Tuesday 10th of December 2019

the nasty generals of mister trump go to a new low...

nukular trump

US generals are well aware that there’s no way of limiting the use of nuclear weapons in a war between superpowers, so the claim that some “low-yield” nukes are needed to match Russia is an outright lie, the Foreign Ministry said.

Moscow’s statement comes in response to the vice-chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva, who vehemently promoted the modification of the warheads on Trident missiles, which are carried on Ohio-class submarines, in order for them to be able to carry low-yield nuclear weapons.

Selva argued that the US will be put in a difficult situation if Russia decides to hit an American city with a low-yield nuclear weapon. “The US doctrine says it will respond in kind, but without a low-yield nuclear weapon in its inventory, responding in kind means it will have to respond with a high-yield nuclear weapon,” supposedly provoking an all-out nuclear war.

But the Russian Foreign Ministry on Saturday blasted the general’s claims as “disingenuous”and pointed out that the use of low-yield nuclear weapons wasn’t even a part of Russia’s military doctrine.

An obvious deception is also the idea that it’s possible to ‘limit’ the use of nuclear weapons in a clash between two nuclear powers.

The yield of an incoming enemy warhead can only be determined after it detonates and the Americans are well aware of that, the ministry said in a statement.

“Therefore, any launch of a strategic nuclear carrier aimed at Russian territory… regardless of the capacity of its warhead, will be treated as an aggression with the use of nuclear weapons, and met with an appropriate response.”

American attempts to turn nukes into “battlefield weapons” have nothing to do with Russia, Moscow insisted.

It seems Washington wouldn’t mind making low-yield warheads a means of blackmailing the countries, who oppose American dictates.

The US returning to its views “from 60 years ago,” when they believed that a “limited nuclear war” was acceptable and winnable, is a source of serious concerns, the Foreign Ministry said, adding that “this is apparently linked to the growing signs of Washington’s desire to refuse its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).”

CTBT, which forbids nuclear explosions in all environments, was adopted at the UN General Assembly in 1996. However, the treaty has never gone into force, due to not being ratified by over a dozen countries, including the US.


Read more:


limited glow in the dark...

tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon[1] is a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. Generally smaller in  explosive power, they are defined in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons: which are designed to be mostly targeted in the enemy interior away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy's ability to wage war. 

Tactical nuclear weapons include gravity bombs, short-range missilesartillery shellsland minesdepth charges, and torpedoes which are equipped with nuclear warheads. Also in this category are nuclear armed ground-based or shipborne surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and air-to-air missiles. Small, two-man portable, or truck-portable, tactical weapons (sometimes misleadingly referred to as suitcase nukes), such as the Special Atomic Demolition Munition and the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle (recoilless smoothbore gun), have been developed, although the difficulty of combining sufficient yield with portability could limit their military utility. In wartime, such explosives could be used for demolishing "choke-points" to enemy offensives, such as at tunnels, narrow mountain passes, and long viaducts.

There is no precise definition of the "tactical" category, neither considering range nor yield of the nuclear weapon.[2][3] The yield of tactical nuclear weapons is generally lower than that of strategic nuclear weapons, but larger ones are still very powerful, and some variable-yield warheads serve in both roles, for example the W89 200 kiloton warhead was intended to arm both the tactical Sea Lance anti-submarine rocket propelled depth charge and the strategic bomber launched SRAM II stand off missile. Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Specifically on the Korean peninsula with a nuclear armed North Korea facing off against a NPT compliant South Korea there have been calls to request a return of US owned and operated short range low yield nuclear weapons, nomenclatured as tactical by the US military, to provide a local strategic deterrent to the North's growing domestically produced nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.[4]

Some tactical nuclear weapons have specific features meant to enhance their battlefield characteristics, such as variable yield which allow their explosive power to be varied over a wide range for different situations, or enhanced radiation weapons (the so-called "neutron bombs") which are meant to maximize ionizing radiation exposure while minimizing blast effects.

Strategic missiles and bombers are assigned preplanned targets including enemy airfields, radars, and surface to air defenses, not only counterforce strikes on hardened or wide area bomber, submarine, and missile bases. This strategic mission is to eliminate the enemy nation's national defenses to enable following bombers and missiles to more realistically threaten the enemy nation's strategic forces, command, and economy rather than targeting mobile military assets in near real time using tactical weapons optimized for time sensitive strike missions often in close proximity to friendly forces.[5]

Tactical nuclear weapons were a large part of the peak nuclear weapons stockpile levels during the Cold War.


Still are.

Read more:


a nuclear con trick...


The European Union in the Pentagon’s nuclear strategy

by Manlio Dinucci

France no longer possesses the nuclear triad (land, sea and air vectors) since 1996, and the United Kingdom has never had such weaponry. Only the United States, Russia and China enjoy this privilege. In a new document, the commander of the Committee of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff confirms his intention to disarm his allies of their nuclear weapons – thereafter, they will no longer have the right to use their own, but will have to use US bombs.

The NATO Ministers for Defence (Elisabetta Trenta, M5S, for Italy, and Florence Parly, LREM for France) were convened in Brussels on 26 and 27 June to approve the new measures of « dissuasion » against Russia, which has been accused - with no proof whatsoever - of having violated the INF Treaty. Basically, this means they will fall into step behind the United States, which, by withdrawing definitively from the Treaty on 2 August, is preparing to deploy in Europe ground-based intermediate range nuclear missiles (a range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometres), similar to those from the 1980’s (the Pershing II and the cruise missiles) which were eliminated (with the Soviet SS-20’s) by the Treaty signed in 1987 by Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan.

The major European powers, increasingly divided within the EU, are re-grouped in NATO under US command in order to support their common strategic interests. At the UNO, this same European Union – of which 21 of its 27 members are part of the Alliance (as is the United Kingdom although it is leaving the EU) - rejected the Russian proposition to maintain the INF Treaty. On a matter of such importance, European public opinion is deliberately left in a state of ignorance by their governments and the major medias. In this way we do not notice the growing danger which is threatening us all – the increasing possibility that we may one day suffer the use of nuclear weapons.

This is confirmed by the latest strategic document from the US Armed Forces, Nuclear Operations (11 June), written under the direction of the President of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Given that « our nuclear forces offer the USA the capacity to pursue our own national objectives », the document underlines that they must be « diversified, flexible and adaptable » to a « wide range of adversaries, threats and contexts ». Despite Russian warnings that the use of even one low-power nuclear weapon would begin a chain reaction which could lead to large-scale nuclear conflict, the US doctrine is beginning to orient itself on the basis of a dangerous concept - « flexibility ».

The strategic document affirms that « US nuclear forces give us the means to apply force to a wide range of targets at the time and with the means decided by the President ». Those targets (specifies the same document) are in truth chosen by the Intelligence agencies, who evaluate their vulnerability to a nuclear attack, and also calculate the effects of radioactive fallout. The use of nuclear weapons - emphasises the document - « can create the conditions for decisive results. In particular, the use of a nuclear weapon would fundamentally transform the context of a battle by creating the conditions which would enable the commanders to win the confrontation ».

Nuclear weapons would also enable the USA to « reassure their allies and partners » who, trusting in these weapons, « would give up the idea of possessing their own nuclear weapons, thus participating in the objective of the United States, which is non-proliferation ».

However, the document indicates that « The USA and certain selected NATO allies would be able to keep aircraft capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional weapons ». This is an admission that four countries of the EU which are officially non-nuclear - Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland – and also Turkey, in violation of the non-proliferation Treaty, are not only storing US nuclear weapons (B-61 bombs which from 2020 will be replaced by the more destructive B61-12), but are prepared to use them in a nuclear attack under command of the Pentagon.

All of this is kept secret by our governments and parliaments, televisions and newspapers, with the guilty silence of the vast majority of politicians and journalists, who nonetheless repeat day after day how important « security » is for we Italians and other Europeans of the Union. It will apparently be guaranteed for us by the US deployment of other nuclear weapons.

Manlio Dinucci

Pete Kimberley

Il Manifesto (Italy)


Read more:




Read from top

the myth of iran pursuing nuclear weapons technology...


Hostile US policies toward the Islamic Republic are unrelated to the threat of it obtaining nuclear weapons no evidence suggests it ever sought or wants. 

Among nations with known nuclear arsenals, North Korea alone is challenged by Washington, a nonbelligerent state, unlike nuclear armed and dangerous Israel at war with Palestinians and neighboring states.

Iran's legitimate nuclear program with no military component is the world's most heavily monitored, its ruling authorities fully cooperating with IAEA inspectors.

In contrast, the US and Israel permit no one to monitor their bomb-making facilities, these countries posing a major threat to world peace and humanity's survival.

Iran champions peace and stability, threatens no other nations, yet it's wrongfully treated like a pariah state - because of its sovereign independence, opposition to Washington's imperial agenda, and support for Palestinian rights.

Unlike the US, Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, Iran complies with its JCPOA nuclear deal obligations.

Because of European noncompliance, Tehran suspended some of its voluntary commitments as permitted under JCPOA articles 26 and 36.

IAEA monitors affirmed Iran's compliance with its JCPOA obligations 15 or more times. It's been increasing its uranium enrichment up to a 20% level - far below the 90% level required for nuclear weapons development.

Iranophobic NYT geopolitical propagandist David Sanger lied, claiming increased Iranian uranium enrichment "returns the focus to Iran's two-decade pursuit of technology that could produce a nuclear weapon (sic)."

No evidence suggests the Islamic Republic ever sought to develop a technology it abhors and wants eliminated everywhere.

Sanger quoted former Obama regime national security official Philip Gordon, accusing Iran of being on a "slippery slope" toward abandoning the JCPOA without explaining what's obvious.

International agreements require compliance by all its signatories. Iran, Russia, and China alone have observed their JCPOA obligations.

The Trump regime illegally pulled out. Britain, France, Germany, and the EU breached their obligations under the deal.

Iran correctly explained that no deal effectively exists if Europe abandoned it. Noncompliance by the EU renders it null and void.

Iran, Russia and China want the JCPOA preserved, stressing their commitment to the deal, requiring Europe to be on board for it to work - what hasn't been the case since Trump's May 2018 pullout.

Sanger: "...Iran seems on a pathway to step-by-step dissolution of key parts of the accord" - again ignoring noncompliance by the US and Europe.

He turned truth on its head suggesting Iran suspended some of its JCPOA commitments "to impose costs on Washington after enduring more than a year of sanctions," calling the move "risky."

US rage for toppling its government, for heading toward possible war on the country, endangering its people and the region is "risky" in the extreme.

The Times and other establishment media cheerlead Washington's imperial agenda, including its wars of aggression, its illegal sanctions, and other hostile actions against nations threatening no one.

Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and heavy water exceeded their limits because the Trump regime banned their export.

The notion that Iran may be "getting too close to producing a bomb," according to Sanger, flies in the face of its abhorrence of these weapons.

Nor is Iran heading toward "cross(ing) (a) threshold" for producing nukes, requiring enrichment of uranium to a far greater level than it's doing.

Sanger quoted Pompeo's Big Lie, roaring: "If there is conflict, if there is war, if there is a kinetic activity, it will be because the Iranians made that choice."

All Middle East, Central Asia, and North African wars were made in the USA, supported by its imperial partners - against nonbelligerent nations threatening no one.

The Islamic Republic never attacked another country preemptively. Not a shred of evidence suggests it intends going another way - just the opposite.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."


Читайте больше на http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/142486-iran_nuclear/


Read from top.

nato nukes...

US (nato) nukes in europe
A published – and later amended – draft report, prepared by a member of a NATO-affiliated body, went into a bit of extra detail about NATO’s nuclear deterrent, revealing the locations and number of US nukes in Europe.

While the data has been a de facto open secret, it has never been laid bare in a NATO-linked document.

“A new era for nuclear deterrence? Modernization, arms control and allied nuclear forces,” a document authored by Canadian Sen. Joseph Day, was not issued by the Alliance itself, but it is only a step removed. Day sits on the Defense and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a consultative inter-parliamentary body to the military bloc. The original draft was discussed at the assembly’s session in Bratislava, Slovakia, on June 1, to be further revised and eventually adopted at its annual session in London in October.

Belgian Green Party MP Wouter De Vriendt, who attended the session, provided the copy of the draft to De Morgen daily. According to the draft, NATO stores some 150 nuclear B61 bombs in six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi-Torre in Italy, Volken in the Netherlands and İncirlik in Turkey. While the draft does not say how many bombs each of the bases houses, the information is readily available online, albeit with varying degrees of accuracy.

It has been reported that Volkel airbase stores up to 20  bombs, while Kleine Brogel Air Base is said to house from 10 to 20 gravity warheads.

Italy, which is the only country on the list with two nuclear bases, is estimated to keep the largest stash of US nuclear bombs – from 60 to 70.

According to open source estimates, the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey could store a haul of 50 B61 bombs – in spite of the mounting concerns over their safety following the failed coup attempt on July 15, 2016. Büchel Air Base in Germany is said to be home to up to 20 bombs.

It may have been an open secret before, but the NATO Parliamentary Assembly chose to amend the report anyway. Its current version, uploaded on July 11, does not specify the location of the nukes anymore and refers to “open sources” while stating the quantity of the bombs in Europe. “According to open sources, the United States forward-deploys approximately 150 nuclear weapons, specifically B61 gravity bombs, to Europe for use on both US and Allied dual-capable aircraft,” it now reads.

The report provides figurative ammunition for those in Europe unhappy to be hosting American nukes on their soil, worried that bases might serve as prime targets for terrorist and conventional attacks and place Europe in the crosshairs of any potential nuclear conflict.


Read more:




Read from top.


towards useless nukular victories!...

The Pentagon is actively contemplating the use of nuclear weapons to win wars that need not be fought in the first place. As expected, opposition to the US nuclear doctrine is almost non-existent in the mainstream media.

It used to be the case that the idea of using nuclear weapons in a real-world conflict was such a taboo idea that no one was ever openly to contemplate it. We need only look back to the end of World War II to realize how catastrophic and harmful nuclear weapons can be on civilian populations; yet we shouldn’t have had the blueprint of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to know that the use of nuclear weapons would be a frightening and criminal act. They are deadly and unnecessary, end of story. You can all save me the cliched response “But they ended a war.”

Firstly, the use of nuclear weapons didn’t end a war – it started one (the Cold War). Secondly, anyone who knows even a little bit of history knows that Japan was on the verge of defeat. But don’t take my word for it – I wasn’t there. But those who were typically made statements to the effect that “[t]he use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” But I digress.

The United States military has decided that the only chance it has of maintaining a stranglehold over its empire is to actively contemplate the scenarios and situations in which it should deploy the use of nuclear weapons

by Darius Shahtahmasebi — a New Zealand-based legal and political analyst who focuses on US foreign policy in the Middle East, Asia and Pacific region. He is fully qualified as a lawyer in two international jurisdictions.

Read more:


the old useless US navy oversexed sea dogs?

One of the lesser, but nonetheless not inconsequential changes to the national security landscape over the past 30 years has been the marginalization of the nation’s senior military leadership. 

Once upon a time, whether for better or for worse, the service chiefs wielded real clout on matters related to basic policy. Today, unless you are a serving member of the armed forces, it’s unlikely that you can even name the uniformed heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Maybe one—but all four?

Back in the days of George Marshall or Arleigh Burke or Curtis LeMay, the chiefs mattered. Today their influence trails behind that of John Bolton’s lesser deputies. 

Just last week, the admiral tapped to become the next chief of naval operations abruptly retired, his decision apparently prompted by some oblique involvement in a sexual harassment case. The press barely took notice. After all, who cares? Another old sea dog will be found to take his place



Read more:




Read from top.

the proof is in the testing...

A recent test of a US missile banned by the INF risks backfiring on global security, Vladimir Putin warned. The Russian president said it shows Washington was not interested in the now scrapped landmark accord for quite some time.

“The US swiftness in testing the new missile after they left the INF Treaty indicates that they started working on it long before they began looking for reasons to leave the agreement,” according to the Russian president.

That was just too quick.

The weapon was confirmed by the Pentagon as being a modified version of a sea-based Tomahawk cruise missile, which is normally stationed on warships and submarines. It came just about two weeks after the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) officially expired on August 1.

The projectile successfully hit its target more than 500km (310 miles) away – exactly at a distance banned by the 1987 landmark agreement prohibiting all ground-launched missiles with a range of between 500km and 5,500km.

Saying the test only “escalates” security uncertainty in the world, Putin cautioned Europeans that Washington might not inform its allies about the software it plans to use in the missiles.

I am concerned that the recently tested missile can be fired from launching sites located in Romania and soon planned to be installed in Poland. It only requires a change in software.

That, in turn, poses a clear “danger” to Russia, according to the president. To counter that challenge, Moscow will have to opt for “countermeasures,” including development of its own ground-launched short- and mid-range missiles. At the same time, Putin said that Kremlin will not be the first to deploy such weapons close to Europe or anywhere else unless the US does so first.



Read more:





Read from top...