Japan-US Joint Statement on War Preparations Forecasts Doom

by Pat Elder Posted onAugust 09, 2024

The United States has announced it will upgrade U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) to a joint force headquarters (JFHQ) with expanded operational responsibilities. The new command will report to the US Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM). The revamped structure will assume the control of about 55,000 personnel stationed in Japan from the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command some 6,200 kilometers away in Honolulu, Hawaii. The move is intended to streamline communications between the US and Japan, especially during a crisis involving China.

US “Defense” Secretary Lloyd Austin said, “This will be the most significant change to U.S. Forces Japan since its creation,” although Japan will continue to play a subservient role.

The Americans are facing serious supply-chain obstacles in military armaments, having difficulty keeping up with the demand from Israel in its genocidal war in Gaza and its military campaigns in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. The US has also been unable to meet Ukraine’s insatiable demand for weapons. The US-sponsored wars are supported by the American public, although that support may be waning, especially in the Republican-controlled US Senate.

This is the stuff that keeps American war planners in the East Asian region awake at night.

It therefore becomes incumbent on the Americans to prevail on the Japanese to substantially increase their involvement in the purchase, production and deployment of American weapon systems. This is why the so-called 2+2 communique announced on July 28 in Tokyo stressed the importance of a resurgent, militaristic Japan.

The US and Japan announced plans to advance missile production capacity to address supply chain deficiencies and to cooperate on new Patriot missile systems to assist in defending Japan from potential threats from China and North Korea. US bellicosity is ratcheting up tensions while the American propensity to defend Japan is compromised.

In 2020 the US and Japan announced a deal worth $23.1 Billion for the purchase of 105 advanced fifth generation F-35 fighter jets. This comes to 3,395,700,000,000 (3.3957 trillion Yen). This totals 33.34 billion Yen per plane, but who is counting?

Perhaps more people here – I’m in Nagoya as I write – will begin counting the Yen after the Japanese Nikkei stock index closed with its largest single-day point drop in history on August 5. Investing in weapon’s systems does not assist in the recovery and growth of the Japanese economy like investments in education and infrastructure tend to do.

The historically weak yen presents a formidable challenge in procuring the American-made equipment. We also have the Liberal Democratic Party presidential election in September, although few in the party seem to link rabid militarization to sluggish Japanese economic performance and deteriorating standards of living in this great nation.

The United States enthusiastically welcomed Japan’s commitment to substantially increase its war-making budget. Much of the 3.3957 trillion Yen is lining the pockets of wealthy defense contractors like Lockheed Martin in communities like Fort Worth, Texas. The Americans in Texas and in communities across the country can count on lots of brand new four-bedroom homes with swimming pools in the back yard, paid for by Japanese taxpayers.

Joint Statement of the Security Consultative Committee (“2+2”) July 28, 2024

We’ll examine sections of the July 28 Security Consultative Committee (“2+2”)

Since shortly after the smoke cleared from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese nation has questioned the deterrent policy of the US regarding the use of nuclear weapons. It appears we are now witnessing the acquiescence of Japan in this regard. The Japanese people are half willing, half aware, or uninterested. Many just don’t have access to alternative views and news.

The American and Japanese ministers support the use of nuclear weapons in the joint statement . The Japanese signed off on this statement:

“Given the increasingly severe security environment caused by recent moves of regional actors, the United States restated its unwavering commitment to the defense of Japan under Article V of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security using its full range of capabilities, including nuclear.”

The US often refers to a “rule-based international order.” The primary rule is backed by the threat to use nuclear weaponry again. The world once looked to the Japanese as a model for nuclear restraint.

The compelling displays of anti-nuclear sentiments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki every August are undone by this bellicosity. Are the Hibakusha silenced? Will the screaming, nuclear-capable F-35’s on the ready at Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station near Hiroshima soon be fitted with the frightening and “scalable” B-61 nuclear bombs? Will Japanese islands like Ishigaki just 260 kilometers from Taiwan and 500 kilometers from Chinese coast soon be armed with nuclear missiles? Have the Japanese finally become tolerant of the bomb?

In March 2024 Beijing announced a huge 7.2% increase in its defense budget. China’s military is a third of the size of the American military, but the Chinese are rapidly catching up.

Does it ever occur to American and Japanese war planners that the best way to defuse dangerous situations depends on dialogue and cooperation rather than nearly sole reliance on expanded militaries and saber rattling?

We see this reality playing out in tense situations worldwide. For instance, the US announced in July 2023 that it will begin the process of deploying long-range missiles in Germany. Predictably, just two weeks later, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the United States that if Washington deployed long-range missiles in Germany, then Russia would station similar missiles in striking distance of western Europe.

From the 2+2:

“The Ministers concurred that the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’s foreign policy seeks to reshape the international order for its own benefit at the expense of others. They said the PRC “employs political, economic, and military coercion of countries, companies, and civil society, as well as facilitates its military modernization through the diversion of technology to achieve these objectives.”

This is the height of hypocrisy! The U.S. does the same.

Jesus said that we should not point to a speck in the eye of our adversary when we have a plank in our own. I mention Jesus because most American military officers claim to follow his teachings which center around nonviolence. Would Jesus launch a nuclear missile? Would he fix a single bullet to a gun with the intention of killing someone? These are pertinent questions for American military commanders.

Could we perhaps disarm and talk to the Chinese and North Koreans or are our hearts too hardened?

The 2+2 Ministers “reiterated their strong opposition to the PRC’s intensifying attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force or coercion in the East China Sea, including through actions that seek to undermine Japan’s longstanding and peaceful administration of the Senkaku Islands, as well as escalatory behavior around the Southwest Islands.”

The Chinese have learned to deal with the devil. They point to the re-written and largely forgotten history of the demise of Chiang Kai Shek and the illegal settlement of Taiwan in the first place. They rightfully point to threatening US behavior in Korea, Vietnam, and throughout the region for the last 80 years.

The United States has threatened to use nuclear weapons in the dispute over the Senkaku Islands, just 172 kilometers from Ishigaki Island.

The ministers shared their continuing concerns “regarding the PRC’s ongoing and rapid expansion of its nuclear weapons arsenal, which continues without any transparency regarding its intent and which the PRC refuses to acknowledge, despite publicly available evidence.”

Does the US acknowledge the scale and the location of its own ship, submarine, missile, and air bomber-based nuclear arsenal in the region?

The Ministers say they encourage issues involving the Taiwan Straits to be resolved peacefully while the US heavily arms Taiwan.

The ministers expressed serious concerns “about the dismantling of Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms as well as the PRC’s human rights issues, including in Xinjiang and Tibet.”

Seriously? This is outrageous considering the current human rights abuses fostered and tolerated worldwide by the US in places like Saudi Arabia, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

Consider these 55 nations and the corresponding dates when the US intervened by force.  It is important for nations hosting US forces to know this frightening and egregious behavior.

The 2+2 Ministers “strongly condemned North Korea’s continued conduct of reckless ballistic missile launches, alarming in number, in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) and at the cost of the welfare of people in North Korea.”

We must stop for a moment and see the world from the perspective of the North Koreans. It is their perception of feeling threatened that causes them to act this way. North Korean actions are indefensible, although understandable. Stop the arms buildup and the threatening joint exercises near North Korean shores and watch the situation de-escalate.

Also, how can the US point to the UN with a straight face when the US has failed to ratify these treaties:

Additional Protocol I on the Geneva Convention
Arms Trade Treaty
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM),
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict
Convention on Biological Diversity
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
Mine Ban Treaty
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

Back to the 2+2. “The Ministers strongly condemned Russia’s brutal, unprovoked, and unjustifiable war against Ukraine.”

How can the US claim Russia’s special military action in Ukraine was unprovoked? When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990’s the US gave Russia assurances that it would not expand NATO. NATO has expanded to the Russian border while the screaming American F-35’s patrol nearby. Russia has legitimate security claims! It will never forget the loss of 20 million during World War II.

The Ministers say they are “committed to strengthening bilateral coordination on cross-domain operations, including cyber, space, and electromagnetic warfare (EW), recognizing the importance of all these domains to future concepts of deterrence and response capabilities.”

Let us come to understanding this. Japan and the US want the Chinese and the North Koreans to understand that they are developing ways to shut down the Chinese and North Korean electrical grids and turn off its computers, using a host of methods, including the weaponization of space. How do you think these adversaries will respond?

“The Ministers renewed their commitment to further advance the Alliance’s partnerships with Australia, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines.”

The Japanese and American ministers haven’t embraced the lessons of history, especially those many learned during the years leading up to World War I when a single assassination resulted in global warfare. It could happen again.

Let us also begin to comprehend the environmental damage and resulting threats to human health posed by US forces after military actions have concluded or when bases are abandoned and left for host countries to clean up – if that is possible.

The 2 + 2 Ministers say they “underline the importance of accelerating bilateral work toward the total return of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma as early as practicable including the construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility at Henoko as the only solution that avoids the continued use of MCAS Futenma.”

Another solution would be for the US to leave Okinawa for good, apologize for its criminal behavior, and pay reparations. Futenma is terribly contaminated with PFAS and a host of other deadly contaminants. Will the Japanese government pretend this is not the case?

The Ministers “discussed enhancing bilateral environmental cooperation, including on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) issues, in compliance with the Status of Forces Agreement and related arrangements.”  The Status of Forces Agreements the US has executed with Japan and other severely contaminated nations are one-sided documents that favor the US. They fail to consider the highly carcinogenic “forever chemicals.”

So, my colleagues in Tokushima, there are many other sobering realities regarding the US military’s occupation of Japan. The Japanese nation must awake from its slumber before a great catastrophe engulfs them and the entire world.

Notes:

US Department of Defense

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3852169/joint-statement-of-the-security-consultative-committee-22/

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3859346/pentagon-official-alliances-are-key-to-us-nuclear-deterrence-advantage/

indo-pacific ukraine response artificial intelligence science technology engineering space freedom edge exercises japan

AP News

https://apnews.com/article/japan-us-military-command-missile-china-4e97f4cb01cfef7b6db8fb1a5df771e4

Evergreen State College

https://sites.evergreen.edu/zoltan/wp-content/uploads/sites/358/2019/11/InterventionsList2019.pdf

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan

https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/pressite_000001_00457.html

Pat Elder is the Director of Military Poisons, an organization that draws attention to the contamination caused by military activities worldwide. Pat is currently in Japan with the Veterans for Peace Japan Speaking Tour. See www.militarypoisons.org.

 

Cashing in on Nukes

Inside the Nuclear-Weapons Lobby Today

by William D. Hartung, Hekmat Aboukhater and Tom Engelhardt Posted onAugust 09, 2024

The Pentagon is in the midst of a massive $2 trillion multiyear plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles, bombers, and submarines. A large chunk of that funding will go to major nuclear weapons contractors like Bechtel, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. And they will do everything in their power to keep that money flowing.

This January, a review of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program under the Nunn-McCurdy Act — a congressional provision designed to rein in cost overruns of Pentagon weapons programs — found that the missile, the crown jewel of the nuclear overhaul plan involving 450 missile-holding silos spread across five states, is already 81% over its original budget. It is now estimated that it will cost a total of nearly $141 billion to develop and purchase, a figure only likely to rise in the future.

That Pentagon review had the option of canceling the Sentinel program because of such a staggering cost increase. Instead, it doubled down on the program, asserting that it would be an essential element of any future nuclear deterrent and must continue, even if the funding for other defense programs has to be cut to make way for it. In justifying the decision, Deputy Defense Secretary William LaPlante stated: “We are fully aware of the costs, but we are also aware of the risks of not modernizing our nuclear forces and not addressing the very real threats we confront.”

Cost is indeed one significant issue, but the biggest risk to the rest of us comes from continuing to build and deploy ICBMs, rather than delaying or shelving the Sentinel program. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry has noted, ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” because they “could trigger an accidental nuclear war.” As he explained, a president warned (accurately or not) of an enemy nuclear attack would have only minutes to decide whether to launch such ICBMs and conceivably devastate the planet.

Possessing such potentially world-ending systems only increases the possibility of an unintended nuclear conflict prompted by a false alarm. And as Norman Solomon and the late Daniel Ellsberg once wrote, “If reducing the dangers of nuclear war is a goal, the top priority should be to remove the triad’s ground-based leg — not modernize it.”

This is no small matter. It is believed that a large-scale nuclear exchange could result in more than five billion of us humans dying, once the possibility of a “nuclear winter” and the potential destruction of agriculture across much of the planet is taken into account, according to an analysis by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

In short, the need to reduce nuclear risks by eliminating such ICBMs could not be more urgent. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ “Doomsday Clock” — an estimate of how close the world may be at any moment to a nuclear conflict — is now set at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it’s been since that tracker was first created in 1947. And just this June, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a mutual defense agreement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, a potential first step toward a drive by Moscow to help Pyongyang expand its nuclear arsenal further. And of the nine countries now possessing nuclear weapons, it’s hardly the only one other than the U.S. in an expansionist phase.

Considering the rising tide of nuclear escalation globally, is it really the right time for this country to invest a fortune of taxpayer dollars in a new generation of devastating “use them or lose them” weapons? The American public has long said no, according to a 2020 poll by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, which showed that 61% of us actually support phasing out ICBM systems like the Sentinel.

The Pentagon’s misguided plan to keep such ICBMs in the U.S arsenal for decades to come is only reinforced by the political power of members of Congress and the companies that benefit financially from the current buildup.

Who Decides? The Role of the ICBM Lobby

A prime example of the power of the nuclear weapons lobby is the Senate ICBM Coalition. That group is composed of senators from four states — Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming — that either house major ICBM bases or host significant work on the Sentinel. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the members of that coalition have received more than $3 million in donations from firms involved in the production of the Sentinel over the past four election cycles.  Nor were they alone. ICBM contractors made contributions to 92 of the 100 senators and 413 of the 435 house members in 2024. Some received hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The nuclear lobby paid special attention to members of the armed services committees in the House and Senate. For example, Mike Turner, a House Republican from Ohio, has been a relentless advocate of “modernizing” the nuclear arsenal. In a June 2024 talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which itself has received well over a million dollars in funding from nuclear weapons producers, he called for systematically upgrading the nuclear arsenal for decades to come, while chiding any of his congressional colleagues not taking such an aggressive stance on the subject.

Although Turner vigorously touts the need for a costly nuclear buildup, he fails to mention that, with $305,000 in donations, he’s been the fourth-highest recipient of funding from the ICBM lobby over the four elections between 2018 and 2024. Little wonder that he pushes for new nuclear weapons and staunchly opposes extending the New START arms reduction treaty.

In another example of contractor influence, veteran Texas representative Kay Granger secured the largest total of contributions from the ICBM lobby of any House member. With $675,000 in missile contractor contributions in hand, Granger went to bat for the lobby, lending a feminist veneer to nuclear “modernization” by giving a speech on her experience as a woman in politics at Northrop Grumman’s Women’s conference. And we’re sure you won’t be surprised that Granger has anything but a strong track record when it comes to keeping the Pentagon and arms makers accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse in weapons programs. Her X account is, in fact, littered with posts heaping praise on Lockheed Martin and its overpriced, under-performing F-35 combat aircraft.

Other recipients of ICBM contractor funding, like Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers, have lamented the might of the “far-left disarmament community,” and the undue influence of “anti-nuclear zealots” on our politics. Missing from the statements his office puts together and the speeches his staffers write for him, however, is any mention of the $471,000 in funding he’s received so far from ICBM producers. You won’t be surprised, we’re sure, to discover that Rogers has pledged to seek a provision in the forthcoming National Defense Authorization Act to support the Pentagon’s plan to continue the Sentinel program.

Lobbying Dollars and the Revolving Door

The flood of campaign contributions from ICBM contractors is reinforced by their staggering investments in lobbying. In any given year, the arms industry as a whole employs between 800 and 1,000 lobbyists, well more than one for every member of Congress. Most of those lobbyists hired by ICBM contractors come through the “revolving door” from careers in the Pentagon, Congress, or the Executive Branch. That means they come with the necessary tools for success in Washington: an understanding of the appropriations cycle and close relations with decision-makers on the Hill.

During the last four election cycles, ICBM contractors spent upwards of $226 million on 275 extremely well-paid lobbyists. For example, Bud Cramer, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama who once sat on the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, netted $640,000 in fees from Northrop Grumman over a span of six years. He was also a cofounder of the Blue Dog Democrats, an influential conservative faction within the Democratic Party. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that Cramer’s former chief of staff, Jefferies Murray, also lobbies for Northrop Grumman.

While some lobbyists work for one contractor, others have shared allegiances. For example, during his tenure as a lobbyist, former Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Trent Lott received more than $600,000 for his efforts for Raytheon, Textron Inc., and United Technologies (before United Technologies and Raytheon merged to form RX Technologies). Former Virginia Congressman Jim Moran similarly received $640,000 from Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.

Playing the Jobs Card

The argument of last resort for the Sentinel and similar questionable weapons programs is that they create well-paying jobs in key states and districts. Northrop Grumman has played the jobs card effectively with respect to the Sentinel, claiming it will create 10,000 jobs in its development phase alone, including about 2,250 in the state of Utah, where the hub for the program is located.

As a start, however, those 10,000 jobs will help a minuscule fraction of the 167-million-member American workforce. Moreover, Northrop Grumman claims facilities tied to the program will be set up in 32 states. If 2,250 of those jobs end up in Utah, that leaves 7,750 more jobs spread across 31 states — an average of about 250 jobs per state, essentially a rounding error compared to total employment in most localities.

Nor has Northrop Grumman provided any documentation for the number of jobs the Sentinel program will allegedly create. Journalist Taylor Barnes of ReThink Media was rebuffed in her efforts to get a copy of the agreement between Northrop Grumman and the state of Utah that reportedly indicates how many Sentinel-related jobs the company needs to create to get the full subsidy offered to put its primary facility in Utah.

A statement by a Utah official justifying that lack of transparency suggested Northrop Grumman was operating in “a competitive defense industry” and that revealing details of the agreement might somehow harm the company. But any modest financial harm Northrop Grumman might suffer, were those details revealed, pales in comparison with the immense risks and costs of the Sentinel program itself.

There are two major flaws in the jobs argument with respect to the future production of nuclear weapons. First, military spending should be based on security considerations, not pork-barrel politics. Second, as Heidi Peltier of the Costs of War Project has effectively demonstrated, virtually any other expenditure of funds currently devoted to Pentagon programs would create between 9% and 250% more jobs than weapons spending does. If Congress were instead to put such funds into addressing climate change, dealing with future disease epidemics, poverty, or homelessness — all serious threats to public safety — the American economy would gain hundreds of thousands of jobs. Choosing to fund those ICBMs instead is, in fact, a job killer, not a job creator.

Unwarranted Influence in the Nuclear Age

Advocates for eliminating ICBMs from the American arsenal make a strong case.  (If only they were better heard!) For example, former Representative John Tierney of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation offered this blunt indictment of ICBMs:

“Not only are intercontinental ballistic missiles redundant, but they are prone to a high risk of accidental use… They do not make us any safer. Their only value is to the defense contractors who line their fat pockets with large cost overruns at the expense of our taxpayers. It has got to stop.”

The late Daniel Ellsberg made a similar point in a February 2018 interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

“You would not have these arsenals, in the U.S. or elsewhere, if it were not the case that it was highly profitable to the military-industrial complex, to the aerospace industry, to the electronics industry, and to the weapons design labs to keep modernizing these weapons, improving accuracy, improving launch time, all that. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower talked about is a very powerful influence. We’ve talked about unwarranted influence. We’ve had that for more than half a century.”

Given how the politics of Pentagon spending normally work, that nuclear weapons policy is being so heavily influenced by individuals and organizations profiting from an ongoing arms race should be anything but surprising. Still, in the case of such weaponry, the stakes are so high that critical decisions shouldn’t be determined by parochial politics. The influence of such special interest groups and corporate weapons-makers over life-and-death issues should be considered both a moral outrage and perhaps the ultimate security risk.

Isn’t it finally time for the executive branch and Congress to start assessing the need for ICBMs on their merits, rather than on contractor lobbying, weapons company funding, and the sort of strategic thinking that was already outmoded by the end of the 1950s? For that to happen, our representatives would need to hear from their constituents loud and clear.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, Songlands (the final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, and Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America’s Wars: The Untold Story.

Hekmat Aboukhater is a researcher at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the author of that institute’s forthcoming issue brief, “Inside the ICBM Lobby: Special Interests or the Public Interest?” He is also the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Copyright 2024 William D. Hartung and Hekmat Aboukhater

 

Nagasaki: The Forgotten Bomb

Always "the Second City," but many consider the attack a "war crime." The Nolan movie did not help matters at all.

by Greg Mitchell Posted onAugust 09, 2024

Reprinted with permission from Greg Mitchell’s newsletter Oppenheimer: From Hiroshima to Hollywood.

Nagasaki Day arrives again on Friday. Naturally I wrote a major piece about this atrocity – and Oppenheimer barely mentioning it – last year at Mother Jones, my third piece for them last summer in response to the Nolan movie (see here and here). Go over there and read the entire story but I’ll excerpt a bit from it below on the man who took charge of that tragedy, Gen. Leslie Groves.

Reminder: Groves preferred to be called “Dick.”

In truth, the man behind the Nagasaki bomb was not Truman, but Gen. Leslie R. Groves, director of the Manhattan Project.  Earlier he had fiercely promoted using the first bomb and stifled attempts by scientists (not including Oppenheimer) to convince Truman otherwise.   Truman had never explicitly endorsed the notion of a necessary “one-two punch.”  It was Groves who was the true believer and catalyst.  As soon as Hiroshima was bombed he pushed for the second mission as soon as possible,  just as authority for the next attack had devolved to him from Truman (who was on a ship in the Atlantic returning from Potsdam).  Groves himself would later boast, “I didn’t have to have the president press the button on this affair.”

The second bomb run was originally set for around August 11 and, if adhered to, this would have come a full day after Japan’s initial surrender offer.  But bad weather was forecast, so Groves pushed the mission up two days, even knowing the conditions might not be any better and that he would have to rush preparations on the island of Tinian in the Pacific.    Another problem:  pilots had been ordered to only release the weapon when the target was found visually – not just by radar.

As it turned out, stormy conditions remained in the forecast for August 9.   The lead plane, piloted by Charles Sweeney, took off anyway and despite a faulty fuel pump.  Then he found the primary target, Kokura, covered by clouds.  He pushed on to Nagasaki despite dwindling fuel.   Then the crew found that city shrouded.  When a small gap in the overcast was spotted – or so was the bombardier’s claim – the payload was released, off target but still lethal.

All of this was set up by Groves’ determination for what he called a “knockout blow,” which he had signaled down the line to subordinates and to pilot Sweeney (even though Japanese leaders barely had time to absorb the shock and devastation from bomb number one).   The means to an end had become an end in itself.  Groves would explain “once you get your opponent reeling, you keep him reeling and never let him recover.”    Groves, as war scholar Ian Clark observed, “was prepared to sacrifice all of the previously elaborated guidelines in order to implement his own strategy.”

Then Groves had the nerve to claim, in his memoir, Now It Can Be Told, that he was actually “considerably relieved” to learn the Nagasaki bomb had landed off target, meaning “a smaller number of casualties than we had expected.”   But when reports of deaths from radiation disease in Japan emerged in the weeks after the bombings, he called this “a hoax or propaganda,” wondered if there was “any difference between Japanese blood and others,” and claimed that he had been told by doctors that radiation sickness “is a very pleasant way to die.”

Matt Damon, who portrayed Groves with much sympathy in Oppenheimer, should thank his lucky stars (and Christopher Nolan) for sparing him the task of delivering those lines in the movie.

When I spent a week in Nagasaki in 1984 on a journalism grant – a length of time extremely unusual for Americans – it proved even more haunting than Hiroshima, where I stayed for over two weeks on the same trip. You’ll get some of the reason in that Mother Jones piece but maybe it was also because of its semi-tropical beauty and its long history, its unusually stoic survivors, and the fact that the bombing should not have happened, by any measure.

And the plutonium bomb was nearly twice as powerful as the uranium “gadget” used over Hiroshima. If it had not exploded off-target, the death toll and survivor agony would have likely exceeded Hiroshima’s.

Then there was this, captured in this excerpt from my Atomic Cover-up book. I would guess this ceremony is still held on this date:

Every year at nine a.m. on August 9 in Nagasaki, students gather at the three-story Yamazato Elementary School (which was founded about 1870), half a mile from ground zero. We found them assembled in the schoolyard, neatly dressed in white shirts or blouses and black shorts, the girls in bright yellow sun hats. They sat on folding chairs, the kids in the first few rows cradling paper cranes on their laps. This school, which was badly damaged by the bomb, became famous as an impromptu medical station for the injured. It was still being used for that purpose months later when the elite U.S. Army film team shot (the later suppressed) footage there.

As we watched from the playground, amid the monkey bars, the school principal told the young crowd, “No students were here on that day, we were not in session, but this did not save them. Over 1300 of your former classmates died that day. Now you are 780 in number. Look around you and imagine all of you plus 500 of your brothers and sisters perishing.”

My own daughter was barely out of elementary school so tears filled my eyes.  Indeed, the death toll of children from this one school eclipsed by more than a thousand the total number of Japanese military personnel killed in Nagasaki that day. The school also lost twenty-eight of its forty-two teachers.

The principal told the students that while it seemed to be peaceful today, there now exist in the world thousands of nuclear weapons each many times more powerful than the bomb that killed these children and parents. “This is the one school in the entire world most touched by the atomic bomb,” he pointed out, “so you must say, no more nuclear weapons.”

Then, in the sweltering heat, the students poured cups of cold water on a stone memorial to the victims, to console them.

Thanks for reading Oppenheimer and the Legacy of His Bomb ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Greg Mitchell is the author of a dozen books, including “Hiroshima in America,” and the recent award-winning The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood – and America – Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, and has directed three documentary films since 2021, including two for PBS (plus award-winning “Atomic Cover-up”). He has written widely about the atomic bomb and atomic bombings, and their aftermath, for over forty years. He writes often at Oppenheimer: From Hiroshima to Hollywood.

 

US elites fail to sink Chinese swimmers

by Rick Sterling / August 8th, 2024

US political and media elites tried but failed to sink the Chinese swimming team at the Paris Olympics.  The Chinese swimmers performed well despite the increased stress caused by media-induced rumors of “Chinese doping”. And now, the tables are being turned as the US anti-doping regime is coming under increasing scrutiny and criticism.

The media manufactured cloud of suspicion

Just a few months ago the NY Times and German ARD media ignited  the controversy with an “investigation” regarding an incident from December 2021. At that time, 23 Chinese swimmers tested positive for a trace amount of the heart medication Trimetazadine (TMZ) during a swim meet for top swimmers from across the country.  The Chinese Anti Doping Agency investigated and learned that all the positively tested swimmers were staying at the same hotel and eating in the same dining room. The amount of TMZ detected was so low that in some cases it was detected one day, and not the next. Testing in the kitchen revealed that TMZ was on the counters and in the vent hood.

The Chinese Anti Doping Agency (CHINADA) concluded that the athletes had been contaminated through food served in the dining room. They reported the facts to the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and the international swimming federation (World Aquatics, formerly known as FINA) . Both organizations concurred with the conclusion that the athletes were innocent and should not be charged with an anti-doping rule violation.

But the NY Times and ARD suggested something shady had occurred and the athletes may not have been innocent. They further suggested that  CHINADA and WADA may be in collusion and covering up mass doping.  .

This story ignited a storm of accusations with the head of the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA), Travis Tygart, leading the pack.  Some prominent international swimmers have joined the fray with suggestions that the Chinese swimming accomplishments at the 2022 Tokyo Olympics were tainted, “not clean,” or based on cheating. The insinuations and suspicions continued into swimming competitions at the Paris Olympics. Many TV commentators at the Olympics referred to the insinuation one way or another. Media kept the suspicion alive by highlighting when a prominent international swimmer said anything about it. American champion swimmer Katie Ledecky said it was difficult to accept coming second behind a Chinese swimmer who might have doped. Legendary US swimmer Michael Phelps said any athlete guilty of doping should be banned forever – “one and done”.

The US Congress got involved with Congressional representatives  to suspend or cancel US contributions to WADA. With the 2019 Rodchenkov Act, the US Congress has granted itself the power to arrest and penalize anyone in the world involved in “doping”.

Paris 2024 Olympics

Swimming at the 2024 Paris  Olympics is now over. The swimming powerhouses US  and Australia won the most medals with 28  and 18 respectively. But China did well, coming third with 12 swimming medals.  China’s Pan Zhanle was one of the superstars of the event, setting a new world record in the 100 m freestyle. He also anchored the Chinese relay team to their victory in the 4 x 100 meter medley relay, an event the US has dominated for 64 years.

Chinese swimmers spoke about feeling additional stress and discomfort because of the accusations and rumors about doping. They were tested much more than any other team, with some 600 doping tests conducted leading into and during the games. There were zero violations.

The superstar Pan Zhanle was not one of the swimmers who tested positive in 2021.

So it was left to some critics to say his performance was not “humanly possible”.

Tables are turned

Chinese and other media are now pushing back and exposing the hypocrisy and double standards of the US anti-doping regime. Even the mainstream Newsweek magazine headlines “China turns the table on US doping accusations.”

More significantly, on August 7 the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) publicly denounced USADA for having “allowed athletes who had doped, to compete  for years, in at least one case without ever publishing or sanctioning their anti-doping rule violations, in direct contravention of the World Anti-Doping Code and USADA’s own rules. The USADA scheme threatened the integrity of sporting competition, which the Code seeks to protect.”

Other international organizations are also reacting negatively to the US efforts to be the global judge and jury. The International Olympic Committee has said that the US may lose hosting of future Olympic Games if the US undermines the global anti doping establishment.

NY Times misleading information.

The NY Times and Germany’s ARD launched and spurred this controversy with misleading reporting. A recent NYT article titled “A Doping Scandal” claims there is “a troubling pattern of positive doping tests in the Chinese swimming program.” Twelve members of the Chinese Olympic team tested positive in recent years for powerful performance-enhancing drugs but were cleared to keep competing.”  They insinuated malfeasance on the part of the Chinese swimmers, China Anti Doping Agency and World Anti Doping Agency.  By implication, the world swimming federation (World Aquatics) was also guilty.

The NY Times claim that Trimetazidine is a “powerful performance-enhancing drug” is false. The medication is helpful for elderly individuals with weak hearts but does nothing for young athletes with healthy hearts.  As noted at SwimSwam magazine, “Dr. Benjamin Levine, a renowned sports cardiologist at UT Southwestern Medical School, says he doesn’t think it provides any benefit.”  If Western athletes doubt this or want to test it, Dr. Levine says they can imbibe RANOLAZINE which is very similar to TMZ and NOT PROHIBITED.

The insinuation that dozens of Chinese swimmers from diverse parts of the country with different coaches were collectively imbibing a prohibited medication risking their careers and reputations does not pass the sniff test. Simple logic would indicate an accidental contamination of the food they were all eating, confirmed by the presence of the chemical in the dining room kitchen. That is what CHINADA, WADA and World Aquatics all determined. The commitment of Chinese swimmers to anti-doping and clean sport is confirmed by the renowned Australian swim coach Denis Cotterell.

The need for thresholds

This incident points to the need for there to be appropriate thresholds for determining a doping rule violation. Currently this is inconsistent. There are minimum levels for some chemicals and none for others. Modern test instruments can detect extremely small amounts – molecules – of a chemical. As a scientist at an official doping test laboratory said, “It is very dangerous to not have a minimum threshold because all sorts of chemicals are in the environment.”

How did the TMZ get in the kitchen?

A very important question remains unanswered: How did TMZ get into the hotel kitchen and the food that was being prepared for consumption by the Chinese athletes?

There is a curious coincidence. During the same month, December 2021, the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva – widely recognized as the best in the world – tested positive for a trace amount of TMZ when she was competing in the Russian Nationals in St. Peteresburg.  However  this was not reported by the Swedish laboratory until February,  just in time to disrupt the Beijing Winter Olympics.  Unlike the Chinese swimmers, Valieva was alone and unable to identify where the contamination seven weeks earlier came from. This one positive test for a trace amount of TMZ resulted in huge turmoil in Beijing, assumption of guilt contrary to common sense, and ultimately the destruction of Valieva’s international competitive career. Her suggestion there may have been sabotage was ignored. The NY Times thinks this case is “how it’s supposed to work.”

Summary

In Paris unlike Beijing in 2022, the accusations were a distraction but not totally disruptive. The fans in the swimming arena were respectful and appreciative of the Chinese athletes. Some international swimmers also  ignored the controversy and did the right thing. They congratulated the Chinese swimmers when they were victorious. Australian Kyle Chalmers congratulated Pan Zhanle.  American Caleb Dressel acknowledged the Chinese swimmers were the best that day they won the 4 x 100m medley.

The attempt to torpedo the Chinese swimmers and undermine China’s international image did not succeed.FacebookTwitter

RedditEmail

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist in the SF Bay Area. He can be reached at rsterling1@protonmail.com. Read other articles by Rick.