Tag: nuclear weapons

Cold War 2.0 Heats Up

Last week the nuclear rhetoric between the US and Russia made some of us feel like we were transported back to 1962. Back then, Soviet moves to place nuclear-capable missiles 90 miles off our coast in Cuba led to the greatest crisis of the Cold War. The United States and its president, John F. Kennedy, could not tolerate such weapons placed by a hostile power on its doorstep and the world only knew years later how close we were to nuclear war.

Thankfully both Khrushchev and Kennedy backed down – with the Soviet leader removing the missiles from Cuba and the US president agreeing to remove some missiles from Turkey. Both men realized the folly of playing with “mutually assured destruction,” and this compromise likely paved the way to further US/Soviet dialogue from Nixon to President Reagan and finally to the end of the Cold War.

Fast forward more than 60 years later and we have a US president, Donald Trump, who last week stated that he had “ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions,” meaning nearer to Russia.

Had Russia attacked the US or an ally? Threatened to do so? No. The supposed re-positioning of US strategic military assets was in response to a sharp series of posts made by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev on social media that irritated President Trump.

The war of words started earlier, when neocon US Senator Lindsey Graham’s endless threats against Russia received a response – and a warning – from Medvedev. Graham, who seems to love war more than anything else, posted “To those in Russia who believe that President Trump is not serious about ending the bloodbath between Russia and Ukraine… You will also soon see that Joe Biden is no longer president. Get to the peace table.”

Medvedev responded, “It’s not for you or Trump to dictate when to ‘get at the peace table’. Negotiations will end when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved. Work on America first, gramps!”

That was enough for Trump to join in to defend his ill-chosen ally Graham and ended with Medvedev alluding to Soviet nuclear doctrine which provided for an automatic nuclear response to any first strike on the USSR by US or NATO weapons.

The message from the Russian politician was clear: back off. It was hardly Khruschev banging his shoe at the UN screaming “we will bury you,” but it was enough for Trump to make a rare public pronouncement about the movement of US nuclear submarines.

Keep reading

China-Linked Hackers Breach US Nuclear Weapons Agency In Sophisticated Operation

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been hit by a sophisticated cyberattack that exploited a previously unknown vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint, and is being widely described by one of the most serious breaches of US defense infrastructure this year. Fingers in the West are pointing to Beijing.

Hackers believed linked to the Chinese government used a zero-day exploit targeting on-premises versions of SharePoint to infiltrate over 50 organizations, including the agency responsible for the Navy’s nuclear submarine reactors. China is vehemently denying the charge.

The NNSA oversees both the production of nuclear reactors for submarines and the maintenance of the US nuclear arsenal. Cybersecurity experts are currently describing what’s known as an advanced remote code execution (RCE) attack.

The vulnerability reportedly affected SharePoint Server 2019 and the Subscription Edition, which allowed attackers to bypass security protocols and execute arbitrary commands on targeted systems, as described in Bloomberg.

The US Department of Energy is well-known to use Microsoft 365 cloud systems for a lot of its SharePoint work. “The department was minimally impacted due to its widespread use of the Microsoft M365 cloud and very capable cybersecurity systems,” a Department of Energy spokesperson conveyed in a statement to Bloomberg. “A very small number of systems were impacted. All impacted systems are being restored.”

It’s believed the hackers were able to gain unauthorized access, steal data, collect login credentials, and potentially move deeper into connected networks; however, the Department of Energy has claimed no classified or sensitive nuclear data was compromised in the breach.

Keep reading

Russia reaffirms nuclear doctrine amid U.S.-Ukraine weapons speculation

Kremlin reaffirmed Russia’s nuclear doctrine on Wednesday, July 16. This announcement comes amid rumors that the United States might supply Ukraine with longer-range weapons capable of striking deeper into Russian territory.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized the continued validity of Russia’s nuclear doctrine, stating, “The nuclear doctrine remains in force, and consequently, all its provisions apply.”

This statement was made in response to a question about whether the doctrine’s provision, which considers any attack by a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear power as a joint attack, was still in effect.

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered last year to revise the doctrine in response to the U.S. allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles, with a range of about 190 miles, against Russian targets. The amendments expanded the scope of countries and military alliances subject to nuclear deterrence and broadened the list of military threats. The doctrine now classifies any attack by a non-nuclear state, backed by a nuclear power, as a joint attack. This change reflects Russia’s growing concern over the involvement of Western nations in the Ukraine conflict. (Related: Putin revises nuclear doctrine, making it easier for Russia to target Ukraine with nukes.)

The situation took a dramatic turn when reports emerged that President Donald Trump had privately encouraged Ukraine to intensify its strikes on Russian territory. According to sources briefed on the discussions, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky if his forces could hit Moscow or St. Petersburg if the U.S. provided longer-range weapons. Although Trump later denied considering such a move, the conversation highlighted his frustration with Putin’s reluctance to engage in ceasefire talks.

Keep reading

Area 51 staff ‘killed by invisible enemy’ while working on top-secret projects

A group of US Air Force veterans has gone public with their story about how an ‘invisible enemy’ at the top-secret base Area 51 left them with cancer.

The former security guards at the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), a classified site that houses Area 51, have claimed that the US government betrayed them and essentially handed them a death sentence without their knowledge.

Their claims stemmed from the revelation that NTTR was built in the 1970s on an area of land that was found to be contaminated with radiation from years of nuclear testing in the area.

However, that 1975 report from the US Energy Research and Development Administration also said it would ‘be against the national interest’ to stop the military’s secret projects at the site.

David Crete, a former Air Force Sergeant who worked at NTTR from 1983 through 1987, said that over 490 of his fellow workers have died of severe illnesses since being stationed at the secret facility.

Making matters worse, the US Department of Veterans Affairs has refused to cover their medical care because none of the surviving veterans can prove they were exposed to radiation near Area 51.

That’s because their work was so top secret, all records of their activities have been marked as ‘data masked.’

‘I have brain atrophy. The left side of my brain is shrinking and dying. That’s not too bad. I’m one of the healthy ones,’ Crete told the House Veterans Affairs Committee in April while lobbying for legislation to support the Area 51 veterans.

Keep reading

Hiroshima at 80: Setting the Abhorrent Precedent

August 6th marks the 80th anniversary of mankind’s most cataclysmic and ignominious achievement: The first weaponized use of an atomic bomb. At approximately 8:15 in the morning, the bomb “Little Boy” detonated over the city of Hiroshima, Japan. While estimates have varied between 70,000 and 140,000 dead, the sheer magnitude of devastation caused to a largely civilian population cannot be understated. To this day, much debate rages on regarding the necessity of such weapons in the closing chapter of the Second World War.

The current orthodoxy of American military history, however, stands firmly entrenched that the usage of this bomb (and a subsequent one in Nagasaki three days later) was critical to ending the war quickly and saving the lives of countless Americans and even Japanese civilians who would have assuredly died in the ensuing operation to seize the entirety of mainland Japan. But how vital was the atomic bombing truly to ending the war? A deeper dive into contemporary sources reveals that the bombing was needless, cruel, and firmly established an abhorrent precedent for a newly established global hegemon.

Operation Downfall

Modern military historians desperately cling to the notion set forth by former War Secretary Henry Stimson, as articulated in the February 1947 issue of Harper’s Magazine, that, if forced to carry a ground invasion of Japan to conclusion, it would “cost over a million casualties, to American forces alone.” This invasion, dubbed “Operation Downfall,” was estimated by Stimson’s calculations to last well into 1946 and would have entailed that “additional losses might be expected among our allies” and that “enemy casualties would be much larger than our own.”

And while a large preponderance of scholarship on the matter seeks to reaffirm these claims, it was a dubious metric even at the time. As Barton J. Bernstein wrote in a 1999 issue of the Journal of Strategic Studies, no pre-Hiroshima literature can be found that would back up these claims. It appears to be a postwar invention by Stimson, Truman, et al., to justify the decision. This is an important distinction, as the bulk of pro-atomic weapon usage advocates rely heavily on this claim. However, perhaps surprisingly to some, the decision was questioned by many senior military leaders within the United States military even at the time.

Keep reading

The Atomic Nightmare, Then and Now

No kid is under a desk anymore — and isn’t that strange when you think about it? After all, when I “ducked and covered” like Bert the Turtle at school in the 1950s by huddling under my desk as sirens howled outside the classroom window, “only” (and yes, I do need to put that in quotation marks, since it was distinctly two too many even then) two countries, mine and the Soviet Union, had nuclear weapons; and only two atomic bombs, all too charmingly dubbed “Little Boy” and “Fat Man,” had ever been used (with devastating effect) on August 6th and 9th, 1945, against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, slaughtering somewhere between 110,000 and 210,000 people. Imagine that, and imagine as well that the atomic weaponry of today is wildly more powerful and destructive than those two bombs, that nine countries now possess such weaponry, and that my own country is planning to continue to “modernize” its nuclear arsenal to the tune of an estimated $1.7 trillion (no, that is not a misprint) or more in the coming decades.

And my country, along with Israel, also a nuclear power, just launched a series of devastating (non-nuclear) attacks on Iran, supposedly to prevent it from becoming the 10th country to possess nuclear weapons (though it seems distinctly unlikely that the Iranian regime was even trying to produce such weaponry).

All in all, consider it the post-modern equivalent of a miracle that, 80 years after those atomic bombs were dropped on Japanese cities, such weaponry has never again been used, even as it has continued to grow ever more powerful and spread around the planet.  After all, since the 1980s, it’s been known that a nuclear war between two powers (like India and Pakistan) could cause a global “nuclear winter” that might all too quickly result in the equivalent of the long-term major extinctions of this planet’s past history.

Keep reading

After 80 years, survivors of first nuclear test in New Mexico eligible for payment

People in New Mexico who developed cancer and suffered other health issues in the decades following the 1945 Trinity nuclear test are now eligible for compensation.

The Trinity test, which happened 80 years ago Wednesday, was the first detonation of a nuclear bomb. 

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law by President Trump on July Fourth reauthorized Radiation Exposure Compensation Act claims and extended the trust fund that issues payments to valid claimants, the Justice Department said on its website.

RECA payments reimburse people who suffered health problems due to uranium mining and handling and living near nuclear test sites. Those affected by the Trinity test, and several other previously ineligible groups, are now able to get paid due to provisions in the new law.

Newly eligible claimant groups include downwinders in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Tennessee and Utah as well as uranium miners in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming, reported USA Today. 

“After decades of advocacy, communities harmed by radiation exposure are set to finally receive long-overdue recognition and compensation. This achievement marks a significant step toward providing some justice to families who have waited far too long,” Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico Democrat, and Sen. Mike Crapo, Idaho Republican, wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi this month.

Keep reading

Bombing Iran: From the Libya Model to the North Korea Model

Before the U.S. struck Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities in an unprovoked and illegal bombing, a diplomatic settlement to the nuclear standoff was on the table. Retired ambassador and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian says that he has been told by an informed Iranian source that “the key elements of the deal between [Trump’s special envoy] Witkoff and [Iran’s foreign minister] Araghchi were agreed upon.”

“Iran would accept maximum nuclear inspections and transparency,” including implementing the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol. They would either convert or export their stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, cease high-level enrichment and cap their enrichment at the 3.67% needed for a civilian energy program. Finally, Iran would fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in resolving any outstanding technical ambiguities. In return, Iran would be permitted to have its civilian nuclear program, and the U.S. would lift all nuclear-related sanctions.

Such a deal would satisfy Iran’s demand to exercise its “inalienable right to a civilian [nuclear] program” and America’s demand to ensure that Iran’s program never become weaponized. But before it could be signed, U.S. President Donald Trump succumbed to pressure and undermined the talks by demanding the Libya model. That demand killed any hope for a diplomatic resolution.

The Libya model is code for zero enrichment and the complete abandonment of Iran’s civilian nuclear program: a demand that Iran will never agree to.

Keep reading

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