Trump wants nuclear Saudi absolute monarchy


This 14 February 2019 video from the USA says about itself:

Trump Lobbying for Saudi Arabia to Have “Path to Nuclear Power”

Trump Wants Saudi Arabia to Have Nuclear Power. Here Are 5 Ways That Can Go Very Wrong: here.

WHITE HOUSE WANTS TO SHARE NUCLEAR TECH WITH SAUDIS Senior White House officials pushed to share nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia despite the objections of ethics and national security officials, according to a new congressional report. Whistleblowers told investigators it could destabilize the Middle East with nuclear weapons proliferation. [AP]

This 14 February 2019 video from the USA says about itself:

Congress Votes To End US Assistance In Yemen Slaughter

The House on Wednesday passed a measure aimed at withdrawing all U.S. military support for the Saudi Arabia-backed war in Yemen, the latest in a series of rebukes by Congress to President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.

The Democratic-led House advanced the bill, 248-177, as its first major vote on foreign policy, making it priority even as the administration resists congressional involvement in the conflict. Last year, with Republicans in the majority, the House refused to take up the measure in order to keep the president’s hands from being tied on a key foreign policy area.

Advertisements

Red Cross against nuclear weapons


This 11 February 2019 video from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says about itself:

Let’s decide the future of nuclear weapons before they decide ours.

Help us send a signal to States worldwide – sign the treaty, protect our future: here.

Translated from Sittard-Geleen Nieuws in the Netherlands today:

The Red Cross conducts action against nuclear weapons on a global scale this Monday. The organization wants the Netherlands to, eg, sign the United Nations nuclear weapons ban.

That was adopted in July 2017 by the United Nations with the consent of 122 countries. The Netherlands was the only NATO country to abstain from voting, the other member states voted against. The treaty has now been ratified by seventy countries.

With a penetrating video, the Red Cross wants to raise awareness of the terrible consequences that an attack with nuclear weapons will cause. In the film the question is central: if a nuclear bomb would fall here, would you want to survive that disaster or would you rather die?

A nuclear weapon attack has far-reaching consequences, the Red Cross wants to make clear. The heat, shock waves and radiation can cause many victims, post disaster assistance is virtually impossible and the consequences for the health of the survivors will remain noticeable for generations.

In addition, the aid organization points out the large amounts of soot that will come into the atmosphere as a result of such an attack. This would result in less sunlight on earth, which could lead to falling temperatures, failed harvests and hunger.

The chance of an attack appears to have increased in recent years, partly because both the United States and Russia have withdrawn from the treaty that bans nuclear weapons for medium distances.

Scotland’s bomb: six times more powerful than Hiroshima. The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament looks forward to 2019 as another year of campaigning to rid our country and our world of the scourge of nuclear weapons, writes ARTHUR WEST.

Trump’s nuclear escalation and the Netherlands


This 23 December 2016 CBS TV video from the USA says about itself:

Trump on nukes: “Let it be an arms race”

President-elect Donald Trump expanded on his tweet about the United States’ nuclear arsenal Friday. He told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program “Let it be an arms race, because we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” Reuters correspondent Timothy Gardner spoke to CBSN about what to make of this reversal in world policy.

Translated from Dutch NOS TV today:

D66

One of the four parties in the Dutch right-wing coalition government. D66 is not the most right-wing of these four.

remains against equipping the Joint Strike Fighter with nuclear weapons. Party leader Rob Jetten said in a radio show that nuclear weapons on aircraft do not lead to a better world. He responds to a report from the Advisory Council on International Affairs that appeared earlier this week.

The Council, chaired by former CDA leader and former NATO secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, wants the F-35 to take over the nuclear weapons task of the F-16. …

A majority of parliament supported in 2013 a motion of the Socialist Party stating that the JSF (F-35) should not be equipped with nuclear weapons. The current government parties CDA, D66 and ChristenUnie also supported that motion. However, Ministers Hennis

of the right-wing pro-Big Business VVD party. Ms Hennis had to resign in a scandal about Dutch soldiers killed by defective United States ammunition in the Mali neocolonial war.

and Timmermans

of the social democrat PvdA party. Then the junior partner in a VVD-PvdA coalition government; which led to the PvdA losing three-quarters of its voters. Mr Timmermans is now deputy boss of the European Union’s European Commission in Brussels.

ignored this motion, because the Netherlands has a nuclear weapon task in the NATO context.

One should hope D66 will continue to oppose nuclear weapons on ultra-expensive and dodgy F-35 warplanes. However, one might fear that continuing as ministers in the right-wing coalition government may turn out to be more important for D66 politicians.

After US withdrawal from INF nuclear treaty with Russia. France conducts dry-run simulation of nuclear weapon strike: here.

Trump’s move towards a nuclear war


This 22 November 2018 video from the USA is called A March to Disaster: Noam Chomsky Condemns Trump for Pulling Out of Landmark Nuclear Arms Treaty.

By Andre Damon in the USA:

The US scraps the INF treaty: Another step toward nuclear war

2 February 2019

At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the world stood on the brink of nuclear annihilation, President John F. Kennedy told his brother Bobby, “If this planet is ever ravaged by nuclear war, if 300 million Americans, Russians, and Europeans are wiped out by a 60-minute nuclear exchange, if the survivors of that devastation can then endure the fire, poison, chaos, and catastrophe, I do not want one of those survivors to ask another, ‘How did it all happen?’ and to receive the incredible reply, ‘Ah, if only one knew.’”

Unbeknownst to President Kennedy, who was seeking to avoid a nuclear war, or his general staff, many of whom wanted to start one, such a war would have wiped out not 300 million people but all of humanity. The theory of nuclear winter, discovered in the mid-80s and subsequently accepted by scientific consensus, concludes that a full-scale nuclear war, as planned by the United States military, would render the entire planet uninhabitable for a century.

But it is precisely such a nuclear apocalypse that the United States is not just blindly stumbling toward, but directly preparing for. As a recent article in Foreign Affairs told its readers: “Prepare for Nuclear War.”

On Friday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that the United States would suspend its compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, a 1987 agreement between the Soviet Union (and subsequently Russia) and the United States that bans the deployment of missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

The move makes almost inevitable the US withdrawal from the other key global arms control agreement, the New START treaty, agreed between the United States and Russia in 2011, in what US president Trump called “one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration.”

Little need be said about the White House’s official justifications for leaving the treaty: that Russia is in violation of the treaty’s provisions, despite repeated offers by Moscow for not only the United States, but international authorities and journalists, to inspect its missiles. The White House’s allegations are echoed by people who do not believe them and left unquestioned by a media apparatus that functions as a mouthpiece for the military.

In an article that fully backs the White House’s accusations against Russia, the New York Times’ David Sanger, a conduit for the Pentagon, spells out with perfect lucidity the real reasons why the United States is leaving the INF treaty:

“Constrained by the treaty’s provisions, the United States has been prevented from deploying new weapons to counter China’s efforts to cement a dominant position in the Western Pacific and keep American aircraft carriers at bay. China was still a small and unsophisticated military power when Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of a rapidly-weakening Soviet Union, negotiated the I.N.F. agreement.”

Sanger’s own words make perfectly clear why the United States wants to leave the treaty, which has nothing to do with Russia’s alleged violations: Washington is seeking to ring the island chain surrounding the Chinese mainland with a hedge of nuclear missiles. But Sanger somehow expects, without so much as a transition paragraph, his readers to believe the hot air spewed by Pompeo about Russia’s “bad behavior”.

The US withdrawal from the INF treaty is not the result of Trump’s peculiar fondness for nuclear weapons. Rather, it is the outcome of a reorientation of the United States military toward “great-power” conflict with Russia and China.

Over the past two years, the American military establishment has grown increasingly alarmed at the rapidity of China’s technological development, which the United States sees as a threat not only to the profitability of its corporations, but the dominance of its military.

Two decades ago, at the height of the dotcom bubble, China was little more than a cheap labor platform, assembling the consumer electronics driving a revolution in communications, while American companies pocketed the vast bulk of the profits. But today, the economic balance of power is shifting.

Chinese companies like Huawei, Xiaomi, and Oppo are capturing an ever-greater portion of the global smartphone market, even as their rivals Samsung and Apple see their market share slip. The Shenzhen-based DJI is the uncontested global leader in the consumer drone market. Huawei, meanwhile, leads its competitors by over a year in the next-generation mobile infrastructure that will power not only driverless cars and “smart” appliances, but the “autonomous” weapons of the future.

As the latest US Worldwide Threat Assessment warns, “For 2019 and beyond, the innovations that drive military and economic competitiveness will increasingly originate outside the United States, as the overall US lead in science and technology shrinks” and “the capability gap between commercial and military technologies evaporates.”

It is the economic decline of the United States relative to its global rivals that is ultimately driving the intensification of US nuclear war plans. The United States hopes that, by leveraging its military, it will be able to contain the economic rise of China and shore up US preeminence on the world stage.

But a consensus is emerging within the US military that Washington cannot bring its rivals to heel merely with the threat of totally obliterating them with its massive arsenal of strategic missiles. Given the fleet of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines possessed by both Russia and China, this option, even ignoring the effects of nuclear winter, would result in the destruction of the largest cities in the United States.

Rather, the US is working to construct a “usable”, low-yield, “tactical” nuclear arsenal, including the construction of a new nuclear-capable cruise missile. This week, a new, low-yield US nuclear warhead went into production, with a yield between half and one third of the “little boy” weapon that leveled the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and hundreds of times less than the United States’ other nuclear weapons systems.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, released last year, envisions using such weapons to turn the tide in conflicts that begin with conventional weapons, under the pretense (whether the Pentagon believes it or not) that such wars will stop short of full-scale nuclear exchanges.

Nearly 75 years ago, the United States, after having “scorched and boiled and baked to death,” in the words of General Curtis Lemay, hundreds of thousands of civilians in a genocidal “strategic bombing” campaign over Japan, murdered hundreds of thousands more with the use of two nuclear weapons: an action whose primary aim was to threaten the USSR.

But ultimately, the continued existence of the Soviet Union served as a check on the genocidal impulses of US imperialism.

Despite the triumphalist claims that the dissolution of the Soviet Union would bring about a new era of peace, democracy, and the “end of history,” it has brought only a quarter-century of neocolonial wars.

But the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria have not achieved their intended purpose. Having spent trillions of dollars and killed countless millions of people, the global position of US imperialism is no better than when it launched the “war on terror” in 2001.

Now, the United States is upping the ante: setting “great-power conflict” with Russia and China on the order of the day. In its existential struggle for global hegemony, US imperialism is going for broke, willing to take the most reckless and desperate means, up to and including the launching of nuclear war.

There is no peaceful, capitalist road toward managing the global crisis that has erupted with such force and violence. If humanity is to survive the 21st century, it will take the intervention of the working class, the only social force capable of opposing the war aims of the capitalist ruling elites, through the struggle to reorganize society on a socialist basis.

Trump escalates nuclear war danger


This 6 December 2017 video from the USA says about itself:

Daniel Ellsberg Reveals He was a Nuclear War Planner, Warns of Nuclear Winter & Global Starvation

Could tension between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un bring us to the brink of nuclear war? As tensions ramp up, we discuss what nuclear war would look like with a former nuclear war planner and one of the world’s most famous whistleblowers—Daniel Ellsberg.

In 1971, Ellsberg was a high-level defense analyst when he leaked a top-secret report on U.S. involvement in Vietnam to The New York Times and other publications, which came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. He played a key role in ending the Vietnam War. Few know Ellsberg was also a Pentagon and White House consultant who drafted plans for nuclear war. His new book, published Tuesday, is titled “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.” We speak with Ellsberg about his top-secret nuclear studies, his front row seat to the Cuban missile crisis, whether Trump could start a nuclear war and how contemporary whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden are his heroes.

By Andre Damon in the USA:

Trump, announcing new missile defense program, ramps up nuclear arms race

19 January 2019

Speaking at the Pentagon Thursday, President Donald Trump announced the largest expansion of US missile defense forces since Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program.

The announcement is the latest move in a global nuclear arms race in which the United States, Russia and China are rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenals, even as the Trump administration moves to tear up all restrictions on the development, deployment and use of nuclear weapons.

Trump has accelerated a $1 trillion nuclear modernization program put in place under Obama, while rushing the development of new US strategic bombers, nuclear submarines and “low-yield” nuclear weapons that are more likely to be used in combat.

At the same time, the White House has announced the United States’ intention to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty as it prepares to ring Russia and China with short- and medium-range nuclear and conventional missiles.

While US missile defense strategy previously claimed to defend against the actions of smaller states such as North Korea and Iran, this year’s missile defense review more directly targets Russia and China. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank wrote, “For the first time, the document puts Russia and China in the same sentence as missile defenses, making explicit what has hitherto been implicit.”

Speaking at the Pentagon Thursday, Trump declared that “foreign adversaries, competitors and rogue regimes are steadily enhancing their missile arsenals… Their arsenals are getting bigger and stronger.”

Trump’s remarks echoed the themes of the Pentagon report he was presenting. “Military superiority is not a birthright,” the report states. “The scale and urgency of change required to renew our conventional and missile defense overmatch should not be underestimated.”

The report goes on to threaten: “To our competitors: We see what you are doing, and we are taking action.”

Congress has approved $10.3 billion for the US missile defense agency this fiscal year, a figure that is poised to skyrocket if Trump’s plans are carried through.

In his Pentagon appearance, Trump did not attempt to hide the fact that he was using the prospect of billions of dollars in additional military funding to solicit political support. Responding to applause as he took the podium, Trump told the military audience, “You’re only doing that because I gave you the greatest and biggest budget in our history. And I’ve now done it two times. And I hate to tell the rest of the world, but I’m about to do it three times. So that’s the only reason you gave me such a nice welcome.”

Despite the bitter factional warfare in Washington, there is overwhelming bipartisan agreement on the vast and perpetual expansion of the military. Last June, the Senate approved, on an 85-10 vote, an $82 billion increase in the Pentagon budget, bringing annual spending to $716 billion. The colossal levels of military spending are almost never discussed in the media and the money is appropriated without question.

The diversion of funds into military appropriations and the pockets of defense contractors is even more shameless in connection with missile defense than with other types of military spending, because the efficacy of missile defense is, according to experts, largely illusory.

Missile defense is “the longest running scam in the history of the Department of Defense,” wrote Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, and “the new Missile Defense Review continues that proud tradition.”

Since President Reagan first announced his “Star Wars” initiative, the United States has spent some $300 billion on missile defense systems. Cirincione observed that “a decade after the start of ‘Star Wars’, having spent tens of billions of dollars on X-ray lasers, directed energy weapons, particle-beam weapons, space-based kinetic interceptors and ‘brilliant pebbles’, the Pentagon was forced to conclude that none of these fanciful concepts would work. We ended up with a concept of limited, ground-based interceptors that might be able to intercept one or two primitive long-range warheads.”

But the extremely limited effectiveness of the US missile defense systems did not prevent Trump from making sweeping claims about US capabilities. “Our goal is simple: to ensure that we can detect and destroy any missile launched against the United States anywhere, anytime, anyplace,” he said.

“We will destroy every type of missile attack against any American target, whether before or after launch,” he added.

In reality, current US missile defenses are not capable of reliably destroying modern ICBMs possessed by Russia or China, much less the new generation of hypersonic reentry vehicles that the two countries are deploying.

Trump’s statements reflect the two most essential characteristics of American military policy since the fall of the Soviet Union: boundless, often delusional, hubris and a total lack of restraint. Given the series of blank checks Congress keeps writing, it is likely that Trump’s announcement will be the start of a new “Star Wars” boondoggle—turning over hundreds of billions more dollars for fanciful proposals.

However, the dubious efficacy of these initiatives does not lessen their deadly implications. The entire program is part of accelerating preparations for nuclear war, in which US imperialism is preparing to use offensive nuclear weapons.

For all the money Trump’s new missile defense system will consume, the primary mechanism for ensuring that no missiles reach the United States in the event of war is the threat to destroy the entire landmass of a potential opponent with nuclear weapons. “The United States will continue to rely upon nuclear deterrence for strategic nuclear attack from major powers,” the CSIS declares.

The central aim of the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, released last year, was to de-stigmatize the use of nuclear weapons by expanding the range of possible scenarios in which the president could respond with a nuclear strike.

As numerous studies have made clear, a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia or between the United States and China, beyond an initial death toll in the hundreds of millions, would result in a climatological phenomenon known as nuclear winter, entailing a long-term drop in global temperatures that would make agriculture impossible and wipe out the entire human race.

Lies on French Polynesia nuclear bombs admitted


Demonstrators against a French nuclear bomb test on Mururoa, in september 1995. AFP photo

This AFP photo shows demonstrators against a French nuclear bomb test on Mururoa island in French Polynesia, in september 1995.

Translated from Dutch NOS TV today:

President of French Polynesia admits lies about nuclear testing

President Fritch of French Polynesia has acknowledged in the parliament in Tahiti that the population has been lied to for 30 years about the dangers of the nuclear tests that were held there. Between 1960 and 1996, France held 193 tests with atomic bombs in the overseas territory in the South Pacific.

The images of the mushroom cloud that rose above the Mururoa atoll were increasingly leading to international protests. In 2010, the French government released hundreds of millions of euros to compensate the residents of French Polynesia. The money was also destined for Algeria, where nuclear tests were also held.

“I can not be surprised that I have been called a liar for thirty years, we lied to the people that the nuclear tests were clean. We lied”, was the statement by President Edouard Fritch. Unknown is what brought Fritch to this confession.

On request, the United States news agency AP received no response from the French government to the statements by Fritch.

Radioactive radiation

The whistleblower Bruno Barrillot, who died last year, revealed that thyroid cancer and leukemia occur excessively among the 280,000 inhabitants of French Polynesia.

President Hollande visited French Polynesia two years ago. He acknowledged on that occasion that the nuclear tests had a harmful effect on human health and the environment. But he also praised the contribution that French Polynesia made to the fact that France became an international nuclear power.

Three years earlier, French newspapers reported on the basis of official documents released that the nuclear tests were much more harmful than the authorities had admitted.

Tahiti, the most famous Polynesian island that is often depicted on the paintings of Paul Gauguin, was exposed to radioactive radiation 500 times as high as the maximum permitted level.