+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11059
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 10
Total: 10

Author Topic: Nuclear Insecurity Today  (Read 2505 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2017, 10:19:13 pm »
Emergency Declared at Nuclear Waste Site in Washington State   

May 9, 2017

By Stefanie Spear

The Department of Energy declared an emergency Tuesday at a plutonium-handling facility at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state after a tunnel partly collapsed. Federal officials said, there was "no indication of a release of contamination at this point."

Hundreds of Workers were told to evacuate or take cover as officials responded to reports of "a cave-in of a 20 foot section of a tunnel that is hundreds of feet long that is used to store contaminated materials," according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

"The tunnel itself was breached. There was a 20-foot wide hole," a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy said by telephone from the Hanford Joint Information Center.

The tunnel, located next to the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility, also known as PUREX, is in the center of Hanford in an area known as the 200 East Area.

"The PUREX facility is one of Hanford's most contaminated areas," Dan Serres, conservation director at Columbia Riverkeeper, told EcoWatch. "It was the source for the majority of Hanford's weapons plutonium, and Hanford itself produced more than two-thirds of the plutonium in the U.S."

"The tunnel collapse is a disturbing event, and we hope for the safety of all the workers in the area," Serres continued. "Their work is critical to protecting our region and the Columbia River. Looking forward, we will be watching closely to see how the U.S. Department of Energy continues the cleanup effort in this area and throughout the Hanford site."

The Energy Department said via Twitter that Sec. Perry "has been briefed on the incident." The most recent update from the DOE, said crews were continuing to monitor the air as employees were being released early as a precaution.

"This is a potentially serious event,"
Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said. "I can see why the site ordered emergency measures. Collapse of the earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release."

The Hanford site, in southeastern Washington about 170 miles east of Seattle, is known for being the most contaminated nuclear site in the country. The facility made more than 20 million pieces of uranium metal fuel for nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River. The reactors produced plutonium for America's defense program. Production ended at the facility in the late 1980s, and cleanup began in 1989, after a landmark agreement between the DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington state.

According to a report late last year from the Oregon Public Broadcasting:

"Hanford is the nation's largest nuclear cleanup site, with 56 million gallons of radioactive waste sitting in old, leaky underground tanks just a few hours upriver from Portland. After more than 20 years and $19 billion[,] not a drop of waste has been treated.

"Hanford sits next to the Columbia River. It was one of the original Manhattan Project sites. Its nine nuclear reactors irradiated uranium fuel rods. That created plutonium, which was extracted with chemicals, processed and shipped to weapons factories. Each step produced radioactive waste. ...

"The stored waste has to be treated in special rooms called black cells, which are too radioactive for humans to enter. The machinery in these black cells is supposed to operate for 40 years with no direct human intervention.

If something goes wrong, the cells could be damaged."

Watch here to learn more about the Hanford site:


http://www.ecowatch.com/hanford-tunnel-collapse-2400226509.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2017, 07:20:41 pm »
//
[embed=320,206]<iframe width="640" height="412" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZcDwtO4RWmo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]


I rarely take the time to watch most of the videos posted here because they are so long, and life is short. But I watched this one. It was really good and explained the impact of Arctic navigation well. Great find.


This would be a good time to start equipping your Bugout Machine and picking Bugout Locations. 



RE

Thank you Surly and RE for your thoughtful comments. 


It was interesting to note how the USA bent the Canadians out of shape in 1985 (Reagan and Bush must have enjoyed that. )  when that U.S. Ice Breaker transited the 'Northwest Passage' without checking in with Canada.

Here's another video that everybody in the USA should pay very close attention to. It is a keeper because it accurately describes the mindset of the M.I.C. (i.e. THEY plan to survive ANY Doomsday Scenario, whether we-the-people survive or not!  :(). Here's what you need to know about Continuity of the Government M.I.C.   





Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2017, 03:27:50 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Unsaid in this video is WHY Saturn's moons that might harbor life must be protected from the Cassini probe.

I'm glad you asked.  ;D  You see, Cassini has PLUTONIUM fuel. So Saturn is going to get smacked with an element that did not exist before human nuclear physics experiments formed it. 

Saturn is a big gas giant so it probably will not be a problem. But if Cassini had fallen on a moon, it would definitely be a problem for humans if we ever wanted to visit there, never mind any life there now.

Had Cassini failed to make orbit back in 1997, and distributed it's plutonium fuel all over our atmosphere the cancer rates (all cancers, not just lung cancers), which have QUADRUPLED since the 1950's  :P, would be even higher than they are now.   

You see, you only need a teeny, tiny microscopic amount of plutonium in your lungs to give you cancer. So, a few pounds of the stuff dissipated throughout the atmpsphere can threaten the health of millions of people and animals, plus cause deleterious mutations throughout the biosphere.

If you think this is hyperbole, please research the SNAP orbital failure and compare the cancer rates all over the Southern hemisphere AFTER that acccident dosed it with some plutonium (over the years) with those before.

This is a snippet of the sanitized version of that accident:
SNAP-10A, also called SNAPSHOT is an experimental nuclear powered satellite launched into space in 1965. It is the only fission power system launched into space by the United States. The reactor stopped working after just 43 days due to a (non-nuclear) electrical component failure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A

They leave a lot of facts about plutonium contamination out, just as the video (delivered with the required fawningly religious tone  ::)) below doesn't even directly address the plutonium hazard for life in the Cassini probe.   

Cassini to be directed to disintegrate in Saturn's atmosphere in September of 2017.

Learn more about the Plutonium RISK below:

Quote
The Risk of Cassini Probe Plutonium
Previous space accidents plus toxicity of fuel equal serious concern
By Karl Grossman OCTOBER 10, 1997

https://www.csmonitor.com/1997/1010/101097.opin.opin.1.html






 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #48 on: August 21, 2017, 01:51:57 pm »
       


John Oliver Explains America's Terrifying Nuclear Waste Problem
August 21, 2017

By Stefanie Spear

"One out of three Americans lives within 50 miles of high-level nuclear waste, some of which, like Plutonium, is lethally dangerous and will be around for an incredible longtime," John Oliver explained last night on Last Week Tonight.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there is more than 71,000 tons of nuclear waste stranded at 104 reactors. "It was a problem we should have solved in the 1980s," Oliver said, "much like a Rubik's Cube."

Despite years of using nuclear energy, the country still doesn't have a permanent facility for its storage, the comedian said. Oliver proposed what the U.S. really needs is some kind of "nuclear toilet."

:P


Watch above.

https://www.ecowatch.com/john-oliver-nuclear-waste-2475379771.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2017, 07:00:13 pm »
Address on Nuclear War to Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

David Swanson

Published on Aug 15, 2017

David Swanson speaking by video to the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action. 



 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #50 on: December 29, 2017, 02:47:33 pm »

We've Forgotten How To Fear

By Will Leitch

December 28, 2017

SNIPPET 1:

Quote
Here are four undeniable facts from this specific moment in history:

The President of the United States, a man whose father suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and whose public speaking ability has degraded so dramatically over the last 20 years that watching him say stupid things in 1999 actually makes you nostalgic for that guy, told his top security officials that he wanted “tens of thousands of new nuclear weapons,”which inspired his Chief of Staff to call him a “moron.”

The President of the United States has more power at this moment than at essentially any other time in American history and, if he wanted, could launch a nuclear attack entirely on his own and no one could stop him. “If President Trump were to decide that it’s time to put Kim Jong Un in his place once and for all, he would choose a plan that already exists,” a “former nuclear missile launch officer” told USA Today. “And it would be almost impossible in my view to override a decision to implement that option.”

Fellow lawmakers and high-level cabinet members are so concerned about Trump’s instability they have been actively trying to come up with some sort of Fail/Safe backup plan to Trump launching nuclear weapons, and their attempts have been thwarted at every turn. A sitting United States Senator actually said, on record, “We are concerned that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic that he might order a nuclear weapons strike.” (This insane, flabbergasting statement was made just more than a month ago, so you’ve surely forgotten about it.)

North Korea, the foreign government most likely to pique the President’s nuclear launch trigger finger, successfully pulled off a test less than a month ago that showed they could hit a U.S. mainline target with little difficulty. Secretary of Defense James Mattis responded to the news warning that North Korea could now strike anywhere in the world. The President responded by calling the leader of North Korea short and fat.

During the Cold War, leaders of wealthy, stable, established nations were hinting at nuclear standoffs, and talking about missile defense systems, and testing thermonuclear weapons, and it led to three decades of apocalyptic popular fiction, fallout shelters being installed all across the country and schoolchildren being taught how to shield themselves from debris and radiation in case of a nuclear attack. It was the central organizing principle of most of the second half of the 20th century. It, singularly, affected every aspect of American life.

And there were so many more protections then than there are now. Now there are non-state actors who would give any amount of money or human capital to get a hold of a nuclear weapon, of which, from the old Soviet Union, there are thousands of unaccounted for. There is an escalating threat from a desperate nation led by a madman whose only reference point for American life is Dennis Rodman. And there is the doddering cable news addict in the Oval Office who only seems to understand what Brian Kilmeade  tells him.

SNIPPET 2:

Quote
I was eight years old when Testament hit cinemas, just a little bit older than Lukas Haas in the film. I didn’t see it in the theater: It wasn’t until a decade later, on Roger Ebert’s recommendation, that I finally watched it. I wouldn’t have been able to understand it when I was eight. I would just been upset E.T wasn’t in it. But I wonder if my parents watched it.

Until I watched it last week, for the first time in many years, I couldn’t have fathomed how my parents — who had an eight-year-old son and a three-year-old daughter, two people whom they loved very much and wanted to see grow up and become adult humans with lives and children of their own — could have handled it. These children they loved so much, they ones they protected with an almost feral passion, how could they not think about them when they watched the Wetherly family wilt away and die? When my mother watched Carol’s increased panic when she looked for that bear, did she look at me, still with my favorite blanket, and wonder if she’d someday have to bury it with me? How did my dad feel when he went away on work trips, after watching this movie when one day, randomly, out of nowhere, the world exploded and he wasn’t there with his family? To live in that time and feel like it all going away was a real, vivid possibility ... how did they bear it?

I’m legitimately asking. Because unlike every other time I had watched Testament, I am a father now, of two beautiful little boys who are obnoxious and gassy and loud and just about the most incredible things I’ve ever seen in my life. Every day my wife and I look at them and see the boys they are becoming, the men they will someday be, and we are thrilled, we are elated, we are driven near to tears to see them growing up, to learn more every day what they have to offer this planet. I find myself envious of everyone who hasn’t met them yet. You are going to love them, world. I think of what they might be, what they might do, the mistakes they are going to make, the times they get their hearts broken, the hearts they break, the goodness that radiates off them, and I think that maybe they might be the only worthwhile thing I’ve done with my whole stupid life. I can’t wait to see who they become.

But Testament warns: Don’t assume the future. It can all be taken away, forever, from everybody. Just because it hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean it can’t happen now. That it hasn’t happened before actually makes it more likely it will happen now. It is a threat, to you, to me, to everybody you love, to everybody I love. There are so many threats, so much danger in the world. But this is the biggest one. It makes you want to run through the streets screaming. It makes you wonder why not everyone is.

Toward the end of Testament, the school puts on the Pied Piper play. The bombs have fallen. People have already started dying. There is no word from the outside. There are no longer any illusions as to what is happening. But the play goes on anyway. What else can you do? The youngest son comes out, as the Pied Piper, and gives his closing speech as the Piper. “Your children are not gone,” he says. “They are just waiting for a world that deserves them.” Every parent in the audience sobs. They know what world they’ve given their children, and what it means for all of them. The question is: Do we?

Agelbert Full disclosure: I saw this movie more than once.

As an Intelligence Operations Specialist in the Air National Guard during the cold war years, I can tell you that movie was too kind. For example, in the movie, Canada was discussed as a refuge. That is a cruel joke. Air patterns over the northern hemisphere quickly make Canada a DEAD ZONE, even if not a single nuke goes off there. The only (temporary) refuge areas would be in the southern hemisphere near Antarctica. But even those areas go down within a decade too.

The threat of planetary devastation was, and is, much, much worse. I haven't forgotten the danger. Also, I firmly believe that "we" (i.e. 99% of humanity) DO know what kind of a world we want for our children, but we-the-people DO NOT have a say in that outcome.

The goal of the 1% bastards in charge is a Mount Olympus type existence with a sprinkling of we-the-people here and there to use as playthings and objects of perverse sport. This precludes nuclear war.   

WHY? The 1% elite bastards are all insane with hubris and illusions of grandeur, but they are not stupid.

The 1% (more or less) are the "WE" that have not unleashed nuclear mayhem in this planet simply because of their own "enlightened" (SEE: 'greed is good') self interest. They KNOW that radionuclide contamination is FOREVER, for all practical purposes. They don't like "forever" (i.e. 25,000 plus years of dna 24/7 destruction all the way to the microbial level).

They
   like the engineered "boom and bust" cycles of Capitalism where a bunch of "useless eaters" routinely get offed by war, plague, tsunami, global warming or whatevah, just as long as these periods are

A) Brief

B) Profitable for the 1% and

C) Don't damage the biosphere beyond some elite scam that can be run to make we-the-people pay to keep the elite portion of it reasonably healthy.

 

But to their folly, they do not now, or ever did, give a rat's ass about the human gene pool. They are NOT impressed by scientists who warn these 'greed is good' psychopaths that the human dna diversity produced by a large population is sine qua non to Homo sap genetic health.

The bottom line big plan for these elite bastards is to gradually get rid of most of us "useless eaters" in a way that can be plausibly denied by the media these elite bastards control.

It is working. Life expectancy and sperm count is dropping EVERYWHERE on the planet. Robots with AI will soon be able to do absolutely any physical or intellectual labor humans now do. The world where the average person lives is turning into one big Reservation and the 99% are getting the same treatment that whitey has given the Native Americans in the USA.

It's a gradual thing where you destroy the moral fiber of a people by denying them decent health care, work, dignity, etc. while, at the same time, you claim you are "helping them with charity". 

Yeah, their Mens Rea Modus Operandi is ultimately suicidally stupid, but their lack of empathy limits their ability to see how their greed is destroying their chances to pass a viable biosphere to their children.



Unless and until God directly intervenes, the ultimate plan by the 1% is for most of us to die quietly in poverty in a gradual 90% reduction of the human population. Our cold comfort is that, only when most of us are gone, will the 1% realize that they killed themselves.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #51 on: February 04, 2018, 11:50:15 pm »

They're Talking About "Winnable" Nuclear War Again

Saturday, February 03, 2018

By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed

SNIPPET:

Not even Trump's ongoing middle school shoving match with North Korea's Kim Jong-un and his growing nuclear toybox appears to have ruffled a great many feathers around here. Perhaps it's the surreal nature of this president and his administration that explains our national shrug at this incredibly dangerous, feckless faceoff. It's a strange plot twist in a weird animation starring two cartoon characters ordering bombs from the Acme catalog. Who could take these guys seriously?

Enter Robert R. Monroe, Vice Admiral, US Navy (Ret.) 🦖 and his recent article in The Hill titled, "Only Trump Can Restore America's Ability to Win a Nuclear War." Vice Admiral Monroe, former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, is the kind of man Curtis LeMay would have recognized as a brother on sight. "When the Cold War ended in 1991," laments Monroe in his opening line, "America made an unwise decision."

An arsenal of smaller bombs is key to Admiral Monroe's fever dream of a winnable nuclear war. It is a dream Trump 🦀 appears to share.

It goes downhill from there  .


Full article:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/43446-they-re-talking-about-winnable-nuclear-war-again
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2018, 07:14:24 pm »
Sunflower Newsletter: May 2018

Rick Wayman, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation


Issue #250 – May 2018

We’re celebrating mothers this month! Make a donation for peace in your mother’s honor or memory.

Perspectives

U.S. Should Accept Putin’s Offer to Negotiate on Nukes by David Krieger
A New Generation Against the Bomb by Ray Acheson
Looking Reality in the Eye by Rick Wayman
Peace in Korea? Hope and Uncertainty Mix in the Wake of Kim-Moon Summit by Cesar Jaramillo
Panmunjeom Declaration by Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

U.S. Continues Testing ICBMs
Nuclear Disarmament
More Nations Set to Ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

War and Peace

North Korean Leader Visits South Korea for First Time in History
Israeli Prime Minister Claims to Have Proof of Iranian Nuclear Program

Nuclear Waste 

Four Barrels of Nuclear Waste Rupture in Idaho

Nuclear Insanity 😱

Lawsuit Filed Over Plan to Allow Public in Radioactive Zone

Resources

This Month in Nuclear Threat History
Russian Nuclear Forces in 2018
Podcast on the Nuclear Age
ICRC President Issues Appeal on Risk of Nuclear Weapons

Foundation Activities

NAPF Event at the United Nations in Geneva
Building Peace Literacy with the Corvallis School District
Moms Against Bombs
30th Annual DC Days


Sunflower Newsletter
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2018, 07:23:35 pm »
RADIO ECOSHOCK
91 Radio Stations and Growing!

The Terror Will Cost You Extra

Posted on Apr, 11, 2018, by Radio Ecoshock

Nuclear accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl taught us: a blown reactor anywhere affects my listeners around the world.

The nuclear and coal industries have gone bankrupt. Donald Trump 🦀 just sat down for dinner with a  lobbyist  to make you pay to keep dangerous old reactors (and coal!) going. We cover the scam with nuke campaigner Kevin Kamps  from Beyond Nuclear.

Then strange new science: plants in a high carbon atmosphere determine who gets the crops, and who gets the drought. We hear from Dr. Pierre Gentine of Columbia University.

The future is already here, on Radio Ecoshock.

  Listen to or download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (57 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB)

https://www.ecoshock.org/2018/04/the-terror-will-cost-you-extra.html

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #54 on: May 25, 2018, 08:55:38 pm »



Russia’s First Floating Nuclear Power Plant Arrives in the Arctic 

May 21, 2018 by Reuters

SNIPPET:

The Russian “Academy Lomonosov”, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant  :P >:(, passes Langeland island, while heading for Murmansk in northwestern Russia, in Denmark, May 4, 2018. Ritzau Scanpix/Tim Kildeborg Jensen/via REUTERS

reuters logoBy Vladimir Soldatkin MOSCOW, May 21 (Reuters) – Russia’s first-floating nuclear power plant arrived in the Arctic port of Murmansk over the weekend in preparation for its maiden mission, providing electricity to an isolated Russian town across the Bering Strait from Alaska.

The state company behind the plant, called the “Akademik Lomonosov,” says it could pioneer a new power source for remote regions of the planet, but green campaigners have expressed concern about the risk of nuclear accidents. Greenpeace has called it the “nuclear Titanic.” 😱

Full article:

http://gcaptain.com/russias-first-floating-nuclear-power-plant-arrives-in-the-arctic/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2018, 08:11:30 pm »
The US and Russia are now in a new NUCLEAR arms race  . Plutonium pits, those deadly little hollow balls of Plutonium that get injected with Tritium nano-seconds before a hydrogen bomb goes off, which we ALREADY have thhousands of sitting in warehouses in TEXAS, are now all the NEW THING to FUND in the Trump adminsitration. The new ones are a nuclear welfare queen operation to save Senator Graham's arse since the Mox making plant he championed has gone so far over budget that it had to be cancelled.

This new cold war is nuts. These are not just weapons of mass destruciton; they are weapons of GLOBAL destruction.

Hear all about it at Radio Echoshock:

Two Dangerous Myths Exposed
Posted on May 23, 2018, by Radio Ecoshock 📢

Scientist Mary Booth says the new drive to burn wood as a replacement for coal is backfiring in the atmosphere. Jay Coghlan on the arcane world of “plutonium pits” – the trigger for nuclear weapons. If you like ultimate gambling, this is it, on Radio Ecoshock 180523

https://www.ecoshock.org/2018/05/two-dangerous-myths-exposed.html

Have a nice nuclear day.


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #56 on: July 12, 2018, 08:23:50 pm »
The Largest Submarine in The U.S.  Navy

15,595,938 views


Published on Sep 28, 2013

USS Pennsylvania is a United States Navy Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine which has been in commission since 1989. The Ohio class is a class of nuclear powered submarines used by the United States Navy. The Navy has 18 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines and guided missile submarines.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15327
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
« Reply #57 on: December 01, 2018, 03:24:37 pm »
Convert Military 🦍 to Green Production, or Perish ☠️– Daniel Ellsberg on RAI (13/13)

November 29, 2018

A massive reduction in ICBM’s and transforming the economy away from the military-industrial complex are prerequisites for our survival  – says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay


Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself. I’m Paul Jay. This is The Real News Network, and we’re continuing our discussion with Daniel Ellsberg. Thanks for joining us again.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Good to be here.

PAUL JAY: If there was a president elected, and if there are, for example, in the Democratic Party enough people elected to Congress who are breaking from the kind of militarist position, what would you recommend? What does a plan look like?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, first of all, realize that neither party has promised any departure from our reliance on the military-industrial complex. Since McGovern, in effect. And he was the only one, I think, who—and his defeat taught many Democratic politicians they could not run for office with that kind of burden of dispossessing, even temporarily, the workers of Grumman, Northrup and General Dynamics and Lockheed, and the shipbuilders in Connecticut, and so forth. And [grutton].

So it would take a different political economy, or it would take a different movement in pressing our Congress, and basically a different kind of Democrat from any we’ve seen. Our system is a two-party system, which people can find by looking at Wikipedia, the web in general, and asking the question, what is a two-party system? And the answer to that is one that most people don’t realize. It’s based not just on the strength of the existing two parties, but on the fact that we have a system of single-member constituencies, winner take all, not first past the post. These are terms that can be quickly found out if you look them up. It’s a political system that makes it extremely unlikely that a third party will actually succeed, and is why no party has succeeded since 1860, when the Democrats were split on the issue of slavery.

By the way, if there was a third party on the right, I’d be all for that. Because that would enable a really progressive Democrat to be nominated, I think, and actually to win. But without that, a requirement, I think, as early as this year, in 2018, is a Democratic House and/or Senate. Preferably both; Senate is more difficult. Is a requirement, but very far from sufficient to make any of these changes. In the past, the Democrats have not been willing to do that. And almost no Democratic candidate, even the most progressive of them, has really addressed the idea of conversion, which is the prerequisite for any of the other changes on climate and health and education that are needed.

PAUL JAY: Conversion of military production to green, sustainable production.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Spending has to change away from the ability to destroy life on earth, primarily. And that, without either total disarmament—I am not a total pacifist, and never have been, although it’s very hard, be very hard put to find a conflict since the Second World War, that’s a long time ago, where I thought it was necessary or worthwhile for the U.S. to be engaged. And I used to make an exception for Korea. More study on that has recently changed my mind on that.

But I think, in fact, for the Russians, for the British, ultimately for the Americans to oppose Nazi Germany under Hitler and his ambitions, his recklessness, was justified. That is my strong opinion. But without that, and without giving any other country a monopoly of nuclear weapons, let’s say, by the U.S. totally disarming nuclear weapons, I don’t think it would serve world peace to give, adequately, to give Russia a monopoly of nuclear weapons. Not that they would immediately start throwing them around, by any means. But that it would embolden them in ways that would not be good for world peace, or ultimately avoiding nuclear war.

But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether we continue to sustain a doomsday machine of the kind we have, whether we continue to modernize it with the B61-12 bombs, and so many others—on both sides, by the way. Or whether we can move away from that. Doomsday can be made impossible. And not, actually, in some Utopian way that we’ve never seen in the world, even in the nuclear age. China went for decades after their first explosion in ‘64, when I was in the Pentagon, not building a large nuclear force. For decades they had only a dozen or so ICBMs against the United States, at a time when we could have launched thousands of weapons against China.

Now, how did they rationalize that? At first we said, well, they can’t afford to. They’re too poor. But within 20 years, certainly 30 years ago, that didn’t work. They obviously could match, achieve parity, as they say, with the U.S. or Russia. They absolutely could. They’ve chosen not to spend money in ways that threaten doomsday, and threaten their own deterrence, by making us fear they’re about to disarm us. China has never pretended to have the capability to disarm a major adversary. They don’t, even though they have two rockets-

PAUL JAY: By disarm you mean first strike.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: By a first strike. They don’t have that capability. They have, perhaps, 300 warheads now, mostly tactical, against Russia [in their area]. But many, several dozen, strategic warheads. More than they need. Enough to cause nuclear winter. But less than 10 percent of what we have. China, in other words, has followed a relatively sane policy in the nuclear era, I would say, if any nuclear policy can be sane. And I would say, actually, they have. They bought themselves a good deal of deterrence with a handful of weapons capability, and didn’t go beyond that.

We could, we could … the world would be much safer, we would be safer, if we had no more weapons than the Chinese. Likewise, the Russians. And that would be true whether the Russians imitated that or not. The same would be true for the Russians. They would be safer from a false alarm on our side, let’s say, against a Russian, supposedly surprise attack, if they dismantled their ability for a surprise attack.

PAUL JAY: And this underlying idea that the Soviet Union is trying to take over the world, it seems to me it’s just as true about modern-day Russia is also not trying to take over the world. There’s no reason to think Russia would not comply in such a scenario.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes. As you say that, you know, I don’t think the U.S. is trying to take over the world by military means, although our military spending is so vastly greater than [the combination].

PAUL JAY: No, I wasn’t saying the—I wasn’t saying that.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: I don’t think anybody is. But certainly Russia, it would be absurd to say that’s what they’re trying to do.

PAUL JAY: So why don’t they move to that? It’s the only sane move-

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Why don’t they, you said?

PAUL JAY: Well, all three. I mean, China’s already in a relatively modest position. One would think, instead of developing new hypersonic planes, and new bombs, the sane course is a modest amount.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: I can only guess. For much the same reasons we do it. On the one hand, as Gorbachev has indicated, as I say, to a friend of mine, Cynthia Lazaroff, in Russia, they have their profit motive over their [inaudible] again. They’re supporters of Putin. Their oligarchs are not all drug dealers. Some of them are arms makers, as over here.

Second, the idea of being a great power has domestic politics implications, and implications in negotiations in general. Status, prestige. The only reason, by the way, for the UK or France to have nuclear weapons at this time, to be in the nuclear club. To be a shadow, at least, of their former imperial selves. To be one of the big boys.

There’s—in terms of how many weapons are actually needed for the deterrence of nuclear attack, which I think is not an entirely, is not an illusory notion altogether, what does it take? Dr. Herbert York, the physicist who was the first director of Livermore Nuclear Weapons Design Laboratory, one of our two laboratories; Los Alamos, and … which produced the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and Livermore. He was the first director of Livermore, which was set up in particular as the home of Edward Teller, and to press H-bomb development. He said in a meeting at Livermore later, years later, after he’d been head of the research and engineering in the Defense Department, and major arms negotiator for several, for several administrations, asked the question, how many weapons are needed to deter nuclear attack from an enemy rational enough to be deterred? To be influenced? He said, one? Or ten? He said, perhaps 100. Not more than that. But closer to 10 … sorry. Closer to 1 than 100. [That’ll be like] 49.

He went at it from one other point of view, too. He said, what is the largest amount of destruction that we think one man, or one nation, should be able to inflict in a short period of time on another, on the world? Supposing we take World War II as an upper limit there, 60 million dead in a short time. That would take about 100 weapons. Largest, maybe 200. But more likely 100 weapons. So again, he says one to ten to 100 weapons. Now, of the nine nuclear states, North Korea is the only one who’s clearly below that level. We, of course, are many more, ten times more than that. And [coughing] I would say that no nation in the world can actually justify having as many weapons as the least of them, putting aside North Korea.

PAUL JAY: What is the rationale, and does it play any real deterrent for Israel to have nuclear weapons?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yeah. Well, Israel’s nuclear weapons are only first use weapons. Their adversaries have no nuclear weapons. So like us in the late ‘40s, their plans are only first use. First strike. Not for responding to nuclear weapons. Still, they are faced with, as NATO felt it was faced, by large adversarial forces, non-nuclear. If you add them all together, if you put them together, they have relied on their first use threat. They’re said to have some 80 weapons.

Now, what would they do with 80 weapons? Actually, a better figure is—I’ve seen other estimates. It’s very likely closer to 200. But whether it’s 80 or 200, how can anyone, how can Israel, justify having that many? That’s 80. But we have, you know, 1500 on alert, thermonuclear weapons. How about, when you go above Israel, then, you get in the level of 100, 140 or so, when you look at Pakistan, India. Those are atomic weapons, fission weapons. Or Britain and France, either have on the order of 100-200. None of these countries could really justify in hearings, rational hearings, having that many, as a matter of fact. And we, come back to it, have more than 10 times more.

PAUL JAY: So why does Israel have so many?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Probably—I don’t know the answer, actually. But for reasons like ours. Probably a lot of theirs, by the way, they think of as tactical weapons, many of them may be neutron bombs, who would be used against armies in the desert. I doubt it. They wouldn’t need that many—they wouldn’t need 10 against cities.

PAUL JAY: But there would be nothing left of Israel after blowing up all these bombs.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: No, no, no. The—and the fallout-

PAUL JAY: Whether the—by fallout. Whether the enemy has nuclear weapons or not, there wouldn’t be anything much of an Israel left.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Sam Cohen, the father of the neutron bomb, was convinced that Israel had built his neutron bombs; that they had seen the advantage of those—which are weapons, by the way, which if they explode at a high altitude don’t cause a lot, if any, fallout, and actually don’t destroy structures. They penetrate through structures or tanks, and they kill the living organisms inside, the humans. The Communists at that time called it a capitalist weapon; it preserved property and killed only humans. But the Soviets, like Reagan after President Carter, almost surely did build neutron bombs and test them.

So with a lot of those, you could think of those as tactical weapons in the desert. They are [faced] in the desert. I don’t know their planning [worth] knowing. In the case of India and Pakistan, for example, they have so far only fission weapons. A hundred of those, 50 each in a war against cities, a country, would cause the absorption of about 7 percent of the sunlight. Not nuclear winter, which U.S. and Russia would absorb perhaps 20 … 70 percent of the sunlight, and starve everyone. India-Pakistan would cut sunlight by 7 percent, shortening the harvest, killing the harvest, depending on the season, and probably cause by starvation 2 billion deaths of the most ill-nourished people in the world. That’s the calculation of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Ira Helfand and others have calculated that. Something between 1-2 billion, one third of the earth’s population.

If, however, testing resumes, as the Republicans for a long time have been proposing should be, should happen, as a matter of fact; and Russian labs are said to be anxious to resume testing. If testing resumed, India and Pakistan would quickly achieve H-bombs. They’re on the verge of it now. North Korea, again, has claimed it has tested an H-bomb. May or may not, but certainly would need more tests to have an operational H-bomb. That would give them a full nuclear winter capability. So a war between India and Pakistan wouldn’t kill only one third of the earth’s populations, but three thirds, like ours. The in between nations, the UK, France, China and the others, perhaps may or may not be able to get a full nuclear winter. But they can starve, if they launch their forces as they plan, including cities like Moscow and other capital cities; many other cities with command and control. They would reflect sunlight. Between 1-7 billion. Probably somewhere in between.

There’s no excuse. These are, I say, evil outcomes, certainly. And plans that risk them or prepare for them have their uses, but at the risk of causing this effect, which I would say is absolutely unconscionable, as well as a vast diversion of the world’s resources that are needed otherwise.

Daniel Ellsberg ends his book, The Doomsday Machine, Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner with this:

“Is it simply quixotic to hope to preserve human civilization from either the effects of burning fossil fuels or preparing for nuclear war? As Martin Luther King Jr. warned us,328 one year to the day before his death, “There is such a thing as being too late.” In challenging us on April 4, 1967, to recognize “the fierce urgency of now” he was speaking of the “madness of Vietnam,” but he also alluded on that same occasion to nuclear weapons and to the even larger madness that has been the subject of this book: “We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.”

He went on: “We must move past indecision to action.… If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight. … Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world.”

PAUL JAY: Thanks for joining us.

And thank you for joining us on Reality Asserts Itself—one hopes this is not a reality that is going to assert itself—on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/convert-military-to-green-production-or-perish-daniel-ellsberg-on-rai-13-13

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

BREXIT by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:51:36 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:34:53 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:30:42 pm

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 07:27:35 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 05:20:56 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 01:20:09 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
December 09, 2018, 02:02:10 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
December 09, 2018, 01:10:45 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 08, 2018, 08:40:27 pm

Wild Cats can be Small as well as Large by AGelbert
December 08, 2018, 02:31:42 pm