Showing posts with label Military Supplier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military Supplier. Show all posts

Kauai Expanding Military Role

SUBHEAD: A testing site for weapons systems, missiles, and rockets in the middle of the Pacific.

By John Letman on 4 May 2019 for The Diplomat-
(https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/kauais-quietly-expanding-military-role/)


Image above: An Aegis rocket is fired from a US Navy ship in test of defense patrols. The navy wants a for aggressive role for the Aegis system. See article (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/16/the-us-navy-is-fed-up-with-ballistic-missile-defense-patrols/).


[IB Publisher's note: A former US Navy Commander of the Pacific Missile Range Facility on KauaiBruce Hay  said, "We’re in an isolated location. But, we’re doing big things for very important people all across the globe." (see https://www.thegardenisland.com/2013/09/22/lifestyles/talk-story-with-capt-bruce-hay-commanding-officer-of-pmrf/). Unfortunately that means endangering all life on Earth for the sake of American dominance of the world. We living on Kauai are temporarily in the eye of an apocalyptic storm that will likely devastate our island. Can we not turn towards life instead of away from it?]


In the 76 years since Pearl Harbor catapulted Hawaii onto center stage of America’s Pacific war efforts, the islands’ importance to the Pentagon have only grown. Today, Hawaii hosts 142 sites (military bases and facilities) and, from its headquarters at Camp H.M. Smith on Oahu, U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) oversees America’s military operations across half the planet. It’s difficult to overstate Hawaii’s importance to the military and increasingly, that includes the island of Kauai.

Since 1940, Kauai has been used as a military landing field, quietly cultivated as a site capable of hosting a broad range of military operations from aviation and underwater testing to amphibious and ground assault training, testing cluster bombs and drones, missile launches, telemetry, radar, and low orbit rocket launches.Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

The Garden Island, as Kauai is known, is home to the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), which describes itself as “the world’s largest instrumented multi-environment range, capable of providing complex and realistic training scenarios.” A spokesman for the naval base said, “PMRF is unique in that it can simultaneously support surface, subsurface, air, and space training scenarios.”

Every two years, PMRF plays a role in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC), the world’s largest maritime exercise. In 2016, U.S. Marines and three allied nations conducted a simulated helicopter raid in support of “amphibious, offensive, defensive, and stability operations” at PMRF and the base supported SINKEX, an exercise in which decommissioned naval ships are used for practicing live-fire sinking.
Doing Big Things for Important People
As a missile testing and training facility, PMRF is said to be admired in Israeli defense circles. It’s also valued by NASA, the University of Hawaii, and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Atomics, and Northrop Grumman.

PMRF was critical in testing the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system as well as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), the mobile missile defense system deployed on Guam and now in South Korea. PMRF also served as the launching ground for the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, a system designed to strike a 6,000 km range in 35 minutes with an accuracy of ten meters.

PMRF’s commanding officer declined to comment for this story but in 2013, PMRF’s former commanding officer told Kauai’s local newspaper, “We’re doing big things for very important people all across the globe.” Among those big things is providing a home to Sandia National Laboratories’ Kauai Test Facility (KTF) which was established in 1963 in support of the Atomic Energy Commission’s Operation Dominic series of 36 high-altitude nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific.

Since its founding, the 130-acre KTF has supported at least 443 launches and provided resources for assembling, testing, and launching test vehicles on Kauai and elsewhere. Sandia describes KTF as a national asset that offers a laundry list of services from weapons research and development, operational and missile defense testing, radar tracking, telemetry reception, and training and launch projects. Both Sandia and KTF declined to be interviewed for this story.

Combat Ready?
In 2016, PMRF made headlines when USPACOM’s Admiral Harry Harris said the military should consider transforming PMRF from a testing and training facility into a combat ready missile defense base. At that time, PMRF dismissed the idea of serving as an operational facility. When asked again in April, a PMRF spokesman responded: “[PMRF] has not changed and… continues to test technology and train the fleet. The Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex is a test asset and not an operational facility.”

But testifying before Congress on April 26, Harris said North Korea posed an immediate threat to Hawaii, again calling for a defensive radar system and missile interceptors in Hawaii. Kauai’s Congressional Representative Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) has also been a vocal advocate for introducing a combat ready missile defense system in Hawaii but her fellow congresswoman, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01), questioned the need, calling North Korean threats to Hawaii overstated.

‘Bird’ Watching on Kauai
The U.S. Marine Corps is also eyeing Kauai for testing and training CH-53 and H-1 helicopters and the MV-22 Osprey hybrid tilt-rotor aircraft. If approved, additional training would involve low altitude flights in the rugged mountains of west Kauai and the neighboring privately owned island of Niihau.

In an October 6, 2016 email, a Marine spokesman wrote, “No final decision has been made by the U.S. Marine Corps with respect to any new or additional aviation training to be conducted at Kauai or Niihau. The Marine Corps is completing an Environmental Assessment… before making a decision to carry out new or additional aviation training… ”

Despite this, at least four Osprey were filmed flying and landing at or near PMRF ten days earlier. Then, in January 2017, a Kauai resident recounted the surprise appearance of Osprey flying over a public beach some ten miles east of PMRF. He described the incident and uploaded a short clip here.

Previously a Marine spokesman said Kauai was selected, in part, based on past training conducted at these locations and the proximity to PMRF. However, a PMRF spokesman stated, “PMRF is not involved in testing of the MV-22 Osprey. In reference to MV-22 Osprey activities on Kauai, we recommend that you contact the U.S. Marine Corps…”

In September 2016, when the Marines published notification of the proposed increase in training, there was almost no awareness by local government officials. Six months later, in April, when asked about Osprey training, Hawaii State Rep. Daynette Morikawa, who represents west Kauai and Niihau, said she hadn’t heard any news and declined to comment.

Deadly crashes in Hawaii involving both the Osprey and CH-53E heavy-lift helicopters in 2015 and 2016, along with an Osprey crash in Okinawa last December, have raised concern among some, but many Kauai residents remain unaware of the aircraft’s presence. The Marine Corps plans to deploy an additional Osprey squadron (12 aircraft) to Hawaii in 2018.

Dolphins, Whales, and Long Range Strike Weapons
The waters northwest of Kauai include the Barking Sands Underwater Range Extension (BSURE), where the U.S. Air Force has announced a five-year plan (September 2017-August 2022) to test the Long Range Strike Weapons Systems Evaluation Program.

That plan calls for the use of multiple types of inert and live bombs and missiles delivered by bombers and fighter aircraft and requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting munitions testing.

In an email, a spokeswoman for the 53rd Wing Public Affairs Office cited the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)’s definition of take marine mammals as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” Incidental is defined as “unintentional, but not unexpected.”

The Air Force’s 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron’s request for a letter of authorization states that the proposed Long Range Strike Weapons and other munitions operations off Kauai could expose marine mammals to sound levels associated with Level A and B harassment.

Level A means “any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal.” Level B is described as “any act[s] that disturb… by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, [etc.]…”

A total of nine species of whales, including humpback, melon-headed, and minke, and seven species of dolphins, including bottlenose, spinner, and striped, could be taken.

According to a NOAA spokeswoman, under the MMPA, NOAA Fisheries can “authorize impacts to marine mammals… provided [they] can ensure that the activity will have negligible impact on the affected species…” The Air Force has said, “No mortality is expected.”

Multiple requests for comment from the University of Hawaii Marine Mammal Research Program went unanswered.

A Shield or a Target?
Despite the breadth and frequency of military activities, most tourists on Kauai, and even many local residents, are scarcely aware of the military presence. Driving west toward PMRF along Kauai’s two-lane highway, a hand-painted wooden sign announces Hanapepe as “Kauai’s biggest little town.”

The sleepy community, better known as the fictitious setting for the Disney animated film Lilo & Stitch, is also home to a Hawaii Army National Guard (HIANG) Armory and the 299th Cavalry Regiment Combat Team Troop C.

It’s here, along the shoreline and by the mouth of the Hanapepe River that the 29th Infantry Brigade carries out monthly reconnaissance and infantry tactics training, preparing for the kind of battles they’ve faced in past deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here on Kauai, PMRF employs around 1,000 people (mostly Department of Defense and contract civilians) along with 90 active duty sailors. As one of Kauai’s top employers, the military is warmly regarded and touted as a way for the island’s youth to access high-tech and government employment.

It’s one reason why most residents (but not all) see nothing untoward when Kauai’s civilian airport is used for periodic touch and go exercises by the Hawaii Air National Guard’s F-22 Raptors or HIANG training in public, with camouflage-painted faces and firearms at the ready.

Kauai remains synonymous with beautiful beaches, dense tropical forests, and a laid-back island culture. But far from a sleepy Polynesian backwater removed from a troubled world, Kauai is an understated defense juggernaut with a growing role that leaves some wondering if all this weaponry serves more as a shield or a target.


.

Google employees discuss protest

SUBHEAD: Some employees disturbed about the potential applications of a project for the military.

By Rebecca Klein on 1 June 2018 for Huffington Post -
(https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/google-maven-protests_us_5b119678e4b0d5e89e1fa730)


Image above: Door mat at Google entrance door. Photo by Jaques Brinin. From original article.

A small group of Google employees, in response to a company contract with a Pentagon-backed program called Maven, have discussed the idea of staging a protest at a conference in July. Employees fear that the project, which provides artificial intelligence tools to the military, could be used in fatal drone strikes.

The protest, as discussed in preliminary exchanges over Google’s internal communications platform, would take place at a Google Cloud conference in San Francisco, according to messages obtained by HuffPost and an interview with an employee.

More than a dozen Google employees have resigned over the project, according to Gizmodo, and thousands of employees have signed a letter protesting it.

Now Google employees are debating showing resistance in a more active way, through a potential demonstration.

Discussions regarding the possibility of a protest took place this week on an internal thread devoted to criticism of Maven. The thread, called “maven conscientious objectors,” includes hundreds of employees, but only a small percentage of those were active in the discussion.

The debate about staging a physical demonstration took place on Wednesday and Thursday and was started by a departing engineer. The employee called the project “the greatest ethical crises in technology of our generation” and suggested that “Maven protesters” go to the conference with the aim of “making some noise.”

The employee’s last day was Friday, but by late morning, someone from human resources had asked them to leave immediately due to their “recent statements” related to the conference. “As such, we’re going to move up your exit by a few hours and we’ve ended access, effective immediately,” the HR person wrote.

In response to the initial thread, another employee called the engineer an “agent provocateur.” Someone else said such an action would “be enough reason to fire us lot with popular support.”

The debate became heated and personal, with some employees questioning whether their colleague who originally suggested the idea of a physical protest should even belong in the “conscientious objectors” group.

But there were a few employees who supported the idea, calling the discussion “legitimate topics for this mailing list.” Another said that while they were not based in San Francisco and were thus unable to join the action, they personally thought the protest was “a good idea since it increases Google’s PR cost of getting involved in military projects.”

Representatives for Google did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment. The Intercept reported Friday afternoon that Google will not renew its contract to work on Project Maven, though the company plans to work on the project through June 2019 and has not ruled out taking on similar work in the future.

This isn’t the first round of discord from Google employees. In an April petition to Google CEO Sundar Pichai protesting the Pentagon contract and signed by thousands, petitioners referenced “Don’t be evil,” Google’s famous former unofficial motto, as an argument for canceling the contract.

“This contract puts Google’s reputation at risk and stands in direct opposition to our core values. Building this technology to assist the US Government in military surveillance ― and potentially lethal outcomes ― is not acceptable,” the signers of the petition wrote.

Hundreds of academics subsequently wrote a letter to Google co-founder Larry Page, as well as Pichai and other company leaders, supporting the petitioning employees.

The academics expressed concern that Project Maven will help the military become “just a short step away from authorizing autonomous drones to kill automatically, without human supervision or meaningful human control.”

The letter also cited recent Cambridge Analytica scandals as demonstrating “growing public concern over allowing the tech industries to wield so much power.”

At a recent companywide meeting, Sergey Brin, one of Google’s co-founders, reportedly responded to a question about the project and addressed some of the controversies, according to The New York Times. Brin explained that he thought it was better for the world’s militaries to be partnered with an international company like Google, rather than nationalistic defense contractors.

The employee who started the discussion about protesting Google’s involvement with Maven implied on the thread that they gave notice due to a violation of their own ethical standards.

“The time to protest is now or never,” the employee wrote.

Are you a Google employee who wants to talk about your experience with Maven? Email rebecca.klein@huffpost.com.

.

Evil is now fine for Google

SUBHEAD: The Google corporate code of conduct has been modified. It's no longer "Don't be Evil".

By Jessica Corbett on 21 May 2018 for Common Dreams -
(https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/21/evil-fine-now-google-ditches-dont-be-evil-company-code-conduct)


Image above: Illustration of Google as Evil. From original article.

I guess the cognitive dissonance between working on drone weapons-targeting systems and the quaint notice of 'don't be evil' got too loud at Google.

Is Google finally embracing its evil side?

The company has reportedly stripped from its employee code of conduct a section outlining its longtime unofficial motto, "Don't be evil," provoking a swift reaction on social media: "File under: 'Evil is fine now.'" "Glad this question has been settled!" "Google has finally done what was inevitable—abandoned informal commitment to its founding principle."

When the company restructured in 2015, Alphabet—Google's new parent company—was widely condemned for its watered down replacement, "Do the right thing," but Google's maintained the "Don't be evil" language in its official code of conduct. That all changed "sometime in late April or early May," Gizmodo reported Friday, after reviewing archives on the Wayback Machine.
According to a Wayback Machine archive from April 21, 2018, the related section of the code of conduct read:
"Don't be evil." Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But "Don't be evil" is much more than that. Yes, it's about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it's also about doing the right thing more generally—following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put "Don't be evil" into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.
So please do read the Code, and follow both its spirit and letter, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don’t be silent. We want—and need—to hear from you.
The updated section, visible as early as May 4, reads:
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put Google's values into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Respect for our users, for the opportunity, and for each other are foundational to our success, and are something we need to support every day.
So please do read the Code and Google's values, and follow both in spirit and letter, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code and values into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don’t be silent. We want—and need—to hear from you.
"Despite this significant change, Google's code of conduct says it has not been updated since April 5, 2018," Gizmodo noted. Additionally, the last sentence of the code is still "And remember... don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right—speak up!"—but without any further context on the phrase and its history at the company.

Critics of Google have long used the phrase as a rallying cry to challenge practices and policies that strike them as "evil," from concerns about what the company does with users' personal data to its increasing contract wrokg with the U.S. military.

Invoking the longtime motto, a dozen employees recently resigned and some 4,000 have signed on to a petition demanding that Google immediately halt its once-secret work on drones for the Pentagon, which was revealed in a pair of reports published earlier this year. Some critics tied the latest move to the drone program by tweeting:
Mike Rundle: 4:53 AM - May 20, 2018 Google removed “don’t be evil” from its Code of Conduct just in time to work on military grade image recognition ML software for a Pentagon tactical drone program. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/05/google-employees-resign-in-protest-of-googlepentagon-drone-program/ 
DHH: 3:28 PM - May 18, 2018 Guess the cognitive dissonance between working on drone weapons-targeting systems and the quaint notice of “don’t be evil” got too loud at Google. https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 
The report about Google's apparent decision to ditch the phrase as a foundational corporate principle was followed by a segment on CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday that sought to answer the question, "How did Google get so big?" and explore the implications of its power, both for users and other tech companies.

As Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer Gary Reback explained, "Google is so dominant in search and search advertising that analysts and venture capitalists in Silicon Valley say it's extremely difficult for startups to get funding if their business model requires them to compete with Google for ad revenue."

"If I were starting out today, I would have no shot of building Yelp. That opportunity has been closed off by Google and their approach," said Yelp founder Jeremy Stoppelman. "Because if you provide great content in one of these categories that is lucrative to Google, and seen as potentially threatening, they will snuff you out."

Beyond the consequences for small and startup businesses in the tech industry, there's also an impact on Google users, and internet users more broadly. As Reback put it: "People tell their search engines things they wouldn't even tell their wives.

I mean, it's a very powerful and yet very intimate technology. And that gives the company that controls it a mind-boggling degree of control over our entire society."


.

Google aids Drone Assassinations

SUBHEAD: The "Don't be Evil" company is secretly aiding the Pentagon with AI technology for better killing.

By Jessica Corbett on 7 March 2018 for Common Dreams -
(https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/03/07/dont-be-evil-outrage-over-googles-secret-program-bolster-pentagons-drone-war)


Image above: A mash-up of a US killer drone with the Google logo. From (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/low_concept/features/2013/wargames/if_google_and_apple_went_to_war_what_side_would_obama_pick.html).

[IB Publisher's note: This website uses Google's Blogger software for posting and displaying articles. It has been free, uncensored, and stable for many years. It's too bad that software companies this widespread a line of products and so many users need to stoop to finding better ways to murder human beings. Is that what they must do to provide us with Google Search, GoogleEarth and Blogger?] 

Human rights advocates, tech experts, and critics of the United States' vast drone warfare program are outraged over the Google's secret agreement with the Pentagon—revealed in a pair of reports by Gizmodo and The Intercept—to develop artificial intelligence, or AI, that quickly analyzes drone footage.

Some critics pointed to Google's old motto, "Don't Be Evil," and the replacement, "Do the Right Thing," introduced in 2015 by Google's parent company, Alphabet.

The reports, published Tuesday, outline details of the partnership between Google and the U.S. Department of Defense's Project Maven that were recently disclosed on a company mailing list.

The internal discussion reportedly angered some Google employees, who Gizmodo reports "were outraged that the company would offer resources to the military for surveillance technology involved in drone operations" and pointed out that "the project raised important ethical questions about the development and use of machine learning."

The DOD's Project Maven—also known as the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (AWCFT)—launched last April, and "was tasked with using machine learning to identify vehicles and other objects in drone footage, taking that burden off analysts" who haven't been able to keep up with the amount of footage collected by U.S. drones.

A spokesperson for Google said the company provides the Pentagon with "open source TensorFlow APIs that can assist in object recognition on unclassified data," and insisted "the technology flags images for human review, and is for non-offensive uses only."

However, The Intercept noted—pointing to earlier reports about the project—that the purpose of the AI tech is "to help drone analysts interpret the vast image data vacuumed up from the military's fleet of 1,100 drones to better target bombing strikes against the Islamic State."

While Google's spokesperson added that the company is "actively discussing this important topic internally and with others as we continue to develop policies and safeguards around the development and use of our machine learning technologies," The Intercept also noted that "the military contract with Google is routed through a Northern Virginia technology staffing company called ECS Federal, obscuring the relationship from the public"—at least until it was revealed in Tuesday's reports.

Both reports also pointed out that Eric Schmidt, who recently stepped down as chairman of Alphabet, heads the Defense Innovation Board, a federal advisory committee established in 2016 "to encourage the military adoption of breakthrough technology," and which has developed recommendations for how the Department of Defense can better utilize tools from Silicon Valley to wage war abroad.

Gizmodo, citing meeting minutes, noted that "some members of the Board's teams are part of the executive steering group that is able to provide rapid input" on Project Maven, whose Pentagon director has expressed hope that the project will be "that spark that kindles the flame front of artificial intelligence across the rest of the [Defense] Department."



.

Defund Militarism

SUBHEAD: It's time to dismantle Trump's Murder Budget by refusing to fund America's perpetual wars.

By Maya Schenwar on 20 March 2017 for TruthOut -
(http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/39912-it-s-time-to-dismantle-trump-s-murder-budget-and-defund-militarism)


Image above: Candidate Trump speaks during a campaign event aboard the battleship USS Iowa at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro, California, September 15, 2015. Photo by Max Whittaker. From original article.

During the last three years of the Bush administration, I reported on the military budget, following the supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Congress has not formally declared war since World War II, these budget bills were the mechanism that was keeping our wars going.

Every time the war budgets came up for a vote, I held my breath. Even though I knew better, I watched C-SPAN for hours, hoping for a surprise. There were a few stalwart Congress members who usually held out -- Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich -- but for the most part, Republicans and Democrats alike got in line to flood the war coffers, again and again.

Eventually, I stopped watching; I could practically write my articles ahead of time.

If a flight of angels crashed through the ceiling of the Capitol and announced, "The world is ending tonight," they'd still vote to fund tomorrow's wars.

The predictable passage of blank checks for war was an expression of the acceptability of the status quo. The status quo was murder, but within the halls of Congress and, of course, the White House, there was a level of comfort with that.

From the US's early days, the military evolved largely as a vehicle for colonialism and genocide.

As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz writes in An Indigenous People's History of the United States,
 "The Iraq War was just another Indian war in the US military tradition."
This country's military has long been more of an offensive force -- charging ahead with the winds of white supremacy and capitalism at its back -- than one of "defense." The Iraq War is one moment in its long legacy of actively disrupting, upending and devastating the lives and communities of millions of people of color, both at home and abroad.

Much of the government seems to view perpetual war as an inevitability, the way most of us, in the words of Angela Davis, "take for granted" the existence of prisons.

Davis has written that, although prisons as we know them are a fairly recent addition to the world, they have become so embedded in our society that "it is difficult to imagine life without them."

The US's brand of imperialist militarism, too, is seen as natural. In the mid-2000s, many liberal Democrats were arguing for a strategy of amelioration: a small-scale withdrawal of troops, the cutting of some "waste" from the Pentagon budget, a halt to the production of a couple of bizarrely expensive fighter jets.

These measures were aimed at mitigating the damage, instead of disrupting the overall project of war, militarism and the destruction of communities, most of them in Muslim-majority countries.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did scale down over the course of Obama's presidency, but in one form or another, they've persisted -- and other undeclared wars have been and continue to be waged. In 2016 alone, the US bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Libya and Somalia.

Every year since 2003, the military has occupied the majority of the US discretionary budget. We are currently spending much more on the military (accounting for inflation) than we were at the height of the Vietnam War.

The way in which US militarism is taken for granted mirrors the ways in which other forms of mass violence are deemed inevitable -- policing, deportation, the genocide and erasure of Indigenous peoples, the exploitative market-driven health care system, the vastly inequitable education system and disastrous environmental policies.

The generally accepted logic tells us that these things will remain with us: The best we can hope for, according to this narrative, is modest reform amid monstrous violence.

Now, we have a president who has no interest in modest reform. His draft budget, released last week, is a caricature of our bad budgets past.

Not only will the Pentagon continue to occupy the majority of our discretionary budget this year, but if Donald Trump has his way, military spending will jump by 10 percent. Vital programs -- programs that support survival instead of murder -- will be slashed or eliminated.

If his administration gets what it wants, the Department of Education will take a 14 percent hit, Health and Human Services will shrink by 16 percent, the Department of Housing and Urban Development budget will decrease by 16 percent, and the EPA will suffer a 31 percent blow.

Under Trump's proposal, funding would be eliminated for the US Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Chemical Safety Board, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Legal Services Corporation (which provides civil legal assistance to low-income people).

The proposed budget doesn't simply represent an act of deprioritization or neglect of most people's needs. It is an attack on the lives of poor people and people of color. It is a call-to-arms against the environment, and thus, against the long-term survival of most species on Earth.

It is a battle against the arts, against learning, against recreation, against shared space -- against the things that help give us life beyond mere survival.

We should not be surprised that these attacks on civil society and fundamental human rights are accompanied by a surge in military spending. The cuts and the hikes are part of the same murderous project.
The ground is already laid for that project to be built. Already, the US military budget exceeds the combined military budgets of the next seven countries: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, India and Germany.

If we are going to confront Trump's proposed cuts to key domestic programs, we have to also confront the legitimacy that has been granted to endless war and militarism over the course of the past 16 years -- and throughout our country's history.

We can't just add the priorities of health and life to the stock priorities of death and destruction. We can't just advocate for a few less fighter jets or a downsizing of Pentagon bureaucracy.

We have to choose life-giving priorities over violent ones. We have to stop taking all forms of state violence -- war, militarism, deportations, prisons, surveillance, colonial destruction, disinvestment and deprivation -- for granted.

One way to start might be to imagine how we could reroute the money currently funneled toward this violence. For example, the National Priorities Project suggests that instead of increasing the military budget by $54 billion, as Trump suggests, we slash the military budget by that same amount.

That $54 billion could provide Medicaid for 15 million adults, or grant 1.6 million students a free four-year college education, or create 1 million infrastructure jobs, or fund the Meals on Wheels program for 7,180 years.

Taking this a step further, military cuts could easily help fund programs that we don't yet have but desperately need, such as Medicare for all.

With real cuts to the budgets of murder and devastation -- including not only the military, but also police, prisons, ICE and other violent institutions -- we could set viable plans to end homelessness, dramatically step up climate justice efforts, provide universal child care and more.

"Real cuts" would not only mean slicing off a certain number of dollars. They would also mean challenging the specific ways in which that money is spent.

As United for Peace and Justice lays out, in addition to demanding a stop to US wars, we must also demand an end to the drone program, the closure of US military bases throughout the world, the start of active negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons and the demilitarization of local police forces.

I'd go a step further to say that the demilitarization of police forces is not enough -- we should move toward dismantling them.

Moreover, confronting militarism would require a fundamental prioritization of racial and social justice. Both within the US and abroad, the military and other forms of state violence overwhelmingly target, harm, displace and kill people of color.

Within the US, poor and working class people are targeted for recruitment into the military, pulled in via a long string of false promises.

Once we acknowledge that these realities are not accidents, and are not new, we can conceive of how injustice is not simply a side effect. It is embedded in the practice of US militarism.

Trump's budget was released on March 16, the anniversary of the My Lai Massacre, when the US military murdered the majority of people living in the small Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai, including many children and elderly people.

This should serve as a reminder for all of us that rising military budgets are not a prescription for "public safety," as Trump has claimed. They are a prescription for murder.

As long as taxpayers continue to be complicit in filling that prescription, it seems that we have a responsibility to act against it.

We need to call and write to our Congress members and demand they reject the $54 billion increase to our military budget and the brutal cuts to crucial domestic programs.

We have to stop taking our wars, our drones, our bombs, our imperialism and our decades of colossal military budgets for granted.

We have to "imagine life without them." And we have to imagine -- and work to create -- the life-giving, healing, transformational priorities that will take their place.


.

United States of Permanent War

SOURCE: Ray Songtree (rayupdates@hushmail.com)
SUBHEAD: Although they regularly promise to support peace, Washington is committed to perpetual war.

By Edward Hunt on 25 February 2017 for Lobe Log  -
(http://lobelog.com/the-united-states-of-permanent-war/)


Image above: Defense Secretary "Mad Dog" James Mattis and President Donald Trump in the the Hall of Heroes in the Pentagon. From original article.

As the foreign policy establishment continues to grapple with the consequences of Trump’s election, U.S. officials can still agree on one thing. The United States is a nation that is waging a permanent war.

In December 2016, President Obama reflected on the development in a speech that he delivered to U.S. soldiers at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida.

“By the time I took office, the United States had been at war for seven years,” Obama said. By continuing that war, “I will become the first president of the United States to serve two full terms during a time of war.”

Notably, Obama did not issue his remarks to criticize the United States. He only made his point to note that Congress had never provided him with authority to perpetuate the wars of the Bush administration. “Right now, we are waging war under authorities provided by Congress over 15 years ago—15 years ago,” Obama said.

Consequently, he wanted Congress to craft new legislation that made it appear as if it had not permitted the United States to remain at war forever. “Democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war,” Obama said.

The Bush Plan
Regardless of what Obama really felt about the matter, the Bush administration had always intended for the United States to wage a permanent war. In the days after 9/11, President Bush provided the guiding vision when he announced in a speech to the nation that the United States would be fighting an indefinite global war on terror. “

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes,” Bush explained. “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.”

The following year, Director of Policy Planning Richard Haass provided additional confirmation of the administration’s intentions. “There can be no exit strategy in the war against terrorism,” Haass declared. “It is a war that will persist.”

In other words, Haass announced that the United States would remain at war against terrorism forever. “There is unlikely to be an Antietam, a decisive battle in this war,” Haass stated. “An exit strategy, therefore, will do us no good. What we need is an endurance strategy.”

As U.S. officials developed their endurance strategy, they also settled on a few guiding principles. For starters, U.S. officials determined that they would have to maintain some kind of permanent presence in Afghanistan.

“We’re not leaving Afghanistan prematurely,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates remarked during the early years of the Obama administration. “In fact, we’re not ever leaving at all.”

More recently, a number of officials in the Obama administration articulated a similar principle for the Middle East. In October 2016, for example, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper noted that the United States would remain in the region well into the future.

 Even if the Islamic State is defeated, “it is probably not going to go away, and it’ll morph into something else or other similar extremist groups will be spawned,” Clapper said. “And I believe we’re going to be in the business of suppressing these extremist movements for a long time to come.”

This past December, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter made a similar point, arguing that coalition forces “must be ready for anything” and “must remain engaged militarily even after the inevitable expulsion of ISIL from Mosul and Raqqa.

In essence, U.S. officials agree that the war against terrorism must remain permanent.

The Trump Turn
Officials in the Trump administration, who are now taking over the endurance strategy, have also remained determined to keep the nation at war. Although Trump promised during his campaign that “war and aggression will not be my first instinct,” both he and his cabinet members have displayed a clear preference for war.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who is perhaps most well known for once commenting that it was “a hell of a hoot” and “a hell of a lot of fun” to shoot enemy forces in Afghanistan, argued during his confirmation hearing that the United States should take advantage of its “power of intimidation.” In fact, Mattis pledged to increase the lethality of U.S. military forces. “Our armed forces in this world must remain the best led, the best equipped, and the most lethal in the world,” Mattis insisted.
 
Furthermore, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has positioned himself as an even stronger advocate of war. For example, Tillerson insisted during his confirmation hearing that the Obama administration should have helped Ukrainian military forces fight Russia after Putin had seized Crimea in early 2014. “My opinion is there should have been a show of force, a military response, in defensive posture,” Tillerson said.

In addition, Tillerson insisted that the Trump administration will not permit China to continue building islands in the South China Sea.

“We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed,” Tillerson said.

Altogether, Tillerson argued that the United States must display a greater willingness to go to war. In the years ahead, the United States will follow “the old tenet of Teddy Roosevelt, walk softly and carry a big stick,” he promised.

Finally, Trump has displayed an even stronger preference for war. In his many public statements, Trump has essentially branded himself as the new face of the permanent war against terrorism. “Radical Islamic terrorism” is something that “we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth,” Trump promised during his inaugural address.

In short, officials in Washington are committed to perpetual war. Although they regularly promise to end war and support peace, they have spent the past 16 years transforming the United States into a nation that is permanently at war.

In fact, “the fighting is wonderful,” Trump has said.

• Edward Hunt writes about war and empire. He has a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary.

.

DeGrasse Tyson cozy with Pentagon

SUBHEAD:Tyson in partnership “between the public and private sectors“ to promote “innovation” in US military.

By Adam Johnson on 27 July 2016 for AlterNet - 
(http://www.alternet.org/culture/neil-degrasse-tyson-cozy-pentagon)


Image above: Photo of Neil DeGrasse Tyson and yeah…he does this a lot. From (https://zeinshver.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/i-met-neil-degrasse-tyson/).

It was announced Wednesday that Neil deGrasse Tyson, beloved ambassador of science and head of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, will be joining the Pentagon’s “Innovation Board” along with Amazon CEO and multibillionaire Jeff Bezos. The two join a 15-person board that includes Aspen Institute chief executive Walter Isaacson, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and other “private sector leaders.”

The board’s purpose is somewhat vague, described by Defense Secretary Carter as a partnership “between the public and private sectors“ to promote “innovation” at the Defense Department.

The addition of deGrass Tyson is notable due to his status as a public science educator and his vocal criticisms of war. In a 2014 interview with Parade magazine titled "Neil deGrasse Tyson: Why You Will Never Find Scientists Leading Armies Into Battle," deGrasse Tyson mused on the inherent antiwar nature of scientists:

"...when you have a cosmic perspective, when you know how large the universe is and how small we are within it—what Earth looks like from space, how tiny it is in a cosmic void—it’s impossible for you to say, ‘I so don’t like how you think that I’m going to kill you for it.’ You will never find scientists leading armies into battle. You just won’t. Especially not astrophysicists—we see the biggest picture there is."
While deGrasse Tyson certainly is not leading anyone to war, he’s consulting with those who are.

The United States military has active engagements in 80 to 90 countries a day and, in 2015, dropped a total of 23,144 bombs on seven countries. All with the assistance of thousands of scientists.

There’s an added layer of irony that the heir to the legacy of Carl Sagan, whose popular educational television series "Cosmos" deGrasse Tyson rebooted in 2014, is further warming up to the same military system Sagan was arrested for protesting against in 1986 and had frequent public battles with it throughout his career.

AlterNet’s attempts to get comment from deGrasse Tyson were not immediately returned. It is unclear if the position is paid.

The host of "Cosmos" has been criticized before for his blind spot on the militarization of science. In dueling open letters in 2014, science writer John Horgan and UC Santa Barbara professor Patrick McCray asked deGrasse Tyson to clarify his apparent indifference.

He did so in a brief followup exchange with Horgan that climaxed with this bit of circular handwaving:
No scientist working for the government has a job outside of tax-based sources of support—paid by citizens in the service of national policy implemented by a Congress and a President. I can scream at lawmakers without limit, but their duty is to serve their constituents. And so it’s the electorate that I, as a scientist and educator, will always target for my messages.
Seems deGrasse Tyson is now bypassing the electorate and targeting a private consortium of billionaires, ex-spooks and military brass.

The militarization of science is a serious issue and deGrasse Tyson’s position on it deserves far more clarity, doubly so now that he's gone from indifferent to the problem to actively partaking in it.

.

Kapiolani Hotel is the RIMPAC lodge

SUBHEAD: The Queen Kapiolani will be extending our military "Per Diem PLUS" for all RIMPAC guests.

By Staff on 2 July 2016 for Queen Kapiolani Hotel -
(http://www.queenkapiolani.com/rimpac-2016.htm)


Image above: Exterior of the  Queen Kapiolani Hotel in a promo piece. From (http://www.greathawaiivacations.com/oahu/waikiki/id_queen_kapiolani_hotel.html#ad-image-0).

[IB Publisher's note: It's ugly to see a tourist hotels pimping for the military services. I guess the Kapiolani is more desperate than  it seems or simply doesn't care what damage the US  does to the Pacific Ocean and Hawaii.]

Queen Kapiolani Hotel & Kokua Hospitality welcomes RIMPAC 2016!   Since 1971 with the first RIMPAC the Queen Kapiolani has proudly welcomed our sailors and GI's from the US and Abroad. 
This year is no exception.  The Queen Kapiolani will be extending our military "Per Diem PLUS" for all RIMPAC guests. Book your reservation here...

The Per Diem PLUS includes the following:
  • PROMO CODE:  RIMPAC16
  • $177.00 Per Diem rate with appropriate ID
  • WAIVED - One Night Deposit at time of reservations
  • WAIVED - Daily Resort Fee ($15/day)
  • 50% Discount on Daily Valet Parking Fee 
  • FREE WIFI
  • FREE In-Room Coffee
  • FREE In-Room Safe
On Site:
  • 300 Steps to Waikiki Beach
  • 3 Miles to exit 25-A on the H1 Freeway
  • 24-Hour coin operated laundromat
  • 7 Minute walk to the center of Waikiki
  • On Main Bus Line 
  • On Site "Bike Rentals"
  • Sundry store open daily
  • Bar & Restaurant on 3rd Floor Pool Deck with a back drop of Diamond Head
We look forward to welcoming you with the true spirit of aloha & Thank you for all that you do 24/7/365!  See our website for additional information at: www.queenkapiola

RIMPAC on Social Media:

RIMPAC on Facebook RIMPAC on Twitter
RIMPAC on Instagram
RIMPAC on YouTube

.

America's Lust for War

SUBHEAD: Why WWIII? Because we can't face we're not NUMBER 1and it's all we know how to do.

By Juan Wilson on 21 June 2016 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2016/06/americas-lust-for-war.html)


Image above: Wei Dong, Lust & War, 2008, Oil and Acrylic on Canvas, 36x48 inches. From (http://depthofreality.livejournal.com/70102.html).

I must apologize to regular readers for my concentration on the US military over the last week and a half. The posts centering on our militarism began with "They Died of Progress" by John Michael Greer. It detailed the brittle and fragile state of America's "high-tech" military versus the more pragmatic approach of the Russian and Chinese efforts.

A week later I presented an overview of American military history of destructive activities in the Pacific that resulted in an extended nuclear war between 1946 and 1962 through today's belligerent RIMPAC 2016 naval exercises.

It seems to me that we are on the cusp of a reaching a place we can't back out of. We are aggressively pushing our "enemies" against the wall in several regions of the world. They include the
  • Middle East: There we've been continuous war since the 1990's (the 1980's if you count our support of the mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the USSR). Now we dialing it up in Syria and Iraq and the mess the Saudis are entangled in while we kowtow to Israel's neo-fascist - not to mention threats to Iran and others.
  • Eastern Europe: There we are using NATO to antagonize Russia with extending our reach into former USSR satellite states with American weapons systems aimed East. We have overthrown the leaders in the Ukraine and are moving naval elements into the eastern Mediterranean and even the Black sea.
  • Eastern Asia: We are heating up the disputes over rights in the South China Sea between China and our "allies" Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and other players. With our numerous bases in Japan we continue to push against North Korea, Russia and China. 
If either Killory Hilton or Donald Drumpf get into the White House it think our State Department will be getting a green light and we will soon find ourselves fighting World War III throughout the world.

Why? Because of our fading glory? Because it's been profitable to be losing every war we've entered since World War II. Because we can't face a world where we are not NUMBER 1? Because it's all we know how to do now?

We must turn from war. Don't support the US military and the corporations that support it and impoverished us.

RIMPAC 2016 sucks!

Oceans 4 Peace Pacific Pivot Panel

SUBHEAD: Here on Kauai we are at the epicenter of US military ecocide and and control of the Pacific Ocean.

By Juan Wilson on 18 June 2016 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2016/06/oceans4peace-pacific-pivot-talk.html)


Video above: Oceans4Peace Pacific Pivot Panel Discussion approximately 1.5hours. Filmed by Robert Zelkovsky.]. Source (https://youtu.be/Gl1kBS7-_dQ).

[IB Author's note: Below is the written text of the talk I gave (see video above) at the Oceans4Peace presentations and discussion. The evening program as hosted by Gorden Labedz and included;
Technology Effects on Whales - Kalasara Setaysha - Oceans4Peace, The Threats to Coral - Dr. Katherine Muzik - Marine Biologist NTBG, Expansion of US Militarism in the Pacific - Juan Wilson - Kauai Sierra Club]

OCEANS4PEACE PACIFIC PIVOT PRESENTATION
By Juan Wilson

Aloha All,
I am a retired architect/planner and a member of the executive committee of the Kauai Group of the Sierra Club. My wife Linda and I publish IslandBreath.org - an online website focussing on peace, sustainability, and living local.

I'm speaking in place of Koohan Paik who planned to make a presentation on the US military buildup in the Pacific Ocean and the so called "Pacific Pivot". However, she could not be here, as she is in South Korea.

I must say that Koohan works tirelessly on the issues we will speak about tonight. She was the first one that brought to me the importance of the Strategic Islands of of the United States - specifically in the Pacific Ocean. She is knowledgable of the policies and actions the US implements in achieving its imperial goals as well as the impacts they have on local cultures and ecosystems.

Koohan's presentation for our panel discussion before RIMPAC two years ago is pertinent today. In fact it was prescient:

I think it's worth revisiting. She said in part:
The U.S. is attempting to stake its claim on the Asia-Pacific region. Hillary Clinton, a huge cheerleader for the militarization, has called the 21st century “America’s Pacific Century.

RIMPAC is only a small piece of a huge, systemized, federal project of destruction called “the Pacific Pivot.” The Pacific Pivot is a plan to reorient the U.S. military away from Europe and the middle-east, and toward the Asia-Pacific region.

We are now in its beginning stages. New bases are being built, new military agreements are being forged with Pacific-rim nations, PMRF is ramping up for more rocket launches, the obnoxious Osprey helicopters are coming to Hawaii; and huge swaths of ocean have been targeted by the Pentagon for continual year-round bombing and detonations.

Our region is now witnessing an acceleration of militarization that resembles all-out war. And from an environmental point of view, it is no different from all-out war, because the training exercises, rife with every kind of explosion imaginable, never stop. Even PMRF Commander Hay bragged how, “Our ability to train like we would actually fight exists here”.

For the natural world, the Pacific Pivot is nothing short of an environmental holocaust. Bio-diverse ecosystems… totaling over three million square miles of supposedly “wild” ocean have been officially set aside to be systematically poisoned, dredged, detonated, torpedoed and bombed into nonexistence -- all in service of “military preparedness.” Over three million square miles of open seas – that’s roughly three-quarters the size of the entire United States of America.

We in Hawaii are at the center of this ecocide. We are not only at the center geographically – we are also at the center of control.

In 2014 at during the same panel discussion I said:
In recent decades several weapon systems have been developed and tested from the PMRF here on Kauai.  Those systems include submarine based ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.

The PMRF is the wheelhouse for many activities of RIMPAC.

Ocean, reefs, beaches, dunes, valleys, plains are strewn with lead and depleted-uranium munitions as well as pollutants such as bilge oil, hydraulic fluid, defoliants, and countless other contaminants used in war - and in war games.

RIMPAC is a demonstration to our "partners" and "enemies" that we will do anything to maintain military control over the vastness of the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.islandbreath.org/2016Year/06/160618complex.jpg
Image above: Image above: Map of Hawaiian Range Complex and inset showing it's position within a temporary operating area that is now part of the two-million square mile HIRC (Haweaiian Island Range Compex. From Source: (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/hrc_bo.pdf) Page 7. Click for larger map with legend.

THAT WAS THEN - THIS IS NOW
A point I would like to make this evening is that what maintains American domination of the Pacific are not the alliances and trade agreements with partner nations. That is not where the real power lies.

The power lies in the strategic military bases we maintain throughout the Pacific that are the muscle that allows those alliances, trade deals and policies to be enforced. And the force that runs through those muscles is delivered by nuclear reactor power and the threat of the use of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power propels about 100 nuclear submarines and leads 10 nuclear carrier strike groups with access to thousands of state of the art nuclear weapons. During RIMPAC 2016 one of those US Carrier Strike Groups will lead 45 ships and four submarines throughout the Hawaiian Islands.

My case to you tonight is that the United State's domination throughout the Pacific during the last 70 years rests on two foundations of nuclear engineering -  Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Weapons.

According to GlobalSecurity.org the mission of the PMRF is to facilitate Training, Tactics Development, and Test & Evaluations for air, surface, and sub-surface weapons systems and Advanced Technology Systems. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pmrf.htm)

The PMRF will be a crucial asset in coordination, communication, telemetry, intelligence, evaluation, and recording the events during RIMPAC 2016 and any future Pacific War.

The map I brought with me is an update of a map I put together with Koohan to demonstrate aspects of the Pacific Pivot. It shows the the vast area of the Pacific Ocean used for testing, developing and deploying weapons systems. It stretches east-west from the Philippines to California and north-south from Japan to Australia.

http://www.islandbreath.org/2016Year/06/160618pivotbig.jpg
Image above: A overall map of the Pacific Ocean showing the areas under US control and used to develop, test and train military systems and weapons. It also shows the Marine National Monuments and US restricted fishing areas that not only greatly overlap with the military test range, but with the islands used for nuclear weapons testing from the end of World War II to the Cubal Missile Crisis.  Click to see full size.

With a red outline the map identifies the boundaries of millions of square miles of range complexes for shooting rockets, testing sonar, exploding ordinance, and other destructive behavior.

There are 2,000,000 square miles of it around the Hawaiian Islands alone for use by RIMPAC 2016 participants.

The map also shows two "Transit Corridors" in dotted red crossing the Pacific from San Diego to Hawaii and from Hawaii over the Marshall Islands all the way to the Mariana Islands.

These corridors are used to test experimental planes, intercontinental missiles and space vehicles. The PMRF is at the center of where these corridors meet. 

There are also restricted fishing areas (in red) and Marine National Monument areas (in gray) that surround American controlled Pacific Islands in order to keep people out.

Lynn McNutt is on the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Regarding the expansion of the Marine National Monument area around the Northwest Hawaiian Islands she said recently:
"The military is not subject to ANY of the conservation rules, and by allowing them to operate sonar in the Monument area and continue missile launches and at sea training, the conservation rules are meaningless. Recently, the PMRF has been expanding its territorial restrictions on fisherman due to rocket firing and missile testing. 

If the proposal that the Marine Monument boundary of the Northwest Hawaiian Island area was expanded to 200 miles out from Nihoa Island, then Niihau and part of Kauai would be off limits to fisherrman, and the boundary line would conveniently come right up to the restricted area around PMRF. 

Since there is talk of making PMRF and active military base and since recent test activity took place in an expanded range restriction, fisherman are very concerned that expanded military use will result in further restrictions."
MISTREATING THE PACIFIC SINCE WWII
Starting in 1946 America, and its allies Britain and France, conducted what in effect was a nuclear war in the Pacific Ocean. This involved detonating over 160 nuclear devises over, near or on islands in the Pacific Ocean This included Bikini Island, Baker Island, Enewetak Atoll, Christmas Island, and Johnston Island (merely 700 miles from Kauai).

The British conducted over 20 nuclear tests in the Central Pacific and Australian territories. (https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/the-united-kingdomsnuclear-testing-programme/)

The French conducted over 40 nuclear tests in the South Pacific (https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/frances-nuclear-testing-programme/)

The United States conducted 106 atmospheric  and underwater nuclear tests in the Pacific, many of which were of extremely high yield. While the Marshall Islands testing composed an estimated total yield of around 210 million tons of TNT, with the largest being the 15 mega-tons Castle Bravo shot of 1954 which spread considerable nuclear fallout on many of the islands, including several which were inhabited, and some that had not been evacuated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Proving_Grounds)

The Navy's introduction to Kauai's Barking Sands was in 1956, near the height of the nuclear tests when the Air Force's Bonham Air Force Base granted it a five year revocable license to use 37 acres.

Two years later the Pacific Missile Range Facility was formally established.

The nuclear tests continued.

In 1962 the Navy's PMRF was becoming the principal user of Bonham Air Force Base, and formal negotiations began to transfer the base to the Navy.  (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pmrf.htm)

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin cows started delivering milk containing Strontium-90 that they ingested from eating grass. The atmospheric testing of hydrogen bombs soon stopped.

In 1964, negotiations were completed, and  Bonham Air Force Base officially transferred all its 1,885 acres to the Navy.

By this time, the PMRF had established a chain of stations throughout the Pacific.

Besides Barking Sands and Kokee, several down range stations under the PMRF included: South Point, Hawaii; Midway Island; Wake Island, Eniwetok Atoll; Tern Island; Christmas Island; Canton Island; and the recovery ships, USS Longview and USS Sunnyvale.

In 1967 the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range (BARSTUR), and the Makaha Ridge Instrumentation Site, were completed.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pmrf.htm)

TRIDENTS AND TOMAHAWKS
These facilities were crucial in the development and testing of submarine launched nuclear weapons like the Trident, Tomahawk missiles systems.

The Trident is a high altitude ballistic missile with multiple independently targetable reentry nuclear warheads or MIRVs. The Trident has a 6,000 mile range.

The Tomahawk is a low altitude radar avoiding cruise missile that can follow a flight plan independently.

Beginning in 1968 the Navy built ten Nimitz Class nuclear powered aircraft carriers to lead Strike Groups with the capability of launching nuclear missiles or planes with nuclear bombs to anywhere on Earth.

Beginning in the 1970's a new fleet of nuclear powered submarines designed to replace the older Polaris subs. Eighteen of the Ohio Class and 39 Los Angeles Class are now operational and fitted with either Trident or Tomahawk nuclear missiles.

http://www.islandbreath.org/2016Year/06/160618bsure1big.jpg
Image above: Partial map from a "industry" handout of the Barking Sands underwater test area. This came from a briefing to military contractors on the features of the PMRF (a key player in RIMPAC 1016 activities) when its BSURE hydrophone array was first added. Note the yellow "Fake Island" in the BARSTUR area. Is this some kind of target simulation? From (http://www.ceros.org/documents/FY10%20Industry%20Day%20Briefings/PMRF_CEROS%20Industry%20Day%2020100930.pdf). Click to see full page larger. Below is back side of this handout.
http://www.islandbreath.org/2016Year/06/160618bsure2.jpg
Image above: Partial map of the Barking Sands underwater test area. This came from a briefing to military contractors on the features of the PMRF (a key player in RIMPAC 1016 activities) when its BSURE hydrophone array was first added.

PMRF MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
The PMRF is now the world's largest instrumented, multi-dimensional testing  and training range. PMRF is the only range in the world where subsurface, surface, air and space vehicles can operate and be tracked simultaneously.

This capability allows range users extraordinary flexibility in planning and conducting realistic multi-participant, multi-threat freeplay operations to train crews, evaluate tactics, and test weapon systems.

But since nuclear war was found impractical most nuclear activity in recent decades has turned to building nuclear power plants.  Asian nuclear power plant building has been aggressive.  China, India, Japan, and South Korea have become enthusiastic advocates. (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/asias-nuclear-energy-growth.aspx).

Needless to say many US weapons contractors also got involved with the nuclear power industry. American government and corporations pushed nuclear power technology on allies as well as defeated enemies.

In the 1970s, the first light water reactors were built in Japan in cooperation with American companies. These plants were bought from vendors such as General Electric and Westinghouse with contractual work done by Japanese companies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan)

A FEW NUCLEAR TECH COMPANIES
General Electric, Westinghouse, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox, American Atomics, Nuclear Fuel Services, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, GenCorp Aerojet, Huntington Ingalls, and Lockheed Martin, Babcock & Wilcox, Bechtel, and Honeywell.

Many of these organizations (and others like Sandia  Labs) are still represented here on Kauai at the PMRF. The place is not so much a naval base as it is an industrial park for developing lethal weapon systems managed by guys in navy whites guarded by the private security firm ITT.

The results of their work are nuclear armed fleets which have dominated the Pacific Ocean (and the world) for over half a century with the fear of annihilation of life on Earth. The biannual celebration of this armada of destruction has been RIMPAC.

But that's only half the story
QUESTION: Which came first - the reactor or the bomb? ANSWER: Reactors.

Ex-WWII general and US President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed that nuclear technology be used for peace instead of war. He proposed the "Atoms for Peace" program that would transform the power of the atom to make electricity. It would also give many large military industrial corporations something to do after 1953 other than wage war. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace#Legacy)

In the early 1950's it was recognized that the weapons program would require more plutonium than could be furnished by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). One suggestion, made by Dr. Charles A. Thomas, then executive vice-president of Monsanto Chemical Company, was to create a dual purpose plutonium reactor, on which could produce plutonium for weapons, and electricity for commercial use (http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm)

Atoms for Peace created the ideological background for the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but also gave political cover for the U.S. nuclear weapons build-up, and the backdrop to the Cold War arms race. Under Atoms for Peace related programs the U.S. exported over 25 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to 30 countries, mostly to fuel research reactors, which is now regarded as a proliferation and terrorism risk. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace#Legacy)

Nuclear reactors are needed to make the material for nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons keep the US in a dominating position throughout the world. In addition, nuclear reactors power the aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines that deliver the nuclear weapons to their targets.

These two engineering disciplines are joined at the hip. One needs the other for survival.

Our former enemy and current ally Japan has suffered from both disciplines.
They, unfortunately, have the distinction of being victims of the two worst nuclear catastrophes in history.

As an enemy, in 1945, Japan suffered having two cities being destroyed by atomic bombs within days of one another.

As an ally Japan is suffering now from worst nuclear meltdown in history -  following the March 11th 2011 earthquake and tsunami, there was complete meltdown of three of the six reactors supplied by the General Electric for the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Put in perspective the destruction and radiation sickness caused by the single atomic bomb that landed on Hiroshima was generated with just a few pounds of Uranium 235.

But each of the nuclear reactors that melted down at Fukushima Daiichi had more than 600 pounds of reactor fuel for a total of about 1,800 pounds.

Moreover, in the case of Fukushima Reactor #3 it is reported that, despite regulations, the fuel used was mixed oxide - which is about 7% plutonium. Plutonium is more toxic than uranium for a considerably longer time.

In the 1960s US President Nixon had proposed we build "Breeder Reactors" using the MOX fuel. They were named "Breeders" because they make more refined uranium than they consume from the plutonium.

The Fukushima Daiichi Reactors #1, #2 and #3 had complete meltdowns that included the breaching of their reactor vessels.

More horrifying,  the fuel has likely completely burned through the four foot thick concrete slabs of their containment buildings and into the ground.

Ground water passing over the unreachable melted cores are picking up radioactive elements. This is producing about 300 tons of highly radioactive water that enters into the Pacific Ocean everyday.

It is unlikely that this process will not be stopped in the lifetime of anyone in this room.

In the case of reactor #2 there is evidence of a steam explosion tearing apart the reactor vessel. More ominously, in the case of reactor #3 the evidence points to a run away nuclear chain reaction (or criticality) of the MOX fuel.

In effect, the detonation of a plutonium bomb.

Tiny black grains of plutonium were blown into the atmosphere over Japan (including Tokyo) as well as out over the Pacific Ocean on the wind. Plutonium can be carried on the surface of the ocean supported by carbon soot buckyballs.

At the time of the March 11th tsunami the US Carrier Strike Group led by the USS Ronald Reagan was nearby. It was decided the Reagan and elements of the carrier group would provide logistical support.

The ships steamed to the eastern shore of Japan off Fukushima. When the two reactors exploded the Reagan and other ships were swallowed by a radioactive plume of soot, steam and ash that stretched across the ocean from the plant.

Lindsay Cooper, Navy sailor was aboard USS Ronald Reagan during 3/11 rescue operation:
(http://nypost.com/2013/12/22/70-navy-sailors-left-sickened-by-radiation-after-japan-rescue/)
“I was standing on the flight deck, and we felt this warm gust of air, and, suddenly, it was snowing [...] We joked about it: ‘Hey, it’s radioactive snow! I took pictures and video [...] Japan didn’t want us in port, Korea didn’t want us, Guam turned us away. We floated in the water for two and a half months [until Thailand took them in] “People were suffering from excruciating diarrhea and shitting themselves in the hallways].”
On top of that the Reagan had replenished its water tanks that it desalinated for washing cooking and drinking. It did not realize the water contained radioactive elements.

Since 2011 about 400 young healthy service persons from the carrier group have become unexplainably ill. Several have died.

The USS Ronald Reagan was severely contaminated. The Reagan was taken out of service and drydocked for 18 months in Bremerton, Washington in order to be decontaminated.

The ship was back on duty in time to be a flagship for RIMPAC in 2014. After the war games the Reagan was reassigned from San Diego to the strategic forward naval base at Yokosuka, Japan, near Tokyo.

The participants for RIMPAC 2016 include Canada, Chile, China,  India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Singapore, South Korea, Tonga, and the United States. It also includes three NATO allies France, Germany, and the Netherlands,  (http://www.cpf.navy.mil/rimpac/participants/)

It seems ominous to me that NATO allies are participating in RIMPAC. France, Germany and the Netherlands are NATO members obligated to supporting other NATO nations if attacked. With tensions rising in the South China Seas it seems ill advised to make the Pacific Ocean part of NATO's responsibility.

Does anyone hear remember SEATO? The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization?  SEATO was in effect after the Korean War and was used through the Vietnam War era to keep "friendly" nations in the area on the same page. But after America lost the Vietnam War SEATO withered away and was disbanded by 1977.

SEATO, like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) committed participants to join in a war if any party were attacked. NATO commits America and its partners to joining in war in Europe against what was the USSR and is now Russia.  SEATO was aimed primarily at Red China.

There has been a heating up of Chinese sovereignty claims to the South China Sea with its oil and gas reserves. RIMPAC 2016 may now be morphing into alliance not unlike the now defunct SEATO.

So it is no surprise that RIMPAC 2016 includes so many exSEATO nations and and a Chinese navy observation boat. Maybe it's time to rename it RIMCO.

What are our real strategic priorities?
If it is not obvious yet, but it should be soon. There is only so much more easily obtained conventional energy in the form of gas, oil and coal fossil fuels. These three sources are critical to modern industrial civilization.

• They are crucial for refining steel, aluminum and other metals.

• They are the source material for creating asphalts, plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and lubricants.

• They are the source of about 75% of the energy we use.

We now know that burning all the available fossil fuels are causing uncontrollable runaway global warming - with climate change and rising oceans. We are already experiencing the bow waves of those effects.

We must be very judicial in determining what we will do with these resources.

One thing to consider is that without abundant available gas, oil and coal we cannot safely maintain operating the world's almost 500 nuclear power plants. It is likely that without a massive effort - starting now - we will not even be able to safely shut them down. (http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics)

There is also the more than 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world that need safe decommissioning. The US has more than 7,000 to deal with. (http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report?gclid=CNzq1_mmrc0CFYiVfgod1XkK7Q).

WPP IT GOOD
Many may not realize that the only facility for storing nuclear waste in the US is no more. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (or WPP) in New Mexico, closed in 2014. That was due an accident that created an uncontrolled plutonium fire.

It seems that before shipping technicians at Los Alamos National Labs packed a 55 gallon steel drum of waste plutonium with the wrong kitty litter (used as a filler) that ignited the fire and incapacitated the plant. Who knew? Atomic scientists?

There is now no place for the US to process and store waste nuclear fuel or weapon.

The most most important thing our blue water Navy could do is find another agenda than turning the Pacific Rim into an ashtray. Perhaps they could find a way to safely put away their nuclear devices while there is still the industrial capability to do it.

And rather than implementing a current plan to turn the PMRF from a research facility into a regular military base further suggestions.

Perhaps the Navy could make a new list of priorities in the Pacific Ocean that could be incorporated into future RIMPAC activities.

For example:
  1. Tackle the problem of hundreds of tons of highly radioactive water entering     the Pacific daily from the Fukushima Nuclear Plant.
  2. Commit whatever is required to saving ocean reefs from acidification and bleaching.
  3.  Strictly enforce international regulations to keep fisheries sustainable and healthy.
  4. Take care of the gigantic Pacific gyres of plastic, flotsam and jetsam.
  5.  Rescue Pacific islanders threatened by rising seas due to global warming
Mahalo for you time and patience this evening.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Ocean 4 Peace Events 6/11/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Prepare for RIMPAC 2016 War in Hawaii 5/22/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy to "take" millions of mammals 5/17/16
Ea O Ka Aina: US court RIMPAC Impact decision 4/3/15
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC 2014 Impact Postmortem 10/22/1
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC 2014 in Full March 7/16/14
Ea O Ka Aina: 21st Century Energy Wars 7/10/14
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC War on the Ocean 7/3/14
Ea O Ka Aina: Voila - World War Three 7/1/14
Ea O Ka Aina: The Pacific Pivot 6/28/14
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC IMPACT 6/8/14
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC Then and Now 5/16/14
Ea O Ka Aina: Earthday TPP Fukushima RIMPAC 4/22/14
Ea O Ka Aina: The Asian Pivot - An ugly dance 12/5/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Help save Mariana Islands 11/13/13
Ea O Ka Aina: End RimPac destruction of Pacific 11/1/13 
Ea O Ka Aina: Moana Nui Confereence 11/1/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy to conquer Marianas again  9/3/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Pagan Island beauty threatened 10/26/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy license to kill 10/27/12 
Ea O Ka Aina: Sleepwalking through destruction 7/16/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Okinawa breathes easier 4/27/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy Next-War-Itis 4/13/12
Ea O Ka Aina: America bullies Koreans 4/13/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Despoiling Jeju island coast begins 3/7/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Jeju Islanders protests Navy Base 2/29/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Hawaii - Start of American Empire 2/26/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Korean Island of Peace 2/26/12   
Ea O Ka Aina: Military schmoozes Guam & Hawaii 3/17/11
Ea O Ka Aina: In Search of Real Security - One 8/31/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Peace for the Blue Continent 8/10/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Shift in Pacific Power Balance 8/5/10
Ea O Ka Aina: RimPac to expand activities 6/29/10
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC War Games here in July 6/20/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Pacific Resistance to U.S. Military 5/24/10
Ea O Ka Aina: De-colonizing the Pacific 5/21/10
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC to Return in 2010 5/2/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Living at the Tip of the Spear 4/5/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Living at the Tip of the Spear 4/15/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Guam Land Grab 11/30/09
Ea O Ka Aina: Guam as a modern Bikini Atoll 12/25/09
Ea O Ka Aina: GUAM - Another Strategic Island 11/8/09
Ea O Ka Aina: Diego Garcia - Another stolen island 11/6/09
Ea O Ka Aina: DARPA & Super-Cavitation on Kauai 3/24/09
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2008 - Navy fired up in Hawaii 7/2/08
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2008 uses destructive sonar 4/22/08
Island Breath: Navy Plans for the Pacific 9/3/07
Island Breath: Judge restricts sonar off California 08/07/07
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2006 sonar compromise 7/9/06
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2006 - Impact on Ocean 5/23/06
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2004 - Whale strandings on Kauai 9/2/04
Island Breath: PMRF Land Grab 3/15/04