopted in 2013, when 155 UN member states voted in favor of it and three against, with 23 abstentions. It entered into force on 24 December 2014 after the fiftieth state ratified it.
The treaty, if well enforced, can reduce the incidence and violence of wars. Although one might suppose that the main source of weaponry for “new wars” is the black market trade in illegal arms, that is not the case. Until now, most violent movements have obtained their weapons by purchasing them openly from states that are indifferent as to whether or not the “end users” are responsible. The Arms Trade Treaty prohibits countries from permitting the transfer of weapons to any group or state that violates human rights or international humanitarian law. However, the treaty is only a regulation between states, having no bearing on nations’ internal gun laws.
If there is such a thing as a “perfect sword,” or a “perfect storm,” then what would be a “perfect weapon”? Probably it would be a thermonuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb manifests precisely every attribute of an ideal killing machine; it is the consummate device for destroying enemies on an unlimited scale.
The largest hydrogen bomb that was ever exploded was the Soviet invention, Tsar Bomba, which was exploded by the Soviet Union on 30 October 1961 over Novaya Zemlya Island in the Russian Arctic Sea. It was equivalent to 58.6 megatons of TNT, and its fireball was five miles wide and could be seen from 630 miles away. It was ten times more powerful than all of the munitions expended during World War II combined. The blast wave orbited the earth three times. And even so, Tsar Bomba was only half the size that the inventors had originally planned to build. They had realized that exploding that a full-sized version might have been self-destructive. Indeed, such a weapon is too big ever to be used in a war. It is the “perfect weapon” — so good that it can kill everything, including its creators. No war with such weapons can ever be won. And, as Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan agreed, no nuclear war must ever be fought.
Tsar Bomba was only one bomb, and logically a single such perfect weapon ought to be enough — indeed, it should be “one too many.” You would want to dismantle it as soon as possible. But suppose your crazy enemy has such a bomb too. You might reasonably fear that, seeing you without one, he would take the opportunity to use his. To prevent that, you might want to keep some of these “perfect weapons” and declare that you will retaliate if he starts a fight.
That is what happened. The owners of nuclear weapons each kept a growing stockpile of them. Each side knew that any nuclear war would involve “mutual assured destruction” or “MAD” — the total annihilation of them all. Each side also knew that to explode one them in war would be an act of suicide, yet by 1986 there were 64,449 nuclear bombs on the planet.(27) Madness! But once such a situation of mutual deterrence is established, how can you end it?
The creators of “mutual assured destruction” proposed that the situation be reversed gradually by a process of “arm control.” The adversaries would meet, discuss their predicament, and agree to reduce their stockpiles in equal amounts, one step at a time. But this was tricky, for each side considered every weapon to be, not only a terrible threat, but also a necessity for “security.” It would be used only to deter the other side, keep the adversary from using his bomb.
But when your arsenals contain bombs of different sizes, in different types of delivery systems, it is hard to decide which combination of weapons to offer as your package, or what combination your adversary should offer to match yours. You could go on haggling over this kind of thing for decades.
As indeed the arms controllers have done. Negotiations for nuclear disarmament are supposed to take place by 55 states in Geneva — an organization called the Conference on Disarmament — “CD.” However, all decisions there require the unanimous consent of all parties— which never happens. No progress has been made at the “CD” since the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was negotiated in August 1996. In fact, the nuclear weapons states make it clear that they do not intend to relinquish their bombs within the foreseeable future, since they claim that their “security” depends upon retaining them.
In a strange sense, they are right. However weak a country may be, if it acquires a nuclear arsenal, any unfriendly country will think twice before threatening it. On the other hand, that is obviously an insane notion of “security.” The existence of a “perfect weapon” creates a logical paradox as well as a practical dilemma that no military leaders have solved.
The most humane solution to the paradox is one that the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev recognized and adopted in dealing with President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War. In this he was influenced by the German politician Egon Bahr, who explained in a 1994 interview:
“I came to a very astonishing result at that time. I thought, based on the mutual assured destruction, it’s quite obvious that neither side in a major nuclear exchange can win a war. So if this is true, then the result is in the political sphere — that the potential enemy becomes the partner of your own security and the other way around. In other words, despite the fact of the East-West conflict, both sides can live together or can die together. If this is true, we live in a period de facto of common security.
“And when I reached this result, I was surprised because this was against the experience of history. In history, when you fought, you had to beat the enemy. To become secure, you had to win a war. So, I wrote this down and I thought, better think it over.”(28)
This notion of common security became the guiding principle in the Palme Commission, which was then seeking solutions to the Cold War. The Russian participant in the Palme Commission, Georgy Arbatov, conveyed Bahr’s ideas to Mikhail Gorbachev, who was then the Soviet Minister of Agriculture. Evidently Gorbachev fully assimilated the notion to his own thinking. Shortly after he came to power, Egon Bahr met him and Gorbachev began explaining to him the idea of common security as if he had thought of it himself.(29)
Actually, however, Gorbachev’s notion of common security seems to have differed from that of Bahr, who believed that the situation of common security was created by, and even depended on, the existence of the relationship of mutual assured destruction. Gorbachev cannot have believed that, for it was he, more than anyone else, who sought to abolish all nuclear weapons for the sake of common security. And for about one day, October 11, 1986, in Reykjavik, Iceland he almost got his wish.
President Ronald Reagan shared Gorbachev’s recognition that nuclear war could never be won, and when the two men met in Iceland’s capital, Gorbachev offered to disarm every one of his nuclear weapons if the Americans would do the same with theirs. Since between them the two countries owned the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, such a deal would have ended the arms race and moved humankind back closer to a state of genuine security.
Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan wanted to have both nuclear disarmament and a defence against nuclear weapons, lest any be kept and used to bomb the United States. He had developing a project called “Strategic Defense Initiative,” (then popularly called “Star Wars”) that he hoped would be able to intercept and destroy incoming nuclear missiles before they could reach their targets. If it worked, such a system would only be defensive; it could not attack an enemy but only defend against an enemy’s bombs. However, any country with such a “shield” would enjoy vast superiority over an enemy if it retained even a few nuclear weapons secretly, for its enemy would be helpless. Mutual Assured Destruction would no longer exist to confer its perverse version of “security” on both sides. Gorbachev realized that he could not trade away MAD for such partial progress. Thus the deal collapsed — much to the relief of Reagan’s advisers who had never wanted to give up their country’s nuclear arsenal at all. The subject was never officially broached again in the United States.
However, the conversation between the two superpower leaders did have benign effects. A year later the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to a new treaty, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987. Both sides agreed to ban ground-launched missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. This removed the most frightening danger of that era, when both the Soviet side and the NATO side had been toe-to-toe, nearly installing weapons in Europe that would almost inevitably have led to a real nuclear war.
Indeed, Gorbachev went even further, removing Soviet troops from Eastern Europe and no longer promising to support any of the Communist regimes in that region, should their citizens wish to leave the Soviet sphere of influence — as indeed they did. In 1989, protests swept through those states and forced the Communist regimes, now lacking the support of Soviet military intervention, to relinquish power to formerly dissident political activists.
Nor was the Soviet Union itself exempt from opposition movements. In 1991 Gorbachev had to lower the Soviet flag from the Kremlin, for nationalism and the economic strains of transitioning to capitalism were fragmenting the union that he had led.
But the Cold War was over, and nuclear disarmament continued for several years, though relations between East and West never quite became cordial. Their last arms reduction agreement, the “New START” Treaty, was signed by Presidents Dmitri Medvedev and Barack Obama in 2010. Today there are still about 15,000 nuclear weapons on the planet, 90 percent of which belong to the US or Russia.(30) Moreover, to win approval of that treaty by the U.S. Senate, Obama had found it necessary to consent to modernizing the American nuclear arsenal, which is expected to cost about $1.5 trillion over the next thirty years—unless the Democrats now controlling the House of Representatives reverse that plan.
Tensions are still increasing, with Russia complaining that the US broke the promise it made to Gorbachev not to move NATO “one inch to the east” when he was so readily dismantling the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Indeed, he should probably have insisted that such a promise be recorded in a treaty, for most of the formerly Soviet bloc countries now hope to join NATO and several already have been admitted.
Moreover, although “Star Wars” never lived up to its promoters’ hopes, there is a continuing interest in defensive systems that can intercept incoming missiles in flight. NATO (read “the US”) is installing such a system called Aegis on ships in the Mediterranean, as well as ashore in Romania and Poland. Russia objects that these are not merely defensive, and in a recent paper Theodore A. Postol has shown that their objections are well founded. The canisters from which missiles can be launched in the Aegis Ashore system can easily have software installed that can launch cruise missiles, in violation of the INF Treaty.(31)
For its part, the US has accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty too by preparing to install a new missile that count hit Western European cities. Indeed, President Trump has announced his intention of withdrawing from the INF Treaty in six months and President Putin says he will develop new nuclear weaponry in response. We are in a new arms race.
Thus we see that the long experiment with arms control has failed to abolish nuclear weapons. What other options might succeed instead?
Though there is no prospect of speedy progress, the best alternative initiative is the “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” (TPNW), which was adopted (by a vote of 122 States in favour (with one vote against and one abstention) at the United Nations on 7 July 2017. It will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth ratification has been deposited.(32)
The TPNW was the result, not of official arms control negotiations, but of action by civil society—notably an organization called the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). According to all international public opinion polls, the majority of citizens of virtually every country have always wanted nuclear weapons to be abolished, but they have lacked any means of forcing the nuclear weapons states to comply. But the governments of Norway, Mexico, and Austria convened several conferences that flatly denied that nuclear weapons can ever make the world safer. The participants reminded everyone of the catastrophic humanitarian effects of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and showed that on numerous occasions nuclear missiles have nearly been exploded, sometimes by intention, sometimes by mistake. ICAN’s argument has been convincing, and nations are ratifying the TPNW more quickly than with most previous treaties.
So far, the nuclear weapons states just ignore the treaty. Nevertheless, ICAN was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 and continues pressing the nuclear states to comply, invoking shame to motivate them. To be sure, the leaders of all nuclear weapons states are shameless and are unmoved by humanitarian appeals to any ethical principles. On the other hand, they can no longer pretend to be progressing toward disarmament with the methods that they have used so far.
So the greatest threat lies ahead, when states are no longer inhibited by the INF treaty or, possibly, even by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which may also be terminated if the nuclear arms race heats up. The US is making a new nuclear weapon only one-third the size of the Hiroshima bomb. One might consider such smaller bombs less dangerous than large ones, but that is not so. A small nuclear weapon is designed to be used in battle, not merely rattled ominously to intimidate or deter an enemy. We are in a post-MAD world now, and something new must be done to counter the threat.
Gunpowder and nuclear weapons were “breakthroughs” in the development of weaponry. Now we must act quickly to prevent the development of other innovations with shocking potential: the application of artificial intelligence, robotics, and cyber-hacking to the development of weapons. Fortunately, we may still have enough time to stop lethal autonomous weapons, for the Pentagon is not yet working on producing them.(33) It is much harder to stop a weapons program after investors have sunk their savings into it and workers’ jobs would be lost by banning the weapon. Stopping cyberattacks will be harder to achieve, for there are already huge institutions using such systems.
In a way, it is entertaining to imagine two shiny robots fighting a duel — a nicer replay of the Iliad, when Achilles and Hector went mano-a-mano at Troy. If the two machines would merely kill each other we might even enjoy cheering for our side’s tin soldier, since no real blood would be shed. Unfortunately, lethal autonomous weapons will not be so restrained. Instead, they will be programmed to hunt down you or me–human adversaries. And if they have artificial intelligence, they may even learn to plan how to take over the world. Or at least such is the warning of some widely respected persons, including Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking.
But the Chinese rejected gunpowder, and we can reject killer robots and cyber war. The mechanism for opposing lethal autonomous weapons is a UN body that reviews and enforces a treaty called the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Of course, killer robots are not plausibly considered “conventional,” but they are officially categorized as such because they are not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The common trait shared by all the banned so-called “conventional” weapons is that they are deemed “inhumane.” (Some of us do not consider any weapons humane except perhaps the darts that are used to tranquilize wild animals for medical treatment.) We must expect that lethal autonomous weapons, if allowed to select their own targets, would not be gentle, so there is an urgent need for such innovations to be prohibited.(34)
Cyberattacks are already a familiar experience for most of us, since we receive fraudulent phishing attacks or fake news in our social media all the time. Banks experience large losses through cyber theft, but prefer not to publicize that fact. There are even ransom attacks on civilians and hospitals, whereby the hacker promises to restore one’s computer to proper functioning only after receiving a large payoff. But these are mere annoyances when compared to an organized cyber war.
Indeed, a malevolent adversary can wreak terrible effects on any society today without firing any weapon. Already you are probably receiving “likes” on your Facebook account from foreign “bots” — fake accounts purporting to belong to someone who shares your values. The purpose is to lure you into reading posts that influence you to accept more extremist ideas or even to participate in extremist street demonstrations. We lack any easy means of identifying and intercepting these messages, though the political effects can indeed be significant in a democracy.
Still the effects of a violent cyber war can surpass these problems. It would be easy for the anti-ballistic missile defence system of any country or alliance to knock out the satellites belonging to its enemy. Already our electric grid and municipal water purification systems are vulnerable to attack, and we are entering the era of the “Internet of Things.” All our digital equipment— e.g. cars, door locks, kitchen stoves, phones — will be managed through remote systems that are vulnerable to hacking. If ten million electric cars stall at the same time on our streets, we will be helpless.
The plans to manage these threats are almost exclusively military: deter your enemy by proving that you can retaliate powerfully to any cyberattack. In 2010 the Obama Administration established a military Cyber Command in the military, and the US is not unique. Out of 114 states with some form of national cyber security programs, 47 assign some role to their armed forces.(35) Russia has already used cyberattacks against Estonia and Georgia; Israel has used them against Syria in conjunction with its bombing of a covert nuclear facility; and the US has used them (a cyber “worm” called “Stuxnet”) against Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant. None of these advanced countries seem genuinely interested in reaching an international agreement to regulate or ban any of their cyber activities.
On the other hand, there have been ostensible efforts to create limits. Obama’s administration called for some action and In 2011 China and Russia submitted a Code of Conduct for Information Security to the UN General Assembly. Most of the proposals in it were innocuous, but one clause asserted all states’ sovereign right to protect their ”information space”. The vagueness of this principle left others wondering whether the whole code of conduct was meant as a serious proposal or as only a cover for problematic intentions. There is an urgent need for international law to prevent cyber war.
War and weapons constitute only one of the six global threats that we must urgently address, since any one of them could destroy civilization within a short interval. If we are to strategize and decide how to solve the six threats together, it may be useful to identify which option may have the largest payoff. Probably the answer is this: reduce militarism.
You may ask: Why militarism? Answer: Because war and weapons cause or exacerbate all five of the other global threats. By reducing the national armed forces (we probably cannot eliminate them entirely) we will reduce all the other risks.
Global warming is a danger on the same scale as war. To solve it we must urgently halt the emissions of greenhouse gas from every expendable human activity. And war is not only expendable, but abolishing it would benefit every person involved.
Moreover, it harms all the rest of us by emitting vast amounts of carbon. Manufacturing each gun, each airplane, each tank, each bomb, each bomb or bullet emits greenhouse gas. Flying the planes, shooting the bullets emits it too. The Pentagon is the largest consumer of fuel in the world. When it conducts a military operation overseas, such as in Afghanistan or Iraq, forty percent of the cost goes for transporting the fuel for use there. Then that fuel is used for injuring people and destroying buildings that later must be reconstructed, emitting even more carbon.
Suppose every country reduces its military by, say, 80 percent by the year 2030. No one can say with certainty how much this would reduce the CO2 in the planet’s atmosphere. However, one of the strongest arguments for cutting military expenditures is to limit climate change.
But militarism imposes huge opportunity costs. Diverting the money from militarism could enable other essential innovations, including limiting climate change. Global military expenditures between 1995 and 2016 hovered at about 2.3% of the world’s total Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Sustainable Development Goals could be met with about half of that amount. In other words, such a shift in expenditures would enable humanity’s unmet needs to be provided, for health, education, agriculture and food security, access to modern energy, water supply and sanitation, telecommunications and transport infrastructure, ecosystems, and emergency response, humanitarian work, plus climate change mitigation and adaptation.(36)
The most grave threat besides the risk of nuclear war is climate change, and the most promising way of reducing CO2 in the air is by planting about a trillion trees. But that will cost vast sums. The only likely source of such funds is by diverting budgets from military activities to afforestation. Reducing militarism is the best — maybe the only realistic — way to reduce climate change. Unfortunately, in Kyoto and Paris accords, no country is even obliged to report /em> its military activities as part of its commitment to reduce CO2 emissions.
The other global threats are also all connected to militarism. For example, the only famines in the world today are not the result of food shortages. They are all created deliberately as acts of war or to subdue a population. For example, Saudi Arabia has blockaded food shipments into Yemen precisely to starve the Yemeni population into submission. And the people of Venezuela are starving because of their government’s deliberate policies to suppress protests against a military-backed regime. Famines are designed to violate human rights. Ending militarism would be a decisive step toward ending famine.
Likewise, ending militarism would reduce the incidence of epidemics. Historically, soldiers on the move carry diseases with them and spread them wherever they go. Germ warfare is prohibited by international law now but, as usual, more of the famine victims in Yemen are dying from diseases such as cholera than are actually starving to death or dying in battle. When people are weakened by stress and deprivation, they succumb to diseases. War is a cause.
Furthermore, ending militarism would reduce the risks of massive exposure to radioactivity. The original reason for creating reactors was to produce plutonium for nuclear bombs. Only later did anyone think of using the heat from these reactors as a means of generating electricity. Today large swathes of land are poisoned by radioactive waste, as for example around Hanford, Washington, where the Manhattan Project produced the radioactive ingredients for America’s nuclear arsenal. Seventy years later, the Hanford area is still poisonous and, as Ronan Farrow has reported, “Clean up of the toxic material at the Hanford Nuclear Site is expected to take 50 years.”(37) Numerous other contaminated military sites exist around the world, including battlefields in Syria and Iraq littered with depleted uranium(38) and a leaking dome-shaped dump in the Marshall Islands.(39)
There are countless ways of using radioactivity as a weapon of war. Crashing a plane into an enemy’s reactor may create a plume that would circle the planet, falling everywhere or polluting the oceans. Terrorist organizations are known to be seeking access to radioactive materials, probably for “dirty bombs” that will not explode but will contaminate large areas. The more radioactive waste there is in the world, the more opportunities will inevitably exist for these to become weapons. A solution to the problem requires two approaches: (a) managing the radioactive waste itself for many thousands of years, and (b) reducing the militarism that misuses these wastes as weapons. The technological challenge of burying the waste is probably easier than the social challenge of changing militaristic thinking.
Finally, reducing militarism obviously will reduce the risk of cyberattacks. Indeed, when we speak of cyberattacks, most people assume that we are speaking of a military attack, though there are probably more such attacks waged every day by civilian criminals stealing from businesses and individuals than are sponsored by foreign governments.
All six threats tend to interact causally, so that we need to address them together as a system. Nevertheless, there may be more “leverage” available by quickly demanding a reduction of militarism than through any other direct policy changes.
Still, this will not be easy. People have their jobs and their live savings tied up in the military-industrial complex and will not readily change to projects that can actually save the world. And they will argue that their security depends on having a robust military to defend their country from attack. Their concerns cannot properly be disregarded. If militarism is to be reduced, some other form of armed protection is necessary. We would not, for example, abolish the police in a country or city, for doing so always results in more crime and violence. A few countries (notably Costa Rica) have abolished their armed forces, but they still have police. Something similar must be provided at the international level. Two planks in the Platform for Survival call for the development of “sustainable common security” and a United Nations Emergency Peace Service, which would quickly rush to protect people anywhere in the world who are in danger of attack.
But how many people would trust the United Nations to protect them? There are surely good reasons for skepticism, since the Security Council is controlled ultimately by the veto power of five major states. Only a more democratically accountable body in the United Nations can be trusted to protect people equally, without regard to alliances and enmities between states. Hence, in the Enabling Measures section of the Platform for Survival, we consider some reforms of the United Nations that will make the United Nations a more reliable source of security.
All of these reforms, if introduced together, can reduce militarism and the risks that flow from war and weapons. This argues for a policy assigning top priority to the drastic, worldwide reduction of armed forces as the best means of saving the world from all six global threats.
Footnotes for this article can be seen at the Footnotes 1 page on this website (link will open in a new page).
How to Post a Comment
After you have read the comments of other readers (scroll down to see them), you can respond by clicking the “reply” option under one of them. We’ll let him know that you have replied, so he can answer you and carry on as long a discussion as you like.
You can also post your own ideas in the comment space below – or share an article you have read elsewhere by copying it and pasting it into the comment space, which is visible in a pale font.
Other readers will not see your email address, but please provide it so we can notify you if someone replies to your comment, so you can respond.
When you post a comment, please give it a title; then select it and click the “B” (for “boldface”). You can also italicize passages (with the “I”), indent, add hyperlinks (with the chain symbol) or attach a photo or graphic from your hard drive by clicking the paperclip at the right side of the space. Have fun with it!
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
We produce several one-hour-long Zoom conversations each week about various aspects of six issues we address. You can watch them live and send a question to the speakers or watch the edited version later here or on our Youtube channel.
Diego Garcia and the Chagossians
Diego Garcia is a remote atoll archipelago in the Indian Ocean – between the Maldives, Mauritius, and the Seychelles. For administrative purposes, it is considered part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).
In the 1500s, the Portuguese used the area as a slave depot. Prior to this, the islands were uninhabited. A cultural group – known as the Chagossians – and who have a distinct language – emerged from the slave trade. During the Cold War, the Chagossians were evicted by the American and British military forces who cited the strategic geographic importance of the islands in relation to global and regional security – within the specific context of air and maritime access.
Various tactics were used to remove the population (population: 1500 in the late 1960s – 3000-4000 in the 2010s) – including inviting the population to neighboring Mauritius for a conference during Christmas in 1965 and subsequently prohibiting return to Diego Garcia. Other tactics included forced removal – such as via blockade of food supplies and/or forced (and allegedly violent) deportation. Alleged military documents – cited in books about Diego Garcia and its associated foreign policies – indicate that suppression of rights of the Chagossians were encouraged during the late 1960s due to the geopolitical significance of the region. By 1973, all Chagossians had been expelled from Diego Garcia.
Read more
Many of the Chagossians now live in Mauritius and the United Kingdom. There have been ongoing appeals and lawsuits in relation to gaining official recognition of the abuse and forced deportation of the Chagossians, alongside some form of financial compensation. The first of these appeals for allowing return to Diego Garcia was filed in 1975, but denied. In 1974, £650 000 was provided to assist with Chagossian resettlement efforts. In 1982 – during the same era that the Marshall Islands were going through legal proceedings around alleged compensation for damage from nuclear weapons testing – the Ilois Trust Fund was established for the Chagossians – though to participate in the financial compensation – it was expected for individuals to sign away their right to return to the islands. In 1995, the United Nations’ Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights Committee declare that Diego Garcia is being illegally occupied by joint American-British military forces – in violation of the Chagossian’s right to self determination. Post-2001, the islands were re-classified as a “vital military asset” in the Afghanistan war – which re-defined and re-shaped the geopolitical significance of the region. A marine reserve was established in the vicinity of Diego Garcia.
Leaked documents – from WikiLeaks – allege this was a tactic to limit Chagossian access to the island – while maintaining military and state access. This shares interesting similarities with the environmental protection zone / sanitary protection zone established near the East Ural Radioactive Trace and Mayak site in Russia. Circa 2012, Chagossians were permitted to return to the minor islands in the atoll – but had very limited access to territories and thus limited access to traditional lands used for agriculture, cultural, fishing, etc. purposes.
The Treaty of Pelindaba (African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone) covers some, but not all of the continental region. Perhaps there is potential to expand this to Diego Garcia.
Furthermore, in recent years, alarming reports have arisen from Diego Garcia. These include reports of nuclear weapons being stored on Diego Garcia, alongside a maintenance and re-fueling base for nuclear submarines belonging to the United Kingdom and United States of America. Other reports indicate the presence of an alleged torture site for interrogation by security agencies, as well as a launch zone for aerial attacks against states in the Middle East.
Would that be good for bad for the economy?
Were they referring to just the military itself – or the number of businesses, industries, etc. which have the military as significant economic partners? What type of extent would reducing the (US?) military that much have on the global economy?
Rank Countries for their Demilitarizing
Good point. Maybe we should assign scores to countries based on how much they have reduced their military spending and converted it to the development of negative emission technologies — e.g. forest planting or carbon capture and conversion to fuel.
I think the reason China is gaining influence is not their military (though they are surely spending more on weapons than a few years ago) but rather their investments in other countries’ development. That Belt and Road Initiative is going to give China a huge amount of power throughout Central Asia and all the way to Europe. They are also helping Africa develop too. That’s how to win! (Not that I admire their political system, but they will win anyhow.)
What countries are developing autonomous weapons? Don’t we need a campaign to shame them? I think everyone would agree that these robots must be outlawed — but if they don’t know it’s happening, nobody will prevent it. We are all so preoccupied with the pandemic and the economy now that we aren’t paying attention to some other horrible challenges.
Diego Garcia and the Chagossians
Diego Garcia is a remote atoll archipelago in the Indian Ocean – between the Maldives, Mauritius, and the Seychelles. For administrative purposes, it is considered part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).
In the 1500s, the Portuguese used the area as a slave depot. Prior to this, the islands were uninhabited. A cultural group – known as the Chagossians – and who have a distinct language – emerged from the slave trade. During the Cold War, the Chagossians were evicted by the American and British military forces who cited the strategic geographic importance of the islands in relation to global and regional security – within the specific context of air and maritime access.
Various tactics were used to remove the population (population: 1500 in the late 1960s – 3000-4000 in the 2010s) – including inviting the population to neighboring Mauritius for a conference during Christmas in 1965 and subsequently prohibiting return to Diego Garcia. Other tactics included forced removal – such as via blockade of food supplies and/or forced (and allegedly violent) deportation. Alleged military documents – cited in books about Diego Garcia and its associated foreign policies – indicate that suppression of rights of the Chagossians were encouraged during the late 1960s due to the geopolitical significance of the region. By 1973, all Chagossians had been expelled from Diego Garcia.
Read more
Many of the Chagossians now live in Mauritius and the United Kingdom. There have been ongoing appeals and lawsuits in relation to gaining official recognition of the abuse and forced deportation of the Chagossians, alongside some form of financial compensation. The first of these appeals for allowing return to Diego Garcia was filed in 1975, but denied. In 1974, £650 000 was provided to assist with Chagossian resettlement efforts. In 1982 – during the same era that the Marshall Islands were going through legal proceedings around alleged compensation for damage from nuclear weapons testing – the Ilois Trust Fund was established for the Chagossians – though to participate in the financial compensation – it was expected for individuals to sign away their right to return to the islands. In 1995, the United Nations’ Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights Committee declare that Diego Garcia is being illegally occupied by joint American-British military forces – in violation of the Chagossian’s right to self determination. Post-2001, the islands were re-classified as a “vital military asset” in the Afghanistan war – which re-defined and re-shaped the geopolitical significance of the region. A marine reserve was established in the vicinity of Diego Garcia.
Leaked documents – from WikiLeaks – allege this was a tactic to limit Chagossian access to the island – while maintaining military and state access. This shares interesting similarities with the environmental protection zone / sanitary protection zone established near the East Ural Radioactive Trace and Mayak site in Russia. Circa 2012, Chagossians were permitted to return to the minor islands in the atoll – but had very limited access to territories and thus limited access to traditional lands used for agriculture, cultural, fishing, etc. purposes.
The Treaty of Pelindaba (African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone) covers some, but not all of the continental region. Perhaps there is potential to expand this to Diego Garcia.
Furthermore, in recent years, alarming reports have arisen from Diego Garcia. These include reports of nuclear weapons being stored on Diego Garcia, alongside a maintenance and re-fueling base for nuclear submarines belonging to the United Kingdom and United States of America. Other reports indicate the presence of an alleged torture site for interrogation by security agencies, as well as a launch zone for aerial attacks against states in the Middle East.
Would that be good for bad for the economy?
Were they referring to just the military itself – or the number of businesses, industries, etc. which have the military as significant economic partners? What type of extent would reducing the (US?) military that much have on the global economy?
Rank Countries for their Demilitarizing
Good point. Maybe we should assign scores to countries based on how much they have reduced their military spending and converted it to the development of negative emission technologies — e.g. forest planting or carbon capture and conversion to fuel.
I think the reason China is gaining influence is not their military (though they are surely spending more on weapons than a few years ago) but rather their investments in other countries’ development. That Belt and Road Initiative is going to give China a huge amount of power throughout Central Asia and all the way to Europe. They are also helping Africa develop too. That’s how to win! (Not that I admire their political system, but they will win anyhow.)
What countries are developing autonomous weapons? Don’t we need a campaign to shame them? I think everyone would agree that these robots must be outlawed — but if they don’t know it’s happening, nobody will prevent it. We are all so preoccupied with the pandemic and the economy now that we aren’t paying attention to some other horrible challenges.
What the CANDU reactor has done abroad
This is a CANDU reactor: Darlington
An excerpt:
“Our uranium and nuclear technology launched the UK and USA stockpiles, then the Indian nuclear arsenal, followed by Pakistan and others. We continued to sell our CANDU reactor for ‘peaceful energy use’ which was secretly described as a “military plutonium production reactor” by the insiders ever since the Manhattan Project.”
“Plutonium=forever.” Even if bombs are not made, plutonium goes on and on emitting deadly radiation for centuries.
“… ‘following the atoms’ proves that we are a boy-scout nation with a very dirty secret. It has been underwritten by $30 billion taxpayer dollars, greased with secret bribes to win export deals, and buried in decades of deceit by official Ottawa.”
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/review-atomic-accomplice
What the CANDU reactor has done abroad
This is a CANDU reactor: Darlington
An excerpt:
“Our uranium and nuclear technology launched the UK and USA stockpiles, then the Indian nuclear arsenal, followed by Pakistan and others. We continued to sell our CANDU reactor for ‘peaceful energy use’ which was secretly described as a “military plutonium production reactor” by the insiders ever since the Manhattan Project.”
“Plutonium=forever.” Even if bombs are not made, plutonium goes on and on emitting deadly radiation for centuries.
“… ‘following the atoms’ proves that we are a boy-scout nation with a very dirty secret. It has been underwritten by $30 billion taxpayer dollars, greased with secret bribes to win export deals, and buried in decades of deceit by official Ottawa.”
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/review-atomic-accomplice
Beware the Solar Flares!
Is there a risk that a solar flare or solar store – of sufficient strength, such as one comparable to the 1859 Carrington Event – could trigger the detonation and/or launch of a nuclear warhead? Several media articles indicate a solar flare in 1967 almost started a nuclear exchange due to communication and radio signals being jammed.
However (and fortunately) some space weather scientists identified the cause was a solar flare. There was another incident where sunlight reflecting off the atmosphere almost triggered a nuclear launch – as early computer systems interpreted it as a nuclear flash. This would have been around the 1960s. Alarming to think about!
The 1859 Carrington Event was one of the largest solar storms with extensive records. There were a limited amount of electronic devices in this era – mostly telegraph wires – which were reported to have gone absolutely haywire when the storm hit.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/solar-flares-ballistic-missile-radar-station-cold-war-1.3719177
Beware the Solar Flares!
Is there a risk that a solar flare or solar store – of sufficient strength, such as one comparable to the 1859 Carrington Event – could trigger the detonation and/or launch of a nuclear warhead? Several media articles indicate a solar flare in 1967 almost started a nuclear exchange due to communication and radio signals being jammed.
However (and fortunately) some space weather scientists identified the cause was a solar flare. There was another incident where sunlight reflecting off the atmosphere almost triggered a nuclear launch – as early computer systems interpreted it as a nuclear flash. This would have been around the 1960s. Alarming to think about!
The 1859 Carrington Event was one of the largest solar storms with extensive records. There were a limited amount of electronic devices in this era – mostly telegraph wires – which were reported to have gone absolutely haywire when the storm hit.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/solar-flares-ballistic-missile-radar-station-cold-war-1.3719177
Most clashes are about race or religion
As heartening as it is to read of, for example, communing large multi-racial and -religious groups of people humanely allied against the common enemy of blind hatred, I nonetheless dread that it will sadly resettle to normal everyday life—and politics.
There are no greater differences amongst us humans than race and religion—remove that and left are less obvious differences over which to clash, such as sub-racial identity (i.e. ethnicity), nationality, and so forth down that scale we tumble.
Hypothetically, reduce our species to just a few city blocks of residents who are similar in every way and eventually there may still be some sort of bitter inter-neighbourhood fighting.
Most clashes are about race or religion
As heartening as it is to read of, for example, communing large multi-racial and -religious groups of people humanely allied against the common enemy of blind hatred, I nonetheless dread that it will sadly resettle to normal everyday life—and politics.
There are no greater differences amongst us humans than race and religion—remove that and left are less obvious differences over which to clash, such as sub-racial identity (i.e. ethnicity), nationality, and so forth down that scale we tumble.
Hypothetically, reduce our species to just a few city blocks of residents who are similar in every way and eventually there may still be some sort of bitter inter-neighbourhood fighting.
Will The Arms Merchants Comply?
The Arms Trade Treaty limits what weapons a country can sell to other countries, especially if the weapons are likely to be used to attack others. So is there any evidence so far that it is working? Has any country actually changed its plans and refrained from selling weapons just because it signed the treaty? I’m trying not to be cynical in asking. I’d prefer to hear good news.
Will The Arms Merchants Comply?
The Arms Trade Treaty limits what weapons a country can sell to other countries, especially if the weapons are likely to be used to attack others. So is there any evidence so far that it is working? Has any country actually changed its plans and refrained from selling weapons just because it signed the treaty? I’m trying not to be cynical in asking. I’d prefer to hear good news.
How Much Shall we Cut Military Expenditures?
Notice that the Platform for Survival does not say how much we are supposed to reduce the size of the military. I was in the audience at the forum when we discussed that and I heard the proposal originally was 80 percent. We were told that such a high number would be considered unreasonable or even laughable. But I think it is a good number. Reduce all the military systems in the world by 80 percent and we’d be on our way to a real solution to other global problems.
And yes, it will be hard to do. But I’d like us to pick a target number, please. Lately Bernie Sanders has proposed a ten percent reduction. Okay, that’s a starting point. Who will raise the bid?
Is there a risk of a similar incident in the American context? I have heard several alarming reports, such as the fact that the production of intermediate missile materials – such as an aerogel foam used within the warhead itself – have fallen out of general production. One such material is “fogbank” which was manufactured in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The material is so classified that finding manufacturing instructions and records have been a significant challenge for the industry, as pre-existing materials age out and need replacing.
Read more
Many of the original researchers have died and/or retired from the field. Furthermore – research out of Lawrence-Livermore Laboratories – indicate that many of the original yield calculations (determining how large of an explosion a warhead makes) are off by as much as 30%. Another alarming report came out of Arkansas in 1980 when a wrench was dropped in a silo during maintenance – puncturing the fuel component of a nuclear warhead – almost causing a critical incident (explosion) which would have irradiated surrounding environments. These are slightly different than RTGs – but the risk of an explosion due to aging materials, accidents or errors, or miscalculations is an alarming thought.
How Much Shall we Cut Military Expenditures?
Notice that the Platform for Survival does not say how much we are supposed to reduce the size of the military. I was in the audience at the forum when we discussed that and I heard the proposal originally was 80 percent. We were told that such a high number would be considered unreasonable or even laughable. But I think it is a good number. Reduce all the military systems in the world by 80 percent and we’d be on our way to a real solution to other global problems.
And yes, it will be hard to do. But I’d like us to pick a target number, please. Lately Bernie Sanders has proposed a ten percent reduction. Okay, that’s a starting point. Who will raise the bid?
Is there a risk of a similar incident in the American context? I have heard several alarming reports, such as the fact that the production of intermediate missile materials – such as an aerogel foam used within the warhead itself – have fallen out of general production. One such material is “fogbank” which was manufactured in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The material is so classified that finding manufacturing instructions and records have been a significant challenge for the industry, as pre-existing materials age out and need replacing.
Read more
Many of the original researchers have died and/or retired from the field. Furthermore – research out of Lawrence-Livermore Laboratories – indicate that many of the original yield calculations (determining how large of an explosion a warhead makes) are off by as much as 30%. Another alarming report came out of Arkansas in 1980 when a wrench was dropped in a silo during maintenance – puncturing the fuel component of a nuclear warhead – almost causing a critical incident (explosion) which would have irradiated surrounding environments. These are slightly different than RTGs – but the risk of an explosion due to aging materials, accidents or errors, or miscalculations is an alarming thought.
Hooray for the Pope!
Yes, it’s a great interview. I particularly like his statements that it’s a sin merely to own nuclear weapons, and that it’s hypocrisy to say you believe in peace while you’re making money from selling weapons. Right on, Francis!
Hooray for the Pope!
Yes, it’s a great interview. I particularly like his statements that it’s a sin merely to own nuclear weapons, and that it’s hypocrisy to say you believe in peace while you’re making money from selling weapons. Right on, Francis!
Pope Francis on a Plane
Here is Pope Francis on a plane. I find it inspiring–at least the part that I understand. Some parts refer to things I know nothing about, and apparently things that the Pope himself doesn’t fully understand. It’s good that he says so.
During the in-flight press conference aboard the plane bringing him back to Rome from Japan, Pope Francis answers journalists’ questions on a variety of issues: from the immoral use and possession of atomic weapons, to the financial investigation inside the Vatican.
“The use of nuclear weapons is immoral, which is why it must be added to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not only their use, but also possessing them: because an accident or the madness of some government leader, one person’s madness can destroy humanity.”
In addition to repeating this strong message pronounced at Hiroshima, Pope Francis responded to many questions posed to him by the journalists during the flight bringing them back to Rome from Japan.
Now follows an unofficial translation of the in-flight press conference.
“I thank you for your work, for an intense journey with a categoric change: Thailand was one thing and Japan another. You can’t evaluate these two with the same categories. Realities must be evaluated from within same category. Japan and Thailand are two completely different realities. That’s why double work is needed, and I thank you for that, even on very full days, I felt close to you in this job.”
Read more
Father Makoto Yamamoto, Catholic Shimbum
Thank you very much for coming to Japan from so far away. I am a diocesan priest. I live near Nagasaki. You saw Nagasaki and Hiroshima. How did you feel? Does the Church and society in the West have anything to learn from the Church and society in the East?
“I will begin with the last question. The saying lux ex Oriente, ex Occidente luxus inspired me a lot. Light comes from the East; luxury, consumerism, come from the West. There is this type of Eastern wisdom, which is not only the wisdom of knowing, but of time, of contemplation. It would be very helpful to our Western society, which is always in too much of a hurry, to learn contemplation, the act of stopping and looking poetically at things too. This is a personal opinion, but I think the West could do with a little more poetry. There are some beautiful poetic things, but the East goes beyond. The East is capable of looking at things with eyes that go beyond. I don’t want to use the word “transcendent” because some Eastern religions don’t mention transcendence, but have a vision that goes beyond the limit of immanence, but without saying transcendence. That is why I use expressions like poetry, superfluous [gratuità], the search for personal perfection through fasting, penance, reading the wisdom of the Eastern sages. I believe it would do us Westerners good to stop a bit and give time to wisdom.
“Nagasaki and Hiroshima both suffered [as a result of] the atomic bomb, and this makes them appear similar. But there is a difference: Nagasaki not only experienced the bomb, but it also had Christians. Nagasaki has Christian roots. Christianity goes way back. There was a persecution of Christians throughout Japan, but it was very strong in Nagasaki. The secretary of the Nunciature gave me a wooden facsimile with the “Wanted” sign of that time on it: Christians wanted! If you find one, turn him in and you will get a reward. If you find a priest turn him in, and you will get a big reward. This leaves an impression: there were centuries of persecution. This is a Christian phenomenon that somehow “relativises”, in the good sense of the word, the atomic bomb. Going to Hiroshima, instead, was solely to commemorate the atomic bomb attack, because it is not a Christian city like Nagasaki. That is why I wanted to go to both. There was the atomic disaster in both.
“Hiroshima was a real human catechesis on cruelty. I could not visit the Hiroshima museum because time did not permit, because it was a difficult day. But they say it’s terrible. There are letters from Heads of State, Generals explaining how a greater disaster could be produced. The experience was much more touching for me. And there I reiterated that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral, that is why it must be added to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not only their use, but also possessing them: because an accident or the madness of some government leader, one person’s madness can destroy humanity. The words of Einstein come to mind: ‘The Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones.’ ”
Shinichi Kawarada, The Asahi Shimbum
As you rightly pointed out, lasting peace cannot be achieved without disarmament. Japan is a country that enjoys the nuclear protection of the USA, and is also a producer of nuclear energy, which entails a great risk, as happened at Fukushima. How can Japan contribute to world peace? Should nuclear power plants be shut down?
“Returning to the possession of nuclear power plants: an accident can always happen. You experienced the triple disaster.[1] Nuclear power has limits (let’s leave out nuclear weapons because they are destructive). The use of nuclear power has limits because we have not yet achieved absolute safety. You could tell me that even electricity could cause a disaster because of lack of safety, but it would be a very small disaster. A nuclear power plant disaster will be huge disaster. Safety systems have not been worked out yet. It is my personal opinion, but I would not use nuclear energy until its use is completely safe. Some say it is a risk for the care of creation and that using nuclear energy must be stopped. I stop at safety. There is no guarantee ensuring that a disaster does not happen. Yes, one every ten years in the world. Then there is creation. The disaster nuclear power causes on creation, on the human person. There was the disaster in Ukraine.[2] We have to conduct research regarding safety, both to avoid disasters and because of the environmental consequences. I believe we have breached the limit regarding the environment – with pesticides in agriculture, with raising chickens that doctors tell mothers not to feed their children because they are given hormones and are bad for your health. There are so many rare diseases today because of an incorrect use of the environment. Either care of the environment takes place today, or it never will. But returning to nuclear energy: construction, safety and care of creation”.
Elisabetta Zunica, Kyoto News
Akamada Iwao is a Japanese person sentenced to death and awaiting a review of the trial. He was present at the Mass at the Tokyo Dome, but did not have the opportunity to speak with you. Was a brief meeting with you planned? In Japan, the issue of the death penalty is very much under discussion. Thirteen death sentences were carried out shortly before the revision of the Catechism on this issue. There is no reference to that in your speeches. Did you have the opportunity to discuss this with Prime Minister Shinto Abe?
“I heard about that case regarding the death penalty later. I did not know about that person. I spoke about many problems with the Prime Minister: trials, sentences that never end, either with or without death. I spoke of general problems that exist in other countries as well: overcrowded prisons, people kept waiting with preventive imprisonment without the presumption of innocence. Fifteen days ago, I gave a speech at the International Conference on Criminal Law and I spoke seriously on this subject. The death penalty cannot be carried out, it is immoral. This must be connected to developing consciousness. For example, some countries cannot abolish it because of political problems, but they do suspend it, which is a way of sentencing someone to life in prison without declaring so. But any sentence must always allow for reintegration, a sentence without a ray of hope is inhuman. Even when it comes to life imprisonment, one must think how the person serving a life sentence can be reintegrated, inside or outside. You will tell me: but there are people sentenced because of problems of insanity, sickness, genetic incorrigibility… In that case, a way to make them feel like people must be sought. Prisons are overcrowded in many parts of the world; they are warehouses of humanity. Instead of getting better, many times they are corrupted. We must combat the death penalty slowly. There are cases that make me happy because some countries say: we will stop. Last year, before leaving office, a State Governor made its suspension almost definitive. these are steps taken by a human conscience. But some countries have not yet succeeded in incorporating themselves into this humane way of thinking.”
Jean-Marie Guénois, Le Figaro
Good day, Holy Father. You said that true peace can exist be a “disarmed” peace. But what about legitimate defence, when one country is attacked by another? In that case, does the possibility of a “just war” still exist? A small question… there was talk about an encyclical on non-violence. Do you still plan such an encyclical on non-violence? Two questions… Thank you, Holy Father.
“Yes, the plan exists, but the next Pope will do it… There are other projects on the back burner. One of them is on peace. It’s maturing. I feel I will do it when the time comes. For example, the problem of bullying is a problem of violence. I specifically spoke about it to the Japanese young people. It is a problem we are trying to solve with many educational programs. It is a problem of violence. I don’t feel ready yet to write an encyclical on non-violence, I have to pray a lot and find the way.
There’s that Roman saying, “Si vis pacem para bellum” (“If you want peace prepare for war”). We have not made progress there: international organisations don’t succeed, the United Nations don’t succeed. They mediate often and well: countries like Norway are always willing to mediate. I like that, but it’s insufficient, we need to do even more. Take the UN Security Council: if there is a problem with armaments and everyone agrees to solve the problem to avoid a conflict, everyone votes “yes”. One country with the right of veto votes “no”, and everything stops. I can’t judge whether it’s a good idea or not, but I have heard it said that perhaps the United Nations should take a step forward and remove certain nations’ right of veto in the Security Council. I heard this was a possibility. There are issues regarding the international equilibrium that I cannot judge right now. But everything that can be done to stop arms production, to stop wars, to encourage negotiation, with the help of mediators, must always be done, and it produces results. For example, the case of Ukraine and Russia wasn’t about weapons, but about negotiating a prisoner exchange, and this was positive. In Donbass, they are thinking about planning a different governmental regime. Discussions are underway. This is a positive step.
“The ugly hypocrisy of the ‘arms trade’. Christian countries, European countries that talk about peace and live off weapons. This is hypocrisy, a word from the Gospels: Jesus said it in Matthew, Chapter 23. We have to stop this hypocrisy. It takes courage to say: “I can’t talk about peace, because my economy earns so much through arms sales’”. These are all things we need to say, without insulting and vilifying any country, but speaking as brothers and sisters, for the sake of human fraternity: we must stop because this is a terrible thing. A ship arrived in port from a country, that was supposed to hand over weapons to another ship that was going to Yemen, and the port workers said “no”. They did a good thing and the ship returned home. That’s one case, but it shows us in which direction we need to go. Today, peace is very weak but we must not be discouraged. The idea of legitimate defense is always valid; even moral theology allows for it, but as a last resort. The use of arms is a last resort. Legitimate defence must go through diplomacy, mediation. Legitimate defence with weapons is a last resort. I insist: a last resort! We are making ethical progress of which I approve, putting all these things into question. What is beautiful about this is that it confirms humanity moves towards good, not only toward evil.”
Cristiana Caricato, TV2000
People are reading in the newspapers that the Holy See has purchased properties for hundreds of millions of euro in the centre of London. People are a bit disconcerted by this use of Vatican finances, particularly when Peter’s Pence is involved. Were you aware of these financial operations, and, above all, in your opinion, is the use made of Peter’s Pence correct? You have often said that money should not be made with money, you have denounced the unscrupulous use of finances, but then we see that the Holy See is involved in these operations, and we are shocked. How do you view the whole affair?
“Thank you. First of all, good administration: when the money from Peter’s Pence comes in, what do I do, put it in a drawer? No, that would be bad administration. I try to invest it, and when I want to give it away, when there are needs, in a year, I take it, and the capital hasn’t devalued, it’s stayed the same, or grown a little. This is good administration. ‘Putting money in a drawer’ is bad administration. What we need is good administration, good investments. Is that clear? Even what, in Argentina, we call ‘widow-style’ investments: the way widows leave two eggs here, three here, five there. If one breaks, there is another and nothing is ruined. It’s always safe and always moral. If you invest Peter’s Pence in an weapons factory, that’s not where Peter’s Pence should be. If you make an investment and don’t touch the capital for years, it’s not right. Peter’s Pence must be spent within a year, or a year and a half, until the next collection is made around the world. This is good administration, a safe one. And yes, you can purchase a property, rent it out and then sell it, but always safely, taking all the necessary measures for the good of the people and of Peter’s Pence. Then what happened, happened. A scandal. They did things that appear not to be clean. But the accusation did not come from outside. The economic reform, already introduced by Benedict XVI, was implemented, and it was the internal Auditor who said: something bad is going on here, something’s not right. He came to me, and I asked him: ‘Are you sure?’ ‘Yes’, he said, and he showed me the figures. ‘What must I do?’ he asked. I told him there is the Vatican justice system and he should go and report this to the Promoter of Justice. I was pleased about this because it shows the Vatican administration now has the resources to shed light on the bad things that happen internally, like in this case. And if it is not the case of the London property – because this remains unclear – there was corruption nonetheless. The Promoter of Justice studied it, carried consultations and saw there were problems on the balance sheet. He then asked me for permission to proceed with the search. The presumption of corruption exists and he told me what he would have to do in this, that or the other office. I signed the authorisation. Five offices were searched. Today, although there is the presumption of innocence, there is capital that is not administered well, even corruptly. I believe that with a month the depositions will begin of the five people who were suspended because there was evidence. You may ask me: “But are these five people corrupt?” No. The presumption of innocence is a guarantee, a human right. But there is corruption. We can see it. The results of the search will show whether they are guilty or not. It’s bad thing, it is not good for these things to be happening inside the Vatican. But they are being resolved by internal mechanisms that Pope Benedict XVI introduced, and that are beginning to work. I thank God for this. I don’t thank him for the corruption, but because the Vatican’s control system works well.”
Philip Pullella, Reuters
In recent weeks there has been concern about developments in Vatican finances and some say there is an internal war regarding who controls the money. Most of the members of the AIF (Vatican Financial Authority) have resigned. The Egmont Group, which is the association of these financial authorities, suspended the Vatican from its secure communications after the raid of October 1. AIF’s Director is still suspended, as you said, and there is still no Auditor General. What can you do or say to assure the international financial community and the faithful called to contribute to Peter’s Pence that the Vatican will not once again be considered a pariah to be kept excluded and mistrusted, and that the reforms will continue and there will be no returning to past ways of doing things?
“The Vatican has made progress in its administration: for example, today the IOR[3] is now accepted by all banks and can act like Italian banks, something that was not yet there a year ago, hence there has been progress. Then, regarding the Egmont Group, it is an unofficial international group, a group to which AIF belongs, and international control doesn’t depend on the Egmont Group, which is a private group even if it is highly regarded. Moneyval will do the inspection scheduled for the first months of next year; it will do it. AIF’s Director was suspended because there were suspicions of poor administration. AIF’s President tried to retrieve the [sequestered] documents with the help of the Egmont Group, something the [Vatican] justice system cannot do. Faced with this, I consulted an Italian magistrate of good standing about what to do. Justice in the face of an accusation of corruption is something sovereign to a country, no one can meddle in it, no one can give the papers to the Egmont Group. The papers that might bring to light that which seems to be bad administration, in the sense of bad supervision, must be studied. It seems that it was the AIF that did not control others’ crimes. Its duty was to supervise. I hope that it will be proved that this is not the case. Right now there is the presumption of innocence. For the moment, the magistrate is sovereign and must study what happened, otherwise a country would be subject to a higher administration that would damage its sovereignty. The mandate of the AIF President expired on 19 [November]. I had called him a few days earlier and he wasn’t aware of that, he told me later. I announced that he was leaving on the 19th. I have already found his successor, a magistrate, highly esteemed at juridical and economic levels, nationally and internationally. On my return, he will assume the office of President of AIF. It would have been a contradiction if the supervisory authority had sovereignty over the State. This is not an easy thing to understand. What has been a little worrying is the Egmont Group, which is a private group: it helps a lot but it does not have the authoritative control of Moneyval. Moneyval will study the numbers, the procedures, how the Promoter of Justice acted, and how the judge and judges determined the matter. I know that in these days the interrogation of some of the five that have been suspended will begin. It is not easy, but we must not be naive, we must not be slaves. Someone told me: “But I don’t believe it: the fact about the Egmont Group that’s been brought up, people are frightened that it is a bit of terrorism [psychological]. Let’s leave that aside. We go ahead with the law, with Moneyval and with the new AIF President. And the director is suspended: let’s hope he is innocent, I would like it to be so because it’s a good thing that a person be innocent and not guilty, I hope so. But some noise was made regarding this Group who didn’t want the papers pertaining to the group to be touched.
It’s the first time in the Vatican that the pot has been uncovered from inside, not from outside. It has been many times from outside. They have told us many times and it was really embarrassing… But Pope Benedict was wise, he began a process that has matured, and now there are institutions. That the Auditor had the courage to make a written complaint against five people, [shows] it’s working… I really don’t want to offend the Egmont Group because it does so much good, it helps, but in this case, the sovereignty of the State is a question of justice, which is more sovereign than the executive power. It’s not easy to understand but I ask you to understand it.”
Roland Juchem, CIC
Holy Father, on the flight from Bangkok to Tokyo you sent a telegram to Carrie Lam of Hong Kong. What do you think of the situation there, with the demonstrations and the municipal elections? And when will we be able to accompany you to Beijing?
“The telegrams are sent to all Heads of State, it’s an automatic greeting; and it is also a polite way to request permission to fly over their territory. This does not mean either condemnation or support. It is a mechanical thing that all planes do when they technically enter, they advise that they are entering, and we do it out of courtesy. This does not really answer your question; the telegram is only a courtesy.
“With regard to the other question you asked me: when we think about it, it’s not just Hong Kong. Think about Chile, think about France, democratic France: a year of yellow jackets. Think of Nicaragua, think of other Latin American countries that have problems like this, and even some European countries. It’s something general. How does the Holy See handle this? It calls for dialogue, for peace. But it’s not only Hong Kong, there are various problematic situations that I am unable to evaluate at the moment. I respect peace and I ask for peace for all these countries that have problems, Spain too. It is better to put things in perspective and to call for dialogue, for peace, so that problems can be resolved. And finally: I would like to go to Beijing, I love China.”
Valentina Alazraki, Televisa
Pope Francis, Latin America is in flames. We have seen after Venezuela and Chile images we did not think we would see after Pinochet. We have seen the situation in Bolivia, Nicaragua, or other countries: revolts, violence in the streets, deaths, injuries, even churches burnt, violated. What is your analysis on what is happening in these countries? Is the Church – and you personally as a Latin American Pope – doing something?
“Someone told me this: An analysis needs to be done. The situation today in Latin America resembles that of 1974-1980, in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay with Strössner, and even Bolivia I think… they had Operation Condor at that time. A situation in flames, but I don’t know if it is the same problem or another. Honestly, at this moment I’m not able to do the analysis on this. It is true there are declarations that are not exactly peaceful. What is happening in Chile frightens me, because Chile is emerging from a problem of abuse that have caused much suffering, and now there is a kind of problem we don’t understand well. But it is in flames as you say, and dialogue must be sought, as well as analysis. I still haven’t found a good analysis done on the situation in Latin America. And also there are weak, very weak governments, who haven’t been able to establish order and peace; and for this reason, we’ve come to this situation.”
Evo Morales has requested your mediation, for example. Something concrete…
“Yes, something concrete. Venezuela has requested mediation, and the Holy See is always willing. There is a good relationship, really a good relationship, we are present there to help when necessary. Bolivia did something like that, made a request to the United Nations, which sent delegates, and someone from some European nation as well. I don’t know if Chile has made some request for international mediation; Brazil, certainly hasn’t, but there are some problems there, too. It’s a bit strange, but I don’t want to say a word more because I am not qualified and I have not studied it well, and honestly I don’t understand it very well either.
“I take advantage of your question to add that you have spoken little about Thailand, which is different from Japan, a culture of transcendence, a culture of beauty too, different from the beauty of Japan: a culture, so much poverty, so many spiritual riches. But there is also a problem that wounds the heart, that makes us think of “Greece and the others”. You are an expert in this problem of exploitation, you have studied it well, and your book has done a lot of good. And Thailand, some places in Thailand, are difficult in that regard. But there is southern Thailand, and there is also beautiful northern Thailand, where I was not able to go, that is tribal and has a completely different culture. I received about twenty people from that region, first Christians, first baptised, who came to Rome, with another, different culture, those tribal cultures. And Bangkok, we saw, is a big, very modern city; but has some problems different from those of Japan, and has riches different from those of Japan. I wanted to emphasise the problem of exploitation in order to thank you for your book, as I would also like to thank Franca Giansoldati for her “green” book: two women on the plane, each of whom has written a book, treating modern problems: the ecological problem and the problem of the destruction of mother earth, of the environment; and the problem of human exploitation that you have touched on. This proves that women work more than men and are capable. Thank you, both of you, for this contribution. And I still haven’t forgotten Rocio’s shirt.[4]”
And thank you for asking direct questions, that’s good. Enjoy for me. Enjoy your lunch.
This is a working translation from a non-official transcript done by Alessandro Guarasci and Andrea Tornielli.
[1] Editor’s note: the earthquake, the tsunami and the nuclear disaster of the Fukushima power plant in 2011.
[2] Editor’s note: in Chernobyl, in 1986.
[3] Editor’s note: Institute for the Works of Religion, commonly known as the Vatican Bank.
[4] Editor’s note: The reference is to the shirt of a murdered Mexican woman that Valentina Alazraki had given to Pope Francis during a recent video interview.
With thanks to Vatican News, where this article originally appeared.
Pope Francis on a Plane
Here is Pope Francis on a plane. I find it inspiring–at least the part that I understand. Some parts refer to things I know nothing about, and apparently things that the Pope himself doesn’t fully understand. It’s good that he says so.
During the in-flight press conference aboard the plane bringing him back to Rome from Japan, Pope Francis answers journalists’ questions on a variety of issues: from the immoral use and possession of atomic weapons, to the financial investigation inside the Vatican.
“The use of nuclear weapons is immoral, which is why it must be added to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not only their use, but also possessing them: because an accident or the madness of some government leader, one person’s madness can destroy humanity.”
In addition to repeating this strong message pronounced at Hiroshima, Pope Francis responded to many questions posed to him by the journalists during the flight bringing them back to Rome from Japan.
Now follows an unofficial translation of the in-flight press conference.
“I thank you for your work, for an intense journey with a categoric change: Thailand was one thing and Japan another. You can’t evaluate these two with the same categories. Realities must be evaluated from within same category. Japan and Thailand are two completely different realities. That’s why double work is needed, and I thank you for that, even on very full days, I felt close to you in this job.”
Read more
Father Makoto Yamamoto, Catholic Shimbum
Thank you very much for coming to Japan from so far away. I am a diocesan priest. I live near Nagasaki. You saw Nagasaki and Hiroshima. How did you feel? Does the Church and society in the West have anything to learn from the Church and society in the East?
“I will begin with the last question. The saying lux ex Oriente, ex Occidente luxus inspired me a lot. Light comes from the East; luxury, consumerism, come from the West. There is this type of Eastern wisdom, which is not only the wisdom of knowing, but of time, of contemplation. It would be very helpful to our Western society, which is always in too much of a hurry, to learn contemplation, the act of stopping and looking poetically at things too. This is a personal opinion, but I think the West could do with a little more poetry. There are some beautiful poetic things, but the East goes beyond. The East is capable of looking at things with eyes that go beyond. I don’t want to use the word “transcendent” because some Eastern religions don’t mention transcendence, but have a vision that goes beyond the limit of immanence, but without saying transcendence. That is why I use expressions like poetry, superfluous [gratuità], the search for personal perfection through fasting, penance, reading the wisdom of the Eastern sages. I believe it would do us Westerners good to stop a bit and give time to wisdom.
“Nagasaki and Hiroshima both suffered [as a result of] the atomic bomb, and this makes them appear similar. But there is a difference: Nagasaki not only experienced the bomb, but it also had Christians. Nagasaki has Christian roots. Christianity goes way back. There was a persecution of Christians throughout Japan, but it was very strong in Nagasaki. The secretary of the Nunciature gave me a wooden facsimile with the “Wanted” sign of that time on it: Christians wanted! If you find one, turn him in and you will get a reward. If you find a priest turn him in, and you will get a big reward. This leaves an impression: there were centuries of persecution. This is a Christian phenomenon that somehow “relativises”, in the good sense of the word, the atomic bomb. Going to Hiroshima, instead, was solely to commemorate the atomic bomb attack, because it is not a Christian city like Nagasaki. That is why I wanted to go to both. There was the atomic disaster in both.
“Hiroshima was a real human catechesis on cruelty. I could not visit the Hiroshima museum because time did not permit, because it was a difficult day. But they say it’s terrible. There are letters from Heads of State, Generals explaining how a greater disaster could be produced. The experience was much more touching for me. And there I reiterated that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral, that is why it must be added to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not only their use, but also possessing them: because an accident or the madness of some government leader, one person’s madness can destroy humanity. The words of Einstein come to mind: ‘The Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones.’ ”
Shinichi Kawarada, The Asahi Shimbum
As you rightly pointed out, lasting peace cannot be achieved without disarmament. Japan is a country that enjoys the nuclear protection of the USA, and is also a producer of nuclear energy, which entails a great risk, as happened at Fukushima. How can Japan contribute to world peace? Should nuclear power plants be shut down?
“Returning to the possession of nuclear power plants: an accident can always happen. You experienced the triple disaster.[1] Nuclear power has limits (let’s leave out nuclear weapons because they are destructive). The use of nuclear power has limits because we have not yet achieved absolute safety. You could tell me that even electricity could cause a disaster because of lack of safety, but it would be a very small disaster. A nuclear power plant disaster will be huge disaster. Safety systems have not been worked out yet. It is my personal opinion, but I would not use nuclear energy until its use is completely safe. Some say it is a risk for the care of creation and that using nuclear energy must be stopped. I stop at safety. There is no guarantee ensuring that a disaster does not happen. Yes, one every ten years in the world. Then there is creation. The disaster nuclear power causes on creation, on the human person. There was the disaster in Ukraine.[2] We have to conduct research regarding safety, both to avoid disasters and because of the environmental consequences. I believe we have breached the limit regarding the environment – with pesticides in agriculture, with raising chickens that doctors tell mothers not to feed their children because they are given hormones and are bad for your health. There are so many rare diseases today because of an incorrect use of the environment. Either care of the environment takes place today, or it never will. But returning to nuclear energy: construction, safety and care of creation”.
Elisabetta Zunica, Kyoto News
Akamada Iwao is a Japanese person sentenced to death and awaiting a review of the trial. He was present at the Mass at the Tokyo Dome, but did not have the opportunity to speak with you. Was a brief meeting with you planned? In Japan, the issue of the death penalty is very much under discussion. Thirteen death sentences were carried out shortly before the revision of the Catechism on this issue. There is no reference to that in your speeches. Did you have the opportunity to discuss this with Prime Minister Shinto Abe?
“I heard about that case regarding the death penalty later. I did not know about that person. I spoke about many problems with the Prime Minister: trials, sentences that never end, either with or without death. I spoke of general problems that exist in other countries as well: overcrowded prisons, people kept waiting with preventive imprisonment without the presumption of innocence. Fifteen days ago, I gave a speech at the International Conference on Criminal Law and I spoke seriously on this subject. The death penalty cannot be carried out, it is immoral. This must be connected to developing consciousness. For example, some countries cannot abolish it because of political problems, but they do suspend it, which is a way of sentencing someone to life in prison without declaring so. But any sentence must always allow for reintegration, a sentence without a ray of hope is inhuman. Even when it comes to life imprisonment, one must think how the person serving a life sentence can be reintegrated, inside or outside. You will tell me: but there are people sentenced because of problems of insanity, sickness, genetic incorrigibility… In that case, a way to make them feel like people must be sought. Prisons are overcrowded in many parts of the world; they are warehouses of humanity. Instead of getting better, many times they are corrupted. We must combat the death penalty slowly. There are cases that make me happy because some countries say: we will stop. Last year, before leaving office, a State Governor made its suspension almost definitive. these are steps taken by a human conscience. But some countries have not yet succeeded in incorporating themselves into this humane way of thinking.”
Jean-Marie Guénois, Le Figaro
Good day, Holy Father. You said that true peace can exist be a “disarmed” peace. But what about legitimate defence, when one country is attacked by another? In that case, does the possibility of a “just war” still exist? A small question… there was talk about an encyclical on non-violence. Do you still plan such an encyclical on non-violence? Two questions… Thank you, Holy Father.
“Yes, the plan exists, but the next Pope will do it… There are other projects on the back burner. One of them is on peace. It’s maturing. I feel I will do it when the time comes. For example, the problem of bullying is a problem of violence. I specifically spoke about it to the Japanese young people. It is a problem we are trying to solve with many educational programs. It is a problem of violence. I don’t feel ready yet to write an encyclical on non-violence, I have to pray a lot and find the way.
There’s that Roman saying, “Si vis pacem para bellum” (“If you want peace prepare for war”). We have not made progress there: international organisations don’t succeed, the United Nations don’t succeed. They mediate often and well: countries like Norway are always willing to mediate. I like that, but it’s insufficient, we need to do even more. Take the UN Security Council: if there is a problem with armaments and everyone agrees to solve the problem to avoid a conflict, everyone votes “yes”. One country with the right of veto votes “no”, and everything stops. I can’t judge whether it’s a good idea or not, but I have heard it said that perhaps the United Nations should take a step forward and remove certain nations’ right of veto in the Security Council. I heard this was a possibility. There are issues regarding the international equilibrium that I cannot judge right now. But everything that can be done to stop arms production, to stop wars, to encourage negotiation, with the help of mediators, must always be done, and it produces results. For example, the case of Ukraine and Russia wasn’t about weapons, but about negotiating a prisoner exchange, and this was positive. In Donbass, they are thinking about planning a different governmental regime. Discussions are underway. This is a positive step.
“The ugly hypocrisy of the ‘arms trade’. Christian countries, European countries that talk about peace and live off weapons. This is hypocrisy, a word from the Gospels: Jesus said it in Matthew, Chapter 23. We have to stop this hypocrisy. It takes courage to say: “I can’t talk about peace, because my economy earns so much through arms sales’”. These are all things we need to say, without insulting and vilifying any country, but speaking as brothers and sisters, for the sake of human fraternity: we must stop because this is a terrible thing. A ship arrived in port from a country, that was supposed to hand over weapons to another ship that was going to Yemen, and the port workers said “no”. They did a good thing and the ship returned home. That’s one case, but it shows us in which direction we need to go. Today, peace is very weak but we must not be discouraged. The idea of legitimate defense is always valid; even moral theology allows for it, but as a last resort. The use of arms is a last resort. Legitimate defence must go through diplomacy, mediation. Legitimate defence with weapons is a last resort. I insist: a last resort! We are making ethical progress of which I approve, putting all these things into question. What is beautiful about this is that it confirms humanity moves towards good, not only toward evil.”
Cristiana Caricato, TV2000
People are reading in the newspapers that the Holy See has purchased properties for hundreds of millions of euro in the centre of London. People are a bit disconcerted by this use of Vatican finances, particularly when Peter’s Pence is involved. Were you aware of these financial operations, and, above all, in your opinion, is the use made of Peter’s Pence correct? You have often said that money should not be made with money, you have denounced the unscrupulous use of finances, but then we see that the Holy See is involved in these operations, and we are shocked. How do you view the whole affair?
“Thank you. First of all, good administration: when the money from Peter’s Pence comes in, what do I do, put it in a drawer? No, that would be bad administration. I try to invest it, and when I want to give it away, when there are needs, in a year, I take it, and the capital hasn’t devalued, it’s stayed the same, or grown a little. This is good administration. ‘Putting money in a drawer’ is bad administration. What we need is good administration, good investments. Is that clear? Even what, in Argentina, we call ‘widow-style’ investments: the way widows leave two eggs here, three here, five there. If one breaks, there is another and nothing is ruined. It’s always safe and always moral. If you invest Peter’s Pence in an weapons factory, that’s not where Peter’s Pence should be. If you make an investment and don’t touch the capital for years, it’s not right. Peter’s Pence must be spent within a year, or a year and a half, until the next collection is made around the world. This is good administration, a safe one. And yes, you can purchase a property, rent it out and then sell it, but always safely, taking all the necessary measures for the good of the people and of Peter’s Pence. Then what happened, happened. A scandal. They did things that appear not to be clean. But the accusation did not come from outside. The economic reform, already introduced by Benedict XVI, was implemented, and it was the internal Auditor who said: something bad is going on here, something’s not right. He came to me, and I asked him: ‘Are you sure?’ ‘Yes’, he said, and he showed me the figures. ‘What must I do?’ he asked. I told him there is the Vatican justice system and he should go and report this to the Promoter of Justice. I was pleased about this because it shows the Vatican administration now has the resources to shed light on the bad things that happen internally, like in this case. And if it is not the case of the London property – because this remains unclear – there was corruption nonetheless. The Promoter of Justice studied it, carried consultations and saw there were problems on the balance sheet. He then asked me for permission to proceed with the search. The presumption of corruption exists and he told me what he would have to do in this, that or the other office. I signed the authorisation. Five offices were searched. Today, although there is the presumption of innocence, there is capital that is not administered well, even corruptly. I believe that with a month the depositions will begin of the five people who were suspended because there was evidence. You may ask me: “But are these five people corrupt?” No. The presumption of innocence is a guarantee, a human right. But there is corruption. We can see it. The results of the search will show whether they are guilty or not. It’s bad thing, it is not good for these things to be happening inside the Vatican. But they are being resolved by internal mechanisms that Pope Benedict XVI introduced, and that are beginning to work. I thank God for this. I don’t thank him for the corruption, but because the Vatican’s control system works well.”
Philip Pullella, Reuters
In recent weeks there has been concern about developments in Vatican finances and some say there is an internal war regarding who controls the money. Most of the members of the AIF (Vatican Financial Authority) have resigned. The Egmont Group, which is the association of these financial authorities, suspended the Vatican from its secure communications after the raid of October 1. AIF’s Director is still suspended, as you said, and there is still no Auditor General. What can you do or say to assure the international financial community and the faithful called to contribute to Peter’s Pence that the Vatican will not once again be considered a pariah to be kept excluded and mistrusted, and that the reforms will continue and there will be no returning to past ways of doing things?
“The Vatican has made progress in its administration: for example, today the IOR[3] is now accepted by all banks and can act like Italian banks, something that was not yet there a year ago, hence there has been progress. Then, regarding the Egmont Group, it is an unofficial international group, a group to which AIF belongs, and international control doesn’t depend on the Egmont Group, which is a private group even if it is highly regarded. Moneyval will do the inspection scheduled for the first months of next year; it will do it. AIF’s Director was suspended because there were suspicions of poor administration. AIF’s President tried to retrieve the [sequestered] documents with the help of the Egmont Group, something the [Vatican] justice system cannot do. Faced with this, I consulted an Italian magistrate of good standing about what to do. Justice in the face of an accusation of corruption is something sovereign to a country, no one can meddle in it, no one can give the papers to the Egmont Group. The papers that might bring to light that which seems to be bad administration, in the sense of bad supervision, must be studied. It seems that it was the AIF that did not control others’ crimes. Its duty was to supervise. I hope that it will be proved that this is not the case. Right now there is the presumption of innocence. For the moment, the magistrate is sovereign and must study what happened, otherwise a country would be subject to a higher administration that would damage its sovereignty. The mandate of the AIF President expired on 19 [November]. I had called him a few days earlier and he wasn’t aware of that, he told me later. I announced that he was leaving on the 19th. I have already found his successor, a magistrate, highly esteemed at juridical and economic levels, nationally and internationally. On my return, he will assume the office of President of AIF. It would have been a contradiction if the supervisory authority had sovereignty over the State. This is not an easy thing to understand. What has been a little worrying is the Egmont Group, which is a private group: it helps a lot but it does not have the authoritative control of Moneyval. Moneyval will study the numbers, the procedures, how the Promoter of Justice acted, and how the judge and judges determined the matter. I know that in these days the interrogation of some of the five that have been suspended will begin. It is not easy, but we must not be naive, we must not be slaves. Someone told me: “But I don’t believe it: the fact about the Egmont Group that’s been brought up, people are frightened that it is a bit of terrorism [psychological]. Let’s leave that aside. We go ahead with the law, with Moneyval and with the new AIF President. And the director is suspended: let’s hope he is innocent, I would like it to be so because it’s a good thing that a person be innocent and not guilty, I hope so. But some noise was made regarding this Group who didn’t want the papers pertaining to the group to be touched.
It’s the first time in the Vatican that the pot has been uncovered from inside, not from outside. It has been many times from outside. They have told us many times and it was really embarrassing… But Pope Benedict was wise, he began a process that has matured, and now there are institutions. That the Auditor had the courage to make a written complaint against five people, [shows] it’s working… I really don’t want to offend the Egmont Group because it does so much good, it helps, but in this case, the sovereignty of the State is a question of justice, which is more sovereign than the executive power. It’s not easy to understand but I ask you to understand it.”
Roland Juchem, CIC
Holy Father, on the flight from Bangkok to Tokyo you sent a telegram to Carrie Lam of Hong Kong. What do you think of the situation there, with the demonstrations and the municipal elections? And when will we be able to accompany you to Beijing?
“The telegrams are sent to all Heads of State, it’s an automatic greeting; and it is also a polite way to request permission to fly over their territory. This does not mean either condemnation or support. It is a mechanical thing that all planes do when they technically enter, they advise that they are entering, and we do it out of courtesy. This does not really answer your question; the telegram is only a courtesy.
“With regard to the other question you asked me: when we think about it, it’s not just Hong Kong. Think about Chile, think about France, democratic France: a year of yellow jackets. Think of Nicaragua, think of other Latin American countries that have problems like this, and even some European countries. It’s something general. How does the Holy See handle this? It calls for dialogue, for peace. But it’s not only Hong Kong, there are various problematic situations that I am unable to evaluate at the moment. I respect peace and I ask for peace for all these countries that have problems, Spain too. It is better to put things in perspective and to call for dialogue, for peace, so that problems can be resolved. And finally: I would like to go to Beijing, I love China.”
Valentina Alazraki, Televisa
Pope Francis, Latin America is in flames. We have seen after Venezuela and Chile images we did not think we would see after Pinochet. We have seen the situation in Bolivia, Nicaragua, or other countries: revolts, violence in the streets, deaths, injuries, even churches burnt, violated. What is your analysis on what is happening in these countries? Is the Church – and you personally as a Latin American Pope – doing something?
“Someone told me this: An analysis needs to be done. The situation today in Latin America resembles that of 1974-1980, in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay with Strössner, and even Bolivia I think… they had Operation Condor at that time. A situation in flames, but I don’t know if it is the same problem or another. Honestly, at this moment I’m not able to do the analysis on this. It is true there are declarations that are not exactly peaceful. What is happening in Chile frightens me, because Chile is emerging from a problem of abuse that have caused much suffering, and now there is a kind of problem we don’t understand well. But it is in flames as you say, and dialogue must be sought, as well as analysis. I still haven’t found a good analysis done on the situation in Latin America. And also there are weak, very weak governments, who haven’t been able to establish order and peace; and for this reason, we’ve come to this situation.”
Evo Morales has requested your mediation, for example. Something concrete…
“Yes, something concrete. Venezuela has requested mediation, and the Holy See is always willing. There is a good relationship, really a good relationship, we are present there to help when necessary. Bolivia did something like that, made a request to the United Nations, which sent delegates, and someone from some European nation as well. I don’t know if Chile has made some request for international mediation; Brazil, certainly hasn’t, but there are some problems there, too. It’s a bit strange, but I don’t want to say a word more because I am not qualified and I have not studied it well, and honestly I don’t understand it very well either.
“I take advantage of your question to add that you have spoken little about Thailand, which is different from Japan, a culture of transcendence, a culture of beauty too, different from the beauty of Japan: a culture, so much poverty, so many spiritual riches. But there is also a problem that wounds the heart, that makes us think of “Greece and the others”. You are an expert in this problem of exploitation, you have studied it well, and your book has done a lot of good. And Thailand, some places in Thailand, are difficult in that regard. But there is southern Thailand, and there is also beautiful northern Thailand, where I was not able to go, that is tribal and has a completely different culture. I received about twenty people from that region, first Christians, first baptised, who came to Rome, with another, different culture, those tribal cultures. And Bangkok, we saw, is a big, very modern city; but has some problems different from those of Japan, and has riches different from those of Japan. I wanted to emphasise the problem of exploitation in order to thank you for your book, as I would also like to thank Franca Giansoldati for her “green” book: two women on the plane, each of whom has written a book, treating modern problems: the ecological problem and the problem of the destruction of mother earth, of the environment; and the problem of human exploitation that you have touched on. This proves that women work more than men and are capable. Thank you, both of you, for this contribution. And I still haven’t forgotten Rocio’s shirt.[4]”
And thank you for asking direct questions, that’s good. Enjoy for me. Enjoy your lunch.
This is a working translation from a non-official transcript done by Alessandro Guarasci and Andrea Tornielli.
[1] Editor’s note: the earthquake, the tsunami and the nuclear disaster of the Fukushima power plant in 2011.
[2] Editor’s note: in Chernobyl, in 1986.
[3] Editor’s note: Institute for the Works of Religion, commonly known as the Vatican Bank.
[4] Editor’s note: The reference is to the shirt of a murdered Mexican woman that Valentina Alazraki had given to Pope Francis during a recent video interview.
With thanks to Vatican News, where this article originally appeared.
This is a related article discussing the issue of cyber weapons and how they might participate on the battlefield.
Read more
https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/3081583/autonomous-weapons-ai-war-google
This is a related article discussing the issue of cyber weapons and how they might participate on the battlefield.
Read more
https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/3081583/autonomous-weapons-ai-war-google
Artificial Intelligence + high tech weapons is a recipe for disaster.
Read more
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/she-was-a-top-google-engineer-now-she-has-an-urgent-warning-about-something-most-people-never-think-of.html
Artificial Intelligence + high tech weapons is a recipe for disaster.
Read more
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/she-was-a-top-google-engineer-now-she-has-an-urgent-warning-about-something-most-people-never-think-of.html
An Open Letter to Justin Trudeau
I am commenting by incorporating the whole of a recent letter from the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons to the Prime Minister and many other government officials. In an election period, all concerned citizens should make known their views to candidates, and ask questions at all-candidates meetings in their riding.
Adele Buckley
Canadian Pugwash, a member group of CNANW
—————————————-
Nuclear Disarmament: Canadian Leadership Required
Open Letter to PM Justin Trudeau
cc. All Members of Parliament and Senators
Dear Prime Minister,
The risk of nuclear catastrophe is growing and urgent action is required to prevent it.
Recent developments include:
• marked deterioration in East/West relations, most notably between Russia and NATO;
• U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran;
• imminent U.S. and Russian withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty;
• poor prospects for renewal of New START in 2021;
• heightened military tension between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan;
• resurgence of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program;
• the development of ‘tactical nuclear weapons’ and hypersonic missile systems;
• increased vulnerability to cyber-attacks; and
• the real possibility that non-state actors will acquire and use nuclear weapons or fissile material.
All of this is occurring within the context of a new nuclear arms race, precipitated in large part, by the U.S. allocation of $1.5 trillion to ‘modernize’ its nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to midnight, the closest it has been since the height of the Cold War. Humanity, literally, faces the prospect that at any moment, human folly, miscalculation or nuclear accident could end life on earth as we know it, if not completely.
Canada can help to prevent this.
Read more
As you know, in the early 1980s, your late father personally conducted an international campaign aimed at “suffocating” the nuclear arms race; and in recent years, parliamentarians of all political stripes have signaled strong support for Canadian action to this end.
In 2010, a motion was adopted unanimously by Canadian members of parliament and senators that “encourages the Government of Canada to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons Convention…and to deploy a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament.”
On June 18, 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence issued the following (all-party) recommendation:
“That the Government of Canada take a leadership role within NATO in beginning the work necessary for achieving the NATO goal of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons…”
Yet Canada continues to work on the margins of the issue and in 2017, boycotted negotiation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a historic breakthrough supported by 122 UN Member States.
As a member of the G7, G20, NATO, and as a traditionally strong supporter of the United Nations, Canada could do so much more.
The world desperately needs a nuclear disarmament ‘champion’ – a national leader who is well placed and prepared to work closely with the UN Secretary General – to forcefully press nuclear armed states: to reverse the nuclear arms race, to renew and broaden membership to the INF and New START Treaties, and to accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons or to negotiate a new, complementary Nuclear Weapons Convention that will achieve the ultimate goal – global denuclearization.
We believe this could be you, Prime Minster.
Please, take up the cause of nuclear disarmament – as you did climate change in 2015 – the other existential threat facing our world.
Time is of the essence and the stakes could not be higher.
Sincerely,
Earl Turcotte, Chairperson, CNANW
Does Turkey have ingredients for a Dirty Bomb?
I read online that for a while – in the late 1990s and early 2000s — old radioactive materials from the former USSR countries (Georgia, etc.) were being sent to a site in Turkey for decommissioning. These included items like old RTGs, etc. Is there a risk of the fissile materials in these products being used to construct a “dirty bomb” or other improvised nuclear / radioactive explosive device?
When did Turkey get those Missiles?
Hi Jeremy – do you know when Turkey received the current batch of missiles as part of the NATO Agreement(s)? I thought the presence of “Jupiter’ missiles in Italy and Turkey was a significant negotiating factor in the Cuban Missile Crisis – with these eventually being removed. Have there been missiles continuously in this region since the 1960s?
Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander
While of course we don’t want Erdogan to get nuclear weapons, he has as much right to them as anyone else, doesn’t he? The nuclear weapons states keep claiming they have a right and nobody else does. No they don’t!
Good point. If you want to be trusted, keep your word! But they are not so good about keeping their word regarding Hong Kong!
I have heard that no country has a fully developed weapon system yet that operates without human beings “in the loop.” That’s why it is still possible to stop them. Once they exist, it gets a lot harder to get rid of them. At least, I think it probably does.
I doubt that the opportunity closing or really changing much at all. They could probably have come up withe an Arctic NWFZ a long time ago if it weren’t for the Russian nuclear submarines. They pretty much have to keep their subs in the far north, mostly on the Kola Peninsula, and they have to go through the Arctic to get in and out.
There is something strange about the laws of war. There are treaties that outlaw certain types of conventional weapons for being too “inhumane.” If I recall correctly, there are “dumdum” bullets that explode upon impact and cause lacerations and these are forbidden. But nuclear weapons? Nah! That’s fine. Go right ahead with them!
Well, if any country is allowed to have them, then every country should. That makes sense. But the answer is obvious: Then NO COUNTRY should have any of them.
An Open Letter to Justin Trudeau
I am commenting by incorporating the whole of a recent letter from the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons to the Prime Minister and many other government officials. In an election period, all concerned citizens should make known their views to candidates, and ask questions at all-candidates meetings in their riding.
Adele Buckley
Canadian Pugwash, a member group of CNANW
—————————————-
Nuclear Disarmament: Canadian Leadership Required
Open Letter to PM Justin Trudeau
cc. All Members of Parliament and Senators
Dear Prime Minister,
The risk of nuclear catastrophe is growing and urgent action is required to prevent it.
Recent developments include:
• marked deterioration in East/West relations, most notably between Russia and NATO;
• U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran;
• imminent U.S. and Russian withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty;
• poor prospects for renewal of New START in 2021;
• heightened military tension between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan;
• resurgence of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program;
• the development of ‘tactical nuclear weapons’ and hypersonic missile systems;
• increased vulnerability to cyber-attacks; and
• the real possibility that non-state actors will acquire and use nuclear weapons or fissile material.
All of this is occurring within the context of a new nuclear arms race, precipitated in large part, by the U.S. allocation of $1.5 trillion to ‘modernize’ its nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to midnight, the closest it has been since the height of the Cold War. Humanity, literally, faces the prospect that at any moment, human folly, miscalculation or nuclear accident could end life on earth as we know it, if not completely.
Canada can help to prevent this.
Read more
As you know, in the early 1980s, your late father personally conducted an international campaign aimed at “suffocating” the nuclear arms race; and in recent years, parliamentarians of all political stripes have signaled strong support for Canadian action to this end.
In 2010, a motion was adopted unanimously by Canadian members of parliament and senators that “encourages the Government of Canada to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons Convention…and to deploy a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament.”
On June 18, 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence issued the following (all-party) recommendation:
“That the Government of Canada take a leadership role within NATO in beginning the work necessary for achieving the NATO goal of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons…”
Yet Canada continues to work on the margins of the issue and in 2017, boycotted negotiation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a historic breakthrough supported by 122 UN Member States.
As a member of the G7, G20, NATO, and as a traditionally strong supporter of the United Nations, Canada could do so much more.
The world desperately needs a nuclear disarmament ‘champion’ – a national leader who is well placed and prepared to work closely with the UN Secretary General – to forcefully press nuclear armed states: to reverse the nuclear arms race, to renew and broaden membership to the INF and New START Treaties, and to accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons or to negotiate a new, complementary Nuclear Weapons Convention that will achieve the ultimate goal – global denuclearization.
We believe this could be you, Prime Minster.
Please, take up the cause of nuclear disarmament – as you did climate change in 2015 – the other existential threat facing our world.
Time is of the essence and the stakes could not be higher.
Sincerely,
Earl Turcotte, Chairperson, CNANW
Does Turkey have ingredients for a Dirty Bomb?
I read online that for a while – in the late 1990s and early 2000s — old radioactive materials from the former USSR countries (Georgia, etc.) were being sent to a site in Turkey for decommissioning. These included items like old RTGs, etc. Is there a risk of the fissile materials in these products being used to construct a “dirty bomb” or other improvised nuclear / radioactive explosive device?
When did Turkey get those Missiles?
Hi Jeremy – do you know when Turkey received the current batch of missiles as part of the NATO Agreement(s)? I thought the presence of “Jupiter’ missiles in Italy and Turkey was a significant negotiating factor in the Cuban Missile Crisis – with these eventually being removed. Have there been missiles continuously in this region since the 1960s?
Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander
While of course we don’t want Erdogan to get nuclear weapons, he has as much right to them as anyone else, doesn’t he? The nuclear weapons states keep claiming they have a right and nobody else does. No they don’t!
Good point. If you want to be trusted, keep your word! But they are not so good about keeping their word regarding Hong Kong!
I have heard that no country has a fully developed weapon system yet that operates without human beings “in the loop.” That’s why it is still possible to stop them. Once they exist, it gets a lot harder to get rid of them. At least, I think it probably does.
I doubt that the opportunity closing or really changing much at all. They could probably have come up withe an Arctic NWFZ a long time ago if it weren’t for the Russian nuclear submarines. They pretty much have to keep their subs in the far north, mostly on the Kola Peninsula, and they have to go through the Arctic to get in and out.
There is something strange about the laws of war. There are treaties that outlaw certain types of conventional weapons for being too “inhumane.” If I recall correctly, there are “dumdum” bullets that explode upon impact and cause lacerations and these are forbidden. But nuclear weapons? Nah! That’s fine. Go right ahead with them!
Well, if any country is allowed to have them, then every country should. That makes sense. But the answer is obvious: Then NO COUNTRY should have any of them.
Laser Broom to Tidy Up Space
In 1978, Donald J. Kessler theorized that kessler syndrome would become a significant issue. This is where debris in orbit collides with other items in orbit, causing a cascading chain reaction. This was a plot in the 2013 movie Gravity – where a satellite that was shot down for decommissioning and started a cascading chain reaction that took out communications and research satellites across the world.
Orbital decay would take decades in some cases and it would be virtually impossible to launch new satellites or repair missions to pre-existing satellite if this was occurring .There is already research into a laser broom in attempts to clear some of the pre-existing debris from the planet’s orbit.
Here is a CBC article about a laser broom from 2000: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/laser-broom-will-sweep-up-space-junk-1.243442
Laser Broom to Tidy Up Space
In 1978, Donald J. Kessler theorized that kessler syndrome would become a significant issue. This is where debris in orbit collides with other items in orbit, causing a cascading chain reaction. This was a plot in the 2013 movie Gravity – where a satellite that was shot down for decommissioning and started a cascading chain reaction that took out communications and research satellites across the world.
Orbital decay would take decades in some cases and it would be virtually impossible to launch new satellites or repair missions to pre-existing satellite if this was occurring .There is already research into a laser broom in attempts to clear some of the pre-existing debris from the planet’s orbit.
Here is a CBC article about a laser broom from 2000: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/laser-broom-will-sweep-up-space-junk-1.243442
We, the People, have to Demand Compliance
There’s a vigorous campaign going on now called “Campaign Against the Arms Trade.” And one of their specific objectives is to “stop arming Saudi Arabia!”
We, the People, have to Demand Compliance
There’s a vigorous campaign going on now called “Campaign Against the Arms Trade.” And one of their specific objectives is to “stop arming Saudi Arabia!”
Nuclear terror
Personally I find the thought of Nuclear War pretty scary and to have heard stories from survivors makes it even more real and terrifying. To think that our world could end in a heartbeat threatens to throw me into despair. Its only the kindness of some humans that gives me hope in addition to a belief in a God Creator who is taking care of us.
When NASA Shot Copper Needles Into space
On October 21, 1961, NASA launched the first batch of West Ford dipoles into space. A day later, this first payload had failed to deploy from the spacecraft, and its ultimate fate was never completely determined.
“U.S.A. Dirties Space” read a headline in the Soviet newspaper *Pravda. *
**Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was forced to make a statement before the UN declaring that the U.S. would consult more closely with international scientists before attempting another launch. Many remained unsatisfied. Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle went so far as to accuse the U.S. of undertaking a military project under “a façade of respectability,” referring to West Ford as an “intellectual crime.”
Nuclear terror
Personally I find the thought of Nuclear War pretty scary and to have heard stories from survivors makes it even more real and terrifying. To think that our world could end in a heartbeat threatens to throw me into despair. Its only the kindness of some humans that gives me hope in addition to a belief in a God Creator who is taking care of us.
When NASA Shot Copper Needles Into space
On October 21, 1961, NASA launched the first batch of West Ford dipoles into space. A day later, this first payload had failed to deploy from the spacecraft, and its ultimate fate was never completely determined.
“U.S.A. Dirties Space” read a headline in the Soviet newspaper *Pravda. *
**Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was forced to make a statement before the UN declaring that the U.S. would consult more closely with international scientists before attempting another launch. Many remained unsatisfied. Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle went so far as to accuse the U.S. of undertaking a military project under “a façade of respectability,” referring to West Ford as an “intellectual crime.”
Scott Ritter offers this correction to the recent story about the Russian missile explosion.
The Media’s Russian Radiation Story Implodes Upon Scrutiny
Lewis’s assessment was joined by President Trump’s, who tweeted, “The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia…. The Russian ‘Skyfall’ explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!” Trump’s tweet appeared to conform with the assessments of the intelligence community, which, according to The New York Times, also attributed the accident to a failed test of the Skyfall missile.
Former Obama administration national security analyst Samantha Vinograd tweeted: “Possibly the worst nuclear accident in the region since Chernobyl + possibly a new kind of Russian missile = this is a big deal.”
The Washington Post editorial board joined Vinograd in invoking the imagery of Chernobyl: “If this slow dribble of facts sounds familiar, it is — the same parade of misdirection happened during the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986.”
They’re all wrong. Here’s the real story of what actually happened at Nenoksa.
Liquid-fuel ballistic missiles are tricky things. Most Russian liquid-fueled missiles make use of hypergolic fuels, consisting of a fuel (in most cases asymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, or heptyl) and an oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide), which, when combined, spontaneously combust. For this to happen efficiently, the fuel and oxidizer need to be maintained at “room temperature,” generally accepted as around 70 degrees Fahrenheit. For missiles stored in launch silos, or in launch canisters aboard submarines, temperature control is regulated by systems powered by the host—either a generator, if in a silo, or the submarine’s own power supply, if in a canister.
Likewise, the various valves, switches, and other components critical to the successful operation of a liquid-fuel ballistic missile, including onboard electronics and guidance and control systems, must be maintained in an equilibrium, or steady state, until launch. The electrical power required to accomplish this is not considerable, but it must be constant. Loss of power will disrupt the equilibrium of the missile system, detrimentally impacting its transient response at time of launch and leading to failure.
Russia has long been pursuing so-called “autonomous” weapons that can be decoupled from conventional means of delivery—a missile silo or a submarine—and instead installed in canisters that protect them from the environment. They would then be deployed on the floor of the ocean, lying in wait until remotely activated. One of the major obstacles confronting the Russians is the need for system equilibrium, including the onboard communications equipment, prior to activation. The power supply for any system must be constant, reliable, and capable of operating for extended periods of time without the prospect of fuel replenishment.
The solution for this power supply problem is found in so-called “nuclear batteries,” or radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG). An RTG generates electricity using thermocouples that convert the heat released by the decay of radioactive material. RTGs have long been used in support of operations in space. The Russians have long used them to provide power to remote unmanned facilities in the arctic and in mountainous terrain. Cesium-137, a byproduct of the fission of U-235, is considered an ideal radioisotope for military application RTGs.
On August 8, a joint team from the Ministry of Defense and the All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics, subordinated to the State Atomic Energy Corporation (ROSATOM),conducted a test of a liquid-fueled rocket engine, in which electric power from Cesium-137 “nuclear batteries” maintained its equilibrium state. The test was conducted at the Nenoksa State Central Marine Test Site (GTsMP), a secret Russian naval facility known as Military Unit 09703. It took place in the waters of the White Sea, off the coast of the Nenoksa facility, onboard a pair of pontoon platforms.
The test had been in the making for approximately a year. What exactly was being tested and why remain a secret, but the evaluation went on for approximately an hour. It did not involve the actual firing of the engine, but rather the non-destructive testing of the RTG power supply to the engine.
The test may have been a final system check—the Russian deputy defense minister, Pavel Popov, monitored events from the Nenoksa military base. Meanwhile, the deputy head of research and testing at the All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics, Vyasheslav Yanovsky, considered to be one of Russia’s most senior nuclear scientists, monitored events onboard the off-shore platform. Joining Yanovsky were seven other specialists from the institute, including Vyacheslav Lipshev, the head of the research and development team. They accompanied representatives from the Ministry of Defense, along with specialists from the design bureau responsible for the liquid-fuel engine.
When the actual testing finished, something went very wrong. According to a sailor from the nearby Severdvinsk naval base, the hypergolic fuels contained in the liquid engine (their presence suggests that temperature control was one of the functions being tested) somehow combined. This created an explosion that destroyed the liquid engine, sending an unknown amount of fuel and oxidizer into the water. At least one, and perhaps more, of the Cesium-137 RTGs burst open, contaminating equipment and personnel alike.
Four men—two Ministry of Defense personnel and two ROSATOM scientists—were killed immediately. Those who remained on the damaged platform were taken to the Nenoksa base and decontaminated, before being transported to a local military clinic that specializes in nuclear-related emergencies. Here, doctors in full protective gear oversaw their treatment and additional decontamination. All of them survived.
Three of the ROSATOM scientists were thrown by the explosion into the waters of the White Sea and were rescued only after a lengthy search. These men were transported to the Arkhangelsk hospital. Neither the paramedics who attended to the injured scientists, nor the hospital staff who received them, were informed that the victims had been exposed to Cesium-137, leading to the cross-contamination of the hospital staff and its premises.
The next day, all the personnel injured during the test were transported to Moscow for treatment at a facility that specializes in radiation exposure; two of the victims pulled from the water died en route. Medical personnel involved in treating the victims were likewise dispatched to Moscow for evaluation; one doctor was found to be contaminated with Cesium-137.
The classified nature of the test resulted in the Russian government taking precautions to control information concerning the accident. The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) seized all the medical records associated with the treatment of accident victims and had the doctors and medical personnel sign non-disclosure agreements.
The Russian Meteorological Service (Roshydromet) operates what’s known as the Automatic Radiation Monitoring System (ASKRO) in the city of Severdvinsk. ASKRO detected two “surges” in radiation, one involving Gamma particles, the other Beta particles. This is a pattern consistent with the characteristics of Cesium-137, which releases Gamma rays as it decays, creating Barium-137m, which is a Beta generator. The initial detection was reported on the Roshydromet website, though it was subsequently taken offline.
Specialized hazardous material teams scoured the region around Nenoksa, Archangesk, and Severdvinsk, taking air and environmental samples. All these tested normal, confirming that the contamination created by the destruction of the Cesium-137 batteries was limited to the area surrounding the accident. Due to the large amount of missile fuel that was spilled, special restrictions concerning fishing and swimming were imposed in the region’s waters — at least until the fuel was neutralized by the waters of the White Sea. The damage had been contained, and the threat was over.
The reality of what happened at Nenoksa is tragic. Seven men lost their lives and scores of others were injured. But there was no explosion of a “nuclear cruise missile,” and it wasn’t the second coming of Chernobyl. America’s intelligence community and the so-called experts got it wrong — again. The root cause of their error is their institutional bias against Russia, which leads them to view that country in the worst possible light, regardless of the facts.
At a time when the level of mutual mistrust between our two nuclear-armed nations is at an all-time high, this kind of irresponsible rush to judgement must be avoided at all costs.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02574-9
Another article in relation to this class of nuclear missile: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russias-new-nukes-are-similar-to-a-risky-project-the-u-s-abandoned/
Scott Ritter offers this correction to the recent story about the Russian missile explosion.
The Media’s Russian Radiation Story Implodes Upon Scrutiny
Lewis’s assessment was joined by President Trump’s, who tweeted, “The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia…. The Russian ‘Skyfall’ explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!” Trump’s tweet appeared to conform with the assessments of the intelligence community, which, according to The New York Times, also attributed the accident to a failed test of the Skyfall missile.
Former Obama administration national security analyst Samantha Vinograd tweeted: “Possibly the worst nuclear accident in the region since Chernobyl + possibly a new kind of Russian missile = this is a big deal.”
The Washington Post editorial board joined Vinograd in invoking the imagery of Chernobyl: “If this slow dribble of facts sounds familiar, it is — the same parade of misdirection happened during the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986.”
They’re all wrong. Here’s the real story of what actually happened at Nenoksa.
Liquid-fuel ballistic missiles are tricky things. Most Russian liquid-fueled missiles make use of hypergolic fuels, consisting of a fuel (in most cases asymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, or heptyl) and an oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide), which, when combined, spontaneously combust. For this to happen efficiently, the fuel and oxidizer need to be maintained at “room temperature,” generally accepted as around 70 degrees Fahrenheit. For missiles stored in launch silos, or in launch canisters aboard submarines, temperature control is regulated by systems powered by the host—either a generator, if in a silo, or the submarine’s own power supply, if in a canister.
Likewise, the various valves, switches, and other components critical to the successful operation of a liquid-fuel ballistic missile, including onboard electronics and guidance and control systems, must be maintained in an equilibrium, or steady state, until launch. The electrical power required to accomplish this is not considerable, but it must be constant. Loss of power will disrupt the equilibrium of the missile system, detrimentally impacting its transient response at time of launch and leading to failure.
Russia has long been pursuing so-called “autonomous” weapons that can be decoupled from conventional means of delivery—a missile silo or a submarine—and instead installed in canisters that protect them from the environment. They would then be deployed on the floor of the ocean, lying in wait until remotely activated. One of the major obstacles confronting the Russians is the need for system equilibrium, including the onboard communications equipment, prior to activation. The power supply for any system must be constant, reliable, and capable of operating for extended periods of time without the prospect of fuel replenishment.
The solution for this power supply problem is found in so-called “nuclear batteries,” or radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG). An RTG generates electricity using thermocouples that convert the heat released by the decay of radioactive material. RTGs have long been used in support of operations in space. The Russians have long used them to provide power to remote unmanned facilities in the arctic and in mountainous terrain. Cesium-137, a byproduct of the fission of U-235, is considered an ideal radioisotope for military application RTGs.
On August 8, a joint team from the Ministry of Defense and the All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics, subordinated to the State Atomic Energy Corporation (ROSATOM),conducted a test of a liquid-fueled rocket engine, in which electric power from Cesium-137 “nuclear batteries” maintained its equilibrium state. The test was conducted at the Nenoksa State Central Marine Test Site (GTsMP), a secret Russian naval facility known as Military Unit 09703. It took place in the waters of the White Sea, off the coast of the Nenoksa facility, onboard a pair of pontoon platforms.
The test had been in the making for approximately a year. What exactly was being tested and why remain a secret, but the evaluation went on for approximately an hour. It did not involve the actual firing of the engine, but rather the non-destructive testing of the RTG power supply to the engine.
The test may have been a final system check—the Russian deputy defense minister, Pavel Popov, monitored events from the Nenoksa military base. Meanwhile, the deputy head of research and testing at the All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics, Vyasheslav Yanovsky, considered to be one of Russia’s most senior nuclear scientists, monitored events onboard the off-shore platform. Joining Yanovsky were seven other specialists from the institute, including Vyacheslav Lipshev, the head of the research and development team. They accompanied representatives from the Ministry of Defense, along with specialists from the design bureau responsible for the liquid-fuel engine.
When the actual testing finished, something went very wrong. According to a sailor from the nearby Severdvinsk naval base, the hypergolic fuels contained in the liquid engine (their presence suggests that temperature control was one of the functions being tested) somehow combined. This created an explosion that destroyed the liquid engine, sending an unknown amount of fuel and oxidizer into the water. At least one, and perhaps more, of the Cesium-137 RTGs burst open, contaminating equipment and personnel alike.
Four men—two Ministry of Defense personnel and two ROSATOM scientists—were killed immediately. Those who remained on the damaged platform were taken to the Nenoksa base and decontaminated, before being transported to a local military clinic that specializes in nuclear-related emergencies. Here, doctors in full protective gear oversaw their treatment and additional decontamination. All of them survived.
Three of the ROSATOM scientists were thrown by the explosion into the waters of the White Sea and were rescued only after a lengthy search. These men were transported to the Arkhangelsk hospital. Neither the paramedics who attended to the injured scientists, nor the hospital staff who received them, were informed that the victims had been exposed to Cesium-137, leading to the cross-contamination of the hospital staff and its premises.
The next day, all the personnel injured during the test were transported to Moscow for treatment at a facility that specializes in radiation exposure; two of the victims pulled from the water died en route. Medical personnel involved in treating the victims were likewise dispatched to Moscow for evaluation; one doctor was found to be contaminated with Cesium-137.
The classified nature of the test resulted in the Russian government taking precautions to control information concerning the accident. The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) seized all the medical records associated with the treatment of accident victims and had the doctors and medical personnel sign non-disclosure agreements.
The Russian Meteorological Service (Roshydromet) operates what’s known as the Automatic Radiation Monitoring System (ASKRO) in the city of Severdvinsk. ASKRO detected two “surges” in radiation, one involving Gamma particles, the other Beta particles. This is a pattern consistent with the characteristics of Cesium-137, which releases Gamma rays as it decays, creating Barium-137m, which is a Beta generator. The initial detection was reported on the Roshydromet website, though it was subsequently taken offline.
Specialized hazardous material teams scoured the region around Nenoksa, Archangesk, and Severdvinsk, taking air and environmental samples. All these tested normal, confirming that the contamination created by the destruction of the Cesium-137 batteries was limited to the area surrounding the accident. Due to the large amount of missile fuel that was spilled, special restrictions concerning fishing and swimming were imposed in the region’s waters — at least until the fuel was neutralized by the waters of the White Sea. The damage had been contained, and the threat was over.
The reality of what happened at Nenoksa is tragic. Seven men lost their lives and scores of others were injured. But there was no explosion of a “nuclear cruise missile,” and it wasn’t the second coming of Chernobyl. America’s intelligence community and the so-called experts got it wrong — again. The root cause of their error is their institutional bias against Russia, which leads them to view that country in the worst possible light, regardless of the facts.
At a time when the level of mutual mistrust between our two nuclear-armed nations is at an all-time high, this kind of irresponsible rush to judgement must be avoided at all costs.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02574-9
Another article in relation to this class of nuclear missile: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russias-new-nukes-are-similar-to-a-risky-project-the-u-s-abandoned/
Does Turkey want nuclear weapons? This is from Newsweek.
Turkey Has U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Now It Says It Should be Allowed to Have Some of Its Own
by Tom O’Connor | 9/4/19 AT 6:13 PM EDT
The American nuclear weapons are at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, shown here.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has argued that his country should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons as other major powers have.
Addressing the Central Anatolian Economic Forum in the central province of Sivas, Erdogan lauded the expansion of the Turkish defense industry, especially recent conversations with the United States and Russia, while hinting at future talks with China. He then recalled how “some countries have missiles with nuclear warheads” and “not just one or two.”
“But I cannot possess missiles with nuclear warheads? I do not accept that,” Erdogan said. “Right now, nearly all the countries in the developed world have nuclear missiles.”
The U.S. currently has an estimated 50 of its nuclear weapons deployed to Turkey as part of the NATO Western military alliance’s nuclear sharing policy, according to an accidentally-released NATO report published in July by Belgian newspaper De Morgen. The weapons, located at Incirlik Base, are under U.S. control, but some have raised concerns as to their safety there amid regional instability and political differences.
Read more
In 1980, Turkey signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opposing nuclear weapons in the hands of countries other than “recognized powers” that include Russia, the U.S., France, the U.K. and China. Still, other powers such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel were all believed to have developed and be in possession of such weapons of mass destruction.
Though a member of NATO since 1952, Turkey has strained ties with other members of the Cold War-era defense pact by shoring up relations with Russia, against whom the nuclear sharing agreement was conceived. Ankara recently defied Washington’s warnings by accepting Moscow’s state-of-the-art S-400 surface-to-air missile system, which the Turkish Defense Ministry said Wednesday its personnel had started training on in the Russian town of Gatchina.
President Donald Trump hit back at Turkey’s acquisition in July by suspending the country’s planned participation in the advanced F-35 fifth-generation fighter jet program, but Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by showing off his nation’s own fifth-generation Su-57 and modernized Su-35 during Erdogan’s visit last week to the International Aviation and Space Show (MAKS) at the Zhukovsky International Airport outside Moscow.
After inspecting the Su-57, Erdogan asked if it was for sale and Putin said “yes, you can buy it” as they both laughed.
Turkey has continued to display interest in U.S. weapons too, however, and Erdogan also said Wednesday he would discuss buying the Patriot surface-to-air missile system — designed primarily to take out ballistic missiles, not aircraft as well, unlike the dual-use S-400 — with Trump at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly. He said, however, he would only buy the system “under the same conditions” offered to him by Russia during the S-400 purchase.
Ankara also worked alongside both Washington and Moscow in Syria, where all three nations have competing interests. Turkey has remained the last major foreign sponsor for insurgents once backed by the U.S. and a number of its regional allies in a bid to unseat Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but has at the same time joined Assad allies Russia and Iran as part of a trilateral peace process.
Following a phone call Wednesday with White House nationals security adviser John Bolton, Turkish spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin said his country had “completed its preparations to put into action without delay” a proposed safe zone designed to allow the withdrawal of U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, some of which were designated terrorist organizations by Ankara, from the Syrian border with Turkey.
Does Turkey want nuclear weapons? This is from Newsweek.
Turkey Has U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Now It Says It Should be Allowed to Have Some of Its Own
by Tom O’Connor | 9/4/19 AT 6:13 PM EDT
The American nuclear weapons are at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, shown here.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has argued that his country should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons as other major powers have.
Addressing the Central Anatolian Economic Forum in the central province of Sivas, Erdogan lauded the expansion of the Turkish defense industry, especially recent conversations with the United States and Russia, while hinting at future talks with China. He then recalled how “some countries have missiles with nuclear warheads” and “not just one or two.”
“But I cannot possess missiles with nuclear warheads? I do not accept that,” Erdogan said. “Right now, nearly all the countries in the developed world have nuclear missiles.”
The U.S. currently has an estimated 50 of its nuclear weapons deployed to Turkey as part of the NATO Western military alliance’s nuclear sharing policy, according to an accidentally-released NATO report published in July by Belgian newspaper De Morgen. The weapons, located at Incirlik Base, are under U.S. control, but some have raised concerns as to their safety there amid regional instability and political differences.
Read more
In 1980, Turkey signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opposing nuclear weapons in the hands of countries other than “recognized powers” that include Russia, the U.S., France, the U.K. and China. Still, other powers such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel were all believed to have developed and be in possession of such weapons of mass destruction.
Though a member of NATO since 1952, Turkey has strained ties with other members of the Cold War-era defense pact by shoring up relations with Russia, against whom the nuclear sharing agreement was conceived. Ankara recently defied Washington’s warnings by accepting Moscow’s state-of-the-art S-400 surface-to-air missile system, which the Turkish Defense Ministry said Wednesday its personnel had started training on in the Russian town of Gatchina.
President Donald Trump hit back at Turkey’s acquisition in July by suspending the country’s planned participation in the advanced F-35 fifth-generation fighter jet program, but Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by showing off his nation’s own fifth-generation Su-57 and modernized Su-35 during Erdogan’s visit last week to the International Aviation and Space Show (MAKS) at the Zhukovsky International Airport outside Moscow.
After inspecting the Su-57, Erdogan asked if it was for sale and Putin said “yes, you can buy it” as they both laughed.
Turkey has continued to display interest in U.S. weapons too, however, and Erdogan also said Wednesday he would discuss buying the Patriot surface-to-air missile system — designed primarily to take out ballistic missiles, not aircraft as well, unlike the dual-use S-400 — with Trump at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly. He said, however, he would only buy the system “under the same conditions” offered to him by Russia during the S-400 purchase.
Ankara also worked alongside both Washington and Moscow in Syria, where all three nations have competing interests. Turkey has remained the last major foreign sponsor for insurgents once backed by the U.S. and a number of its regional allies in a bid to unseat Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but has at the same time joined Assad allies Russia and Iran as part of a trilateral peace process.
Following a phone call Wednesday with White House nationals security adviser John Bolton, Turkish spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin said his country had “completed its preparations to put into action without delay” a proposed safe zone designed to allow the withdrawal of U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, some of which were designated terrorist organizations by Ankara, from the Syrian border with Turkey.
Coming Soon to a Battlefield: Robots that Can Kill
By Zachary Fryer-Biggs | The Atlantic, Sept 3, 2019.
The U.S. Navy’s ship Sea Hunter patrols the oceans without a crew, looking for submarines that, one day, it may attack directly. And the U.S. Army has a missile system that, without humans, can pick out vehicles to attack. So what do we think of such things? And what can we do about it? Here’s what Zachary Fryer-Biggs wrote in The Atlantic:
Read more
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/killer-robots-and-new-era-machine-driven-warfare/597130/
Correction to previous post: Fogbank may be an aerogel composition, rather than an aerosol. It is interesting as the chemical composition of it is classified, though the building site it was manufactured at (9404-11 / Y12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridges) is allegedly not classified . It is alarming that governments owning nuclear weapons have lost critical details around the maintenance and manufacturing of critical warhead components, such as intermediate incendiary components.
Coming Soon to a Battlefield: Robots that Can Kill
By Zachary Fryer-Biggs | The Atlantic, Sept 3, 2019.
The U.S. Navy’s ship Sea Hunter patrols the oceans without a crew, looking for submarines that, one day, it may attack directly. And the U.S. Army has a missile system that, without humans, can pick out vehicles to attack. So what do we think of such things? And what can we do about it? Here’s what Zachary Fryer-Biggs wrote in The Atlantic:
Read more
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/killer-robots-and-new-era-machine-driven-warfare/597130/
Correction to previous post: Fogbank may be an aerogel composition, rather than an aerosol. It is interesting as the chemical composition of it is classified, though the building site it was manufactured at (9404-11 / Y12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridges) is allegedly not classified . It is alarming that governments owning nuclear weapons have lost critical details around the maintenance and manufacturing of critical warhead components, such as intermediate incendiary components.
Project West Ford and the Copper Needles
Meet Project West Ford — in the 1950s-1960s – the United States of America launched 480 million copper needles into the upper atmosphere for Cold War radio communication. Some of them are allegedly still up there, orbiting in the lower-gravity.
“The same year that Martin Luther King, Jr. marched on Washington and Beatlemania was born, the United States launched half a billion whisker-thin copper wires into orbit in an attempt to install a ring around the Earth. It was called Project West Ford, and it’s a perfect, if odd, example of the Cold War paranoia and military mentality at work in America’s early space program.
Read more
The Air Force and Department of Defense envisioned the West Ford ring as the largest radio antenna in human history. Its goal was to protect the nation’s long-range communications in the event of an attack from the increasingly belligerent Soviet Union.
“A potential solution was born in 1958 at MIT’s Lincoln Labs, a research station on Hanscom Air Force Base northwest of Boston.
Project Needles, as it was originally known, was Walter E. Morrow’s idea. He suggested that if Earth possessed a permanent radio reflector in the form of an orbiting ring of copper threads, America’s long-range communications would be immune from solar disturbances and out of reach of nefarious Soviet plots.”
https://www.wired.com/2013/08/project-west-ford/
Canadian Doubletalk
It’s Not Only the Billionaires’ Fault
Canadian politicians claim they are continuing the sale because the contract with Saudi Arabia had been signed BEFORE Canada signed the Arms Trade Treaty, but that they won’t sign such a thing in the future. Of course, we know the real reason: The deal is worth $15 billion, and Ottawa doesn’t want to lose manufacturing jobs. WE “progressive” types don’t like to talk about this fact: It’s not just billionaires’ interests that are at stake, but the income of people who do the manual labor. I think jobs are as important a political factor as the profits of huge corporations.
Project West Ford and the Copper Needles
Meet Project West Ford — in the 1950s-1960s – the United States of America launched 480 million copper needles into the upper atmosphere for Cold War radio communication. Some of them are allegedly still up there, orbiting in the lower-gravity.
“The same year that Martin Luther King, Jr. marched on Washington and Beatlemania was born, the United States launched half a billion whisker-thin copper wires into orbit in an attempt to install a ring around the Earth. It was called Project West Ford, and it’s a perfect, if odd, example of the Cold War paranoia and military mentality at work in America’s early space program.
Read more
The Air Force and Department of Defense envisioned the West Ford ring as the largest radio antenna in human history. Its goal was to protect the nation’s long-range communications in the event of an attack from the increasingly belligerent Soviet Union.
“A potential solution was born in 1958 at MIT’s Lincoln Labs, a research station on Hanscom Air Force Base northwest of Boston.
Project Needles, as it was originally known, was Walter E. Morrow’s idea. He suggested that if Earth possessed a permanent radio reflector in the form of an orbiting ring of copper threads, America’s long-range communications would be immune from solar disturbances and out of reach of nefarious Soviet plots.”
https://www.wired.com/2013/08/project-west-ford/
Canadian Doubletalk
It’s Not Only the Billionaires’ Fault
Canadian politicians claim they are continuing the sale because the contract with Saudi Arabia had been signed BEFORE Canada signed the Arms Trade Treaty, but that they won’t sign such a thing in the future. Of course, we know the real reason: The deal is worth $15 billion, and Ottawa doesn’t want to lose manufacturing jobs. WE “progressive” types don’t like to talk about this fact: It’s not just billionaires’ interests that are at stake, but the income of people who do the manual labor. I think jobs are as important a political factor as the profits of huge corporations.
The Flying Crowbar
An alarming summary of Project Pluto – a Cold War Era program that would use a ramjet engine to create a nuclear-reactor powered nuclear missile. It had the nuclear payload of 15+ hydrogen bombs.
Here’s Project Pluto’s ramjet missile.
“…a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto’s designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto’s nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by. (One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.)
This crazy bastard had so many ways to kill you, it was like a death buffet: should I die in the nuclear blasts of the bombs themselves, or just let the shockwave of the overpassing missile kill me? Maybe I’ll just wait for the radiation sickness as this thing circles endlessly overhead, like a colossal demonic robot vulture. It’s so hard to choose!”
“From an engineering standpoint, Project Pluto was certainly impressive, and pushed the absolute limits of the technology of the time.
Read more
The reactor that powered the missile was one of the smallest, lightest ever built — partially achieved by eliminating almost anything that had to do with such candy-assed ideas as “safety.” The reactor’s operating temperatures were so high (2500° F) that most alloys would melt, forcing the use of components like fuel rods to be made of ceramic, developed by a little porcelain company named Coors. Coors’s ceramic-lined brewing vats eventually spawned a profitable sideline you may have heard of.”
https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane-doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216%5B//read%5D
The Flying Crowbar
An alarming summary of Project Pluto – a Cold War Era program that would use a ramjet engine to create a nuclear-reactor powered nuclear missile. It had the nuclear payload of 15+ hydrogen bombs.
Here’s Project Pluto’s ramjet missile.
“…a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto’s designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto’s nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by. (One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.)
This crazy bastard had so many ways to kill you, it was like a death buffet: should I die in the nuclear blasts of the bombs themselves, or just let the shockwave of the overpassing missile kill me? Maybe I’ll just wait for the radiation sickness as this thing circles endlessly overhead, like a colossal demonic robot vulture. It’s so hard to choose!”
“From an engineering standpoint, Project Pluto was certainly impressive, and pushed the absolute limits of the technology of the time.
Read more
The reactor that powered the missile was one of the smallest, lightest ever built — partially achieved by eliminating almost anything that had to do with such candy-assed ideas as “safety.” The reactor’s operating temperatures were so high (2500° F) that most alloys would melt, forcing the use of components like fuel rods to be made of ceramic, developed by a little porcelain company named Coors. Coors’s ceramic-lined brewing vats eventually spawned a profitable sideline you may have heard of.”
https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane-doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216%5B//read%5D
They’ve Forgotten How to Make Fogbank
Re the “modernization” of nuclear weapons, several states which own nuclear weapons have indicated desires to upgrade the technology both around and in nuclear missiles, such as intermediate explosives, launch protocols, and yield calculations. A few years ago, several articles were published in relation to “fogbank” — a critical aerosol component within certain models of nuclear warheads. The production of this aerosol component of warheads was extremely classified and thus repair and/or re-manufacturing of it has been difficult, as many of those who worked on it in the Cold War era have passed away or are in retirement. The fogbank manufacturing facilities in Tennessee were additionally dismantled several years ago. Additional research by a weapons physicist at Lawrence-Livermore Laboratories in the USA have indicated that some of the original explosive yield calculations were off by as much as 30% — as initial test data was processed by hand and at very quick rates in the 1950s through 1970s. Quite alarming!
More information about the yield calculations being a inaccurate can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-QVPXBcxLU
They’ve Forgotten How to Make Fogbank
Re the “modernization” of nuclear weapons, several states which own nuclear weapons have indicated desires to upgrade the technology both around and in nuclear missiles, such as intermediate explosives, launch protocols, and yield calculations. A few years ago, several articles were published in relation to “fogbank” — a critical aerosol component within certain models of nuclear warheads. The production of this aerosol component of warheads was extremely classified and thus repair and/or re-manufacturing of it has been difficult, as many of those who worked on it in the Cold War era have passed away or are in retirement. The fogbank manufacturing facilities in Tennessee were additionally dismantled several years ago. Additional research by a weapons physicist at Lawrence-Livermore Laboratories in the USA have indicated that some of the original explosive yield calculations were off by as much as 30% — as initial test data was processed by hand and at very quick rates in the 1950s through 1970s. Quite alarming!
More information about the yield calculations being a inaccurate can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-QVPXBcxLU
And Artificial Intelligence itself is supposed to be a real threat to humanity, according to some theorists. But maybe not quite as soon as killer robots.
And Artificial Intelligence itself is supposed to be a real threat to humanity, according to some theorists. But maybe not quite as soon as killer robots.
Haven’t heard a Peep. Have you?
Has any official in Ottawa said a word within the last six months about really cancelling the sale of those machines to the Saudis? We know what the public wants but it doesn’t seem to bother the government officials in democratic societies. Keep pushing, Cesar Jaramillo!
Have the women changed things?
Have Rotarians always been so wise? I think you started letting women join a few years ago. Has that changed anything about the organization’s culture?
How much weaponry will be allowed?
Ruth, your question is valid but maybe should be put in reverse order. Maybe the better question is, how much weaponry will any UNEPS peacekeepers be allowed to carry and use? This proposal could be applied as an expansion of war-fighting units or the emphasis could be on foreseeing conflicts “upstream” before they become serious and sending in mediators and lawyers to solve the problems before they become real.
Haven’t heard a Peep. Have you?
Has any official in Ottawa said a word within the last six months about really cancelling the sale of those machines to the Saudis? We know what the public wants but it doesn’t seem to bother the government officials in democratic societies. Keep pushing, Cesar Jaramillo!
Have the women changed things?
Have Rotarians always been so wise? I think you started letting women join a few years ago. Has that changed anything about the organization’s culture?
How much weaponry will be allowed?
Ruth, your question is valid but maybe should be put in reverse order. Maybe the better question is, how much weaponry will any UNEPS peacekeepers be allowed to carry and use? This proposal could be applied as an expansion of war-fighting units or the emphasis could be on foreseeing conflicts “upstream” before they become serious and sending in mediators and lawyers to solve the problems before they become real.
(Could This Have Happened if Russia Had Adopted the Ban Treaty? Give us your thoughts.)
Russia Says New Weapon Blew Up in Nuclear Accident
By Jake Rudnitsky and Stepan Kravchenko
August 12, 2019
Blast last week at missile test caused brief radiation spike
The failed missile test that ended in an explosion killing five atomic scientists last week on Russia’s White Sea involved a small nuclear power source, according to a top official at the institute where they worked.
The part of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center that employed them is developing small-scale power sources that use “radioactive materials, including fissile and radioisotope materials” for the Defense Ministry and civilian uses, Vyacheslav Soloviev, scientific director of the institute, said in a video shown by local TV.
Read more
“We’re analyzing the whole chain of events to assess both the scale of the accident and to understand its causes,” he said.
The blast occurred Aug. 8 during a test of a missile engine that used “isotope power sources” on an offshore platform in the Arkhangelsk region, close to the Arctic Circle, Rosatom said over the weekend. The Defense Ministry initially reported two were killed in the accident, which it said involved testing of a liquid-fueled missile engine. The ministry didn’t mention the nuclear element.
Radiation Spike
It caused a brief spike in radiation in the nearby port city of Severodvinsk, according to a statement on the local administration’s website that was later removed. A Sarov institute official on the video posted Sunday said radiation levels jumped to double normal levels for less than an hour and no lasting contamination was detected. The Russian military said radiation levels were normal but disclosed few details about the incident.
News of the explosion set off in nearby cities and towns a run on iodine, a form of which is believed to help prevent the thyroid gland from absorbing radiation. Norway said it had stepped up radiation monitoring after the incident but hadn’t detected anything abnormal. On Monday, Norway’s Nuclear Safety and Environmental Protection department said its local and European monitors hadn’t shown any increase in radiation levels.
U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. “is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia” and added that “we have similar, though more advanced, technology,” without giving more details.
Southerly winds and the large distance between the border and the explosion make it unlikely that Finland will detect any radiation, Pia Vesterbacka, director at Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, said by phone Monday. The authority hasn’t checked its air filters since the incident but expects to have results this week, she added.
“If it had been a really serious accident, we would have seen more radiation further afield,” said Pavel Podvig, senior research fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament in Geneva.
A spokeswoman for the Sarov institute couldn’t immediately be reached.
New Weapons
Russian media have speculated that the weapon being tested was the SSC-X-9 Skyfall, known in Russia as the Burevestnik, a nuclear-powered cruise missile that President Vladimir Putin introduced to the world in a brief animated segment during his state-of-the-nation address last year.
Sergei Kiriyenko, the former head of Rosatom and Putin’s first deputy chief of staff attended the Sarov funerals and said the Russian president decided to posthumously award the men a high state honor.
The blast was the latest in a series of deadly accidents that have damaged the Russian military’s reputation. Massive explosions earlier last week at a Siberian military depot killed one and injured 13, as well as forcing the evacuation of 16,500 people from their homes. In July, 14 sailors died in a fire aboard a nuclear-powered submarine in the Barents Sea in an incident on which officials initially refused to comment. A top naval official later said the men gave their lives preventing a “planetary catastrophe.”
Russia’s worst post-Soviet naval disaster also occurred in the Barents Sea, when 118 crew died on the Kursk nuclear submarine that sank after an explosion in August 2000.
— With assistance by Kati Pohjanpalo, Mikael Holter, and Justin Sink
(Updates with Trump’s comments in eighth paragraph.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-12/russian-says-small-nuclear-reactor-blew-up-in-deadly-accident
Will They Be Armed?
This plank calls for a UN Emergency Peace Service, but it does not say whether any (or all) of it would be unarmed. Would the people behind this say what they have in mind? Some of us have endorsed it without being clear about how much it will resemble a regular army.
(Could This Have Happened if Russia Had Adopted the Ban Treaty? Give us your thoughts.)
Russia Says New Weapon Blew Up in Nuclear Accident
By Jake Rudnitsky and Stepan Kravchenko
August 12, 2019
Blast last week at missile test caused brief radiation spike
The failed missile test that ended in an explosion killing five atomic scientists last week on Russia’s White Sea involved a small nuclear power source, according to a top official at the institute where they worked.
The part of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center that employed them is developing small-scale power sources that use “radioactive materials, including fissile and radioisotope materials” for the Defense Ministry and civilian uses, Vyacheslav Soloviev, scientific director of the institute, said in a video shown by local TV.
Read more
“We’re analyzing the whole chain of events to assess both the scale of the accident and to understand its causes,” he said.
The blast occurred Aug. 8 during a test of a missile engine that used “isotope power sources” on an offshore platform in the Arkhangelsk region, close to the Arctic Circle, Rosatom said over the weekend. The Defense Ministry initially reported two were killed in the accident, which it said involved testing of a liquid-fueled missile engine. The ministry didn’t mention the nuclear element.
Radiation Spike
It caused a brief spike in radiation in the nearby port city of Severodvinsk, according to a statement on the local administration’s website that was later removed. A Sarov institute official on the video posted Sunday said radiation levels jumped to double normal levels for less than an hour and no lasting contamination was detected. The Russian military said radiation levels were normal but disclosed few details about the incident.
News of the explosion set off in nearby cities and towns a run on iodine, a form of which is believed to help prevent the thyroid gland from absorbing radiation. Norway said it had stepped up radiation monitoring after the incident but hadn’t detected anything abnormal. On Monday, Norway’s Nuclear Safety and Environmental Protection department said its local and European monitors hadn’t shown any increase in radiation levels.
U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. “is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia” and added that “we have similar, though more advanced, technology,” without giving more details.
Southerly winds and the large distance between the border and the explosion make it unlikely that Finland will detect any radiation, Pia Vesterbacka, director at Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, said by phone Monday. The authority hasn’t checked its air filters since the incident but expects to have results this week, she added.
“If it had been a really serious accident, we would have seen more radiation further afield,” said Pavel Podvig, senior research fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament in Geneva.
A spokeswoman for the Sarov institute couldn’t immediately be reached.
New Weapons
Russian media have speculated that the weapon being tested was the SSC-X-9 Skyfall, known in Russia as the Burevestnik, a nuclear-powered cruise missile that President Vladimir Putin introduced to the world in a brief animated segment during his state-of-the-nation address last year.
Sergei Kiriyenko, the former head of Rosatom and Putin’s first deputy chief of staff attended the Sarov funerals and said the Russian president decided to posthumously award the men a high state honor.
The blast was the latest in a series of deadly accidents that have damaged the Russian military’s reputation. Massive explosions earlier last week at a Siberian military depot killed one and injured 13, as well as forcing the evacuation of 16,500 people from their homes. In July, 14 sailors died in a fire aboard a nuclear-powered submarine in the Barents Sea in an incident on which officials initially refused to comment. A top naval official later said the men gave their lives preventing a “planetary catastrophe.”
Russia’s worst post-Soviet naval disaster also occurred in the Barents Sea, when 118 crew died on the Kursk nuclear submarine that sank after an explosion in August 2000.
— With assistance by Kati Pohjanpalo, Mikael Holter, and Justin Sink
(Updates with Trump’s comments in eighth paragraph.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-12/russian-says-small-nuclear-reactor-blew-up-in-deadly-accident
Will They Be Armed?
This plank calls for a UN Emergency Peace Service, but it does not say whether any (or all) of it would be unarmed. Would the people behind this say what they have in mind? Some of us have endorsed it without being clear about how much it will resemble a regular army.
And on the other hand, there’s Costa Rica!. Wow. One of the world’s happiest countries. Here’s how:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/sun-sea-and-stable-democracy-what-s-the-secret-to-costa-rica-s-success/
And on the other hand, there’s Costa Rica!. Wow. One of the world’s happiest countries. Here’s how:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/sun-sea-and-stable-democracy-what-s-the-secret-to-costa-rica-s-success/
U.S.-based experts suspect Russia blast involved nuclear-powered missile
By Jonathan Landay | Reuters, Aug 8
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — U.S.-based nuclear experts said on Friday they suspected an accidental blast and radiation release in northern Russia this week occurred during the testing of a nuclear-powered cruise missile vaunted by President Vladimir Putin last year.
The Russian Ministry of Defense, quoted by state-run news outlets, said that two people died and six were injured on Thursday in an explosion of what it called a liquid propellant rocket engine. No dangerous substances were released, it said. Russia’s state nuclear agency Rosatom said early on Saturday that five of its staff members died.
A spokeswoman for Severodvinsk, a city of 185,000 near the test site in the Arkhangelsk region, was quoted in a statement on the municipal website as saying that a “short-term” spike in background radiation was recorded at noon Thursday. The statement was not on the site on Friday.
The Russian Embassy did not immediately respond for comment.
Two experts said in separate interviews with Reuters that a liquid rocket propellant explosion would not release radiation.
Read more
They said that they suspected the explosion and the radiation release resulted from a mishap during the testing of a nuclear-powered cruise missile at a facility outside the village of Nyonoksa.
“Liquid fuel missile engines exploding do not give off radiation, and we know that the Russians are working on some kind of nuclear propulsion for a cruise missile,” said Ankit Panda, an adjunct senior fellow with the Federation of American Scientists.
Russia calls the missile the 9M730 Buresvestnik. The NATO alliance has designated it the SSC-X-9 Skyfall.
A senior Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he would not confirm or deny that a mishap involving a nuclear-powered cruise missile occurred. But he expressed deep skepticism over Moscow’s explanation.
“We continue to monitor the events in the Russian far north but Moscow’s assurances that ‘everything is normal’ ring hollow to us,” said the official.
“This reminds us of a string of incidents dating back to Chernobyl that call into question whether the Kremlin prioritizes the welfare of the Russian people above maintaining its own grip on power and its control over weak corruption streams.”
The official was referring to the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine, which released radioactive airborne contamination for about nine days. Moscow delayed revealing the extent of what is regarded as the worst nuclear accident in history.
Putin boasted about the nuclear-powered cruise missile in a March 2018 speech to the Russian parliament in which he hailed the development of a raft of fearsome new strategic weapons.
The missile, he said, was successfully tested in late 2017, had “unlimited range” and was “invincible against all existing and prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems.”
‘Not There by Accident’
Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Non-Proliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said he believed that a mishap occurred during the testing of the nuclear-powered cruise missile based on commercial satellite pictures and other data.
Using satellite photos, he and his team determined that the Russians last year appeared to have disassembled a facility for test-launching the missile at a site in Novaya Zemlya and moved it to the base near Nyonoksa.
The photos showed that a blue “environmental shelter” – under which the missiles are stored before launching – at Nyonoksa and rails on which the structure is rolled back appear to be the same as those removed from Novaya Zemlya.
Lewis and his team also examined Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals from ships located off the coast on the same day as the explosion. They identified one ship as the Serebryanka, a nuclear fuel carrier that they had tracked last year off Novaya Zemlya.
“You don’t need this ship for conventional missile tests,” Lewis said. “You need it when you recover a nuclear propulsion unit from the sea floor.”
He noted that the AIS signals showed that the Serebryanka was located inside an “exclusion zone” established off the coast a month before the test, to keep unauthorized ships from entering.
“What’s important is that the Serebryanka is inside that exclusion zone. It’s there. It’s inside the ocean perimeter that they set up. It’s not there by accident,” he said. “I think they were probably there to pick up a propulsion unit off the ocean floor.”
Lewis said he didn’t know what kind of radiation hazard the Russian system poses because he did was unaware of the technical
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-blast-usa/u-s-based-experts-suspect-russia-blast-involved-nuclear-powered-missile-idUSKCN1UZ2H5
U.S.-based experts suspect Russia blast involved nuclear-powered missile
By Jonathan Landay | Reuters, Aug 8
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — U.S.-based nuclear experts said on Friday they suspected an accidental blast and radiation release in northern Russia this week occurred during the testing of a nuclear-powered cruise missile vaunted by President Vladimir Putin last year.
The Russian Ministry of Defense, quoted by state-run news outlets, said that two people died and six were injured on Thursday in an explosion of what it called a liquid propellant rocket engine. No dangerous substances were released, it said. Russia’s state nuclear agency Rosatom said early on Saturday that five of its staff members died.
A spokeswoman for Severodvinsk, a city of 185,000 near the test site in the Arkhangelsk region, was quoted in a statement on the municipal website as saying that a “short-term” spike in background radiation was recorded at noon Thursday. The statement was not on the site on Friday.
The Russian Embassy did not immediately respond for comment.
Two experts said in separate interviews with Reuters that a liquid rocket propellant explosion would not release radiation.
Read more
They said that they suspected the explosion and the radiation release resulted from a mishap during the testing of a nuclear-powered cruise missile at a facility outside the village of Nyonoksa.
“Liquid fuel missile engines exploding do not give off radiation, and we know that the Russians are working on some kind of nuclear propulsion for a cruise missile,” said Ankit Panda, an adjunct senior fellow with the Federation of American Scientists.
Russia calls the missile the 9M730 Buresvestnik. The NATO alliance has designated it the SSC-X-9 Skyfall.
A senior Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he would not confirm or deny that a mishap involving a nuclear-powered cruise missile occurred. But he expressed deep skepticism over Moscow’s explanation.
“We continue to monitor the events in the Russian far north but Moscow’s assurances that ‘everything is normal’ ring hollow to us,” said the official.
“This reminds us of a string of incidents dating back to Chernobyl that call into question whether the Kremlin prioritizes the welfare of the Russian people above maintaining its own grip on power and its control over weak corruption streams.”
The official was referring to the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine, which released radioactive airborne contamination for about nine days. Moscow delayed revealing the extent of what is regarded as the worst nuclear accident in history.
Putin boasted about the nuclear-powered cruise missile in a March 2018 speech to the Russian parliament in which he hailed the development of a raft of fearsome new strategic weapons.
The missile, he said, was successfully tested in late 2017, had “unlimited range” and was “invincible against all existing and prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems.”
‘Not There by Accident’
Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Non-Proliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said he believed that a mishap occurred during the testing of the nuclear-powered cruise missile based on commercial satellite pictures and other data.
Using satellite photos, he and his team determined that the Russians last year appeared to have disassembled a facility for test-launching the missile at a site in Novaya Zemlya and moved it to the base near Nyonoksa.
The photos showed that a blue “environmental shelter” – under which the missiles are stored before launching – at Nyonoksa and rails on which the structure is rolled back appear to be the same as those removed from Novaya Zemlya.
Lewis and his team also examined Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals from ships located off the coast on the same day as the explosion. They identified one ship as the Serebryanka, a nuclear fuel carrier that they had tracked last year off Novaya Zemlya.
“You don’t need this ship for conventional missile tests,” Lewis said. “You need it when you recover a nuclear propulsion unit from the sea floor.”
He noted that the AIS signals showed that the Serebryanka was located inside an “exclusion zone” established off the coast a month before the test, to keep unauthorized ships from entering.
“What’s important is that the Serebryanka is inside that exclusion zone. It’s there. It’s inside the ocean perimeter that they set up. It’s not there by accident,” he said. “I think they were probably there to pick up a propulsion unit off the ocean floor.”
Lewis said he didn’t know what kind of radiation hazard the Russian system poses because he did was unaware of the technical
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-blast-usa/u-s-based-experts-suspect-russia-blast-involved-nuclear-powered-missile-idUSKCN1UZ2H5
Rotarians are Peaceniks!
By Richard Denton
“What are old conservative Rotarian businessmen (and now women), doing at a United Nations (UN) Preparatory talk on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”, asked a non-Rotarian female peace person.
This is still the concept that many of the public think about Rotary. Some may know us as a service group like Lions and Kiwanis, but that is about it. We need to do a much better job of branding ourselves, of getting our Rotary name out into the public through our community services such as building parks, building youth facilities and Adopting Road clean ups, sponsoring fund-raisers and donating to worthy organizations and other community projects. But we also need to promote our other programs; Rotary student exchanges, but also the work of the Rotary Foundation – Polio Plus, Rotary scholarships that are actually worth more money and can be done in any university, compared to the Rhodes Scholarship that is better known. We need to promote our Peace Fellowships either the yearlong program or the three month program to university students.
We as Rotarians and we need to get the general populace to know about the history of Rotarians being active starting the United Nations and the International Bill of Human Rights.
Read more
Two years ago, I was at the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and was witness to how congenial all 124 states were (all non-nuclear states except the Netherlands, a NATO member that has American nuclear weapons on its soil, along with Belgium, Germany, Italy and Turkey). One state would rise and compliment the previous speaker, then make their recommendation for a change on the Article under discussion and then say, Madame Chair, if you would like to change the wording or put my ideas into another article, please feel free to do so. After all the states had said their piece, the Chair asked us Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) for our comments. On Wednesday, they went into an “In Camera Session” and allowed us NGOs to stay present. As a result, 122 countries voted in favour of the TPNW with Singapore abstaining and Holland voting against it. It was the most cooperative meeting that I have witnessed. The Preamble was something that our Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could have written, including references to protecting women and children, the environment, and the people harmed by radiation, the Hibakusha.
This time in April-May over two weeks, we four Rotarian Action Group for Peace members beheld the opposite. States were organized into various factions; NATO, Arab, Russian and Allies, the US and their nuclear umbrella states, that argued amongst themselves. When a speaker was speaking, a din was heard from others talking although when the US or Russia spoke, you could hear a pin drop. People would call others “liars” in a raised voice. Consensus meant “a veto” by the Permanent Five (P5) members of the Security Council and the other four nuclear countries, as opposed to working towards an understanding. The topics were on 1) nuclear disarmament and security assurances, 2) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its role of preventing proliferation through Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ that are primarily in the Southern Hemisphere but should be in and around the Korean peninsula, Middle East and the Arctic) and 3) the IAEA’s role of promoting nuclear power. It is only this last area that the IAEA has succeeded and to which all the states, the nine nuclear and the others achieved agreement on the “inalienable rights to nuclear power”. At the end, the chair made two drafts of recommendations that the various states could not agree.
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our thinking. Thus we are drifting toward catastrophe beyond conception. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” – Albert Einstein.
Isn’t the atomic bomb just a bigger better bomb? No, it is so destructive that it puts dust into the atmosphere causing a nuclear winter that causes death by famine. It also releases a tremendous amount of radiation that also causes death by cancers, heart disease, renal disease, etc. It is indiscriminate, killing civilians and all life over a prolonged period of time in distant geographic areas. This is why from a humanitarian point of view, we can never use them. They kill everything.
This might be left out
{What then is a nuclear weapon? There are two types, the atomic bomb, that was dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) where a large atom, highly enriched uranium 235 (or plutonium 239 – Fat Man on Nagasaki) is broken in about half, fission, releasing a great deal of energy and two new atoms that are also radioactive such as strontium 90, Iodine 131, cesium 137 and a host of other radioactive isotopes. The hydrogen bomb uses fusion to make a new atom from two hydrogen atoms also causing a huge release of energy. The hydrogen thermonuclear device can be smaller in size and more powerful, but still needs a fission bomb to ignite the process. There are the acute effects; of a firestorm evaporating everything, high winds making glass, etc. projectiles, and a pressure wave that knocks down everything. All medical facilities and health care professionals would be destroyed. There is thus no treatment for the survivors. Then there are the chronic effects of radiation that causes cancers, heart disease and kidney disease, etc. In Canada, radon gas is the number two cause of lung cancer. Also as mentioned, dust that would be sent into the atmosphere, would block out the sun, lower temperatures and result in crop failures and famine and death. A limited exchange of just half the nuclear arsenal from India and Pakistan would kill two billion people, outright and from starvation over the next ten years.}
When I grew up during the Cold War, my parents looked at building a bomb shelter in the basement of our house, or moving to Australia or New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere. As a school child, I would listen to practice drills of sirens to hide under our desks. None of these would have worked in actuality. At that time, there were just the two nations; the United States (US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) that were involved. Now we have various trouble spots of the Koreas, India and Pakistan, the Middle East and Iran and the US as well as the US and Russia. This is making us more unsafe. Russia and the US have also pulled out of “no first use”, still have about 1,400 weapons on “hair trigger alert” and have pulled out of previous treaties such as the Intermediate range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)and the US has abandoned the Iranian Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the IAEA saying that Iran is in compliance. A new STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) of 2021 is also threatened not to be endorsed. Further, the nine nuclear states are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.
Some say that we need nuclear weapons for Deterrence. But they don’t deter against accidents, miscalculations, or terrorists. In fact, they didn’t deter the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK-North Korea) from attacking the Republic of Korea (ROK – South Korea) and this was just after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Deterrence also didn’t stop Argentina from attacking nuclear Britain over the Falklands.
Rotary is a non-partisan organization and not to be involved in politics. But what is a definition of being political? To some, it is another word for controversial. But RI President Rassin in the April Rotarian, page 24 said in reference to the climate crisis “I’m not talking politics. I’m talking about our world and how to make it a better place. We’re in a position where with all the people Rotary has around the world, we can make a difference.” When we look at our Four Way Test, we note that having nine nuclear countries “are not fair to all concerned”. As I found at the NPT discussions, they are not “building good will and better friendship”. If one nuclear weapon is exploded, it certainly is not “beneficial to all concerned.”
While at the conference, there were also side events held on site where there was a more affable discussion about various topics. One was on “Social Movements”. These are characterized by a ground swell of people coming from different points of view, with different primary issues but all working together for a common goal. I think the Greta Thunberg mobilizing students, and students against gun violence and now RAGfP wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons is becoming a new social movement. The Nobel Peace Prize was given to the International Campaign Against Nuclear weapons (ICAN) in 2017 to recognize how this organization brought many – over 160 peace groups together to get the world to pass the TPNW. I remain optimistic.
Rotarians are Peaceniks!
By Richard Denton
“What are old conservative Rotarian businessmen (and now women), doing at a United Nations (UN) Preparatory talk on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”, asked a non-Rotarian female peace person.
This is still the concept that many of the public think about Rotary. Some may know us as a service group like Lions and Kiwanis, but that is about it. We need to do a much better job of branding ourselves, of getting our Rotary name out into the public through our community services such as building parks, building youth facilities and Adopting Road clean ups, sponsoring fund-raisers and donating to worthy organizations and other community projects. But we also need to promote our other programs; Rotary student exchanges, but also the work of the Rotary Foundation – Polio Plus, Rotary scholarships that are actually worth more money and can be done in any university, compared to the Rhodes Scholarship that is better known. We need to promote our Peace Fellowships either the yearlong program or the three month program to university students.
We as Rotarians and we need to get the general populace to know about the history of Rotarians being active starting the United Nations and the International Bill of Human Rights.
Read more
Two years ago, I was at the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and was witness to how congenial all 124 states were (all non-nuclear states except the Netherlands, a NATO member that has American nuclear weapons on its soil, along with Belgium, Germany, Italy and Turkey). One state would rise and compliment the previous speaker, then make their recommendation for a change on the Article under discussion and then say, Madame Chair, if you would like to change the wording or put my ideas into another article, please feel free to do so. After all the states had said their piece, the Chair asked us Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) for our comments. On Wednesday, they went into an “In Camera Session” and allowed us NGOs to stay present. As a result, 122 countries voted in favour of the TPNW with Singapore abstaining and Holland voting against it. It was the most cooperative meeting that I have witnessed. The Preamble was something that our Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could have written, including references to protecting women and children, the environment, and the people harmed by radiation, the Hibakusha.
This time in April-May over two weeks, we four Rotarian Action Group for Peace members beheld the opposite. States were organized into various factions; NATO, Arab, Russian and Allies, the US and their nuclear umbrella states, that argued amongst themselves. When a speaker was speaking, a din was heard from others talking although when the US or Russia spoke, you could hear a pin drop. People would call others “liars” in a raised voice. Consensus meant “a veto” by the Permanent Five (P5) members of the Security Council and the other four nuclear countries, as opposed to working towards an understanding. The topics were on 1) nuclear disarmament and security assurances, 2) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its role of preventing proliferation through Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ that are primarily in the Southern Hemisphere but should be in and around the Korean peninsula, Middle East and the Arctic) and 3) the IAEA’s role of promoting nuclear power. It is only this last area that the IAEA has succeeded and to which all the states, the nine nuclear and the others achieved agreement on the “inalienable rights to nuclear power”. At the end, the chair made two drafts of recommendations that the various states could not agree.
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our thinking. Thus we are drifting toward catastrophe beyond conception. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” – Albert Einstein.
Isn’t the atomic bomb just a bigger better bomb? No, it is so destructive that it puts dust into the atmosphere causing a nuclear winter that causes death by famine. It also releases a tremendous amount of radiation that also causes death by cancers, heart disease, renal disease, etc. It is indiscriminate, killing civilians and all life over a prolonged period of time in distant geographic areas. This is why from a humanitarian point of view, we can never use them. They kill everything.
This might be left out
{What then is a nuclear weapon? There are two types, the atomic bomb, that was dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) where a large atom, highly enriched uranium 235 (or plutonium 239 – Fat Man on Nagasaki) is broken in about half, fission, releasing a great deal of energy and two new atoms that are also radioactive such as strontium 90, Iodine 131, cesium 137 and a host of other radioactive isotopes. The hydrogen bomb uses fusion to make a new atom from two hydrogen atoms also causing a huge release of energy. The hydrogen thermonuclear device can be smaller in size and more powerful, but still needs a fission bomb to ignite the process. There are the acute effects; of a firestorm evaporating everything, high winds making glass, etc. projectiles, and a pressure wave that knocks down everything. All medical facilities and health care professionals would be destroyed. There is thus no treatment for the survivors. Then there are the chronic effects of radiation that causes cancers, heart disease and kidney disease, etc. In Canada, radon gas is the number two cause of lung cancer. Also as mentioned, dust that would be sent into the atmosphere, would block out the sun, lower temperatures and result in crop failures and famine and death. A limited exchange of just half the nuclear arsenal from India and Pakistan would kill two billion people, outright and from starvation over the next ten years.}
When I grew up during the Cold War, my parents looked at building a bomb shelter in the basement of our house, or moving to Australia or New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere. As a school child, I would listen to practice drills of sirens to hide under our desks. None of these would have worked in actuality. At that time, there were just the two nations; the United States (US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) that were involved. Now we have various trouble spots of the Koreas, India and Pakistan, the Middle East and Iran and the US as well as the US and Russia. This is making us more unsafe. Russia and the US have also pulled out of “no first use”, still have about 1,400 weapons on “hair trigger alert” and have pulled out of previous treaties such as the Intermediate range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)and the US has abandoned the Iranian Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the IAEA saying that Iran is in compliance. A new STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) of 2021 is also threatened not to be endorsed. Further, the nine nuclear states are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.
Some say that we need nuclear weapons for Deterrence. But they don’t deter against accidents, miscalculations, or terrorists. In fact, they didn’t deter the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK-North Korea) from attacking the Republic of Korea (ROK – South Korea) and this was just after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Deterrence also didn’t stop Argentina from attacking nuclear Britain over the Falklands.
Rotary is a non-partisan organization and not to be involved in politics. But what is a definition of being political? To some, it is another word for controversial. But RI President Rassin in the April Rotarian, page 24 said in reference to the climate crisis “I’m not talking politics. I’m talking about our world and how to make it a better place. We’re in a position where with all the people Rotary has around the world, we can make a difference.” When we look at our Four Way Test, we note that having nine nuclear countries “are not fair to all concerned”. As I found at the NPT discussions, they are not “building good will and better friendship”. If one nuclear weapon is exploded, it certainly is not “beneficial to all concerned.”
While at the conference, there were also side events held on site where there was a more affable discussion about various topics. One was on “Social Movements”. These are characterized by a ground swell of people coming from different points of view, with different primary issues but all working together for a common goal. I think the Greta Thunberg mobilizing students, and students against gun violence and now RAGfP wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons is becoming a new social movement. The Nobel Peace Prize was given to the International Campaign Against Nuclear weapons (ICAN) in 2017 to recognize how this organization brought many – over 160 peace groups together to get the world to pass the TPNW. I remain optimistic.
What is “EMP”?
A Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) is a short, intense pulse of a radio wave that is produced by a nuclear detonation.
Its radius is much greater than the destruction caused by the heat and the blast wave of the nuclear weapon. For example, the pulse of an explosion about 100 km high would cover an area of 4 million km2. An explosion about 350 km high could, for example, cover most of North America, with a voltage of a power that is a million times greater than that of a thunderbolt. That is to say, if the detonation of a nuclear bomb is done from a sufficient height, even when there is not such a great physical destruction, it could affect the life of the inhabitants of a whole country or of several countries.
Who will be the owner of all those new fighter planes——the Netherlands? The 20 nuclear bombs presumably are officially owned by th US, right? The Dutch are just “hosting “ them and can send them home if they want to. But why do they want so many fighter planes?
What is “EMP”?
A Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) is a short, intense pulse of a radio wave that is produced by a nuclear detonation.
Its radius is much greater than the destruction caused by the heat and the blast wave of the nuclear weapon. For example, the pulse of an explosion about 100 km high would cover an area of 4 million km2. An explosion about 350 km high could, for example, cover most of North America, with a voltage of a power that is a million times greater than that of a thunderbolt. That is to say, if the detonation of a nuclear bomb is done from a sufficient height, even when there is not such a great physical destruction, it could affect the life of the inhabitants of a whole country or of several countries.
Who will be the owner of all those new fighter planes——the Netherlands? The 20 nuclear bombs presumably are officially owned by th US, right? The Dutch are just “hosting “ them and can send them home if they want to. But why do they want so many fighter planes?
<
China: We Won’t Use Nuclear Weapons First in a War
by David Axe . July 24, 2019
China has reaffirmed its policy of never being the first in a conflict to use nuclear weapons. Experts refer to this policy as “no first use,” or NFU.
The NFU policy reaffirmation, contained in Beijing’s July 2019 strategic white paper, surprised some observers who expected a more expansive and aggressive nuclear posture from the rising power.
Notably, the United States does not have a no-first-use policy. “Retaining a degree of ambiguity and refraining from a no first use policy creates uncertainty in the mind of potential adversaries and reinforces deterrence of aggression by ensuring adversaries cannot predict what specific actions will lead to a U.S. nuclear response,” the Pentagon stated….
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-we-wont-use-nuclear-weapons-first-war-69007
<
China: We Won’t Use Nuclear Weapons First in a War
by David Axe . July 24, 2019
China has reaffirmed its policy of never being the first in a conflict to use nuclear weapons. Experts refer to this policy as “no first use,” or NFU.
The NFU policy reaffirmation, contained in Beijing’s July 2019 strategic white paper, surprised some observers who expected a more expansive and aggressive nuclear posture from the rising power.
Notably, the United States does not have a no-first-use policy. “Retaining a degree of ambiguity and refraining from a no first use policy creates uncertainty in the mind of potential adversaries and reinforces deterrence of aggression by ensuring adversaries cannot predict what specific actions will lead to a U.S. nuclear response,” the Pentagon stated….
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-we-wont-use-nuclear-weapons-first-war-69007
Autonomous weapons that kill must be banned, insists UN chief
In a message to the Group of Governmental Experts, the UN chief said that “machines with the power and discretion to take lives without human involvement are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law”.
No country or armed force is in favour of such “fully autonomous” weapon systems that can take human life, Mr Guterres insisted, before welcoming the panel’s statement last year that “human responsibility for decisions on the use of weapons systems must be retained, since accountability cannot be transferred to machines”. . . .
Read more
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/03/1035381
Apparently the scientist was still on the tower during the lightning storm. Terrifying!
Autonomous weapons that kill must be banned, insists UN chief
In a message to the Group of Governmental Experts, the UN chief said that “machines with the power and discretion to take lives without human involvement are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law”.
No country or armed force is in favour of such “fully autonomous” weapon systems that can take human life, Mr Guterres insisted, before welcoming the panel’s statement last year that “human responsibility for decisions on the use of weapons systems must be retained, since accountability cannot be transferred to machines”. . . .
Read more
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/03/1035381
Apparently the scientist was still on the tower during the lightning storm. Terrifying!
How the League of Nations Came About
The idea of creating a League of Nations had been on the agenda at Versailles from its start in January 1919. President Woodrow Wilson was its chief champion. Then on 28 April, there was a unanimous decision to create it, with Geneva as its headquarters.
Read more
On 18 September 1931 Japan accused China of blowing up a Manchurian railway line over which Japan had treaty rights. This was followed by the Japanese seizure of the city of Mukden, the invasion of Manchuria, military occupation of the region, and Japan’s establishment the puppet state of Manchukuo.
Further hostilities between Japan and China were a real possibility. The League tried to mediate the conflict under the leadership of Salvador De Madariaga, the Ambassador of Republican Spain to the League. But no Western governments wanted to get involved in Asian conflicts, especially during an economic depression.
Non-governmental organization cooperation with the League of Nations was not as structured as it would be by the U.N. Charter. A few peace groups in Geneva did interact informally with the League delegations—the Women’s International League for Peace and Fredom, the International Peace Bureau, and the British Quakers —but they could not speak in League meetings. They could only send written appeals to the League secretariat and contact certain delegations informally.
In reaction to the Japan-China tensions, Maude Royden (see photo), a former suffragist, proposed “shock troops of peace” who would volunteer to place themselves between the Japanese and Chinese combatants. Dr. Royden, one of the UK’s first women pastors, was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi, whom she had visited in India. Her suggestion for the interposition of an unarmed body of civilians of both sexes between the opposing armies was proposed to the Secretary General of the League of Nations, Sir Eric Drummond. He replied that it was not in his constitutional power to bring the proposal before the League’s Assembly. Only a government could do so. Still, he released the letter to journalists then in Geneva, and the letter was widely reported.
An unarmed shock troop of the League never developed, and China and much of Asia became the scene of a Japanese-led war.
The idea Reappears
The idea of an unarmed interposition force was presented once again, this time to the United Nations by world citizens shortly after the U.N.’s birth during the 1947-48 creation of the State of Israel and the resulting armed conflict. The proposal was presented by Henry Usborn, a British MP active in the World Federalist and World Citizen movements. Usborn was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha (soul force) and proposed that a volunteer corps of some 10,000 unarmed people hold a two km-wide demilitarized zone between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Salvador De Madariaga, who had ceased being the Spanish Ambassador to the League when General Franco came to power, created in 1938 the World Citizens Association from his exile in England. He developed a proposal with the Gandhian Indian Socialist Party leader Jayapeakash Narayan for a U.N. Peace Guards, an unarmed international peace force that would be an alternative to the armed U.N. forces. De Maderiaga and Narayan held that a body of regular Peace Guards intervening, with no weapons whatever, between two forces in combat or about to fight might have considerable effect. The Peace Guards would be authorized by the U.N. Member States to intervene in any conflict when asked by one of the parties or by the Secretary General.
Dag Hammarskjold who was having problems with armed U.N. troops in the former Belgium Congo, did not act on the proposal. Thus, there now are only armed U.N. troops drawn from national armies and able to act only on a resolution of the Security Council.
However, various versions of the idea are still discussed. For example, the July 2019 issue of Peace Magazine, refers to our endorsed list of policy suggestions, the Platform for Survival, which includes a proposal for a peacekeeping organization that it calls the “U.N. Emergency Peace Service” — UNEPS. While planning it, let’s discuss the possibility of its including a unit of unarmed peacekeepers like the one proposed so long ago.
René Wadlow is President, Association of World Citizens
Did you hear during the initial Trinity test set up Los Alamos had a scientist climb up to the top of this tower (the original, that is) and “guard” the bomb while measurement equipment was installed, etc. Unfortunately, there was subsequently a lightning storm over the desert. It is very likely the bomb would have exploded prematurely if the tower was struck.
Costa Rica’s the Best!
Right. The woman who chaired the Ban Treaty conference is from Costa Rica. So is Oscar Arias, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work against the Central American crisis. And there is a peace university located there.
How the League of Nations Came About
The idea of creating a League of Nations had been on the agenda at Versailles from its start in January 1919. President Woodrow Wilson was its chief champion. Then on 28 April, there was a unanimous decision to create it, with Geneva as its headquarters.
Read more
On 18 September 1931 Japan accused China of blowing up a Manchurian railway line over which Japan had treaty rights. This was followed by the Japanese seizure of the city of Mukden, the invasion of Manchuria, military occupation of the region, and Japan’s establishment the puppet state of Manchukuo.
Further hostilities between Japan and China were a real possibility. The League tried to mediate the conflict under the leadership of Salvador De Madariaga, the Ambassador of Republican Spain to the League. But no Western governments wanted to get involved in Asian conflicts, especially during an economic depression.
Non-governmental organization cooperation with the League of Nations was not as structured as it would be by the U.N. Charter. A few peace groups in Geneva did interact informally with the League delegations—the Women’s International League for Peace and Fredom, the International Peace Bureau, and the British Quakers —but they could not speak in League meetings. They could only send written appeals to the League secretariat and contact certain delegations informally.
In reaction to the Japan-China tensions, Maude Royden (see photo), a former suffragist, proposed “shock troops of peace” who would volunteer to place themselves between the Japanese and Chinese combatants. Dr. Royden, one of the UK’s first women pastors, was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi, whom she had visited in India. Her suggestion for the interposition of an unarmed body of civilians of both sexes between the opposing armies was proposed to the Secretary General of the League of Nations, Sir Eric Drummond. He replied that it was not in his constitutional power to bring the proposal before the League’s Assembly. Only a government could do so. Still, he released the letter to journalists then in Geneva, and the letter was widely reported.
An unarmed shock troop of the League never developed, and China and much of Asia became the scene of a Japanese-led war.
The idea Reappears
The idea of an unarmed interposition force was presented once again, this time to the United Nations by world citizens shortly after the U.N.’s birth during the 1947-48 creation of the State of Israel and the resulting armed conflict. The proposal was presented by Henry Usborn, a British MP active in the World Federalist and World Citizen movements. Usborn was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha (soul force) and proposed that a volunteer corps of some 10,000 unarmed people hold a two km-wide demilitarized zone between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Salvador De Madariaga, who had ceased being the Spanish Ambassador to the League when General Franco came to power, created in 1938 the World Citizens Association from his exile in England. He developed a proposal with the Gandhian Indian Socialist Party leader Jayapeakash Narayan for a U.N. Peace Guards, an unarmed international peace force that would be an alternative to the armed U.N. forces. De Maderiaga and Narayan held that a body of regular Peace Guards intervening, with no weapons whatever, between two forces in combat or about to fight might have considerable effect. The Peace Guards would be authorized by the U.N. Member States to intervene in any conflict when asked by one of the parties or by the Secretary General.
Dag Hammarskjold who was having problems with armed U.N. troops in the former Belgium Congo, did not act on the proposal. Thus, there now are only armed U.N. troops drawn from national armies and able to act only on a resolution of the Security Council.
However, various versions of the idea are still discussed. For example, the July 2019 issue of Peace Magazine, refers to our endorsed list of policy suggestions, the Platform for Survival, which includes a proposal for a peacekeeping organization that it calls the “U.N. Emergency Peace Service” — UNEPS. While planning it, let’s discuss the possibility of its including a unit of unarmed peacekeepers like the one proposed so long ago.
René Wadlow is President, Association of World Citizens
Did you hear during the initial Trinity test set up Los Alamos had a scientist climb up to the top of this tower (the original, that is) and “guard” the bomb while measurement equipment was installed, etc. Unfortunately, there was subsequently a lightning storm over the desert. It is very likely the bomb would have exploded prematurely if the tower was struck.
Costa Rica’s the Best!
Right. The woman who chaired the Ban Treaty conference is from Costa Rica. So is Oscar Arias, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work against the Central American crisis. And there is a peace university located there.
Stop the Arms Trade, Save Yemen
On September 17, Canada formally joined the global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as the 105th state party to do so, nearly five years after this landmark multilateral treaty entered into force. We applaud this welcome step. But there will be no standing ovation.
Not while Canadian arms exports to Saudi Arabia continue, already 11 months after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that they would be reviewed. And let’s not forget the backdrop to this review: the brutal assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi
Read more
last October, which UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings Agnes Callamard has described as a “premeditated extrajudicial execution,” for which the state of Saudi Arabia is responsible.
Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s worst violators of human and women’s rights. It is also the chief instigator of the humanitarian crisis and perpetrator of war crimes in Yemen, now enduring its fifth year of armed conflict and on the brink of famine.
Exporting arms to such a recipient is patently incompatible with the ATT, which recognizes that poor regulation of conventional weapons transfers has caused immeasurable death and destruction around the world. To achieve a core purpose of “reducing human suffering,” the ATT sets common global standards for the national control of shipments of conventional weapons across international borders.
Despite earlier government claims that relevant Canadian laws met or exceeded ATT standards, treaty membership has required Canada to improve domestic export controls with new laws and regulations.
In perhaps the most important example, Canada’s foreign minister is now obligated to review the risks that weapons transfers could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, human rights and gender violence as well as the risk to international or regional peace and security. If risks are deemed substantial, the minister is legally bound to deny the transfers.
This crucial new obligation must change Canadian practice. Had this obligation been in place before 2014, the $15-billion order to provide and support armoured vehicles shipments to Saudi Arabia would have been a non-starter.
Canada joins the ATT at a time when international legal standards that are at the treaty’s core are under threat. Human rights protections, prevention of war crimes, and compliance with international obligations like arms embargoes are losing state champions. Worse, many nominally democratic states openly breach international law.
During this national election period, worldwide human suffering compels serious attention. In particular, the conflict in Yemen demands acknowledgement, not only as the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, but as an example of what happens when international legal obligations are ignored.
“Canada’s foreign minister is now obligated to review the risks that weapons transfers could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, human rights and gender violence.”
The latest report by the UN Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen, released at the beginning of September, documents the continuing widespread suffering of Yemen civilians caused by armed conflict. It clearly indicates that Saudi-led coalition forces in Yemen are breaking international law and should be investigated for war crimes.
Importantly, the report directly links the disaster in Yemen to the support provided by external governments to the forces fighting in Yemen. It notes that “the Arms Trade Treaty … prohibits the authorization of arms transfers with the knowledge that these would be used to commit war crimes” and “observes that the continued supply of weapons to parties involved in the conflict in Yemen perpetuates the conflict and the suffering of the population.”
Canada’s accession to the ATT should be about more than a simple strengthening of national export control standards. Canada is the third-largest arms supplier to Saudi Arabia in recent years, as well as a supplier to other Middle Eastern states fighting in Yemen. There may be an economic price to pay to comply with domestic and international arms control regulations. But the human cost of an unregulated arms trade is much higher.
We are well aware of each argument made by Ottawa to maintain these exports: there may be penalties for breaking contracts; Saudi Arabia promotes regional peace and stability; there has been ‘no conclusive evidence’ of misuse; if Canadian companies don’t arm the Saudis, someone else will. And we are not persuaded.
The seriousness of the Yemen crisis, and Canada’s connection to it, demand the attention of all the political parties that could make up Canada’s next parliament. On the occasion of Canada’s accession to the ATT, we call on all parties to clearly state how Canada will demonstrate international leadership on arms transfers and the resolution of the Yemen crisis.
To us, such leadership must include the cancellation of arms exports to Saudi Arabia.
Anne Duhamel, Oxfam-Québec
Cesar Jaramillo, Project Ploughshares
Brittany Lambert, Oxfam Canada
Peggy Mason, Rideau Institute
Justin Mohammed, Amnesty International Canada
Daniel Turp, Professor, University of Montreal
Thomas Woodley, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/20/uk-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-for-use-in-yemen-declared-unlawful
Stop the Arms Trade, Save Yemen
On September 17, Canada formally joined the global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as the 105th state party to do so, nearly five years after this landmark multilateral treaty entered into force. We applaud this welcome step. But there will be no standing ovation.
Not while Canadian arms exports to Saudi Arabia continue, already 11 months after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that they would be reviewed. And let’s not forget the backdrop to this review: the brutal assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi
Read more
last October, which UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings Agnes Callamard has described as a “premeditated extrajudicial execution,” for which the state of Saudi Arabia is responsible.
Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s worst violators of human and women’s rights. It is also the chief instigator of the humanitarian crisis and perpetrator of war crimes in Yemen, now enduring its fifth year of armed conflict and on the brink of famine.
Exporting arms to such a recipient is patently incompatible with the ATT, which recognizes that poor regulation of conventional weapons transfers has caused immeasurable death and destruction around the world. To achieve a core purpose of “reducing human suffering,” the ATT sets common global standards for the national control of shipments of conventional weapons across international borders.
Despite earlier government claims that relevant Canadian laws met or exceeded ATT standards, treaty membership has required Canada to improve domestic export controls with new laws and regulations.
In perhaps the most important example, Canada’s foreign minister is now obligated to review the risks that weapons transfers could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, human rights and gender violence as well as the risk to international or regional peace and security. If risks are deemed substantial, the minister is legally bound to deny the transfers.
This crucial new obligation must change Canadian practice. Had this obligation been in place before 2014, the $15-billion order to provide and support armoured vehicles shipments to Saudi Arabia would have been a non-starter.
Canada joins the ATT at a time when international legal standards that are at the treaty’s core are under threat. Human rights protections, prevention of war crimes, and compliance with international obligations like arms embargoes are losing state champions. Worse, many nominally democratic states openly breach international law.
During this national election period, worldwide human suffering compels serious attention. In particular, the conflict in Yemen demands acknowledgement, not only as the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, but as an example of what happens when international legal obligations are ignored.
“Canada’s foreign minister is now obligated to review the risks that weapons transfers could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, human rights and gender violence.”
The latest report by the UN Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen, released at the beginning of September, documents the continuing widespread suffering of Yemen civilians caused by armed conflict. It clearly indicates that Saudi-led coalition forces in Yemen are breaking international law and should be investigated for war crimes.
Importantly, the report directly links the disaster in Yemen to the support provided by external governments to the forces fighting in Yemen. It notes that “the Arms Trade Treaty … prohibits the authorization of arms transfers with the knowledge that these would be used to commit war crimes” and “observes that the continued supply of weapons to parties involved in the conflict in Yemen perpetuates the conflict and the suffering of the population.”
Canada’s accession to the ATT should be about more than a simple strengthening of national export control standards. Canada is the third-largest arms supplier to Saudi Arabia in recent years, as well as a supplier to other Middle Eastern states fighting in Yemen. There may be an economic price to pay to comply with domestic and international arms control regulations. But the human cost of an unregulated arms trade is much higher.
We are well aware of each argument made by Ottawa to maintain these exports: there may be penalties for breaking contracts; Saudi Arabia promotes regional peace and stability; there has been ‘no conclusive evidence’ of misuse; if Canadian companies don’t arm the Saudis, someone else will. And we are not persuaded.
The seriousness of the Yemen crisis, and Canada’s connection to it, demand the attention of all the political parties that could make up Canada’s next parliament. On the occasion of Canada’s accession to the ATT, we call on all parties to clearly state how Canada will demonstrate international leadership on arms transfers and the resolution of the Yemen crisis.
To us, such leadership must include the cancellation of arms exports to Saudi Arabia.
Anne Duhamel, Oxfam-Québec
Cesar Jaramillo, Project Ploughshares
Brittany Lambert, Oxfam Canada
Peggy Mason, Rideau Institute
Justin Mohammed, Amnesty International Canada
Daniel Turp, Professor, University of Montreal
Thomas Woodley, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/20/uk-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-for-use-in-yemen-declared-unlawful
With thanks to John Hallam. Note: Published on Abolition-list in April.
Russia nuclear warning: Satan 2 missile that can destroy size of ENGLAND close to launch
By WILL STEWART in Moscow
Vladimir Putin is warning the West that the biggest beast in his fearsome military arsenal – known as Satan-2 – is close to deployment. Other deadly new-generation weapons – the Kinzhal hypersonic missile and the Peresvet laser system – have been put on “combat duty” already, he claimed.
The final tests involving the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile have been a success
“The final tests involving the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile have been a success,” he said, according to the Kremlin’s official translation.
The Sarmat –- known in the West as Satan-2 -– is seen as Russia’s most powerful nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile.
Read more
Initial Russian news reports of Putin’s words at a promotion and awards ceremony for senior officers translated him as saying final tests of the missile were “proceeding successfully”.
This is reflected by Putin’s words on video.
But the Kremlin’s own translation strengthened his claim to say the final tests “have been a success”.
PUBLISHED: 09:23, Mon, Apr 15, 2019 | UPDATED: 09:33, Mon, Apr 15, 2019
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1114363/russia-news-Satan-2-missile-world-war-3-hypersonic-ballistic-missile-USA 1 5April 2019
Related Articles
Putin and Kim Jong Un to hold FIRST EVER summit Russia warning: Kremlin threatens to END American power
The “invincible” hypersonic weapon was shown earlier on video emerging from an underground silo at Plesetsk spaceport – pausing as if hovering above the ground and then speeding to its target in a cloud of white smoke.
Moscow says Satan-2 can evade the United States’ defence shield and is capable of destroying an area the size of England and Wales -— or Texas.
Russia is planning for the RS-28 to enter service by the start of the next decade as a part of its ongoing push to modernize its nuclear arsenal.
Putin was quoted as saying: “Large-scale and consistent the work has been in recent years to develop the army and the navy in a comprehensive manner and to saturate line units with advanced military equipment.
“For example, the Avangard missile system with a boost glide vehicle -– our hypersonic intercontinental system – will considerably enhance the power of the Strategic Missile Forces….
“As you may know, the Kinzhal hypersonic system and the Peresvet laser system have been put on alert duty.”
He boasted: “The Navy’s new surface ships and nuclear submarines will be armed with advanced types of weapons, including the Zircon hypersonic missile, which has no parallels in the world in terms of range and speed.”
Russia is known to be poised to carry out tests on the 6,000 mph Zircon -– or Tsirkon -– with the Mach 8 missile identified recently by Moscow’s state-controlled TV as being President Putin’s weapon of choice to wipe out American cities in the event of nuclear war.
Mr Putin said: “It is these modern powerful precision weapons that are determining and will determine in the future the image of Russia’s Armed Forces.
“For this reason, the requirements to personnel training and the quality and intensity of combat drills are becoming even stricter.
“What we need is a real fusion of Russian martial traditions and the most up-to-date, advanced knowledge, technology and skills in using these to a good effect.”
The hypersonic Kinzhal travels at ten times the speed of sound and has been tested in southern Russia.
It is launched from a high-altitude MiG-31 fighter jet and can be fitted with nuclear or conventional weapons.
It has an effective range of 1,250 miles.
Some 350 training missions are known to have been conducted by the military unit tasked with testing the Kinzhal.
The Peresvet “combat laser system” has a cannon-like device which is believed to be a highly sophisticated jamming weapon.
The aim is to ‘blind’ the optical electronic equipment of enemy vehicles with a laser beam, it is claimed.
The Avangard –- Russia’s hypersonic intercontinental missile system – is said to be capable to withstand high temperatures near a potential target.
It will “seriously boost” the capability of Russian military rocket forces, said Mr Putin.
After earlier Mr Putin boasts about the Sarmat, Western experts expressed scepticism on how close Moscow was to operational use. But US officials have sounded a growing alarm about the potential threat from hypersonic weapons – those that can travel at five times the speed of sound or more.
Russia says the new missile can carry a payload of up to 15 warheads and it was planned to enter service at the start of the next decade to modernise Moscow’s nuclear arsenal.
With thanks to John Hallam. Note: Published on Abolition-list in April.
Russia nuclear warning: Satan 2 missile that can destroy size of ENGLAND close to launch
By WILL STEWART in Moscow
Vladimir Putin is warning the West that the biggest beast in his fearsome military arsenal – known as Satan-2 – is close to deployment. Other deadly new-generation weapons – the Kinzhal hypersonic missile and the Peresvet laser system – have been put on “combat duty” already, he claimed.
The final tests involving the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile have been a success
“The final tests involving the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile have been a success,” he said, according to the Kremlin’s official translation.
The Sarmat –- known in the West as Satan-2 -– is seen as Russia’s most powerful nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile.
Read more
Initial Russian news reports of Putin’s words at a promotion and awards ceremony for senior officers translated him as saying final tests of the missile were “proceeding successfully”.
This is reflected by Putin’s words on video.
But the Kremlin’s own translation strengthened his claim to say the final tests “have been a success”.
PUBLISHED: 09:23, Mon, Apr 15, 2019 | UPDATED: 09:33, Mon, Apr 15, 2019
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1114363/russia-news-Satan-2-missile-world-war-3-hypersonic-ballistic-missile-USA 1 5April 2019
Related Articles
Putin and Kim Jong Un to hold FIRST EVER summit Russia warning: Kremlin threatens to END American power
The “invincible” hypersonic weapon was shown earlier on video emerging from an underground silo at Plesetsk spaceport – pausing as if hovering above the ground and then speeding to its target in a cloud of white smoke.
Moscow says Satan-2 can evade the United States’ defence shield and is capable of destroying an area the size of England and Wales -— or Texas.
Russia is planning for the RS-28 to enter service by the start of the next decade as a part of its ongoing push to modernize its nuclear arsenal.
Putin was quoted as saying: “Large-scale and consistent the work has been in recent years to develop the army and the navy in a comprehensive manner and to saturate line units with advanced military equipment.
“For example, the Avangard missile system with a boost glide vehicle -– our hypersonic intercontinental system – will considerably enhance the power of the Strategic Missile Forces….
“As you may know, the Kinzhal hypersonic system and the Peresvet laser system have been put on alert duty.”
He boasted: “The Navy’s new surface ships and nuclear submarines will be armed with advanced types of weapons, including the Zircon hypersonic missile, which has no parallels in the world in terms of range and speed.”
Russia is known to be poised to carry out tests on the 6,000 mph Zircon -– or Tsirkon -– with the Mach 8 missile identified recently by Moscow’s state-controlled TV as being President Putin’s weapon of choice to wipe out American cities in the event of nuclear war.
Mr Putin said: “It is these modern powerful precision weapons that are determining and will determine in the future the image of Russia’s Armed Forces.
“For this reason, the requirements to personnel training and the quality and intensity of combat drills are becoming even stricter.
“What we need is a real fusion of Russian martial traditions and the most up-to-date, advanced knowledge, technology and skills in using these to a good effect.”
The hypersonic Kinzhal travels at ten times the speed of sound and has been tested in southern Russia.
It is launched from a high-altitude MiG-31 fighter jet and can be fitted with nuclear or conventional weapons.
It has an effective range of 1,250 miles.
Some 350 training missions are known to have been conducted by the military unit tasked with testing the Kinzhal.
The Peresvet “combat laser system” has a cannon-like device which is believed to be a highly sophisticated jamming weapon.
The aim is to ‘blind’ the optical electronic equipment of enemy vehicles with a laser beam, it is claimed.
The Avangard –- Russia’s hypersonic intercontinental missile system – is said to be capable to withstand high temperatures near a potential target.
It will “seriously boost” the capability of Russian military rocket forces, said Mr Putin.
After earlier Mr Putin boasts about the Sarmat, Western experts expressed scepticism on how close Moscow was to operational use. But US officials have sounded a growing alarm about the potential threat from hypersonic weapons – those that can travel at five times the speed of sound or more.
Russia says the new missile can carry a payload of up to 15 warheads and it was planned to enter service at the start of the next decade to modernise Moscow’s nuclear arsenal.
The government also suggested that “in view of the increasing tensions and imminent arms race, identify opportunities together with allies to achieve the withdrawal of all Russian and American sub-strategic nuclear weapons from all over Europe – from the Atlantic to the Urals.”
https://natowatch.org/default/2019/dutch-government-sets-qualified-timeline-end-nuclear-task
Dutch government sets a (qualified) timeline to end the nuclear task
The Dutch seem not to want them!
Susi Snyder, project lead for the PAX No Nukes project, The Netherlands
16 July 2019
This article was first published on the PAX website on 8 July 2019 and is reproduced with the kind permission of the author.
The Dutch government published its response to a report by the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) (31 January 2019), called “Nuclear weapons in a new geopolitical reality.” In the response, the government suggested that when the F-16 is definitely replaced by the F-35 it could be possible to end the nuclear task. The government points out that ending the nuclear task (currently an assignment of a squadron of fighter pilots, allegedly hosting about 20 nuclear bombs, and the related guns, gates and guards to keep them isolated), would not require changes in NATO membership, but would need to be well prepared.
Read more
The government also suggested that “in view of the increasing tensions and imminent arms race, identify opportunities together with allies to achieve the withdrawal of all Russian and American sub-strategic nuclear weapons from all over Europe – from the Atlantic to the Urals.”. Of course, the Dutch government is not eager to act unilaterally, and any withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons would require bilateral negotiations between the US and the Netherlands, and, as with previous withdrawals of forward deployed weapons, an appropriate sharing of information with NATO allies. The government went on to suggest that the “moment of modernization of the nuclear weapons located in Europe would be a logical starting point to take steps in that direction”.
By providing a timeline for ending the nuclear task, the government has its work cut out for it. According to Lockheed Martin, 8 of the 37 planes ordered will be in hand this year, and as production challenges are better worked out, the rest should arrive before the end of 2023. In addition, the B61 bombs currently stored in the Netherlands are meant to be replaced by 2024, so this timeline provides a chance for the government to send those bombs back to the US one – way.
On 7 February 2019, the chamber held discussions about the NATO defence ministerial in the context of the Dutch national plan to structurally invest in priority capacities that fit NATO collective objectives. Nuclear weapon capabilities are NOT a priority capacity building objective and should not be misconstrued as such. Several NATO members have national policies and legislation that prevents things like nuclear sharing, or nuclear armed ships docking at their ports. Some have argued that changing basing arrangements must be made in full consultation with all allies, but historically (e.g. in Greece, Canada and the UK) basing decisions have been made bilaterally and then communicated afterwards to the alliance. Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey all have the opportunity and obligation to protect their citizens by engaging in bilateral discussion with the US to remove forward deployed nuclear weapons from their territories.
Activities needed to meet this deadline are likely to also support efforts to fulfil the 2010 nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty agreement to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security strategies. As it will be necessary for the Netherlands to with allies to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in NATO security strategies and doctrines. As long as nuclear weapons are considered necessary for security, efforts to eliminate them will fail. Previous coalitions worked diligently with allies to re-frame the discussion on burden sharing, to readjust the alliance towards security threats and the arsenals needed to defend against them.
The Dutch government has given itself a timetable that elected officials can hold them accountable to. As the US weapons will need to leave European territory in order to be refitted with the new guided tail kit, among other new capabilities, there is no reason to bring them back. The government can, working with the US, use the plans already designed to safely remove the weapons to the US, and then invite external officials (from IAEA or other governments) to inspect the bunkers in which they were formerly stored, verifying their removal. Overall, this is a confidence building measure and risk reduction effort as well as a demonstration of effective transparency in nuclear weapons matters.
A focus on defence of critical infrastructure, security of energy supply and attention to the low-cost high reward information warfare currently undermining democracies across the alliance would strengthen security without risking the mass murder of civilians. Agreeing to participate in a new nuclear arms race by rationalising the claim that new nuclear weapons are needed to counter the development of new weapons by others is a false equivalency that increases global risks of nuclear use even to the point of nuclear war.
The government also suggested that “in view of the increasing tensions and imminent arms race, identify opportunities together with allies to achieve the withdrawal of all Russian and American sub-strategic nuclear weapons from all over Europe – from the Atlantic to the Urals.”
https://natowatch.org/default/2019/dutch-government-sets-qualified-timeline-end-nuclear-task
Dutch government sets a (qualified) timeline to end the nuclear task
The Dutch seem not to want them!
Susi Snyder, project lead for the PAX No Nukes project, The Netherlands
16 July 2019
This article was first published on the PAX website on 8 July 2019 and is reproduced with the kind permission of the author.
The Dutch government published its response to a report by the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) (31 January 2019), called “Nuclear weapons in a new geopolitical reality.” In the response, the government suggested that when the F-16 is definitely replaced by the F-35 it could be possible to end the nuclear task. The government points out that ending the nuclear task (currently an assignment of a squadron of fighter pilots, allegedly hosting about 20 nuclear bombs, and the related guns, gates and guards to keep them isolated), would not require changes in NATO membership, but would need to be well prepared.
Read more
The government also suggested that “in view of the increasing tensions and imminent arms race, identify opportunities together with allies to achieve the withdrawal of all Russian and American sub-strategic nuclear weapons from all over Europe – from the Atlantic to the Urals.”. Of course, the Dutch government is not eager to act unilaterally, and any withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons would require bilateral negotiations between the US and the Netherlands, and, as with previous withdrawals of forward deployed weapons, an appropriate sharing of information with NATO allies. The government went on to suggest that the “moment of modernization of the nuclear weapons located in Europe would be a logical starting point to take steps in that direction”.
By providing a timeline for ending the nuclear task, the government has its work cut out for it. According to Lockheed Martin, 8 of the 37 planes ordered will be in hand this year, and as production challenges are better worked out, the rest should arrive before the end of 2023. In addition, the B61 bombs currently stored in the Netherlands are meant to be replaced by 2024, so this timeline provides a chance for the government to send those bombs back to the US one – way.
On 7 February 2019, the chamber held discussions about the NATO defence ministerial in the context of the Dutch national plan to structurally invest in priority capacities that fit NATO collective objectives. Nuclear weapon capabilities are NOT a priority capacity building objective and should not be misconstrued as such. Several NATO members have national policies and legislation that prevents things like nuclear sharing, or nuclear armed ships docking at their ports. Some have argued that changing basing arrangements must be made in full consultation with all allies, but historically (e.g. in Greece, Canada and the UK) basing decisions have been made bilaterally and then communicated afterwards to the alliance. Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey all have the opportunity and obligation to protect their citizens by engaging in bilateral discussion with the US to remove forward deployed nuclear weapons from their territories.
Activities needed to meet this deadline are likely to also support efforts to fulfil the 2010 nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty agreement to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security strategies. As it will be necessary for the Netherlands to with allies to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in NATO security strategies and doctrines. As long as nuclear weapons are considered necessary for security, efforts to eliminate them will fail. Previous coalitions worked diligently with allies to re-frame the discussion on burden sharing, to readjust the alliance towards security threats and the arsenals needed to defend against them.
The Dutch government has given itself a timetable that elected officials can hold them accountable to. As the US weapons will need to leave European territory in order to be refitted with the new guided tail kit, among other new capabilities, there is no reason to bring them back. The government can, working with the US, use the plans already designed to safely remove the weapons to the US, and then invite external officials (from IAEA or other governments) to inspect the bunkers in which they were formerly stored, verifying their removal. Overall, this is a confidence building measure and risk reduction effort as well as a demonstration of effective transparency in nuclear weapons matters.
A focus on defence of critical infrastructure, security of energy supply and attention to the low-cost high reward information warfare currently undermining democracies across the alliance would strengthen security without risking the mass murder of civilians. Agreeing to participate in a new nuclear arms race by rationalising the claim that new nuclear weapons are needed to counter the development of new weapons by others is a false equivalency that increases global risks of nuclear use even to the point of nuclear war.
A replica of the “Gadget” and tower in New Mexico.
Saudis vs Houthis = Dead Civilians
A replica of the “Gadget” and tower in New Mexico.
Saudis vs Houthis = Dead Civilians
It May Only Take 3.5% of the Population to Topple a Dictator — With Civil Resistance
(From The Guardian)
Many people across the United States are despondent about [Trump] – and the threat to democracy his rise could represent. But they shouldn’t be. At no time in recorded history have people been more equipped to effectively resist injustice using civil resistance.
Today, those seeking knowledge about the theory and practice of civil resistance can find a wealth of information at their fingertips. In virtually any language, one can find training manuals, strategy-building tools, facilitation guides and documentation about successes and mistakes of past nonviolent campaigns.
Material is available in many formats, including graphic novels, e-classes, films and documentaries, scholarly books, novels, websites, research monographs, research inventories, and children’s books. And of course, the world is full of experienced activists with wisdom to share.
Read more
The United States has its own rich history – past and present – of effective uses of nonviolent resistance. The technique established alternative institutions like economic cooperatives, alternative courts and an underground constitutional convention in the American colonies resulting in the declaration of independence. In 20th century, strategic nonviolent resistance has won voting rights for women and for African Americans living in the Jim Crow south.
Nonviolent resistance has empowered the labor movement, closed down or cancelled dozens of nuclear plants, protected farm workers from abuse in California, motivated the recognition of Aids patients as worthy of access to life-saving treatment, protected free speech, put climate reform on the agenda, given reprieve to Dreamers, raised awareness about economic inequality, changed the conversation about systemic racism and black lives and stalled construction of an oil pipeline on indigenous lands in Standing Rock.
In fact, it is hard to identify a progressive cause in the United States that has advanced without a civil resistance movement behind it.
This does not mean nonviolent resistance always works. Of course it does not, and short-term setbacks are common too. But long-term change never comes with submission, resignation, or despair about the inevitability and intractability of the status quo.
And among the different types of dissent available (armed insurrection or combining armed and unarmed action), nonviolent resistance has historically been the most effective. Compared with armed struggle, whose romanticized allure obscures its staggering costs, nonviolent resistance has actually been the quickest, least costly, and safest way to struggle. Moreover, civil resistance is recognized as a fundamental human right under international law.
Nonviolent resistance does not happen overnight or automatically. It requires an informed and prepared public, keen to the strategy and dynamics of its political power. Although nonviolent campaigns often begin with a committed and experienced core, successful ones enlarge the diversity of participants, maintain nonviolent discipline and expand the types of nonviolent actions they use.
They constantly increase their base of supporters, build coalitions, leverage social networks, and generate connections with those in the opponent’s network who may be ambivalent about cooperating with oppressive policies.
Crucially, nonviolent resistance works not by melting the heart of the opponent but by constraining their options. A leader and his inner circle cannot pass and implement policies alone. They require cooperation and obedience from many people to carry out plans and policies.
In the US on Tuesday, dozens of lawmakers have said they will boycott confirmation votes for Trump nominees. Numerous police departments countrywide have announced that they will not comply with unethical federal policies (particularly regarding deportations). And the federal government employs more than 3 million civil servants – people on whose continued support the US government relies to implement its policies. Many such civil servantshave already begun important conversations about how to dissent from within the administration. They, too, provide an important check on power.
The Women’s March on Washington and its affiliated marches – which may have been the largest single-day demonstration in US history – show a population eager and willing to show up to defend their rights.
Of course, nonviolent resistance often evokes brutality by the government, especially as campaigns escalate their demands and use more disruptive techniques. But historical data shows that when campaigns are able to prepare, train, and remain resilient, they often succeed regardless of whether the government uses violence against them.
Historical studies suggest that it takes 3.5% of a population engaged in sustained nonviolent resistance to topple brutal dictatorships. If that can be true in Chile under Gen Pinochet and Serbia under Milosevic, a few million Americans could prevent their elected government from adopting inhumane, unfair, destructive or oppressive policies – should such drastic measures ever be needed.
Erica Chenoweth is the co-author of Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict
It May Only Take 3.5% of the Population to Topple a Dictator — With Civil Resistance
(From The Guardian)
Many people across the United States are despondent about [Trump] – and the threat to democracy his rise could represent. But they shouldn’t be. At no time in recorded history have people been more equipped to effectively resist injustice using civil resistance.
Today, those seeking knowledge about the theory and practice of civil resistance can find a wealth of information at their fingertips. In virtually any language, one can find training manuals, strategy-building tools, facilitation guides and documentation about successes and mistakes of past nonviolent campaigns.
Material is available in many formats, including graphic novels, e-classes, films and documentaries, scholarly books, novels, websites, research monographs, research inventories, and children’s books. And of course, the world is full of experienced activists with wisdom to share.
Read more
The United States has its own rich history – past and present – of effective uses of nonviolent resistance. The technique established alternative institutions like economic cooperatives, alternative courts and an underground constitutional convention in the American colonies resulting in the declaration of independence. In 20th century, strategic nonviolent resistance has won voting rights for women and for African Americans living in the Jim Crow south.
Nonviolent resistance has empowered the labor movement, closed down or cancelled dozens of nuclear plants, protected farm workers from abuse in California, motivated the recognition of Aids patients as worthy of access to life-saving treatment, protected free speech, put climate reform on the agenda, given reprieve to Dreamers, raised awareness about economic inequality, changed the conversation about systemic racism and black lives and stalled construction of an oil pipeline on indigenous lands in Standing Rock.
In fact, it is hard to identify a progressive cause in the United States that has advanced without a civil resistance movement behind it.
This does not mean nonviolent resistance always works. Of course it does not, and short-term setbacks are common too. But long-term change never comes with submission, resignation, or despair about the inevitability and intractability of the status quo.
And among the different types of dissent available (armed insurrection or combining armed and unarmed action), nonviolent resistance has historically been the most effective. Compared with armed struggle, whose romanticized allure obscures its staggering costs, nonviolent resistance has actually been the quickest, least costly, and safest way to struggle. Moreover, civil resistance is recognized as a fundamental human right under international law.
Nonviolent resistance does not happen overnight or automatically. It requires an informed and prepared public, keen to the strategy and dynamics of its political power. Although nonviolent campaigns often begin with a committed and experienced core, successful ones enlarge the diversity of participants, maintain nonviolent discipline and expand the types of nonviolent actions they use.
They constantly increase their base of supporters, build coalitions, leverage social networks, and generate connections with those in the opponent’s network who may be ambivalent about cooperating with oppressive policies.
Crucially, nonviolent resistance works not by melting the heart of the opponent but by constraining their options. A leader and his inner circle cannot pass and implement policies alone. They require cooperation and obedience from many people to carry out plans and policies.
In the US on Tuesday, dozens of lawmakers have said they will boycott confirmation votes for Trump nominees. Numerous police departments countrywide have announced that they will not comply with unethical federal policies (particularly regarding deportations). And the federal government employs more than 3 million civil servants – people on whose continued support the US government relies to implement its policies. Many such civil servantshave already begun important conversations about how to dissent from within the administration. They, too, provide an important check on power.
The Women’s March on Washington and its affiliated marches – which may have been the largest single-day demonstration in US history – show a population eager and willing to show up to defend their rights.
Of course, nonviolent resistance often evokes brutality by the government, especially as campaigns escalate their demands and use more disruptive techniques. But historical data shows that when campaigns are able to prepare, train, and remain resilient, they often succeed regardless of whether the government uses violence against them.
Historical studies suggest that it takes 3.5% of a population engaged in sustained nonviolent resistance to topple brutal dictatorships. If that can be true in Chile under Gen Pinochet and Serbia under Milosevic, a few million Americans could prevent their elected government from adopting inhumane, unfair, destructive or oppressive policies – should such drastic measures ever be needed.
Erica Chenoweth is the co-author of Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict
Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) are aptly called “killer robots,” though they don’t actually look like Arnold Schwartznegger. They decide whom to kill without consulting a person. You’d never want to get into a fight with one.
Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) are aptly called “killer robots,” though they don’t actually look like Arnold Schwartznegger. They decide whom to kill without consulting a person. You’d never want to get into a fight with one.
Wish the ATT Could Stop Mass Shootings
The Arms Trade Treaty would not solve the US problems about mass shootings, since it only regulates the transfer of weapons between countries. But it would prevent such things as the current Canadian sale of armoured personnel carriers to Saudi Arabia, a country not known for its humanitarian actions.
What Can Replace Satan?
The Sarmat is meant to replace the R-36M ICBM (SS-18 ‘Satan’) in Russia’s arsenal.
Maybe there are still needles up there
“But not all the needles returned to Earth. Thanks to a design flaw, it’s possible that several hundred, perhaps thousands of clusters of clumped needles still reside in orbit around Earth, along with the spacecraft that carried them.
The copper needles were embedded in a naphthalene gel designed to evaporate quickly once it reached the vacuum of space, dispersing the needles in a thin cloud. But this design allowed metal-on-metal contact, which, in a vacuum, can weld fragments into larger clumps.”
Wish the ATT Could Stop Mass Shootings
The Arms Trade Treaty would not solve the US problems about mass shootings, since it only regulates the transfer of weapons between countries. But it would prevent such things as the current Canadian sale of armoured personnel carriers to Saudi Arabia, a country not known for its humanitarian actions.
What Can Replace Satan?
The Sarmat is meant to replace the R-36M ICBM (SS-18 ‘Satan’) in Russia’s arsenal.
Maybe there are still needles up there
“But not all the needles returned to Earth. Thanks to a design flaw, it’s possible that several hundred, perhaps thousands of clusters of clumped needles still reside in orbit around Earth, along with the spacecraft that carried them.
The copper needles were embedded in a naphthalene gel designed to evaporate quickly once it reached the vacuum of space, dispersing the needles in a thin cloud. But this design allowed metal-on-metal contact, which, in a vacuum, can weld fragments into larger clumps.”
It takes all types to keep the peace
A U.N. Emergency Peace Service would probably include armed peacekeepers for the worst situations, as well as maybe “white helmet” peacekeepers (who are almost unarmed) and humanitarian workers, conflict resolution experts, and socio-legal experts.
It takes all types to keep the peace
A U.N. Emergency Peace Service would probably include armed peacekeepers for the worst situations, as well as maybe “white helmet” peacekeepers (who are almost unarmed) and humanitarian workers, conflict resolution experts, and socio-legal experts.
Meet Satan
The “Satan 2” nuclear rocket is aptly named. Maybe the worst weapon ever.
How often are nuclear weapons mentioned in the House of Commons (Canada)? (Correction: this should be a question, not a statement)
Hi Howard – The project is called Project Pluto – which used a ramjet missile design. The missile had an unshielded reactor which super-heated air to generate thrust. The missile could spend months flying relatively low to the ground – causing huge swaths of irradiated land – as well as sounds loud enough to injure and seriously maim animals and humans that it flew over. From my understanding, it used to additionally have the potential for multiple warheads to be affixed to the ramjet itself. Molson Coors – the alcoholic brewing company – provided important ceramic insulation and other components during the development of this missile class. The longest test for the motor was under 5 minutes (Nevada area, I think) – due to the severe damage it caused – and concerns that it would break loose from its tether and be set loose on Western North America.
See some articles and comments around this class of missiles in Plank One section of this website.
That’s an understatement, Richard. It’s about a woman who quit Google last year because of their military project. She says that AI can accidentally start a war.
Meet Satan
The “Satan 2” nuclear rocket is aptly named. Maybe the worst weapon ever.
How often are nuclear weapons mentioned in the House of Commons (Canada)? (Correction: this should be a question, not a statement)
Hi Howard – The project is called Project Pluto – which used a ramjet missile design. The missile had an unshielded reactor which super-heated air to generate thrust. The missile could spend months flying relatively low to the ground – causing huge swaths of irradiated land – as well as sounds loud enough to injure and seriously maim animals and humans that it flew over. From my understanding, it used to additionally have the potential for multiple warheads to be affixed to the ramjet itself. Molson Coors – the alcoholic brewing company – provided important ceramic insulation and other components during the development of this missile class. The longest test for the motor was under 5 minutes (Nevada area, I think) – due to the severe damage it caused – and concerns that it would break loose from its tether and be set loose on Western North America.
See some articles and comments around this class of missiles in Plank One section of this website.
That’s an understatement, Richard. It’s about a woman who quit Google last year because of their military project. She says that AI can accidentally start a war.
Yes! The House of Commons wants this government to ”to take a leadership role within NATO in beginning the work necessary for achieving the NATO goal of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons.” Why isn’t it happening? (And isn’t it a nice room? Not always so nice during Question period when the members get rowdy, but pretty while they are absent.)
Shhh! We’re Canadian MPs. We don’t talk abut Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear-powered missiles?
I read someplace that the US had experimented with using a nuclear reactor to power missiles many years ago but had given up the idea as impractical or maybe they even said too risky. Does anyone know any facts about that? Or is it classified information?
Yes! The House of Commons wants this government to ”to take a leadership role within NATO in beginning the work necessary for achieving the NATO goal of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons.” Why isn’t it happening? (And isn’t it a nice room? Not always so nice during Question period when the members get rowdy, but pretty while they are absent.)
Shhh! We’re Canadian MPs. We don’t talk abut Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear-powered missiles?
I read someplace that the US had experimented with using a nuclear reactor to power missiles many years ago but had given up the idea as impractical or maybe they even said too risky. Does anyone know any facts about that? Or is it classified information?
They don’t actually look like this
By the way, killer robots don’t look like robots at all. They are just machines that don’t have human operators. One might look like a vacuum cleaner or a street sweeper.

They don’t actually look like this
By the way, killer robots don’t look like robots at all. They are just machines that don’t have human operators. One might look like a vacuum cleaner or a street sweeper.

Campaign to Stop Killer Robots shared video:
We spoke with Mary Wareham, Campaign Coordinator, after the end of yesterday’s informal #CCWUN talks on #KIllerRobots. Govts should remember that there will be victims of killer robots. Who will they be? Refugees? Protestors? Civilians?… We have to act now and they are not acting fast enough.
https://www.facebook.com/stopkillerrobots/videos/307825330100362/
Now there’s still a chance to stop them
Polls show that most of the world’s population opposes killer robots. We need to stop them now.
Campaign to Stop Killer Robots shared video:
We spoke with Mary Wareham, Campaign Coordinator, after the end of yesterday’s informal #CCWUN talks on #KIllerRobots. Govts should remember that there will be victims of killer robots. Who will they be? Refugees? Protestors? Civilians?… We have to act now and they are not acting fast enough.
https://www.facebook.com/stopkillerrobots/videos/307825330100362/
Now there’s still a chance to stop them
Polls show that most of the world’s population opposes killer robots. We need to stop them now.
Peace Pledge Union is impeding military recruitment
Shared by
Symon Hill (UK)
“Army misses recruitment target as young people reject militarism: (Peace Pledge Union).
The Peace Pledge Union (PPU) has welcomed the news that the British army is still failing to meet its recruitment targets.
The army’s “2020 Strategy”, adopted in 2015, included an aim to have 82,000 regular troops and 30,100 reserves, by March 2019. However, latest statistics show the army has fewer than 80,000 regular troops and around 27,000 reserves.
Read more
https://ppu.org.uk/news/army-misses-recruitment-targets-young-people-reject-militarism
Peace Pledge Union is impeding military recruitment
Shared by
Symon Hill (UK)
“Army misses recruitment target as young people reject militarism: (Peace Pledge Union).
The Peace Pledge Union (PPU) has welcomed the news that the British army is still failing to meet its recruitment targets.
The army’s “2020 Strategy”, adopted in 2015, included an aim to have 82,000 regular troops and 30,100 reserves, by March 2019. However, latest statistics show the army has fewer than 80,000 regular troops and around 27,000 reserves.
Read more
https://ppu.org.uk/news/army-misses-recruitment-targets-young-people-reject-militarism
Sudan Post-Split
From Sudan Peace Direct
In Sudan, we work with a local organisation called Collaborative for Peace Sudan (CfPS) whose network of Peace Committees intervene and help resolve local level disputes in the southern region of South and West Kordofan.This is important in the context of a country where local issues can escalate and feed into a wider conflict – one which has claimed two million lives over the last fifty years.
Sudan’s 21-year civil war left two million people dead and split the country in two. Weapons are everywhere in the countryside and inter-communal battles occur with frightening regularity.
Simple disputes over water rights, farmland or cattle theft can leave scores dead and breed local hostilities with wider implications.
The continued bombing by the Sudanese Air Force of villages under the control of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army – North results in the deaths of many civilians.
The UN estimates that 100,000 people have fled into neighbouring South Sudan. The growth of weapons in the region along with existing armed groups destabilises communities and entrenches cycles of revenge.
https://www.peacedirect.org/us/where-we-work/Sudan/
Sudan Post-Split
From Sudan Peace Direct
In Sudan, we work with a local organisation called Collaborative for Peace Sudan (CfPS) whose network of Peace Committees intervene and help resolve local level disputes in the southern region of South and West Kordofan.This is important in the context of a country where local issues can escalate and feed into a wider conflict – one which has claimed two million lives over the last fifty years.
Sudan’s 21-year civil war left two million people dead and split the country in two. Weapons are everywhere in the countryside and inter-communal battles occur with frightening regularity.
Simple disputes over water rights, farmland or cattle theft can leave scores dead and breed local hostilities with wider implications.
The continued bombing by the Sudanese Air Force of villages under the control of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army – North results in the deaths of many civilians.
The UN estimates that 100,000 people have fled into neighbouring South Sudan. The growth of weapons in the region along with existing armed groups destabilises communities and entrenches cycles of revenge.
https://www.peacedirect.org/us/where-we-work/Sudan/
Listen to this Podcast!
From Joe Cirincione, May 29 at 1:22 PM ·
This may be the best podcast we’ve done yet. You MUST hear Beatrice Fihn of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). She is powerful and profound. I thank Michelle Dover for hosting our Ploughshares Fund show while I was away.
Listen here: https://www.ploughshares.org/pressthebutton
Listen to this Podcast!
From Joe Cirincione, May 29 at 1:22 PM ·
This may be the best podcast we’ve done yet. You MUST hear Beatrice Fihn of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). She is powerful and profound. I thank Michelle Dover for hosting our Ploughshares Fund show while I was away.
Listen here: https://www.ploughshares.org/pressthebutton
Mediating in Afghanistan
With Kai Brand-Jacobsen
“Whose Peace, Which Justice? The ethics of peace negotiations and mediation in Afghanistan and beyond”
https://www.prio.org/Events/Event/?x=8730&fbclid=IwAR0Vh2In7H1s29pXz3YBGywNuNvVUrO57To_L65sDaScO6q-BxK94Lg9KY8
Mediating in Afghanistan
With Kai Brand-Jacobsen
“Whose Peace, Which Justice? The ethics of peace negotiations and mediation in Afghanistan and beyond”
https://www.prio.org/Events/Event/?x=8730&fbclid=IwAR0Vh2In7H1s29pXz3YBGywNuNvVUrO57To_L65sDaScO6q-BxK94Lg9KY8
“‘Tatva’ of Gandhi’s philosophy remains same, ‘tantra’ will differ”
From Dr Sudarshan Iyengar
https://www.mkgandhi.org/newannou/relevance-of-Gandhi-philosophy.html?
“‘Tatva’ of Gandhi’s philosophy remains same, ‘tantra’ will differ”
From Dr Sudarshan Iyengar
https://www.mkgandhi.org/newannou/relevance-of-Gandhi-philosophy.html?
“Jaitapur: Ten Years of a Peaceful Agitation Against Nuclear Lobbies”
From Anuj Wankhede
Ten years is a long time – One decade, half a score or third of a generation.
That’s the number of years since the fight against a nuclear power project has been raging in Jaitapur, Maharashtra on the west coast of India.
On 28th August, in the idyllic Konkan region, the local community held public demonstrations and a non violent offer to go to prison rather than allow the project to come up. Every year, the locals have expressed their objections to the hideous project touted to be the largest single-site nuclear power station on the planet.
Perhaps ten years ago, this might have impressed some.
Now, nuclear energy is so out of fashion that giant multinational companies such as General Electric (GE) have distanced themselves from building new reactors and are focusing on making money in the dismantling of old ones put up during the heydays of nuclear – the Cold War Era.
Nuclear energy is passé.
Its “sell by” date has passed.
While there is no official cutoff date of course, it can be safely said to be March 11, 2011 when the Great Eastern earthquake and tsunami knocked off 50+ nuclear reactors out of business in Japan and spewed radiation.
The world watched stunned even as the horrors unfolded.
Read more
Many nations took a call to shun the deadly nuclear power and opted for cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives such as solar and wind. Others quietly shelved plans of expansion.
As new orders dried, once giant corporations began to feel the heat. Nuclear was never a profitable business proposition and nuclear power was never cheap. It has survived solely on the basis of government subsidies. With new orders gone, companies like Areva had to file for bankruptcy as was Westinghouse – the former was bailed out by the French government while the latter was rescued by a Canadian private equity firm but not before it almost brought down the Japanese giant Toshiba along with it.
Prices of uranium have fallen 66% to just about US$23 per ounce since 2011 which reflects the fact that there are simply no buyers in the international market for the raw material needed to run these reactors.
This is the scenario today.
Clearly, nuclear energy is not even an option today for any sensible government (the keyword here is sensible, but more on that later).
Now add to this the time needed to build even ONE nuclear reactor (six are planned at Jaitapur). Globally, the median is seven years but in the Indian context, time has no meaning. Which is why, the Kudankulam nuclear power plant took a whopping 25 years from conceptualisation to operationalization. Further, the technology sought to be deployed at Jaitapur is a new, untested one which has seen massive time and cost overruns in Finland and France.
So even if construction begins today, it will not be before 2027 that a single unit of power is generated – and this is the most optimistic timeframe.
Will something that is already out of favour be relevant in 2030? That too in face of sweeping changes in the electricity generation, storage and distribution space.
Cheap, clean renewable energy is already a reality and that married with massive battery storage has rendered white elephants like nuclear power plants obsolete. This is not science fiction, it is now and real – the Tesla Gigafactory in south Australia has demonstrated this at utility scale i.e. it is not a lab demonstration but powers whole cities using wind power stored in battery “farms”. Another is being built in Nevada, USA while China is building at least three such facilities. Above all, the Australian Gigafactory was built in 100 days!
In face of such developments, the whole notion of setting up a 10,000MW power project is senseless. And that brings me to the question about “sensible government”. Look at some reasons (apart from the ones detailed above) and decide for yourself if building a nuclear power station at Jaitapur is the act of any sensible government:
1) Jaitapur is located in the most ecologically fragile region, and has one of the largest biodiversity found on the planet with many rare and endangered species present here.
2) Jaitapur lies on an earthquake fault line which means that it is susceptible to earthquakes and which could result in a repeat of Fukushima.
3) The region surrounding the proposed site is world famous for its agricultural produce – its Alphonso mangoes and cashew are prized and fetch a premium price world over.
4) The proposed site will devastate the fishing community by denying them access to the sea as well as by destroying marine life due to the release of hot water from the reactors.
These are just some of the reasons why it makes no sense to build a nuclear power station at Jaitapur.
Apart from these, there are plenty of other reasons such as constant dangerous radiation, the problems related to disposal of nuclear waste (to which there is no solution), the huge capital investment needed for such projects, the thousands of tons of cement, concrete and steel used whose manufacturing is highly polluting and is a primary source of greenhouse gases.
The government acquired land for the project by surreptitious, underhand means. Many of those who did not want to surrender their lands were coerced or tricked into accepting “compensation” for “voluntarily” surrendering it.
And yet ten years since the agitation began, the people around the proposed project are firm about not allowing it. The government must listen to the voices of the locals, act democratically and sensibly. I realize that it is virtually impossible for the government to do any one of the above – let alone all three.
But any rational person would reach the conclusion that building a nuclear power station here is lunacy and that the land acquired for the project be returned back to the original land owners – with an apology.
For 10 long years, the villagers have demonstrated peacefully despite provocation by the government – police have opened fire on them killing one of them. Yet, the villagers have maintained peace and have kept the faith.
The government should not push it’s luck and must forthright declare that the Jaitapur nuclear power project stands cancelled.
(The author has been involved with various agitations across India and abroad protesting the use of nuclear energy and weapons.
He can be reached via email at benchmark.anuj@gmail.com)
https://indiaresists.com/jaitapur-ten-years-of-a-peaceful-agitation-nuclear-power-lobbies/
“Jaitapur: Ten Years of a Peaceful Agitation Against Nuclear Lobbies”
From Anuj Wankhede
Ten years is a long time – One decade, half a score or third of a generation.
That’s the number of years since the fight against a nuclear power project has been raging in Jaitapur, Maharashtra on the west coast of India.
On 28th August, in the idyllic Konkan region, the local community held public demonstrations and a non violent offer to go to prison rather than allow the project to come up. Every year, the locals have expressed their objections to the hideous project touted to be the largest single-site nuclear power station on the planet.
Perhaps ten years ago, this might have impressed some.
Now, nuclear energy is so out of fashion that giant multinational companies such as General Electric (GE) have distanced themselves from building new reactors and are focusing on making money in the dismantling of old ones put up during the heydays of nuclear – the Cold War Era.
Nuclear energy is passé.
Its “sell by” date has passed.
While there is no official cutoff date of course, it can be safely said to be March 11, 2011 when the Great Eastern earthquake and tsunami knocked off 50+ nuclear reactors out of business in Japan and spewed radiation.
The world watched stunned even as the horrors unfolded.
Read more
Many nations took a call to shun the deadly nuclear power and opted for cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives such as solar and wind. Others quietly shelved plans of expansion.
As new orders dried, once giant corporations began to feel the heat. Nuclear was never a profitable business proposition and nuclear power was never cheap. It has survived solely on the basis of government subsidies. With new orders gone, companies like Areva had to file for bankruptcy as was Westinghouse – the former was bailed out by the French government while the latter was rescued by a Canadian private equity firm but not before it almost brought down the Japanese giant Toshiba along with it.
Prices of uranium have fallen 66% to just about US$23 per ounce since 2011 which reflects the fact that there are simply no buyers in the international market for the raw material needed to run these reactors.
This is the scenario today.
Clearly, nuclear energy is not even an option today for any sensible government (the keyword here is sensible, but more on that later).
Now add to this the time needed to build even ONE nuclear reactor (six are planned at Jaitapur). Globally, the median is seven years but in the Indian context, time has no meaning. Which is why, the Kudankulam nuclear power plant took a whopping 25 years from conceptualisation to operationalization. Further, the technology sought to be deployed at Jaitapur is a new, untested one which has seen massive time and cost overruns in Finland and France.
So even if construction begins today, it will not be before 2027 that a single unit of power is generated – and this is the most optimistic timeframe.
Will something that is already out of favour be relevant in 2030? That too in face of sweeping changes in the electricity generation, storage and distribution space.
Cheap, clean renewable energy is already a reality and that married with massive battery storage has rendered white elephants like nuclear power plants obsolete. This is not science fiction, it is now and real – the Tesla Gigafactory in south Australia has demonstrated this at utility scale i.e. it is not a lab demonstration but powers whole cities using wind power stored in battery “farms”. Another is being built in Nevada, USA while China is building at least three such facilities. Above all, the Australian Gigafactory was built in 100 days!
In face of such developments, the whole notion of setting up a 10,000MW power project is senseless. And that brings me to the question about “sensible government”. Look at some reasons (apart from the ones detailed above) and decide for yourself if building a nuclear power station at Jaitapur is the act of any sensible government:
1) Jaitapur is located in the most ecologically fragile region, and has one of the largest biodiversity found on the planet with many rare and endangered species present here.
2) Jaitapur lies on an earthquake fault line which means that it is susceptible to earthquakes and which could result in a repeat of Fukushima.
3) The region surrounding the proposed site is world famous for its agricultural produce – its Alphonso mangoes and cashew are prized and fetch a premium price world over.
4) The proposed site will devastate the fishing community by denying them access to the sea as well as by destroying marine life due to the release of hot water from the reactors.
These are just some of the reasons why it makes no sense to build a nuclear power station at Jaitapur.
Apart from these, there are plenty of other reasons such as constant dangerous radiation, the problems related to disposal of nuclear waste (to which there is no solution), the huge capital investment needed for such projects, the thousands of tons of cement, concrete and steel used whose manufacturing is highly polluting and is a primary source of greenhouse gases.
The government acquired land for the project by surreptitious, underhand means. Many of those who did not want to surrender their lands were coerced or tricked into accepting “compensation” for “voluntarily” surrendering it.
And yet ten years since the agitation began, the people around the proposed project are firm about not allowing it. The government must listen to the voices of the locals, act democratically and sensibly. I realize that it is virtually impossible for the government to do any one of the above – let alone all three.
But any rational person would reach the conclusion that building a nuclear power station here is lunacy and that the land acquired for the project be returned back to the original land owners – with an apology.
For 10 long years, the villagers have demonstrated peacefully despite provocation by the government – police have opened fire on them killing one of them. Yet, the villagers have maintained peace and have kept the faith.
The government should not push it’s luck and must forthright declare that the Jaitapur nuclear power project stands cancelled.
(The author has been involved with various agitations across India and abroad protesting the use of nuclear energy and weapons.
He can be reached via email at benchmark.anuj@gmail.com)
https://indiaresists.com/jaitapur-ten-years-of-a-peaceful-agitation-nuclear-power-lobbies/
Executed for Being an Anti-Nuclear Activist
From Anuj Wankhede
The incredible unknown story of “nuclear martyr” Nikos Nikiforidis
On March 5, 1951, 22-year-old Nikos Nikiforidis was executed in Greece because he was promoting the Stockholm Antinuclear Appeal (1950). Honoring his death, Greek IPPNW and PADOP organized an event this March in Athens to commemorate him and his courage. Below is an amalgamation of two presentations given about Nikiforidis at that event.
By Maria Arvaniti Sotiropoulou and Panos Trigazis
Under present conditions, it seems inconceivable that a 22-year-old fighter for the anti-nuclear movement was arrested, sentenced to death by court martial and executed in Thessaloniki, on a charge of collecting signatures under the Stockholm Appeal for the abolition and prohibition of all nuclear weapons. But Nikos Nikiforidis was the first person (and perhaps also the only one) in the world to suffer such a fate.
At that time, the cold war was at its height on the international stage, and Greece was geographically on the border of the two worlds, the prevailing doctrine of its foreign policy being the “threat from the north”.
The Stockholm Appeal was adopted on March 15, 1950 by a world peace conference and accompanied by a campaign that collected more than 50 million signatures worldwide. Below is the text of the Appeal:
“We demand the outlawing of atomic weapons as instruments of intimidation and mass murder of peoples. We demand strict international control to enforce this measure.
“We believe that any government which first uses atomic weapons against any other country whatsoever will be committing a crime against humanity and should be dealt with as a war criminal.
“We call on all men and women of goodwill throughout the world to sign this appeal.”
The appeal was created by the World Peace Council whose president was the Nobel Peace laureate physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie. In Greece it was supported by many people including famous poets such as Kostas Varnalis and distinguished bishops.
Why would a government execute one of its citizens simply for collecting signatures for nuclear abolition? In order to understand this, we need to take a look at this period of Greek history.
Read more
During the Second World War, Greece was attacked by Italy on October 28, 1940 and later was occupied by Nazi Germany. There was a strong resistance movement against the Nazis who committed many war crimes against the civilian population, even massacring whole villages including children and pregnant women.
As World War II ended, the Cold War began. Truman, Stalin and Churchill divided Europe into spheres of interest, East and West. Greece descended into a cruel civil war that lasted until 1950.
In the years following the civil war, when the Greek government was very much under the influence of the US government, ideas about peace were connected to Communism and anybody who spoke about peace or against nuclear weapons was considered to be a Communist, which could bring a heavy penalty. Someone suspected of being a Communist, and even his family, could find themselves facing unemployment, be sent into exile away from the family or in prison where they were sometimes even tortured.
At the age of 18, when Nikos Nikiforidis was just a student, he was exiled to the island of Ikaria and then to Makronisos, where he was brutally tortured by Dimitris Ioannidis, who later became one of the leaders of the military junta, the dictatorship in Greece between 1967-1974.
He was released in the spring of 1950 and became head of the Youth Peace Front, whose first duty was to promulgate the Stockholm Appeal. This was the situation under which Nikiforidis was collecting signatures for nuclear abolition.
On February 21, 1951 a military court in Thessaloniki, Greece opened a court case which for many of you today would seem incomprehensible. Fourteen young people were found guilty of “promulgating subversive ideas” by collecting signatures for the Stockholm Appeal.
The military court decided that of the 14 people who had collected signatures, Nikiforidis was the only one who should be condemned to death. An international movement of support emerged, and it seemed as if he would be spared. Prime minister Sofoklis Venizelos declared that “there are no more executions in Greece” (in fact the last execution in Greece was conducted in May 25 1972). Queen Frideriki assured Nikiforidis’ parents that they would pardon him. Despite all these assurances, Nikiforidis was executed on May 5 1951 at the age of only 22.
Reports at the time said that when he faced the firing squad he said: “My execution has only one meaning, to suppress the Peace Movement”. He cheered for peace and stood alone in front of the guns.
The sacrifice of Nikiforidis has not been sufficiently publicized in the international anti-nuclear movement, perhaps because he was not a well-known political figure like Grigoris Lambrakis, who was also a university faculty member and a champion athlete in his youth. (The award-winning Costa-Gavras film, Z, was a not so thinly veiled dramatization of his assassination and its aftermath). Even in Greece, the name of Nikos Nikiforidis is relatively unknown today, especially among young people.
However, now that the anti-nuclear movement has re-emerged on the world stage, after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in 2017, and after the successful adoption of the Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we as peace movements and as societies should honor the pioneering fighters of our movement.
Now, 67 years after Nikiforidis’ execution, we continue to gather signatures from our Parliamentarians in order to persuade our government to sign the historical Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
PADOP has maintained relations with the Nikiforidis family and his surviving sister Olympia Nikiforidis, who participates in our events, and who also sailed on the Ship of Peace from Piraeus to Rome in 2016, in order to tell the shocking story of Nikos Nikiforidis.
As anti-nuclear activists, walking the path that Nikiforidis started with his sacrifice, we will never stop until we achieve a nuclear free world.
Note: On April 23, 2019, three individuals were given the Nikos Nikiforidis Non-Nuclear Peace Award, presented by PADOP. They were: Lucianna Kastellina, former (and now candidate in Greece) EU Parliamentarian, reporter and peace activist, for her work as founder of the historic END movement in Europe; Giannis Mpoutaris, Mayor of Thessaloniki, for his work for peace in the Balkans. He was beaten recently by individuals from the extreme Right, because he spoke for the Prespes Agreement, but in his 12 years in the Municipality, he was also the mayor who started linking cities programs with Skopja, Turkish and other Balkan cities; and Andreas Theofilou, nuclear physicist, peace activist from Cyprus, founder of the massive “Bernard Russell Youth” NGO in Greece that organized the first Peace Marathon March.
Maria Arvaniti Sotiropoulou is President of the Greek Affiliate of IPPNW, the Representative of ICAN in Greece. Panos Trigazis is president of the Observatory of International Organisations and Globalisation (PADOP) and advisor to the International Peace Bureau.
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/06/23/executed-for-being-an-anti-nuclear-activist/
Executed for Being an Anti-Nuclear Activist
From Anuj Wankhede
The incredible unknown story of “nuclear martyr” Nikos Nikiforidis
On March 5, 1951, 22-year-old Nikos Nikiforidis was executed in Greece because he was promoting the Stockholm Antinuclear Appeal (1950). Honoring his death, Greek IPPNW and PADOP organized an event this March in Athens to commemorate him and his courage. Below is an amalgamation of two presentations given about Nikiforidis at that event.
By Maria Arvaniti Sotiropoulou and Panos Trigazis
Under present conditions, it seems inconceivable that a 22-year-old fighter for the anti-nuclear movement was arrested, sentenced to death by court martial and executed in Thessaloniki, on a charge of collecting signatures under the Stockholm Appeal for the abolition and prohibition of all nuclear weapons. But Nikos Nikiforidis was the first person (and perhaps also the only one) in the world to suffer such a fate.
At that time, the cold war was at its height on the international stage, and Greece was geographically on the border of the two worlds, the prevailing doctrine of its foreign policy being the “threat from the north”.
The Stockholm Appeal was adopted on March 15, 1950 by a world peace conference and accompanied by a campaign that collected more than 50 million signatures worldwide. Below is the text of the Appeal:
“We demand the outlawing of atomic weapons as instruments of intimidation and mass murder of peoples. We demand strict international control to enforce this measure.
“We believe that any government which first uses atomic weapons against any other country whatsoever will be committing a crime against humanity and should be dealt with as a war criminal.
“We call on all men and women of goodwill throughout the world to sign this appeal.”
The appeal was created by the World Peace Council whose president was the Nobel Peace laureate physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie. In Greece it was supported by many people including famous poets such as Kostas Varnalis and distinguished bishops.
Why would a government execute one of its citizens simply for collecting signatures for nuclear abolition? In order to understand this, we need to take a look at this period of Greek history.
Read more
During the Second World War, Greece was attacked by Italy on October 28, 1940 and later was occupied by Nazi Germany. There was a strong resistance movement against the Nazis who committed many war crimes against the civilian population, even massacring whole villages including children and pregnant women.
As World War II ended, the Cold War began. Truman, Stalin and Churchill divided Europe into spheres of interest, East and West. Greece descended into a cruel civil war that lasted until 1950.
In the years following the civil war, when the Greek government was very much under the influence of the US government, ideas about peace were connected to Communism and anybody who spoke about peace or against nuclear weapons was considered to be a Communist, which could bring a heavy penalty. Someone suspected of being a Communist, and even his family, could find themselves facing unemployment, be sent into exile away from the family or in prison where they were sometimes even tortured.
At the age of 18, when Nikos Nikiforidis was just a student, he was exiled to the island of Ikaria and then to Makronisos, where he was brutally tortured by Dimitris Ioannidis, who later became one of the leaders of the military junta, the dictatorship in Greece between 1967-1974.
He was released in the spring of 1950 and became head of the Youth Peace Front, whose first duty was to promulgate the Stockholm Appeal. This was the situation under which Nikiforidis was collecting signatures for nuclear abolition.
On February 21, 1951 a military court in Thessaloniki, Greece opened a court case which for many of you today would seem incomprehensible. Fourteen young people were found guilty of “promulgating subversive ideas” by collecting signatures for the Stockholm Appeal.
The military court decided that of the 14 people who had collected signatures, Nikiforidis was the only one who should be condemned to death. An international movement of support emerged, and it seemed as if he would be spared. Prime minister Sofoklis Venizelos declared that “there are no more executions in Greece” (in fact the last execution in Greece was conducted in May 25 1972). Queen Frideriki assured Nikiforidis’ parents that they would pardon him. Despite all these assurances, Nikiforidis was executed on May 5 1951 at the age of only 22.
Reports at the time said that when he faced the firing squad he said: “My execution has only one meaning, to suppress the Peace Movement”. He cheered for peace and stood alone in front of the guns.
The sacrifice of Nikiforidis has not been sufficiently publicized in the international anti-nuclear movement, perhaps because he was not a well-known political figure like Grigoris Lambrakis, who was also a university faculty member and a champion athlete in his youth. (The award-winning Costa-Gavras film, Z, was a not so thinly veiled dramatization of his assassination and its aftermath). Even in Greece, the name of Nikos Nikiforidis is relatively unknown today, especially among young people.
However, now that the anti-nuclear movement has re-emerged on the world stage, after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in 2017, and after the successful adoption of the Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we as peace movements and as societies should honor the pioneering fighters of our movement.
Now, 67 years after Nikiforidis’ execution, we continue to gather signatures from our Parliamentarians in order to persuade our government to sign the historical Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
PADOP has maintained relations with the Nikiforidis family and his surviving sister Olympia Nikiforidis, who participates in our events, and who also sailed on the Ship of Peace from Piraeus to Rome in 2016, in order to tell the shocking story of Nikos Nikiforidis.
As anti-nuclear activists, walking the path that Nikiforidis started with his sacrifice, we will never stop until we achieve a nuclear free world.
Note: On April 23, 2019, three individuals were given the Nikos Nikiforidis Non-Nuclear Peace Award, presented by PADOP. They were: Lucianna Kastellina, former (and now candidate in Greece) EU Parliamentarian, reporter and peace activist, for her work as founder of the historic END movement in Europe; Giannis Mpoutaris, Mayor of Thessaloniki, for his work for peace in the Balkans. He was beaten recently by individuals from the extreme Right, because he spoke for the Prespes Agreement, but in his 12 years in the Municipality, he was also the mayor who started linking cities programs with Skopja, Turkish and other Balkan cities; and Andreas Theofilou, nuclear physicist, peace activist from Cyprus, founder of the massive “Bernard Russell Youth” NGO in Greece that organized the first Peace Marathon March.
Maria Arvaniti Sotiropoulou is President of the Greek Affiliate of IPPNW, the Representative of ICAN in Greece. Panos Trigazis is president of the Observatory of International Organisations and Globalisation (PADOP) and advisor to the International Peace Bureau.
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/06/23/executed-for-being-an-anti-nuclear-activist/
India is planning new nuclear power plants
“Centre for N-plants in Punjab”
NEW DELHI: The Centre today said it was in the process of “exploring new sites in Punjab for setting up atomic power plants”.
Vibha Sharma, Tribune News Service, New Delhi, June 26
The Centre today said it was in the process of “exploring new sites in Punjab for setting up atomic power plants”.
Replying to a supplementary by Anantnag MP Hasnain Masoodi on the shortage of power in Jammu and Kashmir during Question Hour, Minister of State in the Department of Atomic Energy Jitendra Singh said while the government was already in the process of setting up a plant in Haryana, it was exploring new sites near Bathinda and Patiala to set up nuclear power plants.
Around 2016, there were reports about the Centre looking for possible sites in Uttarakhand, Punjab and Haryana for setting up plants. However, the then Punjab Government and also the Congress had rejected the proposal, saying there was no need for such facility in a power surplus state.
Congress leaders also called a nuclear power plant in a densely-populated border state a huge security risk. “The risks involved are disproportionately more than the advantages,” the party argued. The Congress government in the state had also rejected the proposal for a nuclear power plant at Darauli in Patiala.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/centre-for-n-plants-in-punjab/793443.html
India is planning new nuclear power plants
“Centre for N-plants in Punjab”
NEW DELHI: The Centre today said it was in the process of “exploring new sites in Punjab for setting up atomic power plants”.
Vibha Sharma, Tribune News Service, New Delhi, June 26
The Centre today said it was in the process of “exploring new sites in Punjab for setting up atomic power plants”.
Replying to a supplementary by Anantnag MP Hasnain Masoodi on the shortage of power in Jammu and Kashmir during Question Hour, Minister of State in the Department of Atomic Energy Jitendra Singh said while the government was already in the process of setting up a plant in Haryana, it was exploring new sites near Bathinda and Patiala to set up nuclear power plants.
Around 2016, there were reports about the Centre looking for possible sites in Uttarakhand, Punjab and Haryana for setting up plants. However, the then Punjab Government and also the Congress had rejected the proposal, saying there was no need for such facility in a power surplus state.
Congress leaders also called a nuclear power plant in a densely-populated border state a huge security risk. “The risks involved are disproportionately more than the advantages,” the party argued. The Congress government in the state had also rejected the proposal for a nuclear power plant at Darauli in Patiala.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/centre-for-n-plants-in-punjab/793443.html