Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US-supplied GBU-39 bombs used in Israeli attack on Rafah camps: CNN

Al Mayadeen | May 29, 2024

The origin of the weapon used in the Rafah airstrike three days ago was the United States, a report published by CNN revealed. The revelation makes the US government a prime suspect in facilitating the war crime, especially as the US officials refuse to condemn the action.

According to CNN, an analysis of the video from the scene and a review by explosive weapons experts has determined that the origin of the weapon put to use by Israeli occupation forces is in fact the United States.

This is not the first time that US-supplied weapons have been used to commit acts of genocide against the Palestinian population and target internationally protected organizations, as Washington is the primary supplier of explosives, bombs, missiles, and various types of munitions to the Israeli military.

It is worth noting that the US has also supplied the Israeli regime with 328 fighter aircraft, which have been used to commit the bulk of war crimes and instances of violations of international law in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria in the past eight months.

In Rafah, the strike, which consisted of two guided munition bombs, eventually led to a fire breaking out, killing at least 45 and injuring 200 others, most of whom were women and children.

Moreover, the strike occurred after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered the Israeli regime to halt its military attack on the city.

What was the bomb used by ‘Israel’?

It also says that from a video shared on social media, it was able to detect the tail of a US-made and supplied GBU-39 small-diameter bomb (SDB), which has a warhead composed of around 17 kg of ATX 757 explosive material. ATX 757 is 1.65 times more powerful than TNT, and it is thought that at least two GBU-39s were launched at the campsite. The last assumption is based on the remarks of the Israeli occupation forces spokesperson, Rear Admiral David Hagari, who said that the Air Force used two small bombs with a 17 kg warhead each.

Although the GBU-39 is meant to be used in highly precise strikes for important point targets, the bomb is usually used to target military-grade vehicles and aircraft, due to its highly explosive warhead and bunker-busting capabilities, meaning that it is likely to cause casualties in densely populated areas.

Weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith confirmed this to CNN, as he said that “using any munition, even of this size, will always incur risks in a densely populated area.”

Despite multiple weapons experts identifying the weapon as the GBU-39 bombs and serial numbers on remnants of the bomb in the crime scene matching the claim, the United States Department of Defense said that it could not confirm the origin or type of munition used in the attack.

“In terms of this particular strike, I just don’t have more information for you,” Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh told reporters.

May 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine striking targets deep inside Russia with Western weapons – AFP

RT | May 29, 2024

Ukraine has used Western weapons against targets inside what it recognizes as Russian territory on multiple occasions, Agence France Presse (AFP) has claimed.

Some senior Western officials have urged nations that donate longer-range munitions to Ukraine not to ban their use deep inside Russia, while others have publicly objected to the idea. A restriction against such strikes has notably been imposed by the US, the main supplier of arms to Kiev. Washington has said the ban is meant to prevent an escalation of the conflict, and has made no indication that it will be lifted.

On Tuesday, the news agency cited several experts, who believe that donors should not be concerned, because several other Russian red lines have supposedly been crossed without consequence.

”Western weapons have already been used on several occasions against Russia’s territory, most recently against the southern town of Krasnodar, several Western sources said,” the report claimed.

AFP offered no details on those incidents or the weapons involved. British Foreign Secretary David Cameron has publicly stated that Ukraine “has the right” to hit targets in Russia with UK-made arms.

Last week, a Ukrainian intelligence source claimed that the country had targeted an early warning radar station based in Russia’s Krasnodar Region on May 22, and later another site in Orenburg Region.

Both locations have roles in nuclear deterrence. Their primary task is to detect an incoming missile and give the military enough time to launch a retaliation before nuclear weapons hit Russian territory.

The claim was given some credence by Dmitry Rogozin, a former senior Russian military official and now a lawmaker. He said it could be false, but if true, it means that Washington “has hired a reckless bandit, who is trying to damage… a key element of our system of strategic nuclear forces combat control.”

According to public statements by the Russian leadership, the country does retaliate when its red lines are crossed in the Ukraine conflict. After Kiev damaged the Crimean Bridge with a truck loaded with explosives in 2022, Moscow added Ukraine’s power grid to its list of military targets.

This year’s campaign of Ukrainian kamikaze drone raids on Russian oil facilities resulted in retaliatory missile strikes against Ukrainian thermal power stations. As of this week, all of them were either destroyed or damaged, according to Yury Boyko, a senior Ukrainian energy official.

May 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US is Flirting With Idea of ‘Limited’ Nuclear Conflict With Russia and China

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 29.05.2024

Washington is considering the deployment of nuclear-armed cruise missiles on Virginia-class attack submarines to deter China and Russia, according to the Asia Times.

US lawmakers have recently focused on how to modify Virginia-class attack submarines (SSN) to install nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM-N). Last week they summoned Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe to discuss the complexities and uncertainties concerning arming attack submarines with SLCM-N. The discussion revolved around enhancing their nuclear deterrence against China and Russia, according to the Asia Times.

The SLCM-N is a cruise missile with a low-yield nuclear warhead launched from surface ships or attack submarines (SSNs). It was first proposed in 2018 alongside the low-yield version (with less than 10 kilotons of explosive power) of the W76 warhead to arm long-range ballistic missile submarines.

What are the SLCM-N program’s merits in the eyes of American lawmakers, military, and scholars?

First of all, US military experts argue that SLCM-Ns would allow the US to engage in a “limited” nuclear exchange in contrast to “massive retaliation”.

“If conflict crosses the nuclear threshold, lower yields would signal a clear interest in limiting its intensity,” wrote Lieutenant Commander Alan Cummings, US Navy Reserve, for US Naval Institute in April 2024.

In addition, using theater-based nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles might not be seen as “legitimizing” a nuclear retaliatory strike on the American homeland, according to US military experts. They suggest that it would make it hard for American adversaries to immediately identify the origin of the strike after an attack.

Placing SLCM-Ns on US attack submarines will allow the Pentagon to maintain a widespread and enduring presence in the North Atlantic, Arctic Ocean, and Asia-Pacific, according to Kyle Balzer of the American Enterprise Institute.

“Due to the low observability of undersea launchers, Beijing and Moscow will have to assume it is loitering on site,” wrote Balzer for Breaking Defense on February 28. “If deployed on select surface ships, as well as submarines, the deterrent effect could be even greater.”

Balzer pointed out that the deployment of SLCM-Ns on attack subs and surface ships would create an atmosphere of ambiguity: Russia and China wouldn’t be sure if the vessels are nuclear-armed or not, thus complicating decision-making and creating additional deterrence.

“China and Russia would have to assume SLCM-N’s presence — whether or not it is deployed, in great numbers, to forward areas. In this sense, there is considerable deterrence value and cost-effectiveness in ambiguity,” argued the scholar.

American lawmakers have been pushing ahead with the program for the last several years. While the United States has not deployed a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile since 1991, the Trump administration argued in 2018 that the SLCM-N would “provide a needed non-strategic regional presence” in Europe and Asia and contribute “to deterrence and assurance of allies, especially in Asia.”

The SLCM-N program was reversed by President Joe Biden in 2022 as an excessive and costly solution. Nonetheless, after a heated debate, the initiative was passed within the framework of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 under the pretext of Russia’s special military operation and China’s alleged plans to “invade” Taiwan. It became law in December 2023 with instructions to achieve operational capability of the SLCM-N by 2034.

Is ‘Limited’ Nuclear Conflict Possible?

Russia has repeatedly warned the US against lowering the nuclear threshold and hypothesizing a possibility of a limited nuclear exchange. According to Moscow, the “limited” use of nuclear weapons by no means reduces the risk of an all-out nuclear war, but rather invites it.

Commenting on Washington’s plans to deploy low-yield nuclear arms on its submarines or surface vessels in April 2020, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova condemned the move as destabilizing.

“Those who like to theorize about the flexibility of American nuclear potential must understand that in line with the Russian military doctrine such actions are seen as warranting retaliatory use of nuclear weapons by Russia,” Zakharova said.

In May, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned NATO against delivering F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, given that the war planes could carry low-yield nuclear B61-12 bombs. Moscow said it will treat F-16s in Ukraine as nuclear-capable weapon systems, regardless of their model, and will consider their deployment a deliberate provocation.

China has also repeatedly lambasted Washington for switching to low-yield nuclear arms as a return to the Cold War era. Beijing also raised the alarm over AUKUS (Australia, UK and US pact) plans to build nuclear-powered submarines in Australia as violating non-proliferation principles. Both Russia and China pursue a no-first-use nuclear doctrine.

May 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US may have secretly approved attack on Russian nuclear radar — Austrian military

RT | May 29, 2024

A reported Ukrainian attack on a Russian early-warning radar installation may have been approved by the US and poses the risk of a nuclear escalation, an analysis published by the Austrian armed forces has warned.

Ukrainian sources claimed last week that Kiev had delivered a strike at a Voronezh-DM site in Russia’s southern Krasnodar Region, near the city of Armavir. The alleged operation is significant, considering that the facility is part of Russian nuclear deterrence, according to the explanation penned by Colonel Markus Reisner and posted by the Austrian military on Sunday. The website regularly shares work by the historian and military expert.

It is unlikely that attacking the radar station had direct military value for Kiev, Reisner argues. One could speculate that disabling it would reduce the amount of intelligence that Russia collects on Ukrainian launches of US-donated ATACMS ballistic missiles, he said. But the station is designed to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles that fly at altitudes much higher than the tactical weapons used by Ukraine.

The expert suggested that the alleged attack may have been a US-sanctioned response to Moscow’s reminders that it could use non-strategic nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. Senior Ukrainian and Western officials have called those statements a form of blackmail. Earlier this month, President Vladimir Putin ordered tactical nuclear exercises in the Southern Military District, which borders Ukraine. Moscow said this was in response to increasingly hostile rhetoric by Western officials.

”If this is indeed the case, two further conclusions can be drawn: first, the situation in Ukraine is extremely serious and, second, the war over Ukraine has escalated again,” Reisner wrote. Such an attack could qualify for a nuclear retaliation, the colonel added.

Russia’s nuclear doctrine says that its nuclear arsenal may be used in four scenarios, one of which is “enemy action against critical Russian government and military facilities, the disabling of which would prevent a nuclear response.”

Over-the-horizon radar stations, such as the Voronezh-DM, are meant to detect ICBM launches and inform the national leadership, at which point it make a decision on whether to fire back.

The Russian Defense Ministry has so far not commented on the alleged attack.

Washington was previously accused of brinkmanship in its stand-off with Russia. Investigative journalist Seymor Hersh has claimed that the US was behind the 2022 bombings of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which were built to deliver Russian natural gas directly to Germany. The US government has rejected the allegations, but Moscow has said it found them credible.

May 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The US is not an honest broker

3 Examples of how the US avoids the traps it sets for others: a) impenetrable last-minute legalese, b) a history of making reservations that enable the US to dodge compliance, and c) scuttling carefully negotiated agreements

By MERYL NASS | MAY 29, 2024

Example #1. Here is a resolution the US and a handful of its hangers-on proposed for the WHA to approve today. It is so full of references to other documents (by number) that it is impossible to tell what it is actually asking the members to commit to. And, since it was only proposed today (but no doubt most of it was prepared earlier) the member nations have little time to carefully review it in light of the packed agenda of the week, with meetings scheduled during 12 hours a day.

No wonder the US delegation to the 2022 World Health Assembly was composed of 65 people. They were there in part to produce abstruse documents like this, for all contingencies.

No wonder small nations cannot keep up. That is the point. This document was written to be impenetrable. And the schedule was designed to wear everyone down.

[Don’t miss Example #2, which is even more damning.]

I think the USG lawyers were too clever by half when they wrote the resolution above. Everyone reading it can see it was intended to obfuscate rather than illuminate. I doubt this document will make many friends, and I doubt it will get very far.

Example #2. Now let us observe how the US government weaves the noose around everyone else’s head, but slips out itself at the last minute.

The International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) are a treaty that the US is a party to. But the US removed itself from meeting the obligations contained in the treaty through issuing the following reservations, found on pages 60-61 of the IHR or on the State Department website. We “accept” the IHR but only “subject” to the following:

Dodge #1: The US government hid behind the skirts of its States, saying that according to the US Constitution the US obligations to the IHR might come under state and not federal jurisdiction. And in that case the USG could not promise to comply. [Well, we sure got them on that one this month! Two can play that game.]

Dodge #2: While the US insists China failed to meet its obligation to notify the world of COVID in a timely manner, the USG wanted to be able to dodge that same obligation in the IHR to report infectious outbreaks quickly. So if reporting might affect the US military and national security, the US refused to accept the obligation to report.

Dodge #3: Here is the language:

The third understanding relates to the question of whether the IHRs create judicially enforceable private rights. Based on its delegation’s participation in the negotiations of the IHRs, the Government of the United States of America does not believe that the IHRs were intended to create judicially enforceable private rights:

The United States understands that the provisions of the Regulations do not create judicially enforceable private rights.

If I understand the third dodge correctly, the USG is claiming that just because the US signed the IHR treaty, this did not convey any rights to other signatories. And therefore the US is not subject to litigation if it does not comply with treaty provisions as interpreted by other signatories.

Final Dodge: Sometimes the US goes all the way to the end with difficult treaty negotiations, then refuses to sign at the last minute. This is what happened when the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Review Conference thought it had finally achieved consensus on provisions for inspections, and punishments for noncompliance with the BWC treaty in 2001. When everything was set, the US abruptly said “NYET” and the amendments to the treaty were scuttled.

I did not understand why the US did this at the time, but subsequently realized that Cuba alleged that the US used biological weapons on Cuba after the US had become a party to the Biological Weapons Convention. (Here is my recent mention of several examples.)

If true, and the evidence is very strong that it is, the US would not have wanted to be subject to inspections and investigations of those allegations.

The bottom line is that perhaps every country should be as careful to protect itself from potentially invasive or harmful provisions in treaties that it signs, as the US historically has been. This would level the playing field and make the treaty process more equitable for all.

May 29, 2024 Posted by | Deception | | Leave a comment

Former Biden Homeland Security Official Criticizes Free Speech, Cites “Disinformation” Impact on Election Security

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | May 28, 2024

A former Biden administration official has declared that disinformation around elections is “becoming the norm rather than the exception.”

Samantha Vinograd, until recently of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), also asserted that these days, because of what she considers to be election disinformation, “there is an unprecedented level of physical threats” while the US information ecosystem is “incredibly vulnerable.”

Dramatic and alarmist statements like this may be necessary to justify the rest of Vinograd’s message, which in effect attacks free speech, as it is legally protected in the US.

Appearing on CBS, Vinograd – who was until last December Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention – warned that the First Amendment might protect free speech, but that engaging in free speech is apparently not “cost-free.”

The Face the Nation hosts framed the problem as, essentially, federal laws (the Constitution) protecting speech, but the damage being done at the state level – and then what states, who organize elections, can do to fix that “problem.”

Spreading lies about candidates, as they put it, was given as an example of legal, protected speech becoming an issue by having the ability to create “a threat at the state level” – and asked Vinograd who she thought was supposed to correct the situation.

Vinograd – who has been bouncing between various administrations (including those of Bush and Obama, and private companies like Goldman Sachs and Stripe before landing at Biden’s DHS) – seemed to suggest that Big Tech (i.e., social media companies) should be assisting the government.

The federal government said Vinograd, “should not be the omnipresent fact checker for the American people.”

And even though, according to her, the government is debunking information about elections that is deemed to be inaccurate, social media companies “should be thinking about what kinds of election disinformation violate their terms of service.”

It’s difficult not to take this as a not-so-veiled added pressure on social platforms to not only continue with censoring content but perhaps expand it in terms of what qualifies as election disinformation.

Either way, Vinograd is in favor of enlisting “every American” to help out as well (although it is not clear in what specific way), invoking even the concept of patriotic duty.

And Vinograd did not miss the opportunity to assert that election misinformation threats are now of such magnitude as to present a national security issue.

May 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

US says Israeli massacres in Rafah not to impact aid, policy

Al Mayadeen | May 28, 2024

The Biden administration merely expressed deep concern on Tuesday over a deadly Israeli airstrike in Rafah, Gaza, labeling it “beyond tragic.” However, despite the death and paramount destruction, officials stated that the recent massacres do not signify a major operation that crosses established red lines.

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, addressing reporters at the White House, reiterated the declared Israeli claim that the bombing of refugee tents in Rafah, which was said to be a safe area, was a “mistake.”

“The Israelis have said this is a tragic mistake,” Kirby noted when asked if the weekend’s events constituted the “death and destruction” US officials had warned against, completely adopting the Israeli narrative without the slightest bit of due diligence.

Kirby emphasized the absence of a specific “measuring stick” or quota for such incidents but stressed the importance of avoiding a major ground operation in Rafah that could lead to extensive damage and significant loss of life. “We have not seen that yet,” he said, continuing to ignore the civilian deaths and practically saying they would only count in light of an invasion.

When questioned about whether recent ground operations in Rafah would lead to the US withdrawing military aid, Kirby affirmed, “I believe that’s what I’ve been saying here.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, speaking at a ceremonial event in Washington, called the Israeli airstrike on Sunday “beyond tragic,” after it caused a fire in a tent camp in Rafah, killing 45 Palestinians, many of whom were burnt to death.

May 28, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin warns West about consequences of attacking Russia

RT | May 28, 2024

The West needs to understand that long-range strikes on Russian territory with their weapons would represent an escalation with “serious consequences,” Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Speaking to reporters at the end of his two-day visit to Uzbekistan, Putin addressed the recent Ukrainian demands for NATO to permit the use of their weapons in attacks on Russia and the comments by the US-led bloc’s head, Jens Stoltenberg, appearing to endorse this.

“To be honest, I don’t know what the NATO secretary-general is saying,” Putin told reporters, adding that Stoltenberg “did not suffer from any dementia” when he worked constructively with Russia as the prime minister of Norway (2005-2013).

“This constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the US behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? Hard to say. Do they want global conflict?”

Putin explained that long-range precision strikes require space reconnaissance assets – which Ukraine does not have, but the US does – and that their targeting is already done by “highly qualified specialists” from the West, without Ukrainian participation.

“So, these representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, especially in small countries, must be aware of what they are playing with,” the Russian president said, noting that a lot of these countries have “a small territory and a very dense population.”

Putin reminded reporters that their colleagues in the West never reported on the Ukrainian attacks on Belgorod and other Russian regions along the border, only about the Russian advance on Kharkov.

“What caused this? They did, with their own hands. Well, then, they will reap what they have sown. The same thing can happen if long-range precision weapons are used,” the Russian president added.

Asked if Russia was refusing to negotiate with Ukraine, Putin told reporters that such claims by the West were baffling.

“We don’t refuse!” he said. “I’ve said it a thousand times, it’s like they don’t have ears!”

The Ukrainian side initialed an agreement with Russia in March 2022, then publicly reneged and refused to negotiate any further, Putin explained. He described Kiev’s current “peace conference” effort in Switzerland as an attempt to get some kind of international buy-in for their entirely unrealistic “peace platform,” which isn’t working out.

May 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Use of Chemical Weapons Became Systematic With US’ Silent Consent – Russian MoD

Sputnik – 28.05.2024

The use of poisonous substances and chemical riot control agents by Ukrainian forces has become systematic with the tacit approval of Washington, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the head of the Russian Armed Forces’ radiation, chemical and biological defense troops, said on Tuesday.

“With Washington’s tacit approval, the use of poisonous substances and chemical riot control agents by Ukrainian militants during their special operations has become systematic,” Kirillov said at a briefing.

“Numerous cases of the Ukrainian side using the irritant substance chloropicrin, often mixed with chloroacetophenone, have been recorded in the Donetsk region, in the settlements of Bogdanovka, Gorlovka, Kremenovka, and Artyomovsk (Bakhmut),” he added.

Kirillov emphasized that while chloroacetophenone is classified as a chemical riot control agent, chloropicrin is listed in Schedule 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Kirillov recalled that Ukrainian neo-Nazis first used the dangerous substance chloropicrin against Euromaidan opponents during the siege of the Trade Union House in Odessa on May 2, 2014.

“There are grounds to believe that the action carried out in Odessa was premeditated, meticulously planned to exploit the effects of the toxic substances used, aimed at inflicting maximum casualties,” Kirillov added.

He noted that Russian law enforcement agencies conducted an investigation that identified the perpetrators of the terrorist act.

According to Kirillov, the use of this toxic substance was indicated by the militants’ possession of pre-prepared filtering gas masks, the appearance of characteristic yellow-green smokefire broke out at the Trade Union House , and attempts to mask the use of toxic chemicals with the aftermath of the fire.

Recently, Kiev used gas grenades containing the irritant substance CS against Russian servicemen.

“The Russian side has recorded and confirmed cases of the Ukrainian Armed Forces using munitions not only loaded with chloropicrin but also with other chemical irritants. Gas grenades of American production containing the substance CS were employed against Russian servicemen in the Krasny Liman and Boguslav regions,” Kirillov said.

“Hand grenades with chemical irritants, labeled Teren-6, were dropped from Ukrainian UAVs onto positions of Russian troops, and a stash containing these munitions was discovered in the territory of Donetsk. According to testimony from Ukrainian prisoners of war, assault groups of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are equipped with such grenades,” the official added.

CS is an irritant chemical. It is a white, solid, slightly volatile crystalline substance with a pepper-like odor. It is sparingly soluble in water, moderately soluble in alcohol, and freely soluble in acetone and chloroform. Under combat conditions, it is dispersed as an aerosol. CS at low concentrations is irritating to the eyes and upper respiratory tract, while at high concentrations it causes burns to exposed skin areas and in some cases paralysis of the respiratory and circulatory systems leading to death.

The Ukrainian armed forces also used the chemical agent BZ against Russian servicemen.

“Ukrainian armed formations also use other listed chemicals. We refer to cases of use of the combat chemical agent BZ against Russian servicemen in August 2022 and silyl acid in February 2023,” he said at the briefing.”

Kirillov noted that Ukrainian Armed Forces also use other other listed chemicals.

“We are referring to instances of using the combat chemical agent BZ against Russian servicemen in August 2022 and silyl acid in February 2023,” he explained.

“The statements from Ukrainian military representatives about their possession of phosphorus organic compounds, including analogs of the combat chemical agent Tabun (GA), raise particular concern,” Kirillov added.

He added that Ukraine is requesting antidotes and gas masks in excessive quantities, indicating plans for the use of toxic substances.

“The requests from Ukraine for the supply of antidotes, gas masks, and other personal protective equipment in volumes that are clearly excessive testify to plans for large-scale use of toxic substances,” Kirillov said.

In addition, Ukrainian nationalists continue in their attempts to destroy chemically hazardous facilities in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

“The attempts by Ukrainian nationalists to destroy chemically hazardous facilities in the territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics persist, thereby creating a threat of chemical contamination to the civilian population of the regions,” Kirillov said.

He recalled that industrial facilities such as Zarya in the city of Rubezhnoye, Azot in Severodonetsk, and the Koksokhim plant in Avdeyevka have repeatedly been subjected to massive rocket attacks.

US Continue to Develop New Chemical Weapons

The Pentagon continues to develop new and upgrade existing non-lethal chemical munitions and other chemical weapons delivery systems.

“According to available information, the Pentagon continues to develop new and upgrade existing non-lethal chemical munitions and other chemical weapons delivery systems, such as 120mm mortar rounds, 155mm artillery shells, and 120mm tank rounds,” Kirillov said at the briefing.

“No less than $10 million is allocated annually for their procurement for use in combat zones,” he added.

OPCW turns a blind eye to the fact that the US is still storing highly toxic reactive masses in chemical weapons destruction facilities. “I would like to draw your attention once again to the fact that according to the deadlines set by the OPCW, the United States should have completed the destruction of its declared chemical weapons stockpiles by 2007. However, despite the economic potential, they did not achieve this until 2023, twice postponing the deadline, citing financial, organizational, and technical difficulties. The United States still retains highly toxic reactive masses at chemical weapons destruction facilities. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons does not seem to notice this fact,” he said.

The US has also developed a legal framework that regulates a wide range of scenarios for the use of chemical agents by the US armed forces, Kirillov added.

“Washington has not only not renounced the use of chemical agents, but has also enshrined the possibility of their use at the legislative level. Thus, the United States has adopted a combined arms manual on the use of non-lethal weapons,” Kirillov told reporters, adding that it defines the procedure for the use of non-lethal chemical weapons by military units during special, humanitarian, anti-terrorist and peacekeeping operations.

If previously the US talked about using such weapons only in response to the enemy chemical aggression, an important aspect of the new rules is the ability to use toxic chemicals unilaterally,” the official said.

“Thus, the United States has created a legal framework that regulates a wide range of scenarios for the use of chemical weapons by the armed forces,” Kirillov said.

The United States allocates at least $10 million annually to purchase non-lethal chemical munitions for use in combat areas, the official said, adding that the Pentagon continues to develop new and modernize existing non-lethal chemical munitions.

May 28, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Remembering Those Who Died for Our Government

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | May 28, 2024

Each Memorial Day, countless Americans recite the standard mantra that has been inculcated within their minds from the first grade of the public (i.e., government) schools to which their parents were forced to send them: American soldiers who died in America’s wars died to protect our freedoms and defend our country.

Each Memorial Day, it is worth reminding ourselves that such is simply not the case. American soldiers who died in those wars died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.

And, yes, our government and our country are two separate and distinct entities, a phenomenon reflected by the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects our country from our government.

Afghanistan. The Taliban government never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. The reason that the U.S. government went to war against Afghanistan was that the Taliban regime refused to comply with President Bush’s unconditional extradition demand, which the Taliban regime had the right to do given that there was no extradition treaty between the United States and Afghanistan. Thus, U.S. soldiers who died in Afghanistan died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.

Iraq. Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Thus, U.S. soldiers died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.

Vietnam. North Vietnam and the Vietcong never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. U.S. soldiers died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.

Korea. North Korea never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. U.S. soldiers died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.

World War II. While Japan did attack the United States, it was not with the intent of invading and conquering the United States. Japan’s aim was simply to knock out the U.S. Pacific Fleet to secure oil from the Dutch East Indies. The attack was a response to President Roosevelt’s oil embargo, whose aim was to provoke Japan into attacking the United States, as a “back door” to getting the U.S. embroiled in the European War against Germany, which the vast majority of Americans opposed. While a German victory over the United States in Europe combined with a Japanese victory in the Pacific might well have threatened people’s freedom here at home, it is worth reminding ourselves that American soldiers died as a result of FDR’s success in securing U.S. intervention into the war.

World War I. Germany never attacked or invaded the United States and had no interest in a war against the United States. President Wilson intervened in the European conflict with two war aims: make this the war to end all wars and to make the world safe for democracy. Thus, U.S. soldiers died for our government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.

Spanish-American War. The Spanish Empire never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Thus, U.S. soldiers died for their government, not to protect our freedoms or our country.

It’s also worth reminding ourselves that the government for which U.S. soldiers have died conscripted many of them to fight in the war in which they died. When a government has to force people to fight its wars, that’s a pretty good sign that soldiers have actually died for nothing.

May 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US-Ukraine Arms Scheme Could ‘Fail in All of Its Objectives’ – Ex-State Department Analyst

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 27.05.2024

No one will sign up to be part of a deal on Kiev-Washington arms co-production, given Russian precision strikes on Ukrainian military infrastructure amid its proxy war with NATO, former US State Department counterterrorism analyst Scott Bennett told Sputnik.

The US State Department recently announced a $2 billion package for Kiev aimed at creating the so-called Ukraine Defense Enterprise Program (UDEP) fund.

In particular, the fund could be used to “strategically weaken Russia by transitioning partners away from Russian systems and supporting [foreign military financing] loans to partners and allies,” an unnamed State Department official was cited by the Defense One news outlet as saying.

“Without any doubt, the US funding package for Ukraine – intended to be used to stimulate Europe’s arms industry, fund US-Ukraine arms co-production, and lure countries away from the Russian arms market – will fail in all of its objectives,” former US State Department counterterrorism analyst Scott Bennett said in an interview with Sputnik.

He explained that “the US-Ukrainian arms development scheme will ultimately fail because the entire nation of Ukraine is now devolving into a failed state.”

Another aspect pertains to the fact that Ukraine “has no personnel able to create weapons anymore, and no ability to establish such an enterprise on its soil, as Russia would immediately target and destroy any such facilities before they could produce or deploy any weapons to be used against Russian soldiers,” per Bennett.

“The Ukrainians know this, and therefore no one would ‘willingly’ sign up to be part of any facility in Ukraine that does such activities because it would just be a matter of time before the building disappeared in a mountain of rubble,” the ex-State Department analyst pointed out.

When asked what specific types of arms or ammunition the US could co-produce with Ukraine, Bennett said that “these type of guerilla terrorist weapons might include drones, sea, air, and land bombs.”

He didn’t rule out that investor nations involved in the UDEP project “would most likely be Britain, France, Germany, and the Baltic nations.”

Touching upon the issue of the weapons market, Bennett said the US “has been on a conveyor belt of producing weapons for the shallow purpose of enriching politicians and the military-industrial complex, and not for military efficiency purposes.” Per him, “This is a lethal flaw, and an impediment which the rest of the world sees and therefore consciously and unconsciously views US-NATO weapons on a lower level than the Russian weapons.”

Bennett referred to Russian weapons as something “designed to defeat the US-NATO Ukrainian military,” which he said is viewed as “the main destabilizer of the world.”

So, he went on to say, “It is logical to assume that Russian weapons will be valued and sought after as the natural antidote or best defense against future Western Empirical operations — which they openly boast is coming with fatalistic and narcissistic indifference.”

As such, the US-Ukrainian arms development scheme “will once again confirm to the American and European peoples — currently held hostage by their governments — that the real enemy of Western peoples are the tyrants in their own government who are using the war to bleed money from citizens and construct an endless excuse for absolute authoritarian political control using endless fear and ‘rumors of war’,” the ex-State Department analyst concluded.

May 27, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The Carbon Capture Con

By Viv Forbes | Master Resource | May 17, 2024

Carbon-capture-and-underground-storage “(CCUS)” tops the list of silly schemes “to reduce man-made global warming.” The idea is to capture exhaust gases from power stations or cement plants, separate the CO2 from the other gases, compress it, pump it to the chosen burial site and force it underground into permeable rock formations. Then hope it never escapes.

An Australian mining company who should know better is hoping to appease green critics by proposing to bury the gas of life, CO2, deep in the sedimentary rocks of Australia’s Great Artesian Basin.

They have chosen the Precipice Sandstone for their carbon cemetery. However, the chances of keeping CO2 gas confined in this porous sandstone are remote. This formation has a very large area of outcrop to the surface and gas will escape somewhere, so why bother forcing it into a jail with no roof?

Glencore shareholders should rise in anger at this wasteful and futile pagan sacrifice to the global warming gods. It will join fiascos like Snowy 2, pink bats and SunCable (a dream to take solar energy generated in NT via overhead and undersea cable for over 5000 km across ocean deeps and volcanic belts to Singapore).

Engineers with buckets of easy money may base a whole career on Carbon Capture and Underground Storage. But only stupid green zealots would support the sacrifice of billions of investment dollars and scads of energy to bury this harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in the hope of appeasing the high priests of global warming.

The quantities of gases that CCUS would need to handle are enormous, and the capital and operating costs will be horrendous. It is a dreadful waste of energy and resources, consuming about twenty percent of power delivered from an otherwise efficient coal-fired power station.

For every tonne of coal burnt in a power station, about 11 tonnes of gases are exhausted – 7.5 tonnes of nitrogen from the air used to burn the coal, plus 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and one tonne of water vapour from the coal combustion process.

Normally these beneficial atmospheric gases are released to the atmosphere after filters take out any nasties like soot and noxious fumes.

However, CCUS also requires energy to produce and fabricate steel and erect gas storages, pumps and pipelines and to drill disposal wells. This will chew up more coal resources and produce yet more carbon dioxide, for zero benefit.

But the real problems are at the burial site – how to create a secure space to hold the CO2 gas. There is no vacuum occurring naturally anywhere on earth – every bit of space on Earth is occupied by something – solids, liquids or gases. Underground disposal of CO2 requires it to be pumped AGAINST the pressure of whatever fills the pore space of the rock formation now – either natural gases or liquids. These pressures can be substantial, especially after more gas is pumped in.

The natural gases in sedimentary rock formations are commonly air, CO2, CH4 (methane) or rarely, H2S (rotten egg gas). The liquids are commonly salty water, sometimes fresh water or very rarely, liquid hydrocarbons.

Pumping out air is costly; pumping out natural CO2 to make room for man-made CO2 is pointless; and releasing rotten egg gas or salty water on the surface would create a real problem, unlike the imaginary threat from CO2.

In some cases, CCUS may require the removal of fresh water to make space for CO2. Producing fresh water on the surface would be seen as a boon by most locals. Pumping out salt water to make space to bury CO2 would create more problems than it could solve.

Naturally, some carbon dioxide buried under pressure will dissolve in groundwater and aerate it, so that the next water driller in the area could get a real bonus – bubbling Perrier Water on tap, worth more than oil.

Then there is the dangerous risk of a surface outburst or leakage from a pressurised underground reservoir of CO2. The atmosphere contains 0.04% CO2 which is beneficial for all life. But the gas in a CCUS reservoir would contain +90% of this heavier-than-air gas – a lethal, suffocating concentration for nearby animal life if it escaped in a gas outburst.

Pumping gases underground is only sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to increase oil recovery from declining oil fields – frack the strata, pump in CO2, and force out oil/gas. To find a place where you could drive out natural hydro-carbons in order to make space to bury CO2 would be like winning the Lottery – a profitable but unlikely event.

Normally however, CCUS will be futile as the oceans will largely undo whatever man tries to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Oceans contain vastly more CO2 than the thin puny atmosphere, and oceans maintain equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 dissolved in the oceans. If man releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans will quickly absorb much of it. And if by some fluke man reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 would bubble out of the oceans to replace much of it. Or just one decent volcanic explosion could negate the whole CCUS exercise.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere encourages all plants to grow better and use more CO2. Unfortunately natural processes are continually sequestering huge tonnages of CO2 into extensive deposits of shale, coal, limestone, dolomite and magnesite – this process has driven atmospheric CO2 to dangerously low concentrations. Burning hydrocarbons and making cement returns a tiny bit of this plant food from the lithosphere to the biosphere.

Regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide is best left to the oceans and plants – they have been doing it successfully for millennia.

The only certain outcome from CCUS is more expensive electricity and a waste of energy resources to do all the separation, compressing and pumping. Unscrupulous coal industry leaders love the idea of selling more coal to produce the same amount of electricity, and electricity generators would welcome an increased demand for power. And green zealots in USA plan to force all coal and gas plants to bury all CO2 plant food that they generate. Consumers and taxpayers are the suckers.

Naturally the Greens love the idea of making coal and gas-fired electricity more expensive. They conveniently ignore the fact that CCUS is anti-life – it steals plant food from the biosphere.

Global Warming has never been a threat to life on Earth – Ice is the killer. Glencore directors supporting this CCUS stupidity should be condemned for destructive ignorance.

————-

Geologist Viv Forbes is the founder of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

May 26, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »