Tag: perpetual war

DARPA is Exploring Physics’ Strangest New Frontier to Develop the Next Generation of Defense Technology

In an effort to reshape the foundations of military computing and electronics, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is exploring one of the newest and strangest frontiers in physics: altermagnetism.

Recently, the agency’s Defense Sciences Office (DSO) issued a Request for Information (RFI) titled “Altermagnetism for Devices,” inviting researchers to help chart a course toward practical electronic and spintronic technologies that could harness this exotic magnetic behavior. 

Altermagnetism sounds like something pulled from science fiction. It combines properties of two long-known types of magnetism—ferromagnetism (the kind that drives refrigerator magnets) and antiferromagnetism (found in many metals but invisible to the naked eye). 

However, its true intrigue lies in what DARPA calls its “non-relativistic spin splitting,” a phenomenon that allows materials to act magnetically without producing any net magnetic field.

In practical terms, altermagnetic materials could enable circuits that manipulate the quantum spin of electrons without the interference, power drain, or sluggishness that plague conventional electronics.

The RFI notes altermagnetism “exhibits features of both ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism.” Like the latter, the magnetic spins inside these materials point in opposite directions, canceling each other out. However, unlike antiferromagnets, the spins are related by a rotational symmetry that still allows for energy band splitting, a property more like ferromagnets.

That seemingly small structural quirk could be transformative. The agency notes that altermagnets “might sidestep the major roadblocks ferromagnets and antiferromagnets face when designing spintronic devices.” This makes it possible to design “ultralow energy computation” technologies that vastly outperform the energy efficiency of traditional semiconductor architectures.

If successful, DARPA’s program could lay the groundwork for an entirely new category of computing systems that are smaller, faster, and orders of magnitude more energy-efficient than anything in existence today.

Spintronics, short for “spin electronics,” has already found its way into the real world. Modern hard drives, magnetic sensors, and emerging MRAM chips all rely on the quantum spin of electrons rather than their charge to read, store, or sense information. These technologies are fast, durable, and energy-efficient. However,  they still use spin only in a limited way.

DARPA is looking to do something more ambitious by using spin to not only store data but also compute with it. That would require materials capable of switching and controlling spin states as quickly and precisely as transistors manipulate charge. 

Current existing options fall short. Ferromagnets, though easy to magnetize, create interfering magnetic fields and switch too slowly for logic operations. Antiferromagnets avoid interference but lack the internal spin-splitting needed to manipulate spin-polarized currents.

However, altermagnets could change that balance. With zero net magnetization yet naturally spin-split electronic bands, they offer the tantalizing possibility of fast, interference-free spin-based computation. This breakthrough could finally make true spintronic processors possible.

The big problem? No one yet knows how to build a working device out of altermagnets. “While several device-switching proposals have been put forward, the ideas remain experimentally untested,” DARPA writes. 

Additionally, as DARPA notes, “characterization of altermagnetism is also a challenge.” The current “gold standards” for verifying altermagnetism rely on techniques usually reserved for large-scale physics facilities, and methods like spin-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy, muon spin rotation, and neutron scattering.

That means many potential research groups lack the infrastructure to explore these materials at all, let alone integrate them into working prototypes.

To change that, DARPA is soliciting “realistic, data- or theory-supported information on the types of improvements expected when using altermagnetism versus state-of-the-art computing architectures.” The agency also wants feedback on the fundamental limitations of such devices, and on the technical hurdles that must be overcome to make them practical.

This suggests DARPA isn’t merely chasing a curiosity—it’s laying the groundwork for a new national research initiative that could parallel other efforts like “INSPIRE” (Investigating how Neurological Systems Process Information in Reality), which seeks to understand how the human brain constructs reality. 

While DARPA’s notice doesn’t explicitly mention defense applications, the potential implications are clear. Altermagnetic devices could become the foundation for ultralow-power AI processors, cryptographic accelerators, or radiation-resistant electronics suitable for space and battlefield conditions.

The Department of Defense has long sought to reduce power requirements for deployed systems, whether in satellites, autonomous drones, or field-deployable sensors. Altermagnetism could offer a way to shrink computational energy costs by orders of magnitude, enabling persistent surveillance and decision-making at the edge without the need for constant resupply or cooling.

It could also revolutionize secure communications. Spintronic devices based on altermagnets might allow quantum-level control of electron spins, paving the way for tamper-resistant data encoding and secure hardware architectures that are inherently immune to many forms of cyberattack.

All of these potential defense applications could also ripple far beyond the battlefield, shaping the commercial technology sector in profound ways. For example, a study published earlier this year showed that the Pentagon’s drive to cut fuel costs during the height of the Global War on Terror inadvertently helped ignite America’s modern clean energy boom.

Keep reading

A Warning from Lebanon

In not quite one year since the ceasefire deal in Lebanon, Israel has broken the ceasefire 4,600 times. It has killed hundreds of people, including infants, demolished tens of thousands of homes and annexed five areas of Lebanon. It was supposed to withdraw completely.

This situation is being replicated in detail in Gaza. In particular, the ceasefire in Lebanon is “guaranteed” by the USA and France and overseen by an international committee referred to as “the Mechanism”. The “Mechanism” is chaired by the USA. Accordingly the guarantors have refused to acknowledge a single breach of the ceasefire because the US-controlled “Mechanism” calls them counter-terrorist operations aimed at disarming Hezbollah.

The United Nations defers to “the Mechanism” and thus to the USA, and the presence of UN peacekeeping troops in Southern Lebanon is therefore useless. Lebanon is now under control of the US/Israeli puppet administration of General Aoun and effectively being run by US Special Envoy Tom Barrack.

Barrack stated that the borders of Israel and Syria are meaningless and that “Israel will go where they want, when they want, and do what they want to protect the Israelis and their border to make sure on October 7th it never happens again”. This is from the “guarantor” of the Lebanese ceasefire agreement.

There can be no doubt that Trump’s US-chaired “Board of Peace” for Gaza will take exactly the same line as “the Mechanism” in Lebanon. It is axiomatic that Israel will never honor any agreement. They never have.

Keep reading

Will Trump really attack Venezuela?

It’s ironic that in the same week that President Donald Trump escalated the drug war in the Caribbean by unleashing the CIA against Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, the Department of Justice won an indictment against former National Security Adviser John Bolton, the architect of the failed covert strategy to overthrow Maduro during the first Trump administration.

The one thing the two regime change operations have in common is Marco Rubio, who, as a senator, was a vociferous opponent of Maduro. Now, as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, he’s the new architect of Trump’s Venezuela policy, having managed to cut short Richard Grenell’s attempt to negotiate a diplomatic deal with Maduro. Regime change is on the agenda once again, with gunboats in the Caribbean and the CIA on the ground. What could go wrong?

Donald Trump’s penchant for turning the metaphorical war on drugs into a real one by deploying the U.S. military dates back to his first administration, when he threatened to designate drug cartels as foreign terrorists and proposed launching missiles to blow up drugs labs in Mexico. During the recent presidential campaign, he declared, “The drug cartels are waging war on America—and it’s now time for America to wage war on the cartels.” Apparently, he meant it.

Back in office, he named six Mexican cartels, the Salvadoran gang MS-13, and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for military action against them. Early on, White House officials seriously debated military strikes against cartel leaders and infrastructure inside Mexico, but decided that cooperation with the Mexican government would be more fruitful. Nevertheless, the unusual appointment of a veteran Special Forces military officer to head the Western Hemisphere Affairs office of the National Security Council signaled that Trump was still was serious about resorting to military force to wage the war on drugs.

The focus then shifted to Venezuela. The day before the New York Times broke the story about Pentagon planning for action against cartels, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the U.S. government was offering a $50 million reward for information leadings to Maduro’s arrest, accusing him of the “use cocaine as a weapon to ‘flood’ the United States.” Trump claimed Maduro was directing Tren de Aragua in “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States,” a claim that the intelligence community concluded was untrue, despite pressure from Trump political appointees to make the estimate conform to Trump’s claim. The two senior career intelligence officers who oversaw preparation of the estimate were summarily fired.

In August, the Trump administration deployed a naval task force to the Caribbean, including three guided-missile destroyers, an amphibious assault ship, a guided-missile cruiser, and a nuclear-powered attack submarine. The following month, U.S. forces began air strikes on vessels allegedly smuggling narcotics in international waters off the Venezuelan coast. When Democrats and some Republicans questioned the legality of summarily killing civilians who posed no immediate threat, Trump informed Congress that he had determined that the United States was in a state of “armed conflict” with unnamed “drug cartels,” whose drug trafficking constituted an attack on the United States. Therefore, traffickers were “unlawful combatants” subject to being killed on sight. Admiral Alvin Holsey, commander of U.S. Southern Command, resigned on Thursday, reportedly because of concerns over the extrajudicial killing of civilians in the air strikes.

Keep reading

Trump urged Ukraine’s Zelensky to make concessions to Russia in tense meeting: Sources

US President Donald Trump pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to give up swaths of territory to Russia during a tense meeting on Oct 17 that left Kyiv’s delegation disappointed, according to two people briefed on the discussion.

Mr Trump also declined to provide Tomahawk missiles for Ukraine’s use, and mused about giving security guarantees to both Kyiv and Moscow, comments that the Ukrainian delegation found confusing, added the two sources, who requested anonymity to discuss a private conversation.

After his meeting with Mr Zelensky, Mr Trump publicly called for a ceasefire on the current frontlines, a position that the Ukrainian President then embraced in comments to reporters. A third person said Mr Trump came up with that proposal during the meeting after Mr Zelensky said he would not voluntarily cede any territory to Moscow.

“The meeting ended with (Trump’s) decision to make a ‘deal where we are, on the demarcation line’,” the third source said.

Mr Trump underscored that position in remarks to reporters on Oct 19.

“We think that what they should do is just stop at the lines where they are, the battle lines,” he said on Air Force One. “The rest is very tough to negotiate if you’re going to say, ‘you take this, we take that’.”

Keep reading

New wave of Israeli army, settler violence hits occupied West Bank

Israeli occupation forces caused large-scale destruction in the occupied West Bank city of Tubas overnight, as part of military operations which coincided with an escalation of settler violence against Palestinians across the territory.

Footage released after the Israeli army’s withdrawal on 19 October showed the aftermath of the hours-long assault, which came after resistance fighters targeted an Israeli force with an explosive over the weekend. 

Thirty military vehicles, two bulldozers, and infantry troops took part in the attack on Tubas, according to the governor.

The Israeli army was carrying out a raid in the city on Saturday evening when fighters from the Tubas Brigade of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement’s Quds Brigades targeted troops with an explosive device. 

The Tubas Brigade said it injured soldiers and witnessed rescue teams arriving at the site to evacuate casualties. 

In a statement, the Israeli army said two soldiers were injured and taken to hospital. 

Reinforcements invaded the city shortly after, carrying out an hours-long assault including the destruction of infrastructure and extensive search operations. 

As the army withdrew from Tubas on Sunday morning, Israeli occupation forces carried out other violent attacks and incursions in the West Bank. 

One Palestinian, Majed Muhammad Dawoud, was shot multiple times and killed by the Israeli army in Nablus’s Al-Ain camp. 

Meanwhile, Israeli settlers backed by troops burned vehicles and attacked Palestinian farmers picking olives in Ramallah and Nablus. 

Video footage showed an Israeli settler attacking and injuring an elderly Palestinian woman with a stick during the attack on the olive pickers.

Keep reading

On the Precipice of Authoritarian Rule

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump threatened to unleash the armed forces on more American cities during a rambling address to top military brass. He told the hundreds of generals and admirals gathered to hear him that some of them would be called upon to take a primary role at a time when his administration has launched occupations of American cities, deployed tens of thousands of troops across the United States, created a framework for targeting domestic enemies, cast his political rivals as subhuman, and asserted his right to wage secret war and summarily execute those he deems terrorists.

Trump used that bizarre speech to take aim at cities he claimed “are run by the radical left Democrats,” including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. “We’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room,” he said. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.” He then added: “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

Trump has, of course, already deployed the armed forces inside the United States in an unprecedented fashion during the first year of his second term in office. As September began, a federal judge found that his decision to occupy Los Angeles with members of California’s National Guard — under so-called Title 10 or federalized status — against the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom was illegal. But just weeks later, Trump followed up by ordering the military occupation of Portland, Oregon, over Governor Tina Kotek’s objections.

“I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on Truth Social late last month. And he “authoriz[ed] Full Force, if necessary.”

When a different federal judge blocked him from deploying Oregon National Guardsmen to the city, he ordered in Guard members from California and Texas. That judge then promptly blocked his effort to circumvent her order, citing the lack of a legal basis for sending troops into Portland. In response, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act — an 1807 law that grants the president emergency powers to deploy troops on U.S. soil — to “get around” the court rulings blocking his military occupation efforts. “I think that’s all insurrection, really criminal insurrection,” he claimed, in confused remarks from the Oval Office.

Experts say that his increasing use of the armed forces within the United States represents an extraordinary violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That bedrock nineteenth-century law banning the use of federal troops to execute domestic law enforcement has long been seen as fundamental to America’s democratic tradition. However, the president’s deployments continue to nudge this country ever closer to becoming a genuine police state. They come amid a raft of other Trump administration authoritarian measures designed to undermine the Constitution and weaken democracy. Those include attacks on birthright citizenship and free speech, as well as the exercise of expansive unilateral powers like deporting people without due process and rolling back energy regulations, citing wartime and emergency powers.

Keep reading

How Much the U.S Really Spends to Defend Other Nations From Military Aid to Global Bases and Deploying Navel Fleets

The United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year to defend countries that pose no direct threat to its borders. From maintaining troops and bases across Asia and Europe to deploying carrier strike groups in distant seas, Washington shoulders an immense financial burden to uphold what it calls the global security order. Nations such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel depend heavily on U.S. protection — a policy that blends deterrence, influence, and strategic dominance. But few Americans realize just how much this protection actually costs.

A vast network of overseas bases

The U.S. military maintains around 750 overseas bases in more than 80 countries, supporting about 200,000 active-duty troops stationed outside the continental United States. These facilities — from Okinawa and Yokosuka in Japan to Osan and Camp Humphreys in South Korea, Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean — serve as the backbone of U.S. global power projection.

Operating and maintaining these installations costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $55–70 billion annually, according to estimates by the Department of Defense and the Costs of War Project at Brown University. While host nations like Japan and South Korea contribute to housing and infrastructure expenses, the majority of the logistical, training, and personnel costs still fall on Washington.

For example:

  • Japan: The U.S. spends about $5.5 billion per year on operations, personnel, and logistics, even though Tokyo contributes about $2 billion through its “host-nation support” program.
  • South Korea: About $3.5–4 billion per year in U.S. military expenses, partially offset by Seoul’s contribution under the Special Measures Agreement.
  • Germany: Roughly $4–5 billion annually to sustain troops and infrastructure, including bases like Ramstein and Grafenwoehr.

These bases are not only costly but strategically positioned — allowing the U.S. to respond to crises in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe without delay.

Keep reading

China accuses US of major cyber-attack

China has accused the US National Security Agency (NSA) of waging a “major” multi-year cyberattack on the Chinese agency responsible for keeping national time.

In a statement posted on its official social media account on Sunday, the Ministry of State Security (MSS) said it had “obtained irrefutable evidence” that the NSA infiltrated the National Time Service Center. The covert operation allegedly began in March 2022, aiming to steal state secrets and conduct acts of cyber sabotage.

The center serves as China’s official time authority, issuing and broadcasting ‘Beijing Time’ to key sectors including finance, energy, transport, and defense. A disruption to this critical piece of infrastructure could have caused widespread instability in financial markets, logistics and power supply, according to the MSS.

According to the MSS, the NSA first exploited a vulnerability in the foreign-made mobile phones of several staff members at the center, gaining access to sensitive data.

Keep reading

British troops given powers to shoot down drones on sight: Telegraph

British troops will be given new powers to shoot down drones threatening Britain’s military bases, The Telegraph reported on Oct 19, citing an upcoming announcement on Oct 20 from British Defence Minister John Healey.

Mr Healey is expected to unveil his vision on how to protect Britain’s most critical military bases in response to a growing threat posed by Russia, the newspaper said.

Although the new powers will initially apply only for military sites, the British government was “not ruling out working to extend those powers” to other important sites like airports, the Telegraph said, citing a source.

Currently, troops can use specialist counter-drone equipment which can track incoming drones, hijack signals, and divert them, according to The Telegraph.

The new proposal will give soldiers or Ministry of Defence Police a “kinetic option” to shoot them on site, which they can only do now in extreme circumstances, The Telegraph further added.

Mr Healey’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Britain’s Defence Ministry could not immediately be reached.

Keep reading

Brussels wants to grab another €25B from frozen Russian assets for Ukraine

The European Union is about to use the cash value of €140 billion worth of frozen Russian state assets to finance a mega loan to Ukraine. But the European Commission still wants more, according to a document obtained by POLITICO.

The bulk of the frozen assets sit in a Belgium-based financial depository called Euroclear. But an additional €25 billion lies in private bank accounts across the bloc, and the EU executive wants to discuss using those funds to issue loans to Kyiv as well.

“It should be considered whether the Reparations Loan initiative could be extended to other immobilised assets within the EU,” reads the document, which the Commission circulated to EU capitals ahead of a Friday ambassadorial meeting on the topic.

“The legal feasibility of extending the Reparations Loan approach towards such assets has not been assessed in detail,” the document continued. “Such an assessment would need to take place before taking a decision on further steps.”

The document outlines the “design principles” for the Ukraine Reparations Loan initiative that will be up for debate ahead of next week’s EU summit in Brussels.

EU leaders are expected to have a broad discussion on the initiative and to call on the Commission to present a proposal for the loan. EU officials expect the bill to arrive quickly, and to serve as a platform for further talks on the financial engineering needed to make it work.

Finance ministers will discuss the bill when they next meet in November.

Keep reading