Tag: nuclear weapons

Iran warns Israel: Nuclear doctrine may shift if its nuclear facilities are attacked

A senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has suggested that the country may revise its nuclear doctrine if Israel attacks its nuclear facilities.

In an interview with Iran’s Fars News Agency on October 9, Brig. Gen. Rasoul Sanaei-Rad warned Israel against targeting these facilities.

“These days, there is talk of approaching zero hour and the reaction of the Zionists,” he said, emphasizing that even officials in the United States have been advising Israel to avoid such escalatory actions, indicating that the potential repercussions of striking Iran’s nuclear sites must be carefully considered.

Sanaei-Rad articulated that an attack on Iran’s nuclear centers could significantly alter the strategic landscape and lead to changes in Iran’s nuclear policies. He declared that targeting these facilities would cross “regional and global red lines” and reminded that there are established protocols regarding nuclear facilities that must be respected during wartime.

Iran’s primary nuclear facility is located in Natanz, a central city in Isfahan Province. The facility has previously been a target of cyberattacks attributed to Israel.

In April 2021, Iran accused Israel of carrying out a devastating cyberattack at Natanz that damaged its centrifuges. Later that month, Iran announced that it had enriched uranium to 60 percent, a level closer to weapons-grade material. Additionally, Iran attributed a drone strike on a military facility in Isfahan to Israel in April.

Sanaei-Rad cautioned that Israel must “reflect on Iran’s possible reaction,” warning that any attack on Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure could impact global fuel prices and energy security.

“The rational advice is not to take any action that will lead to the development of tension. If they want to take action, they should consider these issues,” Sanaei-Rad said.

He highlighted that Israel’s infrastructure is densely concentrated in a relatively small area, making it more vulnerable to a potential Iranian response. 

Keep reading

First Plutonium Pit For Nuclear Warhead Produced In The U.S. In 35 Years Is Now “Weapon-Ready”

The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has announced the completion of the first weapon-ready example of a vital component for the W87-1 warhead. The component, called a “plutonium pit,” is the radioactive component that acts as a first stage ‘trigger’ apparatus used to initiate the detonation of the thermonuclear device. Plans call for the W87-1s to be used in the future LGM-35A Sentinel nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), a program that is massively over budget and faces numerous issues.

The NNSA calls this “an important milestone for the United States’ nuclear weapon stockpile modernization” as it phases out the aging W78 warheads, one of two types that are placed atop LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBMs currently stationed in silos. The other is the W87-0.

“The W87-1 nuclear warhead will replace the W78 nuclear warhead, which was first introduced in 1979 and represents the oldest weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile that has not undergone a major life extension or replacement,” the Government Accountability Office noted. “The W87-1 will be carried on the Air Force’s Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile and is slated for deployment in the early 2030s.”

The W87-0s will initially be installed on Sentinels, but those will eventually be phased out as well.

To make any of this happen, however, NNSA needs new plutonium pits. A good description of how the pits play a critical role in a nuclear warhead can be found at the Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, stating:

“Pits are the hollow plutonium cores of the fission “primaries” (triggers) of two-stage modern warheads. A warhead explosion would begin with the implosion of the pit to supercriticality, which would enable an exponentially growing fission chain reaction in the plutonium. That fission explosion—“boosted” by neutrons from a fusion reaction in tritium-deuterium gas injected into the middle of the hollow pit just before implosion—would ignite a much more powerful “secondary” nuclear fission-fusion explosion.”

Keep reading

Israel’s 1981 Attack on Nuclear Facility “STARTED” Iraq’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Biden announced that Washington doesn’t support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which to some knowledgeable observers, given Biden’s record, makes that more likely. 

There are many other hypocrisies and fallacies, but obviously the first thing to be said about Israel’s propaganda regarding Iran’s nuclear program being weaponized is that Israel has its own massive nuclear weapons program that both it and the US government have refused to acknowledge for decades, as I’ve long documented.

But one myth is little known and important to understand as Israel seems to be eyeing striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Telegraph yesterday claimed: “Israel did the world a historic favour when it bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981.”

Bullshit.

Israel would claim in 1981: “From sources whose reliability is beyond any doubt, we learn that this reactor, despite its camouflage, is designed to produce atomic bombs.” Which seems to be a case of projection given their deceit regarding their Dimona facility.

In fact, Richard Wilson, who was Mallinckrodt research professor of physics at Harvard University, visited the Osirak Iraqi reactor in 1982 after it was bombed by Israel. He told me back in 2006: “Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq’s nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards. Certainly, Saddam Hussein would clearly have liked a nuclear bomb if he could have had one, but the issue is whether there were enough procedures for that reactor in place to prevent him from doing so and all the indications are that there were enough procedures.

“The Osirak reactor was destroyed in June 1981. It was not until early in July 1981 that Saddam Hussein personally released Dr. Jafar Dhia Jafar from house arrest and asked him to start and head the clandestine nuclear bomb program. The destruction of Osirak did not stop an Iraqi nuclear bomb program but probably started it. Worse still, the Israelis were so pleased with themselves that it appears that neither they nor the CIA looked for and understood the real direction of the Iraqi nuclear bomb program.

“In the international discussions with Iran, this must be borne in mind. Bombing a peaceful program, rather than controlling it, is very dangerous. But, alas, this is not the lesson that many people, who have not studied the technical evidence, have gained.” Wilson died in 2018. See his piece in New Outlook: “Iraq’s uranium separation: the huge surprise.”

Keep reading

Was Tim Walz Connected to Disappearance of Manual for Nuclear-capable Howitzer?

A National Guard soldier who served with Tim Walz alleges a classified manual for a howitzer capable of firing nuclear artillery went missing not long after Walz returned from a trip to China, in the 1990s.

Speaking to Alpha News, the retired soldier, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described how the standard operating procedure manual for the M109A5 howitzer, detailing the gun’s nuclear capabilities, went missing.

He said Walz was one of the few men with access to the building where the manual was kept and was “often the only one there.” The soldier believes Walz stole the manual and later returned it. The disappearance, which was never reported, coincided with one of Walz’s many visits to China.

When asked why the manual’s disappearance was never reported, the former soldier said that the battalion was more concerned with Walz’s neglect of key duties, because he was “double-dipping,” or working a full-time job when he should have been working full-time with his unit.

“He claims that Walz frequently neglected key duties, such as recruitment and payroll, which allegedly raised concerns to the point that a superior had to investigate,” Alpha News reports.

“The former soldier stated that the unit was more focused on those issues, and when the manual eventually reappeared, it went unreported. In hindsight, the soldier believes he should have reported it when it first went missing but feared repercussions for not addressing it sooner.”

The Chinese began developing a howitzer, the PLZ-05, with striking similarities to the US M109A5 in the mid-1990s, around the time the former soldier alleges Walz stole the manual.

Alpha News also draws attention to Walz’s arrest for DUI, which took place at the same time. Walz was arrested for travelling at 96mph in a 55-mph zone. Walz’s lawyer later alleged that his client believed he was being chased. It was never revealed by whom, but the timing is suggestive, perhaps, of a connection to in-person spying activities.

Alpha News contacted Walz’s team for a response to the accusation, but received no response. The Minnesota National Guard also provided no response.

Walz’s connections to China have come under close scrutiny in the media, and now the House Oversight Committee, under James Comer, has announced an investigation of his ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Keep reading

Selling War: How Raytheon and Boeing Fund the Push for NATO’s Nuclear Expansion

To “counter Russia’s nuclear blackmail,” the Atlantic Council confidently asserted, “NATO must adapt its nuclear sharing program.” This includes moving B-61 atomic bombs to Eastern Europe and building a network of medium-range missile bases across the continent. The think tank praised Washington’s recent decision to send Tomahawk and SM-6 missiles to Germany as a “good start” but insisted that it “does not impose a high enough price” on Russia.

What the Atlantic Council does not divulge at any time is that not only would this drastically increase the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war, but that the weapons they specifically recommend come directly from manufacturers that fund them in the first place.

The B-61 bombs are assembled by Boeing, who, according to its most recent financial reports, gave tens of thousands of dollars to the organization. And the Tomahawk and SM-6 are produced by Raytheon, who recently supplied the Atlantic Council with a six-figure sum.

Thus, their recommendations not only put the world at risk but also directly benefit their funders.

Unfortunately, this gigantic conflict of interest that affects us all is par for the course among foreign policy think tanks. A MintPress News investigation into the funding sources of U.S. foreign policy think tanks has found that they are sponsored to the tune of millions of dollars every year by weapons contractors. Arms manufacturing companies donated at least $7.8 million last year to the top fifty U.S. think tanks, who, in turn, pump out reports demanding more war and higher military spending, which significantly increase their sponsors’ profits. The only losers in this closed, circular system are the American public, saddled with higher taxes, and the tens of millions of people around the world who are victims of the U.S. war machine.

The think tanks receiving the most tainted cash were, in order, the Atlantic Council, CSIS, CNAS, the Hudson Institute, and the Council on Foreign Relations, while the weapons manufacturers most active on K-Street were Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics.

These think tanks directly affect conflicts around the world. CSIS, for example, are among the loudest advocates for arming Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel, even as the latter carries out a genocide in Palestine. A recent report lays out a shopping list of U.S. weapons that would help the Israeli military, including Excalibur artillery projectiles, JDAM bomb guidance systems, and Javelin missiles. Those weapons are manufactured by Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, respectively, all of whom are among CSIS’ top funders.

U.S. arms are being used daily to carry out illegal and deadly attacks against civilian populations in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, making arms manufacturers directly complicit in war crimes.

One example of this is the recent Israeli bombing of the Al Mawasi humanitarian zone in Gaza. Israel dropped three one-ton MK-84 bombs on the camp, killing at least 19 people. Dozens more are still missing.

According to the UN, MK-84 bomb blasts rupture lungs, tear limbs and heads from bodies, and burst sinus cavities up to hundreds of meters away.

The MK-84 bombs were produced in the U.S. by General Dynamics and sent to Israel with Washington’s blessing. General Dynamics has made huge profits from the slaughter; the D.C.-based arms manufacturer’s stock price has jumped by 42% since October 7.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and the Armageddon Agenda

The next president of the United States, whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, will face many contentious domestic issues that have long divided this country, including abortion rights, immigration, racial discord, and economic inequality. In the foreign policy realm, she or he will face vexing decisions over Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, and China/Taiwan. But one issue that few of us are even thinking about could pose a far greater quandary for the next president and even deeper peril for the rest of us: nuclear weapons policy.

Consider this: For the past three decades, we’ve been living through a period in which the risk of nuclear war has been far lower than at any time since the Nuclear Age began — so low, in fact, that the danger of such a holocaust has been largely invisible to most people. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the signing of agreements that substantially reduced the U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles eliminated the most extreme risk of thermonuclear conflict, allowing us to push thoughts of nuclear Armageddon aside (and focus on other worries). But those quiescent days should now be considered over. Relations among the major powers have deteriorated in recent years and progress on disarmament has stalled. The United States and Russia are, in fact, upgrading their nuclear arsenals with new and more powerful weapons, while China — previously an outlier in the nuclear threat equation — has begun a major expansion of its own arsenal.

The altered nuclear equation is also evident in the renewed talk of possible nuclear weapons use by leaders of the major nuclear-armed powers. Such public discussion largely ceased after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when it became evident that any thermonuclear exchange between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would result in their mutual annihilation. However, that fear has diminished in recent years and we’re again hearing talk of nuclear weapons use. Since ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly threatened to employ nuclear munitions in response to unspecified future actions of the U.S. and NATO in support of Ukrainian forces. Citing those very threats, along with China’s growing military might, Congress has authorized a program to develop more “lower-yield” nuclear munitions supposedly meant (however madly) to provide a president with further “options” in the event of a future regional conflict with Russia or China.

Keep reading

Russia Updating Nuclear Weapon Doctrine Due To Western ‘Escalation’ Of Ukraine War

In the latest worrisome saber-rattling sparked by the US-led proxy war in Ukraine, Russia announced it’s revising its doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons, saying a change has been necessitated by “escalation” initiated by the country’s Western adversaries. 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told TASS that the update was precipitated by an analysis of  “recent conflicts” including “Western adversaries’ escalation course” in the Ukraine war. The revision is “in the advanced stage,” but Ryabkov said it was too early to project when it would be completed, given “we are talking about the most important aspect of our national security.” While there’s been no indication of the specifics, any revision seems certain to lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use — and increase the potential for a global conflagration.  

Per TASS, under current doctrine set forth in 2020, Russia may use nuclear weapons when:

  • An enemy uses a weapon of mass destruction against Russia or its allies
  • Russia has confirmation of a nuclear launch against it or its allies
  • An enemy attacks “facilities necessary for a response” to a nuclear attack 
  • Conventional warfare threatens the existence of the Russian state.  

That last condition of the current doctrine is particularly noteworthy in light of the Ukraine war. As foreign policy realist and University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer recently told UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers, 

“There is all sorts of talk in the West about defeating Russia inside Ukraine, wrecking its economy, causing regime change and maybe even breaking up Russia the way the Soviet Union was broken up. This is a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons. If its survival is threatened, it’s likely to use them. So we have this perverse paradox here that most people don’t seem to realize…which is that the more successful NATO and Ukraine are against Russia, the more likely it is that the Russians will use nuclear weapons.”   

Russia launched its so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine in February 2022 with stated goals of “protecting people [in the country’s eastern regions] who have been subjected to bullying and genocide” by the Ukrainian government since 2014, and precluding Ukraine’s joining the NATO military alliance. Over time, the West’s backing of Ukraine has been characterized by gradual escalation in which one previously-ruled-out ratcheting after another has been realized.

Keep reading

Biden-Harris Dept. of Energy Official Calls for ‘Queering Nuclear Weapons’ as Part of Radical DEI Push

An official in the nuclear security section of the Biden-Harris Department of Energy argued that “queer theory” should be an essential feature of U.S. national security and called for the drastic reduction of America’s nuclear stockpile.

Sneha Nair, who was appointed by the Biden-Harris administration in February as special assistant at the National Nuclear Security Administration, claimed “white supremacy” dominates the nuclear field and that “queering nuclear weapons” as part of the DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) push “is essential for creating effective nuclear policy.” 

“Finally, queer theory informs the struggle for nuclear justice and disarmament,” she wrote in April 2023. “Queer theory helps to shift the perception of nuclear weapons as instruments for security by telling the hidden stories of displacement, illness, and trauma caused by their production and testing.” 

Nair also stressed that “DEI principles and advancement must be considered crucial assets for strengthening nuclear security implementation,” adding they would prevent “insider threats.”

“By understanding DEI as a set of values critical to security, and therefore as an element of an effective nuclear security culture, stakeholders can explore how DEI can contribute to stronger security at nuclear facilities,” she said. 

Keep reading

Zelensky’s Nuclear Gambit Rears Its Head Again

Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador Miroshnik, speaking about the Ukrainian Armed Forces preparing to attack Russian nuclear facilities, urged the U.S. to obtain information from Kiev on this matter. “It would be wise for the White House to inquire with their Nazi protégés about what they are planning and preparing for this time, so there will be no reason later to claim they knew nothing about the upcoming stunt!”

Per RIA Novosti the planned strike against both nuclear power plants is being supervised by the Intelligence Services of the United Kingdom. Large numbers of Western journalists are in Zaporozhye and Sumy to report on the strikes and ensure early spin.

Another report:

‼️🇺🇦 🏴‍☠️ Ukraine intends to strike Zaporizhzhya and Kursk NPPs – sources

▪️The strikes are planned to be carried out on spent nuclear fuel storage sites in the Kursk and Zaporizhia regions, federal media reported, citing security forces.

▪️The Kiev regime plans to attach a warhead with radioactive material – the so-called “dirty bomb”.

▪️According to sources, the warheads were delivered to the Eastern Mining and Processing Plant in the village of Zhovti Vody in the Dnipropetrovsk region.

▪️The purpose of this action is to accuse Russia of committing a nuclear provocation.

❗️A large number of Western reporters have arrived in Sumy and Zaporizhia amid Kiev’s preparations for an attack on the Kursk and Zaporizhia NPPs

❗️Local residents should not panic, our forces are monitoring the situation and keeping an eye on the enemy, including strengthening air defense.

Rvvoenkor

Truthfully, though, I really don’t understand this plan, as it is explained. According to the reports based on some Russian defense insiders, Ukrainians have smuggled nuclear material in the form of a ‘dirty bomb’ somewhere into Dnipro region, and are planning to use it inside of a missile attack onto either the Russian ZNPP or Kursk nuclear power plants. In particular, they plan to hit the depleted nuclear fuel storage casks.

But logically speaking, why would you need nuclear material of your own, if you already plan to hit the storage casks which contain spent fuel rods, if you want to create a nuclear contamination incident? That’s the part I don’t quite understand. I suppose it would create a ‘larger’ incident, plus the dirty bomb would have more “live” material that would create greater contamination, but it’s still strange enough that I would have dismissed it offhand if it weren’t for the fact authentic sources are reporting it, which include Russian Chief of the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Forces Igor Kirillov.

Keep reading

Is Ukraine preparing a false flag operation using radioactive warheads aimed at spent nuclear fuel?

Ukrainian forces have begun preparations to target nuclear waste storage sites at a Russian power plant with radioactive warheads and to then blame Moscow, according to intelligence received by Russia.

Kiev’s forces have already struck the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), Europe’s largest, and started a fire at one of the cooling towers, while accusing Russia of bombing itself.

“Sources on the other side report that the [Ukrainians] are preparing a nuclear false flag – an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” military journalist Marat Khairullin said Friday on his Telegram channel. “They plan to strike the storage sites of spent nuclear fuel of a nuclear power plant.”

The special warheads intended for the attack have already been delivered to the Vostochny Mining and Processing plant in Zhovti Vody, in Ukraine’s Dnepropetrovsk Region, according to Khairullin.

As possible targets of the attack, Khairullin indicated either the Zaporozhye NPP in Energodar or the Kursk NPP in Kurchatov, noting that the Ukrainian government and its Western backers are “desperate and willing to try anything.”

A security official in the Russian Military Administration of Kharkov Region corroborated Khairullin’s claim to RIA Novosti on Friday. The attack is intended to use radioactive warheads to target spent fuel storage sites at a nuclear power plant, and the ammunition has already been delivered to Zhovti Vody. 

Kiev’s intention is to accuse Moscow of a false flag so it could justify using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the security official said. The Ukrainian government has received orders from its Western backers to “escalate as much as possible,” he added.

According to the security official, the intelligence came from Ukrainian prisoners of war.

Keep reading