World War III won't be nuclear...will it?

The answer is: It depends... It depends on who you ask. It depends on when you asked it. And it depends on what you meant by the question.

If you were listening to a broadcast from Tokyo in August, 1945, you wouldn't know what you were hearing. Nobody had ever dropped an atom bomb on anyone before. This is what Tokyo Radio reported after Hiroshima was bombed (right, top, from Fighter pilot Pierre Clostermann's 1952 book about WWII):

The horrors from the first two nuclear bombs were heavily censored for many years...

Eventually, even with knowledge of the horrors, nuclear war became normalized in the public's mind...even expected...

...and practiced. And studied. And America blew off over 1,000 nuclear bombs just so that, IF they ever got the chance to actually use one in war (again)... sometime... somewhere... they'd know the exact, or at least most probable, diameter of the fireball.

But that hasn't happened...at least, not yet.

No matter how much they practiced, they couldn't make "atomic" bombs big enough, so they made hydrogen bombs. Too big to explode on the continental United States (too many people would be shocked by how massive the blasts are, and many would have been directly impacted almost immediately by the radiation debris).

Ivy Mike was the first "full-scale" test of a thermonuclear device, or hydrogen bomb.

But bigger nuclear bombs weren't of any use in war anyway, and theatening them can't keep the peace either (it only caused Russia to explode the Czar Bomba, the largest thermonuclear device ever exploded at about 50 Megatons). Thermonuclear bombs are extremely filthy to test. Atmospheric testing was mostly halted in 1963, but "accidental" ("careless AND inevitable" is a much more appropriate description) venting of underground tests went on for decades afterwards. Testing continued by the United States until 1992, China and France until 1996, the Soviet Union until 1990 and the United Kingdom until 1991. Atmospheric tests by France ended in 1974. India and Pakistan haven't tested nuclear weapons since 1998. North Korea's last nuclear explosion was in 2017, by Donald Trump's bestie, Kim Jong-un, Supreme Leader of North Korea.

Some researchers realized that there was no place safe from nuclear war...which meant there were no safe nuclear installations of ANY sort...anywhere on earth.

But one thing could ALWAYS be said: The jobs paid well. And that worked out well for the nuclear navy, because they could promise their reactor operators high-paying jobs in the civilian nuclear industry after their tour of duty.

Unfortunately, their training didn't always apply, for example the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown was caused, in part, because civilian nuclear reactors do not operate precisely the same as naval reactors. (Briefly, so-called "commercial" nuclear reactors are built for peak efficiency at producing megawatts of electricity, and they can be shut down for refueling or maintenance whenever they can't operate at peak efficiency (or more accurately, at peak profit). The nuclear navy reactors -- especially the submarine reactors -- are desgined and built for steady operation under all circumstances, come hell or high water (so to speak), including war.)

But mistakes happen with distressing regularity in the nuclear industry -- as in any industry, but mistakes in the nuclear industry can result in much more serious consequences than anywhere else.

The U.S. Navy has lost two nuclear submarines at sea. (Russia has lost seven...so far.)

Everywhere we turn, and every time we turn around, there is another nuclear nightmare.

This is the world we've earned...by pushing nuclear solutions for ANYTHING all over the world and jumping the gun (so to speak) on their use in the first place.

The author I quote at the beginning of this post flew fighter planes in World War Two and saw the worst weapons could do in a pre-nuclear world. I have both his books, and wasn't expecting to find anything about nuclear bombs when suddenly I came upon the section quoted. In short, the bombs didn't win the war. Period.

Look at the difference between the development and use of laser weapons and our use of nuclear weapons. We've made absolutely no attempt to deploy laser weapons. Laser GUIDED weapons -- yes -- ever since they got hold of a workable aiming system they could combine with a heads-up display for the cockpit (since both are necessary to make the system work).

But NOT laser weapons, where the laser itself is the weapon.

Why not? Maybe because we know what a horror that would be for the world. Suddenly everybody would have them, and use them, and war would become even far more ghastly than it always has been. Just like what happened with nuclear weapons, except it hasn't quite happened yet: Various countries stockpile nuclear weapons, but no one dares to use them because everybody knows the most likely result. Chaos that nobody wins.

Laser weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons...everybody wants to leave them off the table. One would have thought exploding cell phones would have stayed off the table too. Can anyone trust their own phone or electric car not to be remotely exploded now?

Of course we've been assured those were special devices that had gunpowder in them (and I assume it's true), but we've all seen modern phone batteries expand...and nobody can know for sure. What will this do to the electric car market? If Israel manages to explode any of those, the whole world WILL rethink electric vehicles, as they are currently wondering about their phones.

The "brave new world" keeps becoming more and more challenging for sane people to navigate. As if gun violence in America isn't bad enough all by itself.

There are a lot of war hawks in government. But within the military itself, there is far greater caution, and undoubtedly a gut feeling that billions of dollars are wasted each year on weapons that should never be used under any reasonably foreseeable circumstances. And even in a "worst case scenario" we have far more nuclear weapons than needed for any job except total annihilation of the planet.

Claiming nuclear weapons won World War II was all propaganda. Everything about nuclear anything is propaganda. Nuclear weapons don't make us safe from attacks against our own nuclear facilities, which produce nuclear waste we have no solution for.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA October, 2024

Book Review: In Mortal Hands by Stephanie Cooke (2009)

In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age

by Stephanie Cooke

Reviewed by Sharon and Ace Hoffman

In Mortal Hands by Stephanie Cooke (published 2009) examines the history of nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and the connection between the two.

Cooke has been reporting on nuclear energy and weapons since 1980; in this important book she delves deeply into the shady deals that led to the rise of nuclear power and the risks that had to be ignored in order to ensure its continued use in spite of all the financial, health, and/or other reasons that would have stopped any other industrial process. (And it's been another 15 years since the book came out, and three more meltdowns: By now every sane person on earth should know what a failure nuclear power is!)

In Mortal Hands was extensively researched and provides important context about how nuclear technologies are used and perceived worldwide, and thus, how we got where we are today.

Explaining how the Price-Anderson Act was pushed through Congress, Cooke points out that: “Since the early days of the Manhattan Project,...nuclear contractors such as Westinghouse and G.E. had insisted on full government liability coverage…”, and: “Some insurance executives wondered why Congress was even considering nuclear if the risks were so great.”

The result was the Price-Anderson Act (passed in 1957), which protects utilities and their insurers from all but a small fraction of total liability, and protects the government as well. It leaves the citizens to loose their homes, their belongings, and their lives.

In Mortal Hands explores incidents where safety concerns were ignored or hidden from potential victims. For example, in the wake of the partial test-ban treaty, the U.S. continued underground testing in Nevada. Cooke writes that: “In one venting episode in 1964...Seaborg [Glenn Seaborg, then chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission] believed a small amount of radioactivity had crossed into Mexico, but the planes were not allowed...to find out”. When radioactive contamination was found in U.S. milk just 10 miles from Mexico: “there is no public evidence that anything was done to prevent children from drinking the milk.”

Cooke covers many nuclear “accidents” and the associated efforts to minimize their impact on nuclear ambitions. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Sellafield (aka Windscale, in Great Britain), the near-meltdown of the Fermi I breeder reactor near Detroit, the B-52s that crashed in Spain and Greenland and many other incidents are analyzed (the book was written prior to Fukushima). In each case, there is extensive documentation of what happened versus what the public was told. The government(s) involved invariably would attempt to minimize any perceived risk from the event (if they couldn't hide it from the public completely).

The book has sections on the Cuban Missile Crisis and other Cold War conflicts between Russia and the United States. Cooke pays particular attention to the political repercussions of any attempt to limit nuclear weapons. For example: “… the limited test ban treaty...only made it through after the defense lobby extracted concessions to ensure a robust future for the vast research and development complex.”

The entire nuclear industry is a gigantic money suck, in addition to its health consequences.

In Mortal Hands focuses on the similarities and connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Cooke writes that: “The failure to adequately address the complexity of reactor operating systems in order to prevent nuclear accidents is analogous to the inability of governments and industry to prevent nuclear proliferation.” Mistakes happen, and have nearly caused nuclear war on several occasions, and have nearly caused meltdowns countless times, and, of course, were also involved in every meltdown that has already occurred.

Cooke continually points out accommodations governments made to encourage nuclear power investments: “People who genuinely worried about safety, like those who concerned themselves with proliferation, also faced formidable political and commercial obstacles. Utilities in a hurry to...maximize profits...brought pressure to bear on regulators and...safety concerns were shunted to the side.” And accidents happened.

Cooke is clear that most (if not all) of the decisions that governments have made about nuclear power are politically motivated. For example, during the 1976 U.S. presidential election, both Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford used nuclear proliferation and its ties to nuclear power in attempts to advance their political goals. Neither even remotely suggested eliminating nuclear power.

Carter was from the nuclear navy and promoted himself as an expert, and raised many potential dangers, such as terrorists stealing plutonium. However, his proposed solution was vague: “U.S. dependence on nuclear power should be kept to the minimum necessary to meet our needs.” Ford countered by announcing a similarly incomplete ban on reprocessing: “…unless there is sound reason to conclude that the world community can effectively overcome the associated risks of proliferation.”

Of course, time has proven the risks insurmountable so far, and the threat of nuclear war (including attacks on nuclear power plants) remains. Meltdowns keep happening and close calls go largely unreported.

In Mortal Hands encapsulates decades of research and conversations Cooke personally had with participants in many different aspects of the nuclear industry, including both military and commercial applications. Reading the books now, 15 years after it was published, gives one the opportunity to see how things went so wrong in the past, and how completely nuclear power and nuclear weapons depend on each other to continue to threaten humanity.

All quotes are from In Mortal Hands. In some cases, they may reference footnotes or quotes attributed to a specific person.

###

Is the world edging closer to nuclear war? Or are RFK Jr & DJT Jr crazy appeasers who spew lies and propaganda for Putin?

There is no way to describe how wrong RFK jr and DJT jr are in the OpEd shown below and published five days ago in The Hill.

The whole thing serves as nothing more than a propaganda piece for Putin. It is one lie after another, such as where the two traitors imply that Biden somehow "allowed" Putin to invade Ukraine, saying it was: "a war that should never have been allowed to take place."

The war wasn't "allowed." Not by Biden or anyone else -- except Putin, who went to war of his own accord.

The craziness in the Op-Ed gets worse, saying that the Biden-Harris administration: "is instead pursuing a policy that Russia says it will interpret as an act of war." Putin says a lot of things. Nothing he says needs to be further re-interpreted by the two junior clowns.

Besides, Putin is NOT saying it to Biden or Harris. He's saying it to anyone who will listen. So why listen? Only these two clowns listen, and accidentally tell us Putin is scared out his wits -- but they don't word it that way because they don't understand it that way. They say Putin thinks the allies giving Ukraine the ability to have "long-range strikes in Russia" means the U.S. and "European countries -- are at war with Russia." They're not more specific about which countries they think Putin is referring to, presumably to avoid using the acronym "NATO".

If Putin really thinks the U. S. and our allies are all "at war with Russia" he will be very surprised if his fantasy of war with the U. S. and our allies ever comes true. It won't be pretty (but Putin will probably miss most of it anyway).

Clown One and Clown Two then say that: "some American analysts believe Putin is bluffing..."

Well, yeah. Because that's what Putin does. He lies, he bluffs, and he's vindictive, vicious and vile. So how do the Two Clowns know if he's bluffing or not?

Putin can be sure of one thing: America is not bluffing. Our response if Putin invades a NATO country will be the end of Putin. Not sure what else might happen, but we will be at war with Russia, and I don't see a good outcome for Putin in that situation, and you can be sure of one thing:

Neither does Putin.

The Two Clowns claim the unnamed American analysts are "mistaking restraint for weakness." But Putin has NOT been acting "with restraint" at all in Ukraine! He bombs civilians, and he even bombed a dam that flooded tens of thousands of homes and removed the primary source of cooling water for the nuclear reactors his forces overran early in the war. He bombs power stations, schools, hospitals...where's the restraint? From the beginning of Putin's unprovoked attack, he has been using nuclear sites within Ukraine to hold the world hostage, and threatening to use nuclear weapons.

So IS the world drawing "closer to Armageddon" as the Two Clowns profess? If it is, it's NOT because Ukraine has successfully defended itself for over two and a half years in a war Putin said wasn't even a war and would only last a few days. And it's NOT because America or NATO is at war with Russia -- because we aren't. Putin gets weapons and materiel from China, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, and probably several other countries. Who is he to complain that Ukraine gets weapons from anyone?

And claiming we're on Ukraine's side "for the minerals" is just plain petty. Maybe we're in it for the wheat the world needs. Putin should stop his war for that reason alone!

If anyone is advocating a strategy of brinkmanship (the correct word they meant to use) it is Putin, and he should back down from a war he cannot, and must not, win. It is Putin who needs to take John F. Kennedy's advice from 1963, and avoid nuclear war.

Is backing down too humiliating for Putin? In that case (as these clowns could have said), Putin should never have started his war in the first place. Putin's humiliation is Putin's problem, not ours, and certainly not Ukraine's.

America did not threaten to "go nuclear" -- Putin did. Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons and Russia should, too.

America is not the least bit interested in "going nuclear" because we know exactly what that would be like. Putin knows too, so why is he threatening it? Who knows? Who cares? More to the point, why are these surrogates for the Republican Party candidate for President telling us to appease the monster in the Kremlin?

Lastly, the Two Clowns claim that "Former President Donald Trump has vowed to end this war..." (They must have gagged a bit at having to put the word "former" there!)

Trump bluffs. Trump lies. He's vindictive, vicious and vile. Trump doesn't have even a concept of a plan to end either the war in Ukraine (besides appeasement to Putin) or the war in the Middle East (besides kissing up to Bibi).

All Trump has ever had is empty promises. To that extent, he's just like Putin, but with less than half the brains and none of the experience (he played golf more than he listened it intelligence briefings while in office).

The Two Clowns are either complete idiots, complete liars, or both. The editors should be ashamed of themselves for publishing their drivel. While it is true that publications should report a variety of opinions, they should not tolerate bucket-loads of inaccurate information, especially on important topics like nuclear war.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

Disclosure: Years ago, the author developed and sold software (but not to Russia!) that potentially had military applications.

---

Addendum added September 25, 2024, after CNN reported that Zelenskyy warned that Putin is planning attacks on Ukraine's NPPs:

Clearly Putin's goal is to thrust Ukraine into darkness, since he's been bombing all the other kinds of power stations, including hydro and FF. He undoubtedly also wants to redirect the defense forces of Ukraine to protect the NPPs, to get them away from other places. I think that might be the main reason for the threat, actually.

If he has any plans to go through with it, my guess is he plans to do it in a way that gives Ukraine a chance to shut down without a meltdown -- such as by blowing the connections, not the reactor itself. That might work...

And of course there is always the chance that will cause a meltdown anyway...perhaps it's a risk Putin is willing to take, or perhaps it's "just" another threat since he knows he's losing power the longer his war goes on.

I despise Putin but hope he has a little compassion for the whole world...or enough for himself not to do anything THAT stupid!

###

---

Don't vote for Putin's puppet!

---

Alexander Litvinenko, killed by Putin after leaving the KGB and being granted British citizenship. Putin's agents used less than a millionth of a gram of Polonium-210 to cause Litvinenko's body to disintegrate over a period of a few agonizing weeks. PO-210 has a half-life of about 138 days.

---

---

Crossroads "Baker" 1946

---

Dominic: "Swordfish" Christmas Island, 1962

---

---

From:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4882868-negotiate-with-moscow-to-end-the-ukraine-war-and-prevent-nuclear-devastation/

Negotiate with Moscow to end the Ukraine war and prevent nuclear devastation
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump Jr., opinion contributors - 09/17/24 7:30 AM ET

At a time when American leaders should be focused on finding a diplomatic off-ramp to a war that should never have been allowed to take place, the Biden-Harris administration is instead pursuing a policy that Russia says it will interpret as an act of war. In the words of Vladimir Putin, long-range strikes in Russia “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia.”

Some American analysts believe Putin is bluffing, and favor calling his bluff. As the Times reported, “‘Easing the restrictions on Western weapons will not cause Moscow to escalate,’17 former ambassadors and generals wrote in a letter to the administration this week. ‘We know this because Ukraine is already striking territory Russia considers its own — including Crimea and Kursk — with these weapons and Moscow’s response remains unchanged.’”

These analysts are mistaking restraint for weakness. In essence, they are advocating a strategy of brinksmanship. Each escalation — from HIMARS to cluster munitions to Abrams tanks to F-16s to ATACMS — draws the world closer to the brink of Armageddon. Their logic seems to be that if you goad a bear five times and it doesn’t respond, it is safe to goad him even harder a sixth time.

Such a strategy might be reasonable if the bear had no teeth. The hawks in the Biden administration seem to have forgotten that Russia is a nuclear power. They have forgotten the wisdom of John F. Kennedy, who said in 1963, “Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.”

We should take this advice seriously. Putin has signaled numerous times that Russia would use nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances. In September 2022, Putin said, “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people — this is not a bluff.” In March 2023, he struck a deal with Belarus to station tactical nuclear weapons there. Earlier this month, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announced that Russia would be amending its nuclear doctrine in response to Western involvement in the Ukraine war.

Imagine if Russia were providing another country with missiles, training and targeting information to strike deep into American territory. The U.S. would never tolerate it. We shouldn’t expect Russia to tolerate it either.

This game of nuclear “chicken” has gone far enough. There is no remaining step between firing U.S. missiles deep into Russian territory and a nuclear exchange. We cannot get any closer to the brink than this.

And for what? To “weaken Russia”? To control Ukraine’s minerals? No vital American interest is at stake. To risk nuclear conflict for the sake of the neoconservative fantasy of global “full-spectrum dominance” is madness.

The war fever in the U.S. foreign policy establishment is at such a pitch that it is hard to tell whether they believe their own rhetoric. In last Tuesday’s debate, Vice President Kamala Harris conjured up images of Russian forces rolling across Europe. Surely she must know how absurd that is. For one thing, Russia can barely wrest a few provinces from Ukraine, which is by no means one of Europe’s great powers.

Secondly, Russia made its war aims very clear at the outset — most notably Ukrainian neutrality and a halt to NATO’s eastward expansion. Hundreds of thousands of lost lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars later, no one is better off — not Europe, not America and certainly not Ukraine.

It is past time to de-escalate this conflict. This is more important than any of the political issues our nation argues about. Nuclear war would mean the end of civilization as we know it, maybe even the end of the human species.

Former President Donald Trump has vowed to end this war, but by the time he takes office, it might be too late. We need to demand, right now, that Harris and President Biden reverse their insane war agenda and open direct negotiations with Moscow.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer and public health advocate. Donald Trump Jr. is executive vice president of the Trump Organization.

Tags Donald Trump Donald Trump Jr. Joe Biden Joe Biden John F. Kennedy Kamala Harris nuclear war Russia Ukraine Vladimir Putin Vladimir Putin

---