Sunday, May 18, 2025

A Challenge



 May 16, 2025
Facebook

Trident II D5 missile launch test off the coast of California. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Ronald Gutridge/Released.

This article is intended as an outright challenge to any who may not have heard or read of the following, or who have avoided it like me. I DARE you to read Nuclear War: A Scenario by well-known author Annie Jacobsen. There is no better or extensive documentation of the many factors leading to the growing potential for nuclear war. The author fully strives to awaken dread for that reason in her readers and begins with a quote from a former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command: “The world could end in the next couple of hours.” She excavates detailed proof in interviews with 47 insiders, including two former Secretaries of Defense, exposing the long-term planning that “Since the end of World War II the U.S. Government has been preparing for, and rehearsing, a secret plan, a first strike, for A General Nuclear War.” The many withdrawals from nuclear reduction treaties since the collapse of the Soviet Union makes such a scenario ever more likely

Later, she takes us on a ghastly journey, the semi-final scenario of a precipitous nuclear strike in California and no one in American government knows which nuclear “enemy” is responsible, Russia, China, or North Korea. They cannot ignore the strike and they have only six minutes to decide how and where to respond in kind. There is no escape from the longstanding planned requirement to retaliate. The end of human evolution is at hand.

A 1-megaton thermonuclear weapon, relatively small, creates a temperature of 180 million degrees Fahrenheit in an initial fireball that expands and consumes everything for great distances. Since Washington would be a primary target all 27,000 employees at the Pentagon would instantly perish. More than a million people in D.C. would be dead in two minutes. Twelve miles out uncountable numbers will have ruptured lungs and blindness. As the astrophysicist Carl Sagan warned, a nuclear bomb produces a “witches brew of radioactive particles,” and radiation sickness will follow for those who survive the initial blast for which there will be no medical treatments. No worry, according to General Leslie Groves, the Military Commander of the Manhattan Project, radiation poisoning “is a very pleasant way to die.” Meanwhile the electromagnetic pulse will wipeout all communications leaving survivors to realize that no help will ever be on the way. More than one nuclear bomb will fall on Washington as well as every major city in the United States, not to forget that the U.S. and its “allies” will be targeting the enemy, all three of its long-prevailing antagonists, especially Russia. As Soviet premier Khrushchev declared after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, proclaiming that humankind must never again allow itself to fall into such an existential jeopardy: “Those who survive will envy the dead.”

The vast majority of American citizens are completely out of the loop when it comes to matters of warfare and nuclear conflict plans which are the most secret of all. A tiny minority will decide whether to use nukes and the president is supposed to be the final actor in such a decision. How many Americans know that the vice president also is assigned a nuclear “football” whereby such an existential terror will be addressed.

At the age of seven I and my classmates were regularly ushered into the basement of our school as nearby sirens screeched drill warnings of impending nuclear attack. At age eight the photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki filled me with dread. Since my fifteenth year, as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I have KNOWN that as long as nuclear weapons exist sooner or later they will be used…SOONER or LATER. I have avowed the same to all my students for four decades. As the Doomsday Clock admonishes, every human being on earth lives ensnared today in the most precarious moments in human history. Will they be our last?

I had avoided the book because I knew it would send me into extreme anxiety and even panic attack, primarily because I perceive that few of my fellow citizens comprehend or repress awareness of our perilous tenure on Gaia and that the stark opposite of measures to derail the looming calamity is occurring at the level of military planning and “national security preparedness.” That and the ignorance and passivity of the population actively encouraged by a kept media that rarely dares openly to challenge the insanity arising after World II and ensuring that the Third was manifestly in the works.

For many years I have preached about the extreme peril of nuclear war and often encounter the naïve faith that “our government is charged with our protection and so will take care of us and never be so stupid as to self-destruct.” Others voice cynical responses: “why upset yourself there isn’t anything we can do about it.” I know a professor at UCal Berkeley who told me simply with a shrug “If it happens, it happens.” Worse, too many adhere to the creed that nukes are essential for protection from enemies and “adversaries,” since only they would plan such treachery! The theory of MAD, or “Mutually Assured Destruction,” became a catchword averring that no nation would be foolish enough to risk annihilation, while definite steps to assure such an outcome were obviously ongoing. “Deterrence” became the refrain used to rationalize the ever-burgeoning number of nukes. How does the possession of thousands of thermonuclear bombs, by nine nations, many always at the ready, ensure that they will not be used? Once upon a time various agreements and treaties were signed all around which gave some a dream of nuclear weapons abolition. Only one of those agreements exists today but no one believes it is in force. And it expires on January 1 next year.

We ignore the salient fact that it was the U.S. that employed the first atomic bombs, though extensive evidence demonstrates that these were not necessary to defeat Japan as we have long been indoctrinated. Rather, the Soviet “ally” had overrun parts of China and Korea and was gaining position to invade Japan, thus creating the same problem for Washington of co-occupation as in Nazi Germany. The U.S. suffered zero war devastation, as was not the case for all other combatants, especially the Soviet Union, which lost at least 27 million people. So, the U.S. emerged in 1945 as the most powerful nation ever to exist and since that time the overarching goal of U.S. Foreign Policy has been to promote American hegemony: militarily, economically and politically, throughout the world. Though the USSR was undeniably the essential force that defeated Germany its very existence, along with communism, socialism and the nationalism of the so-called Third World, was hyped as the threat to the U.S.’s  crackpot and dangerous ambition of global domination. In 1945 the USSR was in a shambles and all but broken yet incessant American propaganda insisted that the Soviet’s ultimate goal was to expand into Western Europe. This false propaganda continues to this day.

So, the Cold War was on and the Pentagon soon requested numerous nuclear bombs as its estimate of the number required to destroy the USSR grew. The Soviets knew that the American nuclear arsenal was increasing rapidly and that these horrific weapons had become the menace to the world order envisioned in the corridors of power in D.C., Wall Street, and arms manufacturers. The newly birthed  United Nations convened immediately after World War II.  Yet Washington made it absolutely clear that it intended to be the new global imperator despite the U.N.’s. proclaimed goal to maintain international peace and security, protect human rights, deliver humanitarian aid, support sustainable development, and uphold international law. We all see how that has worked out. Within four years would-be American hegemons were at war again in Korea, later in Vietnam, while the newly minted Central Intelligence Agency began its dismal chronicle of overthrowing governments it saw as detrimental to the overarching goal of world domination.

In 1948 the U.S. positioned B-29s in Europe, the aircraft that had delivered the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as an overt threat to the Soviets during the Berlin Crisis and Blockade. Research later showed that some of these planes were armed with A-bombs. Meanwhile, Soviet espionage had revealed the American Atomic program during WWII,and they immediately initiated their own. The following year Moscow announced its first successful test of an A-Bomb. In 1952 the U.S. wiped a small Pacific Marshall Island off the face of the earth with the new H-bomb. The USSR soon followed. The A-Bomb killed tens of thousands: a single thermo-nuke can kill millions.

In a not inconceivable circumstance Jacobsen posits a crisis leading North Korea to launch a successful nuclear attack on the West Coast, using an undetectable submarine.  Now Washington must determine which nation conducted the strike. Both the U.S. and Russia have only minutes to respond. With no valid evidence the U.S. launches against Russia.  Russian early-warning satellites are known to be flawed but they believe that Washington has been struck and see hundreds of war heads moving from America to the east. In short order the “Doomsday scenario” so often postulated has arrived and there is no escape.

Thousands of cities across Mother Earth are on fire. Everything burns: cities, suburbs, towns, forests. In no time the atmosphere is full of deadly smog filled with pyrotoxins embedded in the industrial environments, extremely poisonous and hot enough to kill. Water is extremely contaminated and as darkness and in days extreme cold sets in and then rapidly freezes. Nuclear Winter is arriving. In the absence of sun plants die and soon there will be no agriculture. Whatever uncontaminated foods exist they are viciously and murderously fought over and “only the ruthless survive.” Meanwhile, radioactive substances are spreading widely and gruesome radiation sicknesses proliferate.

Whether the human species becomes extinct after a global nuclear war has been debated. In her final scenario Jacobsen advances an examination of of what planet earth will doubtlessly look like in the aftermath of nuclear war.  Personally, I would rather be at Ground Zero and be atomized instantly with my family and loved ones, than even attempt to endure in the aftermath of a self- induced nuclear holocaust. Much of the United States will be below freezing for six to 10 years. Survivors will be faced with radiation illnesses and almost universal chromosome damage. If any produce offspring they are likely to be born with hideous defects and malformations. In my mind the species homo sapiens sapiens will cease to exist and if survivors do procreate their genetics will almost certainly result in a new genus.

As a youngster I was taught that human beings are the most intelligent, really the only intelligent species. We all know the story of the sudden annihilation and disappearance of the dinosaurs and many other species sixty-five million years ago.  They, however, did not bring about the circumstances for their own extinction.

Since 1945 we humans have long passively looked on as the numbers of weapons of mass death proliferated, and the extreme irony is that the vast majority are not even needed to bring about the holocaust described herein. They exist in such superfuous numbers only because they are seen as massive sources of profit for “Defense contractors” Lockheed, Raytheon (RTX), Northrop-Grumman, Boeing et al. William Hartung, former career army colonel, tags former Senator Jon Kyl , now on the payroll of Northrop-Grumman, as “Senator Strangelove” for his management of the U.S withdrawal from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, then George W”s from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, followed in 2019 by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. In his first term Donald Trump said he would withdraw from the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty, which then was answered by Vladimir Putin. The Treaty will expire in seven months. I often wonder how many of my fellow citizens have ever heard of the Bulletin of Concerned Scientists and their “Doomsday clock,” now set at 89 seconds before what may yet become our collective endtime horror-scape.

Paul Atwood is the author of War and Empire: the American Way of Life.

New Mexico Strengthens Oversight of Toxic Oil and Gas Waste



Facebook

 May 16, 2025

New Mexico Strengthens Oversight of Toxic Oil and Gas Waste

WQCC decision marks a critical victory for public health and environmental protection

Santa Fe, NM — In a major shift from its previous position, the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) this week voted to adopt a new rule requiring permits for all oil and gas “produced water” reuse pilot projects—and explicitly clarified that waste byproducts from treatment are not automatically exempt from hazardous waste regulations.

This decision marks a critical victory for public health and environmental protections, following legal and technical filings by WildEarth Guardians, including a motion to clarify hazardous waste classification and a joint motion with New Energy Economy and Indigenous frontline advocates. The Commission’s final rule corrects dangerous loopholes that previously allowed the oil and gas industry to sidestep accountability for newly generated, chemically complex waste streams.

“The Commission did the right thing by siding with science and the law,” said Melissa Troutman, Climate and Health Advocate at WildEarth Guardians. “Hazardous waste must be regulated as hazardous waste—no matter what industry tries to call it.”

“Produced water” is the toxic, high-volume byproduct of oil and gas drilling and fracking. For every barrel of oil extracted, the industry generates 4 to 7 barrels of waste—often laced with carcinogenic and radioactive elements, heavy metals, benzene, PFAS, trade secret chemicals, and volatile organic compounds. According to Oil Conservation Division data in 2024 alone, operators in New Mexico generated over 106 billion gallons of produced water—up from approximately 67 billion gallons in 2021. That’s enough toxic waste to fill more than 160,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools—a 60% increase in just three years.

Despite its toxicity, oil and gas waste is exempt from key federal hazardous waste laws like Superfund and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)—exemptions determined by political interests, not supported by science. Now, facing increasing public scrutiny and dwindling disposal options, industry is aggressively promoting “reuse” as a solution—pushing to repurpose this waste for use on crops, roads, and even aquifer recharge.

“This is not innovation—it’s an escape hatch,” said Rebecca Sobel, Campaign Manager at WildEarth Guardians. “Industry is trying to offload its waste and liability onto New Mexicans, our waters, and our lands. This ruling stops that scheme—at least for now.”

The new rule comes after Guardians submitted both technical testimony and legal motions warning that new waste streams generated during reuse projects must not be treated as exempt simply because they originated from the oilfield. Once waste is used for purposes unrelated to industry extraction, it is no longer exempt from hazardous waste law and must be tested, characterized, and managed accordingly.

The Commission’s ruling now requires permit applicants to disclose what these new waste streams are and how they will be handled—a major step toward transparency and accountability.

“This decision sends a clear message,” said Troutman. “If it walks like hazardous waste and tests like hazardous waste, it must be regulated like hazardous waste.”

This rule change arrives just weeks after WildEarth Guardians released its Q1 2025 Oil & Gas Waste Watch report, which revealed:

  • 307 spills in New Mexico from January–March 2025
  • 963,934 gallons of produced water spilled
  • 209,370 gallons unrecovered—enough to fill over 130 tanker trucks
  • 1 spill every 7 hours on average

“Industry is generating far more toxic waste than oil or gas—and it’s spilling, leaking, and seeping into our communities every day,” said Sobel. “The WQCC’s action is a critical first step, but it must not be the last.”

WildEarth Guardians will closely monitor the new permit process to ensure that all waste streams are properly identified, managed, and regulated in accordance with the law. With the state now acknowledging that oil and gas waste can be hazardous, Guardians is calling for the full repeal of New Mexico’s hazardous waste exemption for oil and gas, a moratorium on all produced water reuse projects until enforceable protections are in place, and the application of hazardous waste laws to all oilfield byproducts—no exceptions.

“This is a crucial win—but it’s just the beginning,” said Troutman. “We cannot allow industry to rename its waste and walk away from responsibility. New Mexico must regulate this toxic waste for what it is—not what industry wants it to be.”

Related Documents:

Guardians’ Legal Motion to Clarify (April 2025)

Joint Motion with New Energy Economy and Indigenous Frontline Advocates (April 2025)

Technical Testimony Submitted by Guardians (April 2024)

Q1 2025 Oil & Gas Waste Watch Report

Trump’s Effect on Elections Globally



May 16, 2025
Facebook

Donald Trump is a polarizing figure in the United States. He has also succeeded in dividing the world. Particularly with the tariffs he instituted on “Liberation Day,” Trump has transformed the political landscape in countries around the world.

In the recent Canadian elections, for instance, the candidate most like Trump saw his popularity crater after the U.S. president started talking about annexing Canada and imposing punishing tariffs. Despite trailing in the polls by almost 30 percent only a few months earlier, the Liberal Party won a narrow victory, and the Canadian Trump even lost his own parliamentary seat.

A similar scenario unfolded in Australia, where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was looking at record-low popularity ratings earlier in the year. But after Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs, the fortunes of the liberal Albanese turned around. His Labor Party trounced its Trump-leaning opposition this month, and once again the leading right-wing candidate lost his own seat in parliament.

The far right is not exactly in retreat. An ultranationalist did unexpectedly well this month in the first round of the Romanian presidential elections. A right-wing president won reelection in Ecuador in April. And the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland had its best results yet in the German elections in February.

But with the recent election results in Canada and Australia, it’s possible to see the limits of Trump’s influence and the signs of a swing back to some semblance of normalcy.

In early June, South Koreans will go to the polls to elect a new president after the impeachment of the right-wing Yoon Suk-yeol and his foiled attempt to declare martial law. According to the polls, voters will likely defeat Yoon’s party and return a progressive to the presidency.

But like the rest of the world, South Korea is deeply divided. In the 2022 presidential election, Yoon won by less than one percent of the vote. Two years later, the opposition won the majority of seats in parliament, setting up a major duel between the executive and legislative branches. After Yoon’s impeachment, demonstrations for and against him filled the streets of Seoul, each with tens of thousands of frustrated people.

Korea is rife with division: rich versus poor, young versus old, men versus women. All-or-nothing thinking makes compromise not only difficult but, according to each camp, downright unpatriotic. With the country’s fertility rate dropping to one of the lowest levels in the world, few people have enough confidence in South Korea’s future to unite even on an individual basis to produce the children that can keep the country going.

Into this already divided society, the political program of Trumpism—a stew of misinformation, toxic nationalism and misogyny, and pervasive xenophobia—took over the Korean right-wing like a virus. South Korean conservatives questioned the legitimacy of the courts, developed conspiracy theories about “stolen elections,” and even rioted at a Seoul court in an eerie replay of the January 6 events at the U.S. capital.

Trumpism derives its popularity in the United States from its defense of a dwindling white majority that is worried about becoming a minority within the next two decades. South Korea is far more homogenous than the United States, so what explains the fervency of Trumpism among those who support the country’s conservative party? Why do some conservatives equate the normal processes of democracy—the conflicts within a divided government—as a “legislative dictatorship”? Why do they see the hand of North Korea and China manipulating progressive politicians?

The underlying reason is the Korean right wing’s anxiety about the country’s alliance with the United States. For more than 50 years, Washington has been firmly committed to South Korea: as a trade partner, a fellow democracy, and a key part of containing Chinese power.

Donald Trump, however, cares little about traditional alliances. He wants South Korea to pay more for its alliance obligations, to be sure, but the depth of his indifference to South Korea’s security runs much deeper.

During his first term, Trump treated North Korea with far greater respect and interest than he did South Korea. Trump was willing to undermine key elements of allied commitments to South Korea—by canceling joint military exercises and closing U.S. military bases—in order to secure a denuclearization agreement with Kim Jong Un.

If a progressive South Korean politician had offered such concessions to a North Korean leader, conservatives would have accused that politician of treason. But Korean conservatives did not openly split with Trump. They mostly grumbled in private.

Now, however, conservatives in Korea are reacting to the potential cracks in the alliance with the United States by talking about developing an independent military capacity, in this case their own nuclear deterrent.

Then there’s China. Although Trump and South Korean conservatives generally agree about a “Chinese threat,” they have divergent strategies for dealing with Beijing. Trump has always been open to a close working relationship with Xi Jinping, whom he sees as an effective autocrat. In his first term, after some back and forth, Trump and Xi signed a trade and investment deal. In his second term, Trump might go much further.

Trump complains about the cost of maintaining a U.S. military footprint in the Pacific, so giving China control of its own sphere of influence might appeal to an American president who is much more focused on North America, perhaps with the addition of Greenland. But this plan would effectively place South Korea in China’s sphere of influence.

No wonder South Korean conservatives are anxious. When they accuse the opposition of being pro-North Korean or pro-Chinese, they are actually displacing their fear of abandonment by Trump onto their “unpatriotic” adversaries.

Whoever wins in June will face a divided populace. Here’s one way to overcome political divisions: focus on the environment.

In a recent South Korean poll, “climate change and environmental issues” ranked number one among the greatest threats facing South Korea. Although associated with progressive causes, environmentalism is an inherently conservative approach—the conservation of nature, the preservation of traditional values—so it can serve as a bridge between political tribes.

As a new president prepares to deal with the twin challenges of Pyongyang and Washington, finding a path out of polarization at home must be a priority. That path is paved with emeralds. A peninsula, a region, a world united on Green principles can defeat the forces of polarization.

Originally published in Hankyoreh.

John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article originally appeared.