Thursday, January 15, 2026

 

The Global Ocean Ship-Based Hydrographic Investigations Program (GO-SHIP) receives the Ocean Observing Team Award



For 20 years of internationally coordinated, high-quality, high-resolution repeat hydrographic measurements, documenting decadal changes in ocean circulation, heat, carbon, oxygen, and nutrients essential for understanding Earth's climate




The Oceanography Society

Global Ocean Ship-Based Hydrographic Investigations Program (GO-SHIP) 

image: 

Global Ocean Ship-Based Hydrographic Investigations Program (GO-SHIP)

view more 

Credit: GO-SHIP




The Oceanography Society (TOS) has awarded the Ocean Observing Team Award to the Global Ocean Ship-Based Hydrographic Investigations Program (GO-SHIP), recognizing the program’s groundbreaking and sustained contributions to ocean observing that have transformed scientific understanding of the global ocean and delivered profound societal benefits. Team members will be recognized during The Oceanography Society’s Awards Breakfast taking place on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, during the Ocean Sciences Meeting in Glasgow, Scotland.

GO-SHIP is the international community’s premier program for full-depth, high-accuracy, repeat observations of the global ocean, providing the climate-quality data required to detect and understand long-term changes in ocean heat, carbon, circulation, oxygen, and biogeochemistry. Coordinated by 19 nations across a global network of 55 hydrographic sections, GO-SHIP represents a breakthrough in the design, implementation, and long-term operation of an integrated global observing system. As noted by the International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project, the “GO-SHIP Team has been a champion in providing opportunities for multinational execution of individual tasks as well as in assuring completion of decadal surveys across participating nations.”

GO-SHIP established the first globally coordinated and interoperable framework for repeat hydrography, integrating ships, sensors, calibration protocols, and open data systems into a unified observing strategy. These observations underpin many of the most consequential advances in modern ocean and climate science. Its data have revealed deep-ocean warming below 2,000 meters, quantified the ocean’s dominant role in absorbing excess heat and anthropogenic carbon, documented ocean deoxygenation and acidification, and improved understanding of large-scale circulation and sea-level rise. 

“GO-SHIP is the foundation of sustained global ocean observations,” wrote Professor Sabrina Speich, Co-Chair of the Ocean Observations for Physics and Climate Panel (OOPC) of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). “Its consistency and precision make it the benchmark against which all other ocean observations are calibrated and evaluated.” 

In addition, GO-SHIP serves as the essential reference backbone for the global ocean observing system. Its foundational measurements are used to calibrate a wide array of autonomous platforms, ranging from Argo floats to satellite-based sensors. By providing this standard, GO-SHIP ensures that the broader observing network remains integrated, trustworthy, and characterized by high data quality over the long term.

These scientific advances have direct societal relevance. GO-SHIP data form a key empirical foundation for international climate assessments and policy processes, supporting evidence-based decision-making under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. “Without GO-SHIP, our understanding of Earth’s energy and carbon budget would be severely limited,” wrote Professor Nicolas Gruber of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. “We would lack the critical data needed to assess the ocean’s central role in moderating climate change.” 

A defining strength of GO-SHIP is its inclusive, multidisciplinary team structure, integrating engineers, data scientists, technicians, ship operators, modelers, and observational scientists across all phases of observing-system design, implementation, and application. GO-SHIP cruises routinely host early-career researchers and students, providing hands-on experience in open-ocean measurement, data stewardship, and international collaboration. More information about GO-SHIP team members is available at: https://tos.org/ocean-observing-team-award.

“GO-SHIP’s achievements rest on the shoulders of individual principal investigators and teams who commit enormous effort—often voluntarily—to maintaining a global reference system for the benefit of the entire community,” Speich wrote, highlighting the program’s culture of service, mentorship, and open science.

GO-SHIP leadership has played a central role in establishing and sharing best practices for ocean observing, with openly accessible, FAIR data streams that are now widely adopted across the Global Ocean Observing System. “This initiative has transformed the way our community shares protocols, metadata, and inter-calibrations, ensuring that ocean data are interoperable and comparable across platforms and generations,” Speich noted.

Collectively, the GO-SHIP team has sustained nearly two decades of exceptional global collaboration and technical excellence. As Kathy Tedesco, NOAA/UCAR, stated in the nominating letter, GO-SHIP has “fundamentally transformed how the global community measures and stewards the ocean.”

By delivering climate-critical data with unmatched accuracy, fostering inclusive and interdisciplinary team science, and enabling interoperable global observing systems, GO-SHIP exemplifies the goals of the TOS Ocean Observing Team Award and sets a lasting standard for sustained ocean observation worldwide.

###

About The Oceanography Society

Founded in 1988, The Oceanography Society’s mission is to build the capacity of its diverse global membership; catalyze interdisciplinary ocean research, technology, policy, and education; and promote equitable access to opportunities for all. More information about TOS Honors is available at https://tos.org/honors.


Elva Escobar Briones selected for The Oceanography Society Mentoring Award



For exceptional leadership in mentoring, tutoring, and teaching biological oceanography, fostering an inclusive and equitable mentoring environment in the lab and at sea, with a positive impact




The Oceanography Society

Elva Escobar Briones 

image: 

Elva Escobar Briones

view more 

Credit: Arantza Lujambio




The Oceanography Society (TOS) has selected Dr. Elva Escobar Briones of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, as the recipient of the TOS Mentoring Award, recognizing her outstanding and sustained excellence in mentoring the next generation of ocean scientists, as well as her leadership in advancing inclusion, equity, and capacity building in oceanography. Her achievements will be celebrated during the TOS Honors Breakfast on February 24, 2026, during the Ocean Sciences Meeting in Glasgow, Scotland.

The TOS Mentoring Award honors individuals whose mentorship has had a transformative impact on students, early career professionals, and colleagues, and whose leadership has strengthened the global ocean science community. Dr. Escobar Briones exemplifies these goals through decades of dedicated mentorship, visionary leadership, and a deep commitment to expanding access to ocean science.

Over nearly four decades, Dr. Escobar Briones has mentored an extraordinary number of students and early career scientists, including 76 thesis students across undergraduate, master’s, and PhD levels—more than 60% of whom are women—as well as more than 150 additional mentees through advisory and supervisory roles. Her former students now serve as researchers, educators, and leaders across Latin America and internationally.

“Her mentorship is proven, sustained, and transformative,” wrote Dr. Maria Fernanda Adame, a former mentee now an Associate Professor with Griffith University in Australia. “She provided the academic foundation, professional confidence, and research identity that allowed me to pursue a successful international career.”

Dr. Escobar Briones’ mentoring philosophy is inseparable from her leadership in promoting equity, inclusion, and access. She has been a pioneer in ensuring that oceanographic training—particularly deep-sea science—is available to students from historically underrepresented and resource-limited regions. Through more than 45 oceanographic expeditions, many as Chief Scientist, she has intentionally created opportunities for undergraduate students, early career researchers, and women to participate in ship-based research, achieving gender equity in research cruise participation.

Her impact extends beyond individuals to regional and international capacity building. Dr. Escobar Briones has played a central role in UN Ocean Decade Projects 136 and 137, and in IOCARIBE’s Capacity Development Working Group, helping to build durable networks for training, vessel access, and international collaboration across the Western Tropical Atlantic and Caribbean.

“As a colleague in the Latin American region, I have had the privilege of working with Dr. Escobar Briones in collaborative initiatives to expand deep-sea education and research capacity building where resources are often limited,” wrote Professor Jorge Cortés of the Universidad de Costa Rica. “Her leadership in bringing deep-sea science training to Spanish-speaking students has been particularly impactful…students reported that the experience changed their academic trajectories and opened global career doors.”

Dr. Escobar Briones’ mentoring excellence is further strengthened by her stature as a respected and influential scientist. She is internationally recognized for advancing understanding of deep-sea ecosystems and for linking science to conservation, management, and societal needs. Her leadership style—collaborative, inclusive, and deeply supportive—has created environments where students and colleagues thrive.

“To be an effective mentor…the recipient must be a respected scientist with proven ability for science leadership,” wrote Professor Eileen E. Hofmann of Old Dominion University. “Elva more than meets these requirements…The result is a long history of effective leadership and mentoring.”

In selecting Dr. Elva Escobar Briones for the TOS Mentoring Award, The Oceanography Society recognizes a mentor whose influence spans generations, whose leadership has helped shift the center of oceanographic capacity toward Latin America, and whose career stands as a model for how mentorship, equity, and scientific excellence together can shape the future of ocean science.

###

About The Oceanography Society

Founded in 1988, the Oceanography Society’s mission is to build the capacity of its diverse global membership; catalyze interdisciplinary ocean research, technology, policy, and education; and promote equitable access to opportunities for all. To learn more about the TOS Honors program, visit https://tos.org/honors.

 

A robot learns to lip sync



Columbia Engineers build a robot that learns to lip sync to speech and song.


Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science

Lip Syncing Robot 

image: 

Hod Lipson and his team have created a robot that, for the first time, is able to learn facial lip motions for tasks such as speech and singing.

view more 

Credit: Jane Nisselson/ Columbia Engineering





New York, NY—Jan. 14, 2026—Almost half of our attention during face-to-face conversation focuses on lip motion. Yet, robots still struggle to move their lips correctly. Even the most advanced humanoids make little more than muppet mouth gestures – if they have a face at all. 

We humans attribute outsized importance to facial gestures in general, and to lip motion in particular. While we may forgive a funny walking gait or an awkward hand motion, we remain unforgiving of even the slightest facial malgesture. This high bar is known as the “Uncanny Valley.” Robots oftentimes look lifeless, even creepy, because their lips don't move. But that is about to change.

A Columbia Engineering team announced today that they have created a robot that, for the first time, is able to learn facial lip motions for tasks such as speech and singing. In a new study published in Science Robotics, the researchers demonstrate how their robot used its abilities to articulate words in a variety of languages, and even sing a song out of its AI-generated debut album “hello world_.”

The robot acquired this ability through observational learning rather than via rules. It first learned how to use its 26 facial motors by watching its own reflection in the mirror before learning to imitate human lip motion by watching hours of YouTube videos. 

“The more it interacts with humans, the better it will get,” promised Hod Lipson, James and Sally Scapa Professor of Innovation in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and director of Columbia’s Creative Machines Lab, where the work was done.

Robot watches itself talking 

Achieving realistic robot lip motion is challenging for two reasons: First, it requires specialized hardware containing a flexible facial skin actuated by numerous tiny motors that can work quickly and silently in concert. Second, the specific pattern of lip dynamics is a complex function dictated by sequences of vocal sounds and phonemes. 

Human faces are animated by dozens of muscles that lie just beneath a soft skin and sync naturally to vocal chords and lip motions. By contrast, humanoid faces are mostly rigid, operating with relatively few degrees of motion, and their lip movement is choreographed according to rigid, predefined rules. The resulting motion is stilted, unnatural, and uncanny.

In this study, the researchers overcame these hurdles by developing a richly actuated, flexible face and then allowing the robot to learn how to use its face directly by observing humans. First, they placed a robotic face equipped with 26 motors in front of a mirror so that the robot could learn how its own face moves in response to muscle activity. Like a child making faces in a mirror for the first time, the robot made thousands of random face expressions and lip gestures. Over time, it learned how to move its motors to achieve particular facial appearances, an approach called a “vision-to-action” language model (VLA).

Then, the researchers placed the robot in front of recorded videos of humans talking and singing, giving AI that drives the robot an opportunity to learn how exactly humans’ mouths moved in the context of various sounds they emitted. With these two models in hand, the robot’s AI could now translate audio directly into lip motor action.

The researchers tested this ability using a variety of sounds, languages, and contexts, as well as some songs. Without any specific knowledge of the audio clips' meaning, the robot was then able to move its lips in sync.

The researchers acknowledge that the lip motion is far from perfect. “We had particular difficulties with hard sounds like ‘B’ and with sounds involving lip puckering, such as ‘W’. But these abilities will likely improve with time and practice,” Lipson said. 

More importantly, however, is seeing lip sync as part of more holistic robot communication ability. 

“When the lip sync ability is combined with conversational AI such as ChatGPT or Gemini, the effect adds a whole new depth to the connection the robot forms with the human,” explained Yuhang Hu, who led the study for his PhD. “The more the robot watches humans conversing, the better it will get at imitating the nuanced facial gestures we can emotionally connect with.” 

“The longer the context window of the conversation, the more context-sensitive these gestures will become,” he added. 

The missing link of robotic ability

The researchers believe that facial affect is the ‘missing link’ of robotics. 

“Much of humanoid robotics today is focused on leg and hand motion, for activities like walking and grasping,” said Lipson. “But facial affection is equally important for any robotic application involving human interaction.”

Lipson and Hu predict that warm, lifelike faces will become increasingly important as humanoid robots find applications in areas such as entertainment, education, medicine, and even elder care. Some economists predict that over a billion humanoids will be manufactured in the next decade.

“There is no future where all these humanoid robots don’t have a face. And when they finally have a face, they will need to move their eyes and lips properly, or they will forever remain uncanny,” Lipson estimates.

“We humans are just wired that way, and we can’t help it. We are close to crossing the uncanny valley,” added Hu.

Risks and limits

This work is part of Lipson’s decade-long quest to find ways to make robots connect more effectively with humans, through mastering facial gestures such as smiling, gazing, and speaking. He insists that these abilities must be acquired by learning, rather than being programmed using stiff rules. 

“Something magical happens when a robot learns to smile or speak just by watching and listening to humans,” he said. “I’m a jaded roboticist, but I can’t help but smile back at a robot that spontaneously smiles at me.”

Hu explained that human faces are the ultimate interface for communication, and we are beginning to unlock their secrets.

“Robots with this ability will clearly have a much better ability to connect with humans because such a significant portion of our communication involves facial body language, and that entire channel is still untapped,” Hu said. 

The researchers are aware of the risks and controversies surrounding granting robots greater ability to connect with humans. 

“This will be a powerful technology. We have to go slowly and carefully, so we can reap the benefits while minimizing the risks,” Lipson said. 


Lip Syncing Robot Video [VIDEO] 


Trump’s Icebox: Has the President Gone MAD?


by  | Jan 15, 2026 |

When it comes to the national security front, Donald Trump is flat out loosing it. After all, WTF was he thinking with respect to –

……A $1.5 trillion defense budget?

……Kidnapping the president of a sovereign nation?

……Putting Mexico and Columbia on deck for the next drug fumigation?

……Essentially promising to militarily enable regime change in Iran?

…..Enforcing freedom of religion in Nigeria with more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles?

…..Taking Greenland….. the hard way?

All of this is the work of an unlearned, unread, blow-hard, know-it-all narcissist, who rattles around the White House in the dead of night dreaming up barking idiocy that none of the craven weaklings (e.g. JD Vance), boot-licking sycophants (e.g. Marco Rubio) and mentally-warped, xenophobic fanatics (e.g. Stephen Miller) surrounding the Oval Office are about to resist.

But the last of the listed items – annexing Greenland – surely takes the cake for risible humbugery.

Check the record. Among the most recent American officials to advocate the taking of Greenland was, well, Secretary of State William Seward. In the second half of the 1860s!

This statesman of “Seward”s Icebox” fame feared England would take control of Greenland, thereby further thwarting the plans of his “manifest destiny” crowd to annex Canada.

Some eight decades later, there was also the original cold war monger, Secretary of State James Byrnes, who offered Denmark $100 million for Greenland—the better to keep the Ruuskies off of the icebergs. Instead, Washington eventually settled for a rent-a-base at Thule, Greenland that actually made sense as a radar warning station at the time, and which we remember quite well.

To wit, during 1954-1957 the US set up a chain of radar stations called the DEW Line, stretching from Alaska across northern Canada to Greenland, providing systematic capacity for long-range detection of incoming Soviet bombers. It was a key part of the continental defense network integrated into NORAD and we were mightily impressed when we read all about it in our Weekly Reader as a 4th grader in 1955.

Since he is now our same age at 79 years, the Donald undoubtedly read about the DEW Line in his Weekly Reader, too. But apparently he never got over the wonder of it.

After all, back then the maximum cruising speed of the Soviet Tupolev TU-16 was about 500 mph. So if any attacking Soviet bombers were detected by the radar station at Thule they were still 5 hours and 15 minutes from Washington DC, which is about 2,600 miles away. The US strategic command thus had plenty of time to scramble an extensive fleet of Air Force fighters and interceptors to bring the Soviet bombers down long before reaching targets in the USA.

No more. Today’s Russian hypersonic Oreshnik missiles can easily travel at peak speeds of mach 10 and average speeds of mach 5 or about 4,000 miles/per hour. This means that they could get from Thule to the nation’s capital in barely 40 minutes.

But even then the 40 minutes of “warning” time from Greenland-based radar isn’t what it might appear to be. That’s because there is no existing or even conceptually likely defense system against hypersonic missiles that would effectively protect American military and civilian targets – especially if these hypersonic missiles were camouflaged with swarms of decoys. In effect, warning time is irrelevant because effective anti-hypersonic missile defensive counter-measures are nonexistent.

Besides, even today’s 40 minutes by hypersonic missile from Greenland to the White House isn’t all that. It’s actually about 10 minutes.

That’s because in the case of a totally implausible Russian first strike (see below), the latter would be led by a hypersonic missile attack on Thule, which is exactly 10 minutes from Russia’s Olenegorsk Air Base on the Kola Peninsula. Of course, the Thule base has no reliable anti-missile defense, in any event, and would therefore be obliterated before they even got the President out of bed in the White House.

That is to say, in today’s world there is no meaningful warning time for traditional defensive measures to protect the airbase at Thule. It’s essentially a sitting duck aircraft carrier on an iceberg, equivalent to Washington’s equally worthless $40 billion carrier battle groups, which also sit out on the blue waters waiting to be obliterated by a hypersonic missile attack.

In short, it is not merely that we don’t need to own Greenland in any way, shape or form – we don’t even need the Thule base any longer, either. It should be given back to the people of Greenland at a savings to Uncle Sam of upwards of $500 million per year. Perhaps rather than being ruled from Washington the 57,000 or so Greenlanders would prefer to make an Arctic-region museum/theme park out of Thule in order to attract adventure tourism.

The Donald’s entire Greenland folly, however, reminds you that Trump does not understand in the slightest that America’s security in the nuclear age – for better or worse – rests on strategic deterrence or the so-called doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). If he understood MAD, in fact, he would not be stumbling and bumbling around with the equally idiotic ideas of a $1.5 trillion defense budget and a Golden Dome missile defense for the entirely of America’s land mass from sea-to-shining-sea.

The fact is, the Donald is so full of misplaced self-confidence and so unlettered when it comes to the great matters of national security that he undoubtedly thinks America’s nuclear security specifically and homeland security generally can be assured by just a larger version of Israel’s successful Iron Dome defense. But that has been successful only against the slow-moving, primitive rockets and drones confected in the tunnels of Hamas or the 300 or so low-tech projectiles Iran threw at Israel in the spring of 2024, which were also successfully intercepted by the Iron Dome.

The latter attack was mostly comprised of about 250 slow-moving Shahed-136 loitering munitions (i.e. kamikaze drones), which fly at subsonic speeds of 120-180 MPH or about 2% of the speed of a hypersonic missile. The Iranian barrage also included 30 or more low-flying, terrain-hugging subsonic cruise missiles of the Soumar or Hoveyzeh type that follow a relatively flat, direct path which is easier to intercept and shoot down – unlike the high ballistic arc of the hypersonic Oreshnik weapon.

While Iran also launched a few high-arcing ballistic missiles which were more difficult to intercept, Israel’s defense against its primitive regional military opponents simply doesn’t relate to or scale to America’s strategic nuclear defense challenges.

That’s why the fundamental truth – especially since the misguided failure of Ronald Reagan’s proposed Star Wars missile defense shield back in the mid-1980s – is that the technology of offensive strategic nuclear weaponry will always stay one step ahead of ABM type defensive systems. Accordingly, maintaining an unassailable nuclear deterrent is the essence of the true America First Homeland defense.

And we already have all we need of the latter – purchased and paid for over the years in the form of the nation’s triad nuclear deterrent. Accordingly, neither a Golden Dome nor $1.5 trillion super-defense budget is remotely necessary. In fact, these latest Trumpian hobby horses are downright nutty – to say nothing of comprising a fiscal albatross the would literally break Uncle Sam’s bank account once and for all.

To remind, therefore, the nation’s triad strategic deterrent is composed of land, air and sea-based capacity to deliver upwards of 1700 nuclear warheads in a retaliatory second strike against the territory of any attacker. This force is designed to obliterate virtually every city, every factory, every transportation node, every food supply warehouse and actually, nearly every living person, in the country of an adversary who attempts to strike first.

That’s called a retaliatory second strike, and the apocalyptic threat of it had kept the peace for more than 40 years until the Soviet Union disappeared into the dustbin of history in 1991; and has continued to do its job for the last 35 years against the far, far less capable and/or motivated current regimes in Moscow and Beijing.

That is to say, MAD works because even the leaders of countries demonized by Washington are not now and never have been suicidal.

Moreover, the US doesn’t need bases in Greenland to support or enhance this kind of nuclear deterrence in any case. That’s because America now has more than a dozen satellites in geostationary orbit that can actual do the job far more effective by detecting any Oreshnik missile launch within seconds of lift-off due to the intense heat from the rocket boosters.

This system is called the US “Space-Based Infrared System” (SBIRS). It is designed for near-real-time global coverage, spotting a missile launch “as soon as it’s off the pad” via infrared sensors in geostationary (GEO) and highly elliptical (HEO) orbits. Given the 4,000 to 5,000 kilometer distance between the US and the nearest Russian launch sites, the President would have plenty of time – 23-30 minutes – to authorize the massive retaliatory strikes that are already pre-programmed and which thereby keep the peace under MAD.

To be sure, a comprehensive international nuclear disarmament arrangement would be far, far preferable, and would finally lift the Nuclear Sword of Damocles from the heads of mankind. But until then, MAD is the only real nuclear defense available – so the very last thing that Washington should be doing is actively attempting to destabilize MAD with a massive military spending increase and something as fantastical as the Golden Dome.

The latter, in fact, would drastically undermine America’s nuclear security because ever since the 1950s clear thinkers have fully understood that the availability of a total ABM shield is dangerously destabilizing. That’s because it could induce a foreign adversary to believe that Washington was capable of a Nuclear First Strike, owing to an anti-missile shield that could blunt any retaliatory second strike. And, therefore, such an adversary could conclude that it had no choice except to launch its own preemptive First Strike.

Avoidance of that destabilizing risk was the very foundation of Nixon’s ABM treaty with the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. And it is only the inveterate warhawks, neocons and arms contractors who have ever questioned it.

So to fully appreciate the marginality of Thule, it is essential to delve deeper into the mechanics of nuclear deterrence and the triad’s structure. Deterrence theory, pioneered by thinkers like Thomas Schelling in the post-World War II era, posits that stability arises from the rational calculation of costs and benefits. An adversary must believe that the U.S. can absorb a first strike and still deliver unacceptable punishment.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the U.S. nuclear triad is designed exactly to that deterrence purpose and comprises a brilliantly diversified arsenal of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. Among these, the sea-based component, particularly the approximately 1,000 warheads deployed across the Ohio-class submarines scattered in the vasty ocean deeps, represents the most survivable and thus the most potent element of deterrence.

The land-based leg of the triad, consisting of about 400 Minuteman III ICBMs housed in hardened silos across states like Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming, serves as a rapid-response force. These missiles can launch within minutes of an order, providing a “prompt” capability that pressures enemies to think twice. And although their fixed locations make them vulnerable to precision strikes, they do force an attacker to allocate significant warheads to ensure destruction—hence their role as a “sponge” to dilute enemy resources.

The air-based component, including the stealthy B-2 Spirit bombers (20 in service) and the aging but versatile B-52 Stratofortress (76 total, with about 44 nuclear-capable), adds flexibility. Bombers can be recalled mid-flight, offering a de-escalation option, and carry gravity bombs or cruise missiles like the AGM-86 ALCM.

Finally, the 14 Ohio-class SSBNs, each displacing 18,750 tons submerged and capable of continuous patrols lasting 70-90 days, form the triad’s “invisible hand.” Typically, @10-12 are at sea at any time, patrolling vast ocean basins where detection is near-impossible due to acoustic stealth, deep diving (up to 800 feet), and unpredictable routes.

Each boat carries 20 Trident II D5 missiles (down from actual capability of 24 under New START treaty limits), and each missile can deliver 4-5 warheads on average, yielding roughly 80-100 warheads per sub. Multiplied across the deployed fleet, this equates to about 1,000 warheads ready for launch at any point in time – enough to obliterate hundreds of targets with yields from 100 kilotons (W76) to 475 kilotons (W88) per warhead.

The Ohio-class’s survivability is incontestable: Subs like the USS Henry M. Jackson or USS Alabama can remain undetected for months, emerging only for resupply. In an enemy launched first-strike scenario, even if ICBM silos are cratered and bombers downed, these “boomers” ensure retaliation. A single sub could target major cities like Moscow or Beijing, inflicting casualties in the tens of millions and crippling infrastructure.

In short, this “assured second strike” is what deters and keeps the nuclear peace: No foreign leader would risk it, knowing their own personal survival is at stake. In this robust framework, Thule’s radar – scanning for incoming threats over the Arctic – offers only a tiny layer of enhancement, if any at all.

To be sure, the remnants of the Greenland matters crowd, who somehow got their vestigial arguments to the Donald, argue that the Thule capability bolsters deterrence by enabling “launch on warning” (LOW). Thule’s data is presumed to be crucial for verification – distinguishing real attacks from false alarms or decoys.

However, the existing space-based SBIRS system with 6 GEO satellites and 4 in HEO, plus backups from the Defense Support Program (DSP) and emerging HBTSS/PWSA constellations (totaling 10-15 active early warning birds), offer “birth-to-death” tracking. That is, from plume detection to reentry. Upgrades, such as adding AI for trajectory prediction or expanding to 100+ LEO sensors, could further refine this at costs far below Greenland’s price tag.

To repeat, hypersonic missiles, like Russia’s Kinzhal (Mach 10+) or China’s DF-17 (Mach 5+ with glide vehicles), could strike Greenland from thousands of miles away in under 15 minutes, while maneuvering to dodge defenses. A salvo of 5-10 such weapons – launched from bombers, subs, or ground sites – could thus saturate Thule, destroying its radar arrays, runways, and support infrastructure before any meaningful alert is issued.

Finally, the financial argument seals the case against Thule. Acquiring Greenland – “Trump’s Ice Box” – for even $50 billion would buy access to Thule but not resolve any of its self-evident vulnerabilities. Instead, bolstering satellites offers far better bang for the buck.

Upgrading the current 10-15 dedicated warning satellite to Next-Gen OPIR (5 new GEO birds by 2028) and PWSA Tranche 1 (28+ LEO sensors) could cost $15-25 billion over several years, thereby providing resilient, global coverage immune to fixed-base risks. These enhancements – adding hypersonic tracking via multi-spectral sensors or AI analytics – would eclipse Thule’s capabilities, freeing resources for triad modernization (e.g., Columbia-class subs).

In short, for pure nuclear security, annexing Greenland would amount to hideous overkill, save for the fact that it might actually destroy NATO once and for all!

Still, if deterrence holds, satellites suffice; if it fails, Thule’s a goner anyway.

As it happens, the average annual cost of the nation’s triad deterrent is estimated by CBO at $75 billion per year or only a tiny fraction of the existing bloated $1.0 trillion defense budget – to say nothing of the Donald’s plan for an utterly insensible increase to $1.5 trillion per year.

And even if you throw in another $400 billion for defense of America’s coast lines and air space against an utterly inconceivable conventional attack by a 21st century Spanish Armada, the most generous estimate of a true Fortress America defense budget is about $500 billion per year.

What his means, of course, is that the Donald is fixing to waste a trillion dollars per year that Uncle Sam absolutely doesn’t have and shouldn’t ever get in order to fund the multiple equivalents of this “Trump Icebox” in the Arctic.

And that would be pure, unhinged madness, if there ever was such a thing.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution FailedThe Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back, and the recently released Great Money Bubble: Protect Yourself From The Coming Inflation Storm. He also is founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner and David Stockman’s Bubble Finance Trader.

I Used to Be a Critic of the Two-Party System – Now I Wish We Had One


I am told that if I don’t like what “my government” is doing, I should write “my representative.” So I dropped Senator Adam Schiff a note about the US war on Venezuela.

The senator’s reply, with my translations of his Washington-speak (in italics) provided in brackets, is as follows:

I have been opposing the administration’s unlawful use of force against targets [a sovereign country] in the region…the U.S…conducted an operation [act of war] on January 2-3, 2026, to capture [kidnap] the illegitimate [lawful] leader [president] of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro is a thug [not Trump] who has terrorized and oppressed [defended] the Venezuelan people for far too long [Trump should have done it sooner], and he will now face trial in a New York [foreign jurisdiction] court.

The senator then criticized Trump’s “military action” – aggression, by any other name – for lacking congressional approval, noting that it was problematic because it “risks embroiling us in another war.” This concern, however, does not extend to US war actions in Palestine and Ukraine, which Schiff finds especially wonderful – along with Iran, Nigeria, Iraq, Somalia, etc.

Last year, Schiff sponsored a War Powers resolution to block US “boat strikes” without explicit congressional authorization. It failed. More recently, he joined Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul in advancing yet another War Powers resolution requiring congressional approval for future actions.

The resolution is purely symbolic. It must pass the Senate, the House, and then receive Trump’s signature. This theater allows Democrats to strike a pose of disapproval toward Trump while continuing to support bipartisan regime-change aggression against Venezuela.

Schiff and company are not genuinely interested in international law. They fully support unilateral coercive measures designed to strangle (“pressure” in Washington-speak) the Venezuelan economy. This illegal form of collective punishment, euphemistically called “sanctions,” has resulted in more than 100,000 excess deaths in Venezuela, according to a UN special rapporteur.

But Venezuelan deaths, like Palestinian ones, remain invisible to respectable lawmakers.

Schiff’s letter lauds “US service members [who] conducted the operation with great skill and courage.” Yet the senator does not acknowledge the bravery – let alone the supreme sacrifice – of the roughly 100 killed in Venezuela defending against a military force orders of magnitude greater than their own.

The “targeted” bombing killed civilians along with Venezuelan and Cuban military personnel. According to reports from Venezuela, the sites targeted included dialysis medication warehouses of the Venezuelan Social Security Institute, scientific facilities at the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research, key power plants supplying Caracas, and residential neighborhoods.

What Schiff and his colleagues are really upset about is that Trump committed a splendid act of war and didn’t let them share in the glory. Both parties demonize Nicolás Maduro with moral fervor, justifying his kidnapping. Never mind that, under international law, a sitting head of state enjoys immunity regardless of how unpleasant Washington finds him.

The partisan charade boils down to a question of appearances. For Democrats, Trump is not guilty of war crimes so much as bad manners, crassly admitting that he is after the oil. Better to put lipstick on the pig and claim the empire is “promoting democracy.”

All the whining is about Congress being left out of the action. Democrats are apoplectic about not getting to see the unedited snuff videos of the US blowing up small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.

Adding insult to injury, Trump boasted that he notified oil company executives but not the people’s so-called representatives in Congress before attacking Venezuela. And that makes perfect sense in a system dedicated to serving corporate interests rather than voters.

Once upon a time, there existed a species in Congress known as a “liberal,” who favored peace over endless wars of imperial domination. Dennis Kucinich was one of the last of that breed. Before losing his seat in 2013 for insufficient bloodlust, he challenged presidents Clinton over Serbia, Bush over Iraq, and Obama over Libya.

Kucinich deserves recognition though not commendation. He simply reflected public opinion, which opposed these imperial adventures. Today, roughly 70% oppose the US war on Venezuela. Congress does not.

Now relegated to posting on Substack, Kucinich warns: “The long-term consequences of US actions in Venezuela demolish laws which hold together the United States, and the International legal order. This is not academic. The US Constitution and the UN Charter must not become confetti showering an authoritarian fantasy victory parade.”

His remedy is simple: cut funding for unauthorized wars and enforce the law in court. If we had an actual two-party system, this might happen. Instead, as Kucinich puts it, the US empire has “set the stage for a war of all against all.”

Roger D. Harris is a founding member of the Venezuela Solidarity Network and is active with the Task Force on the Americas and the SanctionsKill Campaign. The author is currently trying to find a way to visit Venezuela with flights from the US cancelled. Read other articles by Roger.