Tag: nuclear weapons

Why the next world order will be armed with nukes

A multipolar world is, by its nature, a nuclear one. Its conflicts are increasingly shaped by the presence of nuclear weapons. Some of these wars, such as the conflict in Ukraine, are fought indirectly. Others, as in South Asia, unfold in more direct forms. In the Middle East, one nuclear power has attempted to preempt another state’s potential development of nuclear weapons, backed by an even more powerful nuclear-armed ally. Meanwhile, rising tensions in East Asia and the Western Pacific bring the risk of a direct clash between nuclear states ever closer.

Having avoided a nuclear catastrophe during the Cold War, some European countries have since lost the sense of caution once associated with possessing such weapons. There are several reasons for this. During the ‘mature’ Cold War years, especially after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, nuclear weapons played their intended role: they deterred and intimidated. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact operated on the assumption that any large-scale confrontation would escalate into a nuclear conflict. Recognizing this danger, the political leaderships in Washington and Moscow worked to avoid the unthinkable.

Notably, while the Americans entertained the idea of a limited nuclear war confined to Europe, Soviet strategists remained deeply skeptical. During decades of Soviet-American confrontation, all military conflicts occurred far from Europe and outside the core security interests of the two powers.

Keep reading

On July 4, 1945: The Man Who Tried To Halt the Atomic Bombings

On July 4, 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard finished a letter that would become the strongest (and one of the very few) real attempts at halting President Truman’s march to using the atomic bomb – which was two weeks from its first test at Trinity – against Japanese cities.

It’s well known that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the Szilard. On July 3, he finished a petition to the president for his fellow scientists to consider, which called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities.” It asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”

The following day, July 4, he wrote this cover letter (below). The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief of the Manhattan Project, wrote Winston Churchill’s science advisor seeking advice on how to combat Szilard and his colleagues. The FBI was already following Szilard. The bomb would be dropped over Hiroshima on August 6.

July 4, 1945

Dear _______________

Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.

It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan.

Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.

However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.

Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.

The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.

Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.

Leo Szilard

What happened next? Well, the petition gained from than 180 signatures—Oppenheimer obviously not one, and actively discouraged others – but was then delayed in getting to President Truman by Gen. Leslie Groves, military head of the Manhattan Project, until the A-bombs were ready to use, in early August. Groves also commissioned a poll of atomic scientists, which found that over 80% favored a demonstration shot only – so he squelched that, too. Much more in my 2020 book: The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood – and America – Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Keep reading

Assessing the Effect of the U.S. Strikes on Iran

There has been much commentary about the U.S. airstrike last weekend against three key nuclear sites deep inside Iran: Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The attack—President Donald Trump’s boldest use of military force to date—was designed to stunt if not destroy Iran’s nuclear program and bring Iran back to the nuclear negotiating table in a much weaker position. As the dust settles over the American missile and bomb craters, questions continue to swirl about the effectiveness of the U.S. strikes and their impact on the region more broadly.

Operation Midnight Hammer was designed to destroy and degrade the key bottleneck in Iran’s nuclear program: its enrichment capacity, including its most advanced and large-scale centrifuge cascades. The lion’s share of Iran’s operational IR-6 centrifuges were believed to be housed in the three facilities struck by the United States last weekend. Iran’s near nine-hundred pound stockpile of 60 percent enriched Uranium, which can fit in the equivalence of the trunks of ten cars, remains unaccounted for. But this stockpile will be of little use for any Iranian nuclear weapons program in the near term if their enrichment capabilities were wiped out.

The battle damage assessment remains murky. Though Trump has repeatedly claimed the country’s nuclear program is “completely and totally obliterated,” comprehensive assessments of the damage take time. Neither the United States nor Israel has released a final assessment on the strikes’ consequences for the nuclear program. It’s still early days. Earlier this week, a preliminary classified report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon’s intelligence arm, estimated that the program had been delayed, albeit no more than six months. The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi said that the centrifuges at Fordow are “no longer operational” and that there was “no escaping significant physical damage.” U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan “Razin” Caine also emphasized that the United States had every reason to believe the strike was successful, while adding that the defense department had been preparing to destroy Fordow for more than a decade.

Keep reading

Spying on Iran: How MI6 infiltrated the IAEA

Leaked confidential files indicate the International Atomic Energy Agency was infiltrated by a veteran British spy who has claimed credit for sanctions on Iran. The documents lend weight to the Islamic Republic’s accusation that the nuclear watchdog secretly colluded with its enemies.

A notorious British MI6 agent infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on London’s behalf, according to leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone. The agent, Nicholas Langman, is a veteran intelligence operative who claims credit for helping engineer the West’s economic war on Iran.

Langman’s identity first surfaced in journalistic accounts of his role in deflecting accusations that British intelligence played a role in the death of Princess Diana. He was later accused by Greek authorities of overseeing the abduction and torture of Pakistani migrants in Athens.

In both cases, UK authorities issued censorship orders forbidding the press from publishing his name. But Greek media, which was under no such obligation, confirmed that Langman was one of the MI6 assets withdrawn from Britain’s embassy in Athens.

The Grayzone discovered the résumé of the journeyman British operative in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a prolific British intelligence cutout. The bio of the longtime MI6 officer reveals he “led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology, including by innovative technical means and sanctions.” 

In particular, the MI6 agent says he “worked to prevent WMD proliferation through… support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] and through high level international partnerships.”

Langman’s CV credits him with playing a major role in organizing the sanctions regime on Iran by “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy” between 2010 and 2012. He boasts in his bio that this achievement “enabled [the] major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.” 

Keep reading

China’s Nuclear Force Buildup: A Direct Challenge to US Strategic Superiority

China’s nuclear force expansion has fundamentally transformed the global strategic environment, according to senior congressional leaders who characterize Beijing’s modernization program as a shift from limited deterrent capabilities to comprehensive nuclear forces designed for strategic competition with the United States. By 2035, China aims to possess the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal, surpassing that of the United States.

Representative Scott DesJarlais, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee, assessed that China’s nuclear modernization has created “a new tripolar environment (U.S., China, Russia, and China) that is less stable and more competitive” than the bipolar strategic framework that characterized the post-Cold War period.

Defense Intelligence Agency analysis confirms that China’s nuclear warhead inventory has surpassed 600 operational weapons. Its missile arsenal includes over 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Taiwan, including advanced hypersonic systems. The PLA Rocket Force has already deployed hypersonic weapons and nuclear-capable H-6N bombers. U.S. intelligence projects that China will field 700 nuclear warheads by 2027 and over 1,000 by 2030, with continued expansion expected through at least 2035.

Ultimately, China aims to field an estimated 1,500 nuclear warheads, marking the fastest peacetime nuclear expansion in modern history and underscoring its drive for strategic parity with the United States. This modernization includes both quantitative growth and qualitative upgrades, such as low-yield precision strike systems and multi-megaton intercontinental ballistic missiles, giving China what DIA analysts describe as “a broader range of nuclear response options” than ever before.

Much of China’s expanding nuclear arsenal is being deployed at higher readiness levels than in the past, enabling faster response times and signaling a shift away from its traditional posture of minimal deterrence and low alert status. This evolution is supported by a vast industrial infrastructure designed for sustained nuclear modernization, bolstered by the systematic acquisition of foreign nuclear technology.

China’s nuclear buildup is further enabled by the world’s largest civilian nuclear construction program, which provides both a technological foundation and strategic cover for military development. With at least 28 reactors currently under construction, nearly half of all global reactor projects.

Keep reading

US Bombing of Iran Harms Non-Proliferation

Iran didn’t violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States did. When the U.S. bombed Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities on June 23, they didn’t just violate the cardinal rule of international law by attacking a sovereign nation, without Security Council approval, that had neither attacked it nor threatened to attack it. They also violated the NPT. In doing so, the U.S. may have done irreparable harm to the non-proliferation regime.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran was protected by the “inalienable right to a civilian [nuclear] program.” Iran and the world watched, not only as that nonnuclear umbrella collapsed and failed to protect Iran, but as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the guardian of the non-proliferation regime, whispered barely a criticism. Iran’s parliamentary speaker has criticized the IAEA for having “refused to even pretend to condemn the [American] attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Iran has accused IAEA director general Rafael Grossi of issuing a “biased” report on Iran’s nuclear program right as Trump’s sixty day window for diplomacy was closing that could be used as a “pretext” for the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. was complicit in using the resolution that followed the report, since only 19 out of 33 countries voted in favor of it after the U.S. pressured eight countries they saw as “persuadable… to either vote with the US on the IAEA vote or not vote at all.”

After Grossi clarified that the IAEA “did not find in Iran elements to indicate that there is an active, systematic plan to build a nuclear weapon” and concluded that “We have not seen elements to allow us, as inspectors, to affirm that there was a nuclear weapon that was being manufactured or produced somewhere in Iran,” Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the clarification came “too late.” He blasted Grossi for “obscure[ing] this truth in your absolutely biased report that was instrumentalize by E3/U.S. to craft a resolution with baseless allegation of ‘non-compliance’; the same resolution was then utilized, as a final pretext… to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities.” Baghaei finished with the accusation that Grossi “betrayed the non-proliferation regime.”

On June 20, Iran filed a formal complaint against Grossi to the Security Council, accusing him of a “clear and serious breach of the principle of impartiality.” Iran’s Ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeed Iravani, criticized Grossi’s failure to condemn American and Israeli threats and use of force against its peaceful nuclear program as demanded by IAEA resolutions “which categorically prohibit any threat or use of force against nuclear facilities dedicated to peaceful purposes.” He said that Grossi’s “passivity… amounts to de facto complicity.”

Keep reading

Lessons Unlearned From Israel’s Bombing Of Iraq’s Osirak Reactor

In a recent New York Times opinion article, Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israel’s military intelligence, attempted to defend Israel’s recent decision to start a war with Iran, in which Israel was briefly joined by the U.S. government under the administration of President Donald Trump.

Under the headline “Why Israel Had to Act,” Yadlin’s opening sentence states, “Forty-four years ago this June, I sat in the cockpit on the Israeli air force mission that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. In one daring operation, we eliminated Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.”

The parallels between that event and the current war on Iran are indeed remarkable—but the real lesson to be learned from it is precisely the opposite of the one Yadlin draws.

In addition to constituting aggression under international law, “the supreme international crime” as defined at Nuremberg, the American and Israeli bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities proves how policymakers in both countries refuse to learn from the lessons of history.

The claim that Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 halted or set back Saddam Hussein’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability is a popular myth.

In fact, Iraq had been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) since it came into force in 1970, and its nuclear program was under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which had reported that the program was in compliance with Iraq’s legal obligations under the treaty.

Israel, by contrast, is known to possess nuclear weapons and “has not adhered to” the NPT, as the United Nations Security Council observed in Resolution 487. Unanimously adopted on June 19, 1981, that resolution strongly condemned Israel’s act of aggression.

Keep reading

The truth behind Trump’s bombings and the huge Iran secret kept from the world that’s hoodwinked all of America

Two days before American B-2 stealth bombers dropped the biggest payload of explosives since World War II on Iran, trucks were seen lining up outside the primary target at Fordow.

Satellite images showed scores of cargo vehicles outside a tunnel entrance to Iran’s key nuclear base inside a mountain.

Donald Trump has insisted that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program was destroyed in the precision strikes, an assessment backed by the CIA and Israeli intelligence.

But there was also a frantic effort to move centrifuges and highly enriched uranium before US bombers attacked, the key question for the Pentagon now is: where did it go?

One possibility, according to experts, is a secret facility buried even deeper under another mountain 90 miles south of Fordow: ‘Mount Doom.’

In Farsi, the potential new ground zero for Iran’s nuclear program is Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, otherwise known in English as ‘Pickaxe Mountain,’ located in the Zagros Mountains in central Iran on the outskirts of one of the regime’s other nuclear sites at Natanz.

‘It is plausible that Iran moved centrifuges and highly enriched uranium (HEU) to secret or hardened locations prior to the recent strikes – including possibly to facilities near Pickaxe Mountain,’ Christoph Bluth, professor of international relations and security at the University of Bradford, told the Daily Mail.

Previous intelligence had showed ‘large tunnels being bored into the mountain, with possible infrastructure for an advanced enrichment facility,’ he claimed.

‘The site may be buried 100 meters below the surface. So it is conceivable that advanced centrifuge cascades have been hidden there, but there is no specific evidence at this time to confirm where centrifuges and fissile material has been moved to.’

Keep reading

The Battle over Battle Damage Assessment at Fordo

There are some questions being raised over the absolute confidence that the damage at the Fordo nuclear site in Iran was actually destroyed.  A solidly reliable source of Fake News, CNN, has now assumed the role of expert “Battle Damage Assessor”. Anyone can be a Battle Damage Assessor – it is very similar to being a “Sniper Profiler” in the 2002 Washington D.C. Sniper Episode – a conveyor belt of “Sniper Profilers” appeared out of nowhere flooding the airwaves with commentary and descriptions that proved to be wildly inaccurate.

CNN reported on their view of the Battle Damage Assessment (BDA):

“The US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it.

The assessment, which has not been previously reported, was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.”

CNN continued on:

“Two of the people familiar with the assessment said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of the people said the centrifuges are largely “intact.” Another source said that the intelligence assessed enriched uranium was moved out of the sites prior to the US strikes.

“So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,” this person added.”

Karoline Leavitt responded like a flamethrower against CNN:

“This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong and was classified as ‘top secret’ but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

There are several matters that come to mind with the contrived effort of CNN to assert themselves as the self-appointed Gatekeepers of truth for BDA.

Keep reading

Claims Swirl Over Extent Of Damage From Attacks On Iranian Nuclear Facilities

There are new claims saying Iran’s nuclear program was “badly damaged” in attacks by Israel and the U.S. These differ from earlier published reports that the strikes had a limited effect, highlighting the precarious nature of parsing through preliminary assessments.

Wednesday afternoon, CIA John Radcliffe said that his agency “can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran’s Nuclear Program has been severely damaged by the recent, targeted strikes,” according to a public statement. “This includes new intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years. CIA continues to collect additional reliably sourced information to keep appropriate decision-makers and oversight bodies fully informed. When possible, we will also provide updates and information to the American public, given the national importance of this matter and in every attempt to provide transparency.”

Radcliffe’s analysis follows statements from Israeli intelligence officials on Wednesday said that U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have caused “very significant” and “long-term damage,” according to Israeli media reports. Iran also confirmed its sights were “badly damaged.” Those assessments are in line with what U.S. President Donald Trump has said. At the same time, they differ significantly from U.S. media reports citing a now-confirmed preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report stating that Operation Midnight Hammer, the U.S. attack on Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz, had limited results. Experts in the non-proliferation community are also giving their takes on the state of Iran’s nuclear program, some of which are conflicting and even Iran has chimed in.

Clearly this issue is highly politicized at this point and there are many agendas at play when it comes to propagating specific narratives surrounding it. These range from political motivations to state-sponsored disinformation. Unless there are trusted moles with actual access to these sites — or who have direct knowledge from those who do — within the Iranian government, and only if Iran has even gained access into critical areas themselves, conclusions can only be made in a preliminary fashion based on very limited information. Even intercepted intelligence can be falsified in order to throw foreign assessments off. Intelligence reports, as a practice, also range in confidence, and it’s unlikely the confidence is extremely high this soon after the attack. So maybe the B-2’s didn’t have the desired effect and maybe they destroyed huge amounts of critical nuclear infrastructure and materials. It’s still not very clear and conclusions in key intelligence products can change drastically based on new information.

Regardless, here is the state of play of the battle damage assessment situation as it sat prior to the CIA report. You can also catch up with our past reporting about the Israel-Iran conflict here.

Keep reading