Author Topic: Nuclear War, Germ War, Bio War, Chem War, WMD  (Read 241930 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: ET
« Reply #600 on: February 01, 2023, 07:46:16 AM »
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1620592699450732544.html


https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/101/128/041/original/0b67177410e4ca6c.jpg



So, just "defensive biologic weapons' then?

 :roll:

‘No Offensive Biologic Weapons’ in Ukrainian Biolabs: Pentagon
By Katabella Roberts April 4, 2022 Updated: April 4, 2022biggersmaller Print
There are “no offensive biologic weapons” in the Ukrainian laboratories that the United States has been funding, a Pentagon official told Congress on April 1.

Deborah Rosenbaum, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, told the House Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations on April 1 that there are “unequivocally … no offensive biologic weapons in the Ukraine laboratories that the United States has been involved with.”

The Pentagon funds labs in Ukraine through its Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a support agency within the Department of Defense for countering weapons of mass destruction, and U.S. and Ukrainian officials both say the labs seek to prevent bioweapons and pathogens.

According to a Pentagon fact sheet released in March (pdf), since 2005, the United States has “invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine … supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.”

The Biological Threat Reduction Program has “improved Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and surveillance for both human and animal health,” according to the fact sheet.

However, Russia has, in recent months, accused the U.S.-funded laboratories in Ukraine of developing biological warfare weapons. Such allegations were being aired on Russian state-run media even before Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24.

The Russian Ministry of Defense issued a March 6 statement on Telegram accusing Ukraine of having destroyed disease-causing pathogens being studied at a lab in Ukraine that the ministry said is funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Russia’s allegations regarding the biological laboratories appeared to be repeated by the Chinese regime on March 7.

The World Health Organization stated in March that it advised the Ministry of Health in Ukraine to destroy “high-threat pathogens to prevent any potential spills.”

But analysts believe that the narrative being pushed by the Kremlin is part of its plan to create a false-flag operation in an attempt to justify using chemical weapons operations in Ukraine itself.

Rosenbaum told officials on April 1 that “the department remains very concerned about the ability to get accurate and transparent information out to the U.S. public, as well as certainly our allies and the rest of the world.”


“So one of the things that the department has been doing—and this is particularly related to the public health laboratories in Ukraine that is being tragically used by the Russians as a potential for a false flag operation—from the White House on down to the Defense Department, as well as Department of State, as well as all of the vehicles that we have to be able to communicate accurate information out about this and the work that has been underway,” she said.

Robert Pope, director of the DTRA’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, told the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in February that the labs might contain Soviet-era bioweapons and warned that the conflict in Ukraine could accidentally lead to the release of dangerous disease-causing pathogens.

“I think the Russians know enough about the kinds of pathogens that are stored in biological research laboratories that I don’t think they would deliberately target a laboratory,” Pope said. “But what I do have concerns about is that they would … be accidentally damaged during this Russian invasion.”

Rosenbaum made her comments shortly after White House press secretary Jen Psaki cautioned officials to be on the lookout “for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine or to create a false flag operation using them.”

The White House’s concerns also have been repeated by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and the UK’s Ministry of Defense, which said last month that it had “seen no evidence to support” the accusations made by Russia.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
We are now Number 2!
« Reply #601 on: February 08, 2023, 11:02:37 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-now-has-more-icbm-launchers-than-the-us-lawmaker-confirms_5040894.html?utm_source=China&src_src=China&utm_campaign=uschina-2023-02-08&src_cmp=uschina-2023-02-08&utm_medium=email&est=XSJwEYxg9y675iqIi7YKy7QIWYPgpZQaL7HkOUlo8%2Fk1xxp2n7UlRzgFZO3s%2F74c8D0e

====================================
====================================

WSJ

The China ICBM Launcher Gap
Another sign of Beijing’s growing nuclear ambitions.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
Updated Feb. 7, 2023 6:49 pm ET



Another day, another story about China’s advancing military power. This one comes in a notice to Congress that the People’s Liberation Army has more land-based intercontinental missile launchers than the U.S.

The U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees U.S. nuclear forces, told the Senate and House Armed Services committees in a Jan. 26 notice that China has now built more fixed and mobile ICBM launchers than the U.S. The mobile point is important because the launchers can move and hide. Soviet mobile launchers were a U.S. preoccupation during the Cold War.

The news doesn’t mean China has surpassed the U.S. in total nuclear weapons. The U.S. nuclear force is a triad of air, land- and sea-based missiles and bombs. Many of the Chinese silos are also still empty, U.S. officials say. But China is rapidly building its nuclear force so that it will soon reach parity with Russia and the U.S.

The latter two countries are bound by the New Start treaty that puts limits on the total number of warheads, though the U.S. recently said Russia is refusing to admit U.S. inspectors as set by the treaty. China isn’t a party to New Start and it has refused all Washington entreaties, in both the Trump and Biden Administrations, to join talks to expand the treaty.


All of this underscores the urgent need to pick up the pace of U.S. nuclear modernization, both in warheads and delivery systems. Deterrence is growing more complicated, but it begins with a robust, modern U.S. arsenal.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 11:17:06 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear War, Germ War, Bio War, Chem War, WMD
« Reply #603 on: February 10, 2023, 01:59:34 PM »
Whoa.  So many threats on so many fronts to keep track of , , , :x :x :x

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Local story of no importance
« Reply #604 on: February 13, 2023, 01:57:21 PM »
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/403151.php

Good thing we don’t produce food in Ohio!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile









G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Why they are ignoring the WMD in Ohio
« Reply #615 on: February 18, 2023, 11:55:50 AM »
DC_Draino:
Railways are governed by federal law

A toxic cloud affecting multiple states falls under federal jurisdiction

The chemical burn required Dept. of Transportation & EPA approval & likely got final sign-off by Biden

Now you know why they’re ignoring this crisis

It’s their fault.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
And then we told them...
« Reply #616 on: February 18, 2023, 05:03:20 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear War, Germ War, Bio War, Chem War, WMD
« Reply #618 on: February 19, 2023, 02:41:46 AM »
What is the URL for that meme?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear War, Germ War, Bio War, Chem War, WMD
« Reply #623 on: February 19, 2023, 02:46:03 PM »
TY

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
Zeihan on Putin's withdrawal from START
« Reply #624 on: February 23, 2023, 05:51:41 AM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear War, Germ War, Bio War, Chem War, WMD
« Reply #626 on: February 23, 2023, 08:16:59 AM »
Not quite sure what is the best thread for that.

It certainly sounds possible, but what is the actual source for it?



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Bio labs seized in Sudan. WHO warns of huge risk
« Reply #629 on: April 25, 2023, 09:58:36 AM »
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/who-warns-of-huge-biological-risk-after-lab-seized-in-sudan/

I’m glad the OGUS would never us things live this as “cover for action” for releasing the next bio weapon!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Bio labs seized in Sudan. WHO warns of huge risk
« Reply #630 on: April 28, 2023, 06:33:27 AM »
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/who-warns-of-huge-biological-risk-after-lab-seized-in-sudan/

I’m glad the OGUS would never us things live this as “cover for action” for releasing the next bio weapon!



A LEVEL 4 Biolab. WTF?!?


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear War, Germ War, Bio War, Chem War, WMD
« Reply #633 on: June 13, 2023, 02:29:39 PM »
Nuclear build-up. Nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenals and increasing the number of deployed nuclear warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). As of January, the U.S. increased its number of deployed warheads to 1,770 from 1,744 a year earlier, and Russia went to 1,674 from 1,588. Over the same stretch, China’s nuclear arsenal increased to 410 warheads from 350.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
GPF: Growing Nuke Arsenals
« Reply #634 on: June 16, 2023, 11:56:24 AM »
June 16, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Growing Nuclear Arsenals
China's arsenal may match America's and Russia's by 2030.
By: Geopolitical Futures
Nuclear Weapons 2023
(click to enlarge)

Amid the war in Ukraine and intensifying geopolitical competition, the world’s nuclear powers are scaling up and modernizing their arsenals. The countries with the most nuclear warheads deployed are the United States and Russia. Together, they possess close to 90 percent of all nukes. In 2022, Russia deployed an additional 86 nuclear warheads, bringing its total to 1,674. The U.S. added 26 – a reversal of its longstanding downward trend – giving it a total of 1,770 deployed warheads.

However, China is trying to catch up. Its nuclear arsenal grew to 410 from 350 last year, and according to SIPRI, it may catch up with the Russians and Americans by the end of the decade. At the same time, the major powers are reducing transparency about their nuclear weapons, and Moscow and Washington suspended dialogue on strategic stability. Nevertheless, the number of nuclear weapons around the world is well below past decades and is not growing significantly. In addition, the U.S. and Russia remain committed to avoiding armed confrontation – and especially nuclear escalation.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
Chinese Bio War
« Reply #637 on: June 27, 2023, 09:30:23 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
WSJ: WW3 will be fought with viruses
« Reply #638 on: July 06, 2023, 06:24:55 PM »
World War III Will Be Fought With Viruses
A two-front biological and cyber attack could lead to a U.S. defeat before we know what hit us.
By Richard A. Muller
July 6, 2023 6:08 pm ET

Vladimir Putin’s losses in Ukraine and the rebellion of the Wagner Group have increased the chances that the Russian president will lash out and expand the 17-month-old conflict. But World War III may not be what you expect. The current paradigm of escalating nuclear conflict was articulated 60 years ago by physicist Herman Kahn, founder of the Hudson institute, but other technologies have come a long way since then. Conventional guns, bombs, missiles or troops may not figure in World War III at all. Biological and computer viruses are likely to be the weapon of choice.

Covid wasn’t a deliberate attack, but it quickly and successfully damaged the American economy. Any nation thinking of using a deadly virus as a weapon of war would first need to immunize its own people, perhaps under the guise of a flu vaccination. Long-term population-level immunity would require the virus be sufficiently optimized, before release, to reduce the probability of further mutation.

The novel coronavirus was sufficiently optimized so that no serious mutations occurred for nine months. The Delta variant appeared in India in October 2020. A weaponized virus would also need to incorporate an immune suppression gene—Covid had ORF8—that reduces early symptoms, facilitating spread by asymptomatic carriers. For a covert attack to be successful, the virus would need to be released not in the country of origin but in the target country, perhaps near a biological facility so the world would falsely conclude it came as a leak from a surreptitious domestic program.

Recall that early Covid panic came from Italy’s inability to care for all of its infected patients. Thus, for maximum disruption, the second thrust of any aggression might be a cyber attack on hospitals, perhaps disguised as ransomware. Again, the trick would be to make it seem as if the attack were originating outside the aggressor’s country. In other contexts this is called a “false flag” operation. The target country might not even recognize it as part of a two-front, synergistic attack of biological and computer viruses.

Ransomware could simultaneously target energy grids, power plants, factories, refineries, trains, airlines, shipping, banking, water supplies, sewage-treatment plants and more. But hospitals would be the most salient targets. Avoiding obvious military targets would enhance the illusion that World War III hadn’t begun. The attacker or attackers might falsely claim their own systems are also under siege. Misdirection can be more effective than a smoke screen.

This isn’t some far-fetched disaster scenario cooked up by Hollywood screenwriters. Biological and cyber viruses have been, in a sense, field tested. The great value to the attacker of a two-pronged biological and cyber attack is the possibility of achieving destructive goals while keeping the whole operation covert.

Deterring such an attack will require a clear, credible and articulated promise to respond to aggression. It can’t be covert. If China, Russia or both attacked the U.S. this way, how would we react? Policy makers need to come up with an answer. An economic embargo seems suboptimal. Many would interpret nuclear retaliation as disproportionate. Developing a retaliatory virus would take time, and responding this way would clearly violate the Biological Weapons Convention.

Defense matters too. It is essential to be able to develop vaccines rapidly using a viral backbone so that they can be retargeted with minimal additional testing. Hospitals and other critical infrastructure need to harden their cyber defenses.

If deterrence fails and an attack takes place, correctly identifying the perpetrator has to be the first priority. This may or may not be easy, but retaliating against the wrong actor risks making an already bad situation worse. Reopening the Covid-19 origin investigation would provide good practice. Confiscation of the foreign assets of the attacking nation could be effective. A strong cyberattack capability aimed at the enemy’s military and industry is key. Hospitals should be spared, lest the victim of an attack appear to become the aggressor and lose the moral high ground.

There are many reasons why an adversary may want to launch a covert attack on the U.S. economy. America’s leaders need to take seriously the prospect that their country could be defeated without being invaded or even knowing it is under attack. The way to deter such an attack is to convince potentially hostile actors that success is impossible and the consequences for the attacker will be swift and severe. The U.S. needs to make it clear that its commitments to North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, Ukraine, Taiwan and others won’t waver even if the American economy falters.

Mr. Muller served as a Jason National Security adviser for 34 years. He is a professor of physics emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include “Physics for Future Presidents” and “Energy for Future Presidents.”





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
Oppenheimer looks back
« Reply #643 on: August 06, 2023, 08:45:59 AM »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
WT: Improving response to lab-based threats
« Reply #646 on: August 23, 2023, 06:24:12 AM »

Improving global response to lab-based threats

U.S. and other countries should strengthen Biological Weapons Convention

By Richard Weitz

On Aug. 17, the Department of Defense released its updated Biodefense Posture Review designed to achieve “a resilient total force that deters the use of bioweapons, rapidly responds to natural outbreaks, and minimizes the global risk of laboratory accidents.”

The Biodefense Posture Review and other authoritative U.S. and foreign government strategies emphasize that countering these threats requires comprehensive international deterrence and defense measures.

Meanwhile, global representatives are meeting this month in Geneva in a complementary effort to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, or BWC. The convention is a vital international security tool.

When it went into force in 1975, the BWC was the first multilateral treaty to ban an entire class of weapons of mass destruction.

Adherents commit not to develop, produce, stockpile, acquire, transfer or employ offensive biological weapons. Any biological research activity should be intended only for peaceful purposes.

Until recently, the urgent need to fight COVID-19 preoccupied such initiatives, but now that the World Health Organization has formally declared the pandemic over, the international community should take advantage of this respite to augment global defenses against future biological threats.

Although most governments have joined the BWC, several have yet to accede to the convention.

Some states have encountered challenges in fulfilling all their national obligations.

Meanwhile, the United States remains concerned that some countries have undeclared biological weapons programs. Terrorists have also employed bacteria, viruses, and other harmful agents.

The advancement of biological science and emerging technologies — such as gene editing, gain-of-function studies, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, nanotechnology, 3D printing and advanced robotics — facilitates their acquiring biological weapons.

In addition, governments can maintain small quantities of dangerous pathogens to develop countermeasures against them, creating a loophole for weapons research.

Most problematically, many modern biotechnologies are “dual use” — applicable for military as well as civilian purposes.

Unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the BWC lacks a dedicated body to monitor and enforce compliance. Past efforts to establish a mandatory verification regime were unsuccessful.

Governments that suspect a violation can only call for consultations to resolve disputes or appeal to the U.N. secretary-general and Security Council to investigate.

Furthermore, the BWC has only a small Implementation Support Unit, based at the Geneva branch of the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs, to help administer the treaty.

Unlike the International Atomic Energy Agency or the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which have thousands of employees and million-dollar budgets, the Implementation Support Unit has a small staff and a minuscule budget.

The international community has struggled to manage these challenges to the BWC. One innovative solution comes from Kazakhstan, whose government has long been a global nonproliferation leader.

Soon after recovering its independence in 1991, Kazakhstan eliminated the world’s fourth-largest nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union, acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and joined the Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.

At Kazakhstan’s initiative, the U.N. General Assembly declared Aug. 29 the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. In cooperation with the IAEA, Kazakhstan recently became the first country to establish a low enriched uranium bank to discourage the proliferation of capabilities that can make nuclear weapons.

Kazakhstan has sought to apply its nuclear nonproliferation experience to counter biological threats.

Upon gaining independence, Kazakhstan acceded to the BWC and dismantled the massive biological weapons infrastructure the Soviet government constructed on its territory.

The U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction Program provided extensive financial and technical aid to help eliminate or convert these facilities to engage in defensive research, including developing local COVID-19 tests.

The U.S. Defense Department and Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Health still conduct regular discussions and programs to counter biological dangers.

In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2020, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev proposed creating an International Agency for Biological Safety.

The agency aims to help the BWC, U.N., and other bodies keep biological research peaceful and transparent; improve global health and safety; build state capacity; accelerate the development of vaccines and biological countermeasures; establish more inclusive export control mechanisms; expand international trust and cooperation through improved accessibility of confidence-building measures, known as CBMs; and maintain a database of potential assistance to states threatened by biological attack. The Agency for Biological Safety would overcome other critical BWC gaps. For example, while countries can share information about their biological activities through CBMs such as detailed questionnaires, these submissions are voluntary and underused. If the safety agency could provide for regular review of these CBMs and analyze their aggregate data, member governments would have a better understanding of the state of BWC implementation. The agency could also support further initiatives — such as societal means of verification, voluntary peer reviews, and AI-assisted training and open-source data mining — to increase global surveillance and make states more confident about receiving international assistance.

Early detection of natural, accidental and deliberate biological threats is imperative for mounting effective defenses.

The agency could also counter the kind of disinformation that has poisoned discussions of COVID-19 by supporting a more institutionalized and frequent international review of biological developments.

That Kazakhstan has decent relations with Russia, China and the United States should help the proposal overcome the power divisions that have impeded recent progress on other nonproliferation initiatives.

The Biodefense Posture Review correctly highlights the imperative of enhancing U.S. and allied defenses against biological threats. The United States and other countries should also consider initiatives to strengthen the BWC and other nonproliferation structures.

Richard Weitz is senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69422
    • View Profile
D1: Radioactive Boars
« Reply #648 on: August 31, 2023, 08:15:59 AM »
In other nuclear-related news this week, central Europe's wild boar population is radioactive, and researchers now say it's not because of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, but a residue of Cold War nuclear weapons tests. Those tests are still affecting the soil in areas around Germany's state of Bavaria. The BBC has more, here.