Friday, October 20, 2023

Climate Campaigners Celebrate Cancellation of Multistate Carbon Capture Pipeline

"Cause of death: citizen activism informed by science."



Campaigners gather to protest a carbon capture pipeline planned by the company Navigator CO2.
(Photo: @EmmaSchmidt94/Twitter)


JULIA CONLEY
Oct 20, 2023

Climate action advocates and scientists joined residents of five Midwestern states in applauding Friday after a Nebraska firm canceled plans to build a carbon pipeline across five states, following outcry from the public and opponents of "dangerous, wasteful" carbon capture schemes.

Navigator CO2 Ventures said it was abandoning plans to build the $3.5 billion, 1,300-mile Heartland Greenway pipeline project—whose backers included investment firm BlackRock and Valero Energy—after South Dakota regulators denied a permit.

The company cited "the unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved," but advocates in the five states that would have been affected credited grassroots campaigning, including by residents who spoke out against the company's plan to potentially use eminent domain to gain access to land.

"As soon as Iowans learned about CO2 pipelines we knew these were not pipelines we wanted in our communities," said Susan and Jerry Stoefen, members of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. "Iowans organized to be heard: 'No CO2 Pipelines, No Eminent Domain!' Now is the time for Iowans to find reals solutions to reducing CO2 emissions that don't degrade our land, water, and air."



One Iowa resident summed up the victory as, "A bunch of elderly farmers without internet just took down BlackRock."

Along with Iowa and Nebraska, the pipeline would have cut through parts of South Dakota, Minnesota, and Illinois, where Navigator CO2 planned to store liquefied carbon deep underground after capturing it and transporting it from 18 ethanol plants owned by Poet, the world's largest ethanol producer, and Iowa Fertilizer Company.

The company is one of three firms that have planned to build carbon capture pipelines in the Midwest, promoting what climate advocates and scientists have decried as an energy-intensive, unproven false solution that diverts focus away from efforts to slash fossil fuel emissions and transition to renewable energy.


Summit Carbon Solutions and Wolf Carbon Solutions also have pipeline proposals, but Summit announced Thursday it was delaying construction of its $5.5 billion project by two years until 2026, citing permit denials similar to Navigator's.

U.S. President Joe Biden has made carbon capture a focus of his climate plans, announcing an investment of up to $1.2 billion for two major direct-air carbon capture facilities in Texas and Louisiana earlier this year.

"While the federal government keeps trying to waste billions of dollars to promote these massive carbon pipelines, grassroots organizing is winning the fight to stop these egregious handouts to corporate polluters," said Emily Wurth, managing director of organizing for Food & Water Watch. "These carbon pipelines will not reduce emissions—they are dangerous, wasteful schemes to prolong and expand polluting industries. Instead of throwing away money supporting polluters, the government should invest in proven clean energy solutions, not carbon capture pipe dreams."

In addition to warning that carbon capture is a false solution to the climate crisis, critics warned that a rupture of a pipeline carrying highly pressurized CO2—an asphyxiant—could pose a major public health threat to nearby communities, as one accident did in the town of Sartartia, Mississippi in 2021.

Both Summit and Navigator initially warned residents living in areas that would be affected by the pipelines that they could resort to eminent domain—a legal process by which companies can gain access to land when a landowner refuses to grant it—and Summit has already pursued dozens of eminent domain orders for its proposed pipeline.

Although Navigator has not yet pursued the actions, the company's vice president of government and public affairs, Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, said at a public debate in August that it couldn't guarantee eminent domain wouldn't be used to complete Heartland Greenway.

Biologist Sandra Steingraber, a vocal critic of carbon capture schemes, celebrated the demise of the proposed pipeline, whose "cause of death," she said, was "citizen activism informed by science."



"Piping pressurized supercritical CO2 all over creation," said Steingraber, "endangers people, destroys farmland, [and] does nothing meaningful for the climate."

Earlier this month, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.) led a call for Biden to place a moratorium on federal permitting for CO2 pipelines, citing public health concerns.

Local Leaders, Climate Groups Blast FERC Approval of Fracked Gas Pipeline Expansion


"This irresponsible decision will have implications on the health and well-being of communities, as well as lasting impact on generations to come," warned one campaigner.



Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee speaks prior to U.S. President Joe Biden at Green River College in Auburn on April 22, 2022.
(Photo: Karen Ducey/Getty Images)

JESSICA CORBETT
Oct 19, 2023

Elected officials and environmental advocates in the Pacific Northwest on Thursday condemned U.S. regulators for greenlighting a Canadian company's fracked gas pipeline expansion project despite the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved TC Energy's Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN) XPress Project, which would upgrade compressor stations in Kootenai County, Idaho; Sherman County, Oregon; and Walla Walla County, Washington.

"Today's decision by FERC flies in the face of what is morally and economically necessary to protect our communities from the worsening impacts of climate change," declared Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee. "The federal government has finally begun making tremendous climate investments under the Inflation Reduction Act, but this decision essentially digs the hole deeper and locks in long-term capital investments that prevent us from reaching our national and state goals."

Along with Inslee, political opponents of the project include Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek; U.S. Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.); and U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

"Expanding this fossil fuel pipeline for 50 years—until 2073—saddles our children and their children with climate harm and fossil fuel costs," Inslee warned. "This fight isn't over. I'm thankful for the aligned efforts of Gov. Kotek, our senators, and our West Coast attorneys general to make clear why this pipeline is a dangerous detour on our path away from fossil fuels. We are more resolved than ever to keep this pipeline from increasing fossil fuel use."



Advocacy groups are also determined to prevent the expansion.

"FERC failed to listen to senators, governors, state attorneys general, tribes, and the public in its rubber stamp of unnecessary fracked gas in the Northwest," stressed Columbia Riverkeeper staff attorney Audrey Leonard. "The commission's decision violates the public interest and common sense, and we will file a petition for rehearing challenging this project."

"Since the analysis for this project was published, two major TC Energy pipelines have failed, causing safety hazards and spilling fossil fuel," Leonard noted. "If this were to happen in dry, rural, fire-prone lands or in the residential areas where TC Energy's GTN pipeline is located, it would be catastrophic."

Satya Austin-Opper of 350 Deschutes in Oregon stressed that "the GTN Xpress proposal would lock in a huge new influx of fracked gas for decades at the very moment that our communities are experiencing accelerated climate change impacts such as frequent drought and summers of smoke."

"And this pipeline runs right through our community," Austin-Opper continued, also noting the company's recent history. "I'm worried about how devastating the impact would be if the pipeline were to fail, which is certainly a possibility given the unsafe track record of TC Energy's other aging pipelines."



Oil Change International U.S. program co-manager Allie Rosenbluth argued that "with this decision to approve the GTN Xpress expansion, the Biden administration is again failing on its promises to protect environmental justice communities and the climate."

The FERC decision follows a historically hot summer that led United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres to caution that "climate breakdown has begun" and the European Copernicus Climate Change Service's announcement earlier this month that 2023 is on track to be the warmest year ever recorded.


"Any expansion of fossil fuels is incompatible with a livable future," Rosenbluth asserted. "Oregon and Washington must continue to rise to the challenge and safeguard the health and well-being of communities and the climate by challenging FERC's approval of this unnecessary and dangerous gas expansion."

Leaders from Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in both states also highlighted the health impacts of the project.

"FERC's alarming decision to approve the GTN Xpress Project blatantly disregards concerns from community advocates and hundreds of health professionals in Oregon and within our region," said David De La Torre of Oregon PSR. "This irresponsible decision will have implications on the health and well-being of communities, as well as lasting impact on generations to come."

"As wildfires and extreme heat events continue to increase in frequency, straining health services and the well-being of Oregonians, it is imperative that we not continue to approve proposals that accelerate the climate crisis," he added. "We don't need more fracked gas being pumped through our state and communities."
Sanders Blocks GOP Push to Make US Humanitarian Aid to Gaza Impossible

"While we do our best to support Israel and destroy Hamas, please, let us not turn our back on the suffering people in Gaza."




JESSICA CORBETT
Oct 18, 2023

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sandes on Wednesday blocked passage of Republican legislation that he warned would worsen the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, which has been bombarded by Israeli forces for the past 12 days in retaliation for a major Hamas attack.

Sanders (I-Vt.) objected to an attempt by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) to pass by unanimous consent his Stop Taxpayer Funding of Hamas Act, which would prohibit aid to Gaza until the president certifies to congressional committees that the funds won't benefit members of Hamas or any other organization the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist group.

As Scott's office highlighted in a statement when he introduced the bill earlier this year, it would also ensure that "U.S. funds are not authorized for expenditure in the territory of Gaza through any United Nations entity or office that the president cannot certify is not encouraging or teaching anti-Israel and antisemitic ideas and propaganda."

Speaking on the Senate floor for six-and-half minutes on Wednesday, Sanders condemned "the barbarous attack" by Hamas that left over 1,400 Israelis dead and affirmed that "the state of Israel has the absolute right to defend itself against Hamas and terrorism in general."

Recent Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 3,478 Palestinians and devastated civilian infrastructure in Gaza—of which Hamas seized control in 2007. Israel has imposed a blockade of the occupied Palestinian territory since then and announced a "complete siege" following Hamas' October 7 attack, cutting off 2.3 million people from basic necessities. The Israeli operation has sparked claims of genocide.


Sanders urged fellow senators to recognize that "right now there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza who have lost their homes... They have no food. They have the water. They have no fuel... Half of those people are children."



Before this war, "Gaza was one of the most desperately poor places in the world," the senator stressed. "What our country must not be involved in is making the horrific and miserable situation in Gaza even worse."

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is now sheltering more than 513,000 Palestinians, or about a fourth of Gaza's entire population, at U.N. facilities across the 140-square-mile strip that "are overcrowded and have very limited supplies of food, hygiene, and cleaning supplies and potable water." The shelters have also been impacted by Israeli bombings.

"We have got to do everything that we can to make sure that not one nickel goes to the murderous Hamas organization. But at the same time we have got to stand with the innocent women and children in Palestine who are suffering today and are facing an almost unprecedented modern humanitarian disaster," Sanders argued. "Today, in the midst of this crisis, U.S. and U.N. assistance in Gaza is aimed squarely at addressing the basic needs of the Palestinian people, including humanitarian aid and water and health programs."

Noting the long history of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the senator—who said a few years ago that he is "proud to be Jewish" but "not actively involved in organized religion" and briefly lived in Israel in the 1960s—added that "this is a tough issue. There have been four wars in the last 15 years. It ain't gonna be solved tomorrow. But while we do our best to support Israel and destroy Hamas, please, let us not turn our back on the suffering people in Gaza. This is not what we should be doing, not what Congress should be doing, and therefore I object."



Sanders pointed out the lengths to which the U.S., U.N., and others already go to ensure that humanitarian aid is not diverted to groups such as Hamas, and highlighted that some assistance may finally get into Gaza soon, after pressure from the United States—which provides Israel with $3.8 billion in annual military support.

Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden said in Israel on Wednesday that "I asked the Israeli cabinet—who I met with for some time this morning—to agree to the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. Based on the understanding that there will be inspections and that the aid should go to civilians, not to Hamas, Israel agreed that humanitarian assistance can begin to move from Egypt to Gaza."

The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that "in light of President Biden's request, Israel will not prevent the flow of humanitarian aid from Egypt as long as it is food, water, and medical supplies for the Palestinian population in the southern Gaza Strip and as long as it doesn't go to Hamas. Any aid diverted to Hamas will be prevented."


The White House also announced that through trusted partners including U.N. agencies, "the United States is providing $100 million in humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank" which "will help support over a million displaced and conflict-affected people with clean water, food, hygiene support, medical care, and other essential needs."


The Biden administration has come under fire for reportedly discouraging the use of terms such as "de-escalation/cease-fire," and not strongly and publicly pressuring Israeli forces to not kill civilians in Gaza, including Palestinian Americans who are still there.

Hundreds of Jewish Americans and allies were arrested at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday during a protest demanding members of Congress push for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, which followed similar arrests at the White House earlier this week.

US Urged to Not Give Israel Any More Weapons for War Crimes in Gaza

"The U.S. should use diplomatic channels to work for an immediate cease-fire," said the National Priorities Project, discouraging "more weapons and military aid that would further inflame an unjust and illegal response."



Protesters demonstrate against the Israeli military bombardment of Gaza in front of the White House in Washington, D.C. on October 20, 2023.
(Photo: Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images)


JESSICA CORBETT
Oct 20, 2023

With more than 4,100 Palestinians and 1,400 Israelis already dead as Israel bombards the Gaza Strip in retaliation for a surprise attack led by Hamas, progressive groups on Friday pushed back against U.S. President Joe Biden's effort to further arm Israel.

"In the face of massive suffering in Gaza and disregard for international law by the Israeli government, the U.S. must not provide additional military aid or weapons that would cause more deaths," the National Priorities Project (NPP) at the Institute for Policy Studies said, demanding that U.S. use its diplomatic power to push for a cease-fire.

"The Israeli military's onslaught on Gaza has not protected civilians. It has instead targeted them," NPP asserted, pointing out that while cutting off Palestinians in the Hamas-governed territory from essentials like food, water, medicine, and electricity, Israel has bombed residential, religious, medical, and educational buildings over the past two weeks.



Already, the United States provides Israel with $3.8 billion in annual military aid. After visiting Tel Aviv earlier this week, Biden confirmed in a Thursday night speech that on Friday he would "send to Congress an urgent budget request to fund America's national security needs, to support our critical partners, including Israel and Ukraine."

The administration's $106 billion supplemental funding request includes $61.4 billion for Ukraine—which is battling a Russian invasion—$14.3 billion for Israel, and $9.15 billion for humanitarian aid to both countries plus Gaza. It also seeks $13.6 billion for the U.S. southern border and $4 billion to counter Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

"The billions of dollars that have been proposed for Israeli military aid are needed elsewhere," argued NPP. "Whether for international humanitarian aid or underfunded programs for U.S. residents, our resources should be supporting life, peace, and justice, not war and vengeance."

"The suffering of Israeli civilians in the attacks of October 7 does not justify collective punishment of Palestinian civilians," NPP stressed. "The U.S. must not support these violations of international law or of U.S. law, which prohibits funding foreign military forces engaged in human rights abuses. Instead, the U.S. should use diplomatic channels to work for an immediate cease-fire to protect civilians. It should not provide more weapons and military aid that would further inflame an unjust and illegal response."



Legal experts with the U.S-based Center for Constitutional Rights warned Biden this week that "the United States is not only failing to uphold its obligation to prevent the commission of genocide, but there is a plausible and credible case to be made that the United States' actions to further the Israeli military operation, closure, and campaign against the Palestinian population in Gaza rise to the level of complicity in the crime under international law."

As a potential Israeli ground invasion of Gaza loomed, Amnesty International on Friday shared what it described as "damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families" in the besieged territory, while also calling on Palestinian militants including Hamas to release their estimated 200 hostages.

Throughout this week, progressives U.S. lawmakers and congressional staffers have joined people across the United States and beyond—including many Jewish individuals and groups—in calling for a cease-fire. Polling results released Friday by Data for Progress show that 66% of likely voters agree that "the U.S. should call for a cease-fire and de-escalation of violence in Gaza" and "leverage its close diplomatic relationship with Israel to prevent further violence and civilian deaths."



In response to the president's Thursday night speech, Working Families Party federal affairs director Natalia Salgado declared Friday that "the role of the United States should be to use diplomacy to work toward peace, not fanning the flames of violence," which "means pushing for an immediate cease-fire and working to free the hostages."

Citing the "growing number of Jews, Muslims, and people of all faiths standing together against further bloodshed," including U.S. lawmakers who have called for a cease-fire, Salgado said: "We encourage more to speak up. And we call on members of Congress to oppose unconditional military aid."

"There is no military solution to this conflict, and there never has been," she added. "Stop the fighting. Release the hostages. End the siege and the occupation."
'For Shame': Pfizer to Charge $1,390 for Lifesaving Covid Drug That Costs Just $13

"Pfizer treats Paxlovid like a Prada handbag; a luxury for the few rather than a treatment for the many," said one consumer advocate.


BRETT WILKINS
Oct 19, 2023

U.S. consumer watchdog Public Citizen on Thursday excoriated Pfizer after the pharmaceutical giant announced it would more than double the price of a lifesaving Covid-19 treatment, which will soon sell for an estimated 100 times the cost of production.

Pfizer said Wednesday that it will price its patented Covid treatment nirmatrelvir-ritonavir—sold under the brand name Paxlovid—at $1,390 for a five-day course. Researchers Melissa J. Barber and Dzintars Gotham recently estimated it costs Pfizer $13 to produce five days' worth of the drug, which is taken in three-pill doses.

"Pfizer's new price is an estimated 100 times the cost of production," Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's Access to Medicines program, said in a statement.

"Pfizer chose to double its U.S. price just as pandemic funding falters and the precarious winter viral season begins."

It's also more than 2.5 times the federal government's purchase price for Paxlovid. The government has bought and distributed the antiviral drug to the public free of charge since December 2021, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the treatment. Starting next year, Pfizer will sell Paxlovid directly to health insurance companies.

"Pfizer has made tens of billions in Paxlovid sales, largely through major government purchases," Maybarduk noted. "Pfizer could choose now to support the fight against Covid and ease treatment access by lowering its already inflated prices."

"Instead, Pfizer chose to double its U.S. price just as pandemic funding falters and the precarious winter viral season begins," he continued. "This will strain health budgets and contribute to further treatment rationing."


"Pfizer treats Paxlovid like a Prada handbag; a luxury for the few rather than a treatment for the many," Maybarduk added. "For shame."

Medical professionals and patient advocates have voiced concerns that increasing the price of Paxlovid could leave at-risk people without access to the lifesaving drug, which is proven to reduce the risk of death or severe illness from Covid-19 for patients with weakened immune systems or ailments like diabetes and heart conditions.

News of the Paxlovid price hike came a day after Public Citizen and the Health Global Access Project (Health GAP) published an analysis revealing that more than 8 million people with high-risk Covid-19 infections in low- and middle-income nations could not access the drug last year, leaving over 90% of the need for the treatment unmet.



"At a minimum, 10 times more people needed Paxlovid than had any chance to receive it in developing countries, and that almost certainly significantly understates the problem," Maybarduk said on Tuesday.

In addition to Paxlovid, Pfizer manufactures one of the two available mRNA vaccines for Covid-19. The company reported $56 billion in sales of its Covid-19 vaccine and Paxlovid last year. However, projecting a sales slump in 2023, Pfizer late last year announced a plan to significantly hike the price of its publicly funded Covid-19 shot.


Pfizer reported profits of $31.4 billion in 2022, a 43% increase over the previous year. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla took home $33 million in compensation last year, a 36% raise from 2021.
Verified Twitter Users Push Majority of Israel-Hamas War Misinformation

NewsGuard says 74% of accounts pushing false claims about the Israel-Hamas war are verified by Twitter.

 Elon Musk responds by attacking NewsGuard as a 'scam' and calling for it to be shut down.


by Michael Kan |Oct 20, 2023

(Photo Illustration by Avishek Das/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The most popular posts on Twitter/X that are pushing misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war are largely coming from verified accounts, according to a new study.

The report comes from NewsGuard, a company that produces tools to identify misinformation. The group looked at 250 of the most popular posts on Twitter that have promoted a prominent falsehood or unsubstantiated claim about the Israel-Hamas war.


“The results revealed that 186 out of these 250 posts—74%—were posted by accounts verified by X,” NewsGuard says.

Misinformation shared by the verified accounts include unsubstantiated or false claims that Ukraine sold weapons to Hamas, that Israel has killed 33,000 Palestinian children since 2008, and that a White House memo shows the US government approved $8 billion in aid to Israel.


"Collectively, posts advancing these myths received 1,349,979 engagements and were cumulatively viewed by more than 100 million times globally in just one week," the report says

.
(Credit: NewsGuard)

According to NewsGuard, the study underscores how the verified badge on Twitter can now be easily abused to become falsehood “superspreaders." Until recently, Twitter was relatively careful in distributing the verified badge to major celebrities, politicians, activists, experts, and journalists. But following Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, the platform stripped legacy verified accounts of their blue checkmarks and allowed anyone to purchase one for $8 per month.

In addition, Twitter/X boosts the visibility of users who buy access to the verified badge. The company will also share revenue with verified users when their posts go viral, giving bad actors incentive to share sensational claims in return for clicks.

To stop misinformation, Twitter uses Community Notes, a crowdsourced method to fact-check viral posts. However, NewsGuard says the company fails to consistently apply Community Notes on the top posts containing misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war.

In an example, NewsGuard said: “X attached a Community Note to only one of the top 25 posts advancing the unsubstantiated claim that Israel has killed 33,000 Palestinian children since 2008, and to just four of the top 25 posts promoting the false claim that a White House memo revealed the US was sending $8 billion in military aid to Israel.”
(Credit: NewsGuard)

The study from NewsGuard arrives amid mounting criticism that Twitter has become a hotbed for misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war, thanks to the company’s own policies. But for now, Elon Musk is attacking NewsGuard as a scam while his followers are accusing the group of pushing for censorship over free speech.

“Disband Newsguard!” he wrote on Thursday. “Anything with a name that sounds like it came out of an Orwell novel should never be trusted.”


About Michael Kan

I've been with PCMag since October 2017, covering a wide range of topics, including consumer electronics, cybersecurity, social media, networking, and gaming. Prior to working at PCMag, I was a foreign correspondent in Beijing for over five years, covering the tech scene in Asia.

Russia is closely monitoring US nuclear test in Nevada, Putin's spokesperson says

Russian state media says underground activity in Nevada should be given an 'international legal assessment'

 By Greg Norman Fox News
Published October 20, 2023 

Putin seen accompanied by soldiers with alleged nuclear briefcase

Russian state run media is reporting Friday that the Kremlin is closely monitoring a high-explosive experiment that the U.S. carried out this week at a nuclear test site in Nevada.

Wednesday's test used chemicals and radioisotopes to "validate new predictive explosion models" that can help detect atomic blasts in other countries, Bloomberg reported, citing the Department of Energy.

The Interfax News Agency said Friday that Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters at a briefing that Russia is now closely monitoring the situation.

"Earlier, the Federation Council [of the Federal Assembly of Russia] stated that the underground tests on October 18 in Nevada should be given an international legal assessment, since the United States is a signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and is obliged to refrain from violating this agreement," Interfax also reported.

US CONDUCTS NUCLEAR TEST IN NEVADA HOURS AFTER RUSSIAN MOVE TO REVOKE GLOBAL TEST BAN




The P tunnel in Area 12 of the Nevada National Security Site in Nevada. The U.S. conducted a high-explosive experiment at a nuclear test site in Nevada on Wednesday. (National Nuclear Security Administration)

Corey Hinderstein, deputy administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in a statement, "These experiments advance our efforts to develop new technology in support of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation goals."

"They will help reduce global nuclear threats by improving the detection of underground nuclear explosive tests," he added.

The U.S. test is notable because of its timing. Russian lawmakers have announced their intention to revoke their ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

PUTIN SPOTTED IN CHINA WITH NUCLEAR BRIEFCASE NEARBY IN RARE FOOTAGE: REPORT


Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov is seen in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in June 2023. (Getty Images)

A bill will go to the Russian upper house, the Federation Council, which will consider it next week. Federation Council lawmakers have already said they will support the bill.

The treaty, adopted in 1996, bans all nuclear explosions anywhere in the world, although it has never fully entered into force. In addition to the U.S., it is yet to be ratified by China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Iran and Egypt.


Russia is closely monitoring the U.S. test, the spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday. (ALEXANDER KAZAKOV/SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images)

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had said last week that Moscow will continue to respect the ban and will only resume nuclear tests if Washington does so first.

Fox News’ Louis Casiano and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Israel war: Kremlin threatens nuclear war after Biden compares Russia to Hamas
WASHINGTON EXAMINER
October 20, 2023 


President Joe Biden angered Kremlin officials by comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hamas in a foreign policy address that drew a parallel between their respective objectives in Ukraine and Israel.

"We do not accept such a tone towards Russia and towards our president,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday, per Russian state media.


Peskov attempted a tone of restrained rebuke, but one of his more prominent Kremlin colleagues adopted another pose. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, whom Biden quoted to make the case that Putin “won’t limit himself just to Ukraine” if he perceives a NATO ally as vulnerable, responded with a broadside against American support for Ukraine and Israel, which he implied would lead to nuclear war.

“Biden called money that should be spent on the death of other people far from the United States a ‘smart investment.’ We are talking about the acquisition of additional weapons worth tens of billions for Ukraine and Israel,” Medvedev, who is the Security Council of Russia's deputy chairman, wrote on social media, according to an unofficial translation. “And the quantity of weapons supplied will sooner or later translate into quality. High-explosive fragmentation, cumulative, incendiary and volumetric detonating charges will turn into nuclear charges.”

Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman and the head of the United Russia party Dmitry Medvedev (right) meets with military personnel who have entered into a contract with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation at the Polivna training ground in Ulyanovsk, Russia, on Oct. 5, 2023.
(Ekaterina Shtukina, Sputnik Pool Photo via AP)

Biden suggested the Hamas terrorist attack that ignited Israel’s war in Gaza “echoes” Putin’s attempt to overthrow the Ukrainian government.

“Hamas and Putin represent different threats, but they share this in common: They both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy — completely annihilate it,” Biden said. “Hamas — its stated purpose for existing is the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of Jewish people. ... Meanwhile, Putin denies Ukraine has or ever had real statehood. He claims the Soviet Union created Ukraine.”

That comparison is gaining traction in European Union circles, as well.

“Russia and Hamas are alike,” EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. “Both have deliberately sought out innocent civilians, including babies and children, to kill and take hostage. This is a barbaric way to fight. And left unchecked, this contagion has the potential to spread from Europe across the Middle East and to the Indo-Pacific.”

Those dovetailing addresses mount a trans-Atlantic argument that Western aid to Ukraine and Israel serves the security interests of the U.S. and its allies. Biden quoted Putin and Medvedev to make that case while calling for Congress to authorize the provision of additional military aid to both countries.

“Putin has already threatened to ‘remind’ — quote, ‘remind’ Poland that their western land was a gift from Russia,” Biden said, before citing Medvedev. “One of his top advisers, a former president of Russia, has called Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania Russia’s 'Baltic provinces.' These are all NATO allies.”

Medvedev, who said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s suspicion of Orthodox priests in Ukraine who are under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church was motivated by “cocaine and Satanism,” insisted that American support for both countries would result in the destruction of both.

"The Intifada will be eternal,” he wrote, referring to Palestinian terrorism. “The Church [in Ukraine] will be reborn, but through the blood and suffering of the civil war.”

Peskov, for his part, condemned the “emotion” of Biden’s rhetoric. “There is a lot of emotion in the speeches of various politicians, including high-ranking politicians and statesmen,” the Kremlin spokesman said. “But such rhetoric is hardly appropriate for responsible leaders.”

 

As New Nuclear Dangers Emerge: A Look Back at Cuban Missile Crisis

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

A little change of pace today, as we look back 61 years this week to the beginnings of the gravest nuclear crisis of our era, involving JFK, Castro, and Soviet missiles in Cuba. Ah, I remember it well. The below focuses on the not-so-extensively covered very early stages. It is an excerpt from my 2016 bestseller, The Tunnels: Escapes Under the Berlin Wall, which among other things revealed the Kennedy White House trying to kill, that same autumn, one of the most important TV specials ever, from NBC, documenting one of those astounding passages to freedom.

Note: As I have long said, U.S. nuclear “first-use” policy remains in effect today.

October 16, 1962: For over a month, leading Republicans, and a few media pundits, had charged – based on little apparent evidence – that the Soviets were placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. CIA director McCone, a Republican, had privately voiced this fear to the President, who remained skeptical even as he expanded U-2 surveillance of the island. JFK was not alone in feeling that this might turn out to be just another GOP campaign issue that would evaporate after November. Berlin remained his constant concern. He had told Ted Sorensen, “If we solve the Berlin problem without a war, Cuba will look pretty small. And if there is a war, Cuba won’t matter much either.”

As weeks passed, however, a Soviet military buildup continued in Cuba, so Kennedy ordered more careful study, including a U-2 flight directly over the island on October 14. The following day CIA analysts in Washington studied the photos that resulted. New missiles longer than the defensive SAMs seemed to have arrived on the island,. They could only be medium-range, nuclear-capable SS-4s or their cousins. The President was in New York on a campaign trip so McGeorge Bundy waited until the next morning to inform him.

When October 16 dawned, President Kennedy, back in D.C., responded to Bundy’s startling news by calling the first meeting on the confirmed nuclear threat later that morning. The missiles were not yet operational, but soon would be, with the capability to strike at least the southern half of the U.S. mainland. Already JFK was outlining four options: hit just the missile sites; blast them plus other military sites; do all that and also enact a blockade; or all of that plus invade the island. On his note pad he scribbled scraps of words: Prepare. Berlin. Preparatory. Cuba. Preparation. Cuban uprising. prepare. nuclear. Vice President Johnson, more hawkish than nearly anyone, volunteered that massive air strikes could be carried out without even informing Congress or America’s allies. The meeting ended with the Pentagon ordered to study how air strikes and an invasion might proceed.

Robert Kennedy handed his notes on the meeting to the President’s secretary. One read: I now know how Tojo felt when he was planning Pearl Harbor.

At a morning meeting the next day, Undersecretary of State George Ball argued against military action, claiming the Soviet leaders didn’t really understand the gravity of their Cuba move. Ambassador Thompson, back from Moscow, took issue with this, stating that the Soviets’ aim was to force a showdown on Berlin; General Taylor and John McCone agreed with him. Kennedy left for a long-planned meeting with West German foreign minister Gerhard Schroeder. He did not mention Cuba to him, but Kennedy had to wonder: Were the Germans ready for a Soviet retaliatory strike or another Berlin blockade?

The next major meeting on Cuba was convened on the morning of October 18, day three of the crisis. While JFK was away on another campaign trip, aides and military leaders had discussed options, as air strikes – with or without a warning to Khrushchev, and with or without an invasion – gained wide favor. (The military projected 18,500 U.S. casualties in a conventional invasion, but if nuclear weapons were used, General Taylor dryly advised, “there is no experience factor upon which to base an estimate of casualties.”) George Ball responded with a strongly dissenting memo, arguing that air strikes would smack of Pearl Harbor – echoing Bobby Kennedy on this – and turn much of the “civilized world” against America. But some felt that a strong U.S. action on Cuba, rather than jeopardizing our standing in Berlin, would boost our credibility in dealing with the Soviets down the road.

As the October 18 meeting on the crisis proceeded, Kennedy returned to an argument he had made before: that the Soviets, in response to any military attack on Cuba, would likely “just grab Berlin.” Sacrificing a few Cuban missiles for control of all of Berlin would not “bother” the Soviets at all. And once they took the city, “everybody would feel we lost Berlin, because of these missiles.” Bundy cracked a small joke: “If we could trade off Berlin – and not have it our fault….”

Then came a grim exchange after JFK again said that the Soviets, if attacked in Cuba, would probably cross the Berlin border with ground troops.

McNamara: We have U.S. troops there. What do they do?

Gen. Taylor: They fight.

McNamara: They fight. I think that’s perfectly clear.

President Kennedy: And they get overrun.

Robert Kennedy: Then what do we do?

Gen. Taylor: Go to general war, if it’s in the interest of ours.

President Kennedy: You mean nuclear exchange. (Then a brief pause.)

Gen. Taylor: Guess you have to.

The President, therefore, insisted on considering “what action we take which lessens the chances of a nuclear exchange, which obviously is the final failure.” Apocalypse had reared its ugly head, just in time. Henceforth the discussion – led by Rusk, McNamara and Robert Kennedy – shifted in a more dovish direction, towards trying a blockade. The Joint Chiefs opposed this, still favoring a pre-emptive attack, but within minutes a consensus began to coalesce among the non-military aides in the room. A blockade was best, along with a potential concession to scrap our outmoded nuclear missiles in Turkey. In a revealing moment, McNamara virtually pleaded, “I really think we’ve got to think these problems through more than we have.”

At a crucial point in the meeting an unlikely player contributed to the meeting’s change in tone, appealing to Kennedy to insist on a blockade: “Essentially, Mr. President, this is a choice between limited action and unlimited action – and most of us think that it’s better to start with limited action.” The speaker was Roswell Gilpatric, number two man at the Pentagon, who just two months earlier Kennedy himself had fingered as the likely leaker in the Hanson Baldwin case. Gilpatric, seemingly forgiven – and despite his history of leaking secrets to a journalist – had been attending crucial meetings on the missile crisis and joining in the highly classified discussions. (The FBI investigation into both Baldwin and Gilpatric, meanwhile, continued.)

After the meeting broke up, JFK met with Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet foreign minister. Gromyko lied to Kennedy’s face, denying the presence of offensive missiles in Cuba as the President tapped his desk, exercising supreme self-control, knowing that he had photos that proved otherwise in a top drawer.

Near midnight, after everyone had left the Oval Office, the President turned on his taping system to record his summary of this day. Though the crisis revolved around Cuba, much of JFK’s musings still concerned Berlin. He noted Bundy’s warning of “a Soviet reprisal against Berlin” after any U.S. military action. Others felt that failing to take strong action on Cuba would undermine our promises to the West Germans, “divide our allies and our country.” Kennedy concluded: “The consensus was that we should go ahead with the blockade beginning on Sunday night.” If the Soviets did move on Berlin – well, we faced “a crunch” there in a few months, anyway. And a blockade would be a lot less likely to inspire that Soviet reaction than a military assault on Cuba.

Then he went upstairs to sleep on that decision, if he could.

Thanks for reading Oppenheimer: From Hiroshima to Hollywood! 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.