Subscriptions, Current Issue & Back Issues

Current Issue | Annual Subscriptions | Back Issues

Category: Military and Defense

ON THE BRINK RADIO #207 NOW: WARNING FROM THE DREAMTIME…OUR WAR ON LIFE AND THE ‘DAY OF PURIFICATION’

SATURDAYS@ 9AM EST-USA / FRIDAY 3 AM HAWAI’I TIME / SATURDAY 11 PM MELBOURNE/SYDNEY/TASMANIA TIME AUSTRALIA /1 AM NEW ZEALAND TIME and SUNDAYS @ 8AM EST-USA / SATURDAY 2 AM HAWAI’I TIME / SUNDAY 10 PM MELBOURNE/SYDNEY/TASMANIA TIME AUSTRALIA/MONDAY MIDNIGHT NEW ZEALAND TIME 
UCY.TV‘S LISTEN LIVE LINK:

http://ucy.tv/Default.aspx?PID=113&=On+the+Brink

“…the concentration of economic and political power has not only made the man of science dependent economically, it also threatens his independence from within; the shrewd methods of intellectual and psychic influences which it brings to bear will prevent the development of independent personalities.
Albert Einstein, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 195
ABOVE: SOUTH PACIFIC PIVOT ‘NOOSE’ OF 400+ U.S. BASES SURROUNDING CHINA

BLOG POST ABOUT THIS SHOW (IN PROGRESS)

http://rachels-carson-of-today.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/warning-from-dreamtime-on-brink-special_15.html

 THIS COULD BE HAWAI’I AS WELL AS KOREA
UNCLE SAM’S WAR PONIES
 UNCLE SAM IS JEALOUS OF CHINA’S ECONOMIC SUPERIORITY
CLOSE TO 1000 BASES WORLD-WIDE. WHY?
“TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR AMERICAN BUSINESS”
JOHN PILGER VISITING INDIGENOUS PEOPLE 
WHO WERE NUKED BY THE ‘PEACEFUL ATOM’
 “AUSTRALIA IS AMERICA’S MOST OBSEQUIOUS PARTNER”
EVERY AUSTRALIAN BASE IS A DE FACTO U.S. BASE
AUSTRALIA LOOKING AT MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEMS
AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT:  HAWAI’I, AUSTRALIA, THE WORLD
TALISMAN-SABRE:  AUSTRALIA’S BIGGEST WAR-‘GAME’ HAPPENING NOW AT SHOALWATER BAY, GREAT BARRIER REEF WORLD HERITAGE AREA
THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL JUGGERNAUT 
WAGES ENVIRONMENTAL WARFARE BY ITS VERY EXISTENCE
This comprehensive and holographic broadcast of On the Brink radio (#207), transduced and recorded in the macro-nemeton of the Darwin Botanical Gardens, looks at three related trends in the socio-technological realms that are converging on what I call the ‘Atlantean threshold.’
LISTEN AND/OR DOWNLOAD ANYTIME ARCHIVE LINK FOR THIS SHOW
1) FAKE SCIENCE  
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet
‘Climate’ science is most particularly riddled with bogosity, the U.S. Navy controls as much as 75% of all marine biology research, the pharmaceutical industry owns medical research, and the powers that be have almost succeeded in wiping awareness of the global nuclear scenario from the face of the public mind.
It’s not just about money. A quote from Albert Einstein says it all:
“The scientist of today is distressed by the fact that the results of his scientific work have created a threat to mankind since they have fallen into the hands of morally blind exponents of political power. He is conscious of the fact that technological methods, made possible by his work, have led to a concentration of economic and also of political power in the hands of small minorities which have come to dominate completely the lives of the masses of people, who appear more and more amorphous. But even worse: the concentration of economic and political power has not only made the man of science dependent economically, it also threatens his independence from within; the shrewd methods of intellectual and psychic influences which it brings to bear will prevent the development of independent personalities.
Albert Einstein, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1952
What we need is to study and conduct science scientifically, and make knowledge the handmaiden of critical thinking, not a mistress of belief based on authority figures and the manufacture of consent.
2) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ROBOTICS
AI TO BE USED IN WHALE STRANDINGS
“Just when we thought it could not get any worse….rescues now are going to use AI (artificial intelligence) to make decisions during mass stranding events. Like seriously, WHAT?? Here is some advice that will save them some time, money and computing power: every life matter, always try to save 100 %, if not, evaluate what went wrong, make changes, try again. Seriously, AI for strandings…Apart from being absolutely idiotic, it is actually very worrisome. Already AI in some shape or form makes some decisions whether or not to give you a loan, next step will probably be insurance rates, and after that whether or not you should be treated medically, because your probabilities are not that good. Once you take away ethics, compassion and humanity out of decision making process, you literally open one nasty Pandora’s box.
Computare in Latin means ‘to think or reflect upon.’ So-called ‘computers’ do nothing of the sort, they are actually dinucruds or ‘digital number-crunching devices.’
Dinucruds and electricity are the foundations of megatechnology; without computers and alternating current none of our most lethal enterprises would be possible.
NAUTILUS/LOCKHEED DEEP SEABED MINING ROBOT
KOMATSU ‘AUTONOMOUS HAULAGE VEHICLE’ MINING ROBOT
DARPA’S ‘SEAHUNTER’ DRONE PREDATOR
A MILITARY SUPERCOMPUTER ELIMINATES WAR…BY ‘RESTRAINING MAN’
COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT
3) MILITARIZATION
“I believe America may totally succumb to the fearful militarisation which engulfed Germany at the beginning of the 20th century. There is real danger that political power and the power to influence the minds of people will pass increasingly into the hands of the military, which is used to approaching all political problems from the point of view of military expediency. Because of America‘s supremacy, the military point of view is forced upon the world.’

ALBERT EINSTEIN
 
“I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man’s.”  William Blake

“On Spaceship Earth, there are no passengers:  everyone is crew.”  R. Buckminster Fuller
 

Army Prepares Women to Shower With Men as Part of Transgender Equality Training


By Geller Report Staff – on July 14, 2017
U.S. Military

Army Women

Apparently, the military is still on a path of political activism because Army officials are actually putting out the word to their women recruits that they better get ready for showers with men — that gender, in the military, is completely neutral.
It’s all in the name of transgenderism.
The military is trying to build up the “dignity and respect” for transgender soldiers, it seems Transgender policy in in the military is rankling conservatives.
LifeSite has the basics:
The guidance is part of the Pentagon’s new “transgender inclusion” agenda launched by Obama and gaining ground in the Armed Services. Social conservatives are mounting a counteroffensive to ditch the “trans” program altogether.
President Trump and the Pentagon have sent mixed signals on LGBT issues, with the DoD honoring gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender “pride” month in June even as Trump himself broke with Obama by not issue a homosexual “pride proclamation.”
In “Vignette 4” of an Army’s PowerPoint guidance, titled, “Policy on the Military Service of Transgender Soldiers Training Module, Tier 3: Units and Soldiers,” issued last September, it states the following regarding a hypothetical “transgender Soldier” who is “transitioning” to a new “gender”:
“Following her transition from male to female (which did not include sex reassignment surgery) and gender marker change in DEERS [the Army’s personnel system – Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System], a transgender Soldier begins using female barracks, bathroom, and shower facilities. Because she did not undergo a surgical change, the Soldier still has male genitalia.”
The pro-transgender lesson then offers the following two points among six “Considerations and Responsibilities” required of Army personnel in such cases:
1-Understand that you may encounter individuals in barracks, bathrooms, or shower facilities with physical characteristics of the opposite sex despite having the same gender marker in DEERS.
2-All Soldiers should be respectful of the privacy and modesty concerns of others. However, transgender Soldiers are not required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior based on the fact that they do not “match” other Soldiers.
The Army’s “transgender”-affirming documents are startling in the degree to which they: 1) cater to a tiny percentage of “gender-non-conforming” Americans (in 2011, the pro-LGBT Williams Institute estimated that just 0.3 percent of the population, or 700,000 adults, was “transgender”); and 2) risk alienating the privacy and conscience rights of a much larger pool of Army soldiers in the name of providing “dignity and respect” to the severely gender-confused.
The new guidance is fueling calls by conservatives for the Armed Forces to ditch President Obama’s “transgender-inclusive” policy in the military, announced late in his term by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter. The pro-“transgender” policy, which was never voted on or fully debated in Congress, had been slated to go into full effect July 1, allowing open recruitment of gender-bending people.
Late last month, the Associated Press reported that Defense Secretary James Mattis agreed to postpone full implementation of the Obama “transgender” policy for six month. Mattis reportedly rejected a request by the Army and Navy (which oversees the Marines) to delay it two years.
“After consulting with the service chiefs and secretaries, I have determined that it is necessary to defer the start of accessions for six months,” Mattis said in a June 30 memo sent to service chiefs and secretaries. “We will use this additional time to evaluate more carefully the impact of such accessions on readiness and lethality.”
AP reported:
“According to officials familiar with the internal discussions, the [military] chiefs believe the extra six months would give the four military services time to gauge if currently serving transgender troops are facing problems and what necessary changes military bases might have to make.
“They said Navy officials were ready to begin enlistment in July but asked for a one-year delay, largely to accommodate a request from the Marine Corps for more time. The Navy secretary also oversees the Marine Corps. The Army and Air Force wanted a two-year delay to further study the issue, they said.
“Already, there are as many as 250 service members who are in the process of transitioning to their preferred genders or who have been approved to formally change gender within the Pentagon’s personnel system, according to several defense officials.“
Here’s a thought: How about just ending the policy and stopping the seepage of LGBT agenda into our nation’s military?
The policy ought not be allowed to take effect all in the name of being studied. Rather, it should be scrapped entirely.
Again, from Life Site:
Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri, chairwoman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, offered an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to stop the Obama “transgender” military policy, calling it “ill-conceived” and unfair.
“This policy is costly and a threat to our readiness. The deployability of individuals going through the sex transition process is highly problematic, requiring 210 to 238 workdays where a soldier is non-deployable after surgery,” Hartzler said in a June 29 press release. “This recovery time equates to 1.4 million manpower days where transgender personnel cannot deploy and fight our nation’s wars, therefore relying on an already stressed force to pick up the burden.
“It makes no sense to purposely recruit individuals who cannot serve,” she said, noting that people with “lesser physical issues,” such as flat feet, bunions, asthma, and sleep walking, have been denied entrance into the Armed Forces or special military units like JAG (Judge Advocate General’s Corps). “This is a senseless and highly unfair double standard.”
Hartzler honed in on the high cost of “sex-reassignment surgeries” and procedures: “By recruiting and allowing transgender individuals to serve in our military we are subjecting taxpayers to high medical costs, including up to $130,000 per transition surgery, lifetime hormone treatments, and additional surgeries to address the high percentage of individuals who experience complications.”
She said “transgender” surgeries alone could cost U.S. taxpayers $1.35 billion over the next 10 years — money with which the DoD, comparatively, could purchase: “13 F-35’s, 14 Super Hornet F-18’s, 2 B-21 long-range strike bombers, 8 KC-46’s, all A-10 wing replacements or increased end strength of our troops.”

https://pamelageller.com/2017/07/army-prepares-women-shower-men-part-transgender-equality-training.html/

Rising Budget Stakes for Space Warfare

 

Exclusive: As a backdrop to the Russia-gate hysteria and the heightened fear of China is a budget war over how much U.S. taxpayer money to pour into space warfare, explains Jonathan Marshall.

By Jonathan Marshall
There’s a civil war being fought on our nation’s soil, right in our capital. It pits the Secretary of Defense and senior generals against a bipartisan band of militant legislators who accuse the Pentagon of standing pat while Russian and China work to achieve military superiority over the United States in space.

Rising Budget Space
No doubt these bureaucratic warriors will eventually call a truce. But in the meantime, the American people will almost certainly become less secure and more indebted (in budget terms) as a result of both sides’ macho posturing for new warfighting capabilities in space (differing mostly on how far and how fast to go).
Eager congressional advocates of space warfare have attached an amendment to the House defense authorization bill requiring the Pentagon to create a new U.S. Space Corps to join the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard by 2019. Currently, the Air Force oversees most space warfare projects.
The amendment has sent senior Pentagon leadership into a tizzy. Secretary of Defense James Mattis “strongly” urged Congress to rescind the requirement, stating in a letter that “it is premature to add additional organization and administrative tail to the department at a time I am trying to reduce overhead.”
Similarly, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson protested that the proposal will simply “add more boxes to the organization chart.” Meanwhile, Gen. John W. Raymond, commander of Air Force Space Command, insisted that his service has space matters well in hand. (He should be happy — the Pentagon recently raised his position to a 4-star rank.)
Upping the Ante
In response, Rep. Mike Rogers, an Alabama Republican and chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee, announced that he was “pissed” and “outraged” at the Air Force for fighting the new Space Command, saying its obstructionism would “set back efforts to respond to adversaries and space threats” and allow Russia and China “to surpass us soon.”

Rising Budget Stakes
“The Air Force leadership would have us trust them: I don’t think so,” Rogers sneered, as if speaking about the Russians. “They just need a few more years to rearrange the deck chairs: I don’t think so. This is the same Air Force that got us into the situation where the Russians and the Chinese are near-peers to us in space.” He vowed, “We will not allow the status quo to continue.”
Behind all the fiery argumentation lies a bipartisan consensus that the United States must sharply increase its spending on the militarization of space to maintain global supremacy. Gen. Raymond applauded Congress for recognizing the “national imperative” of his mission to “normalize, elevate, and integrate space as a war-fighting domain.”
Secretary Wilson published an op-ed column last month on her new initiatives to “develop space airmen who have the tools, training, and resources to fight when – not if – war extends into space.” She fully expects Congress to follow through on her request for a 20 percent increase in Air Force space funding. (Total military spending on space, including non-Air Force programs like the National Reconnaissance Office, came to about $22 billion last year.)
What’s driving all this activity — aside from baser motives of bureaucratic advantage and financial gain — are “intelligence assessments” that “China and Russia have aggressive programs to both demonstrate and produce eventual operational capability to . . . attack our space assets across the spectrum,” in the words of David Hardy, acting deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for Space.
“While we’re not at war in space, I don’t think we can say we’re exactly at peace, either,” said Navy Vice Adm. Charles A. Richard, deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command, in March. Gen. John Hyten, head of the Pentagon’s Strategic Command, recently declared that the United States needs not only a good defense, but “an offensive capability to challenge” space threats from Russia and China.
The High Stakes in Space
The stakes are potentially huge because the United States uses space for all manner of command, control, and intelligence missions, not to mention civilian applications. Orbiting satellites provide near-real-time images of conflict zones, sense missile launches and nuclear tests, provide precise positioning coordinates to guide weapons systems, and route secure communications to remote regions of the globe.

Earth Rise
Of some 1,400 operational satellites currently in orbit, 40 percent belong to the United States, nearly twice as many as Russia and China combined. About 150 U.S. satellites serve military applications.
Any threat to satellites would thus pose a serious, even disproportionate military risk to the United States. But instead of supporting international initiatives to put space off limits to warfare, Washington has led the way in developing anti-satellite missile technology, encouraging a space arms race that puts our assets in peril.
The United States and Russia experimented with primitive anti-satellite technology as far back as the 1960s, but the United States first used a missile fired from a fighter jet to destroy an aging satellite in 1985. Not until 2007 did China conduct a similar test, blowing up an old weather satellite, while emphasizing its interest in multilateral talks to prevent the weaponization of space. The following year, the United States used a Navy interceptor missile to shoot down a dying military satellite. Russia followed suit with an anti-satellite test in 2015, proving that no military advance goes unanswered.
Some Key Facts
Alarmists who selectively cite Russian and Chinese activities to warn of an impending military space “gap” ignore a few key facts:
The United States holds a clear technology lead and spends at least 10 times more on military space operations than every other country on earth combined.
Although U.S. satellites are vulnerable to attack, most have maneuvering capabilities, shielding against various forms of radiation, and jam-resistant communications.
For years, Russia, China and other nations have sought to control the spread of weapons into space — only to face consistent opposition from Washington.
An Outer Space Treaty signed in 1967 limited only the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. In 2002, the George W. Bush administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia, opening the door to widespread deployment of weapons that put U.S. satellites at risk. A year later, the Air Force declared in its Strategic Master Plan that “the ability to exploit space while selectively disallowing it to adversaries is critically important and . . . an essential prerequisite to modern warfare.”George W. Bush
Candidate Barack Obama proposed an international “code of conduct” in space, but as president he met resistance from the State Department and Pentagon, and dropped the idea as U.S.-Russia relations soured. In 2011, Congress passed an amendment banning cooperation with China in space, thus encouraging a military space race between our countries.
In 2014, the United Nations General Assembly voted 126 to 4 to pass a Russian resolution banning an arms race in space. The four dissenting countries were Georgia, Israel, Ukraine — and the United States.
Because the United States depends on space more than any other nation, both for military security and commerce, it has the most to lose if wars spread into space. Instead of relying only on military superiority to keep us safe, the time is long overdue to pursue diplomatic options for arms control — which potentially could help us achieve greater security for far less money.
“Unfortunately, the structural inertia that supports and, indeed, advocates, aggressive space postures requiring expensive weapon systems is strong,” notes Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College and expert on space warfare. “Congressional support for their efforts is easily garnered, as building hardware creates lucrative jobs and corporate profits, whereas diplomacy does not.
“But if the goal of U.S. space security efforts is to maintain stability in space so it can fully utilize its space assets, then the time seems ripe for proactive diplomatic leadership and, at the same time, sustained strategic restraint. Otherwise, the U.S. will be seen (not for the first time) as advocating a policy of do-as-we-say-and-not-as-we-do regarding pursuit of offensive space capabilities.”
Johnson-Freese is not alone in her call for fresh new thinking about space warfare. A 2016 policy paper that she co-authored was published of all places by the Atlantic Council — a pro-NATO, Pentagon-funded think tank.
Its introduction declared, “The days of ‘space dominance’ are over and we need to move from thinking of space as a military domain of offense and defense to a more complex environment that needs to be managed by a wide range of international players. Doing so would calm growing tensions in space and, with deft management, lead to a more stable, peaceful space domain.”
The author of those words was retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are words that sensible Americans — who want a safer world and a sane limit on military spending — should rally round. We will stand a greater chance of preserving our civilization if we reserve space wars for movies and novels.
Jonathan Marshall is a regular contributor to Consortiumnews.com.

Rising Budget Stakes for Space Warfare

DARPA Commits $65M To Brain Implant Program For Super Soldier Project

DARPA

By Aaron Kessel

The U.S. military is disclosing a super soldier project, revealing to have allocated funding of $65 million dollars for a program to develop a ‘Brain-Computer Interface’ that would allow participants to plug into a computer like the movie The Matrix. No this isn’t science fiction Neo, this is the future that the MIC wants for its soldiers.
Earlier last year in January, DARPA launched Neural Engineering System Design to research technology that could turn soldiers into cyborgs.


The military wants to use these programs to “give soldiers supersenses and boost brainpower.” Four teams will be responsible for increasing vision and two on hearing and speech. The military adds that this will help develop “new treatments for patients with sensory disorders.”
The program is being backed by Brown University, Columbia University, The Seeing and Hearing Foundation, the John B. Pierce Laboratory, Paradromics Inc and the University of California.
These organizations have formed teams to develop the fundamental research and component technologies required to pursue the NESD vision of a high-resolution neural interface and integrate them to create and demonstrate working systems able to support potential future therapies for sensory restoration,’ official said.
The goal of the project is ‘developing an implantable system able to provide precision communication between the brain and the digital world,’ DARPA officials said.
“Today’s best brain-computer interface systems are like two supercomputers trying to talk to each other using an old 300-baud modem. Imagine what will become possible when we upgrade our tools to really open the channel between the human brain and modern electronics,” Phillip Alvelda, NESD manager for DARPA, said to The Guardian.
They allege that this new study into technology and the human mind “will help treat people with blindness, paralysis and speech disorders.”
Advancing neuroscience isn’t the only experiment that DARPA has been up to; they are also actively trying to merge man with machines … essentially transhumanism.
The military industrial complex has been trying for years to develop robotic exosuits and mech robots to increase a soldier’s strength as documented by the Raytheon Sarcos XOS 2 exosuit. Which makes its wearer stronger, have an increased agility and endurance like a superhero.

Around the same time as the release of the XOS 2 exosuit in 2015 the military also released “The Revision Kinetic Operation Suit.” The suit has a built-in night vision, computers, a communications system and a suspended metal exoskeleton that wraps 60% of a soldier’s body in armor. It’s so heavy that a motorized metal skeleton to carry the weight is needed to move the soldier.

 

It’s also worth mentioning that technocrats in Silicon Valley are interested in the transhumanist A.I. society. Tesla’s Elon Musk and former Google[X] Executive Mary Lou Jepsen both are planning mind reading technology and share the same interest of the privately owned military industrial complex to transition the human race to becoming more like machines.

https

://www.blacklistednews.com/DARPA_Commits_%2465M_To_Brain_Implant_Program_For_Super_Soldier_Project/59645/0/38/38/Y/M.html

US Military: “Guardians Of The Galaxy”!

INSANE! Thanks to George at theCONtrail  for the heads-up.

The only “Galaxy” these soldiers will be defending is the C17 in the pic! Talk about delusions of grandeur!

OpEdNews Op Eds 7/8/2017 at 05:09:58
Major Mistake Found in Congressional Creation of Space Army
By  https://www.opednews.com/author/author9.html

 

Peterson Air Force Base”
Even CNN struggles to stay solemn, neither laughing nor vomiting, at news of Congress creating a new branch of the U.S. military to fight wars in space.
Of course, one purpose of militarizing space, which other nations have long supported banning by treaty, has for the United States long been to facilitate more unstoppable attacks on various corners of the little planet earth.
But another stated purpose of this legislation is to “guard the galaxy.” Here’s where a massive miscalculation has been found in the plan.
The U.S. Department of Defense has long since learned that by imposing itself on some corner of the globe it quickly generates something to “defend” against. Bomb a capital, overthrow a government, occupy cities, kick in doors, and before long, lo and behold, there’s an enemy threatening to “aggressively” attack U.S. occupying forces, which are then compelled to “defend” themselves.
But the Pentagon is apparently so self-centered that it commits a Nakba Error in its understanding of this process of defensive aggression. That is to say, it believes its actions are all reactions to the blowback it creates, and it simply overlooks the requirement for any such blowback to be produced that there be people inhabiting the territory assaulted.
The space cowboys who won the West imagined there were no Native Americans, but simultaneously could not have “won” had there not been someone there to lose.
So off traipses the new U.S. Space Corps to defend the galaxy, completely unperturbed by the fact that no known life forms inhabit any of it outside the earth. The assumption in the halls of Congress appears to be that even in outerspace if you aggressively start “defending” the hell out of planets and stars, aggressive aliens will retroactively materialize and be cited in a UN resolution.
Assuming that no enemies are generated by the Space Corpse, if only because there are no life forms to be found, this new branch of the U.S. military will have an enormous point in its favor over various other branches, which are constantly generating hostility and terrorism everywhere they go.
The question for activists on terra firma will then be: Do we try to shift funding from the Marines or Air Force to the Space Corps, as a strategic possible win, or do we stick with the principled stand of trying to move money away from all such insanity and into such down to earth programs as sustainable energy, education, and housing that comes with air and gravity?

UN Votes to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons – Treaty Awaits Ratification

By resolution 71/258, the General Assembly decided to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination. The Assembly encouraged all Member States to participate in the Conference and decided that it shall convene in New York, under the rules of procedure of the General Assembly unless otherwise agreed by the Conference, with the participation and contribution of international organizations and civil society representatives. The Conference will be held in New York from 27 to 31 March and from 15 June to 7 July. The Conference held a one-day organizational session in New York on 16 February 2017.

The decision to convene the Conference followed from the recommendation of the open-ended working group on taking forward multilateral disarmament negotiations, convened pursuant to resolution 70/33. The open-ended working group, chaired by Ambassador Thani Thongphakdi (Thailand), specified in its report that a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons would establish general prohibitions and obligations as well as a political commitment to achieve and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free world. The primary mandate of the open-ended working group was to address concrete effective legal measures, legal provisions and norms that would need to be concluded to attain and maintain a world without nuclear weapon

Learn More:

UN Votes to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons – Treaty Awaits Ratification

Five Eyes Surveillance Network: US Government To Be Sued!

Five Eyes

Privacy International has filed a lawsuit against US government agencies
By Matt Burgess  Thursday 6 July 2017

The Five Eyes surveillance cabal, established at the end of World War 2, includes the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The agreement covers how intelligence is shared. And that’s about all we know about it.
But that could be about to change.

The US government is being sued for information about the deal, officially known as the United Kingdom-United States Communications Intelligence Agreement. UK-based charity Privacy International has filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the State Department and the National Archives and Records Administration, which all hold information about the intelligence sharing partnership.
The lawsuit follows requests for details about the partnership under the US Freedom of Information Act. All the government agencies rejected the requests.
The Five Eyes group has existed since 1946 and the last document officially published about it comes from 1955. Since then, vast technological changes have altered how national security bodies collect and store information.

“We hope to find out the current scope and nature of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement – and how much has changed since the 1955 version,” Privacy International legal officer Scarlet Kim tells WIRED. “We’d also like to know the US rules and regulations governing this exchange of information – what safeguards and oversight, if any, exist with respect to these activities?”
The complaint, says Privacy International wants to access the current text of the agreement, how the US government implements it, and the procedures for how intelligence is shared. “These records are of paramount concern because the public lacks even basic information about the Five Eyes alliance,” the document says.
The campaign group argues that because the public doesn’t have enough information about Five Eyes, it is impossible to know if there is a “legal basis” for exchanging signals intelligence. “We are eager to know whether the US shares information not only about Americans but also about Five Eyes citizens and residents with its Five Eyes partners –
and whether it undertakes any sort of due diligence before it shares this information,” Kim says.
The lawsuit will take a long time to progress through the US legal system but if it is successful could reveal previously private information. Seven years ago, the 1946 agreement between the UK and US, which was superseded by the 1955 document, was acknowledged and released for the first time in the UK. Documents published by the National Archives revealed the basis for the co-operation between the countries.
The last light shed on the Five Eyes network came after 2013, when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden published thousands of documents from inside the intelligence agency.
“The Snowden disclosures gave us a glimpse into how the change in technical capabilities has transformed the work the 5 Eyes countries do together,” Kim explains. “For example, we know that the NSA and GCHQ have worked together to obtain the contact lists and address books from hundreds of millions of personal email and IM accounts as well as webcam images from video chats of millions of Yahoo users”.
Among many of the practices and capabilities revealed by Snowden surrounding the global intelligence picture, was a glimpse at what is shared with members of Five Eyes. In 2015 it was said New Zealand conducted mass surveillance against its Pacific neighbours, including gathering calls, emails, and social media messages.
The documents also revealed New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau passed gathered intelligence to the partners within Five Eyes.

Source

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/five-eyes-sue-us-government-privacy-international

https://thecontrail.com/forum/topics/the-us-government-is-being-sued-for-info-on-the-secretive-five-ey

Russia Launches Mysterious Military Satellite from Arctic Base

Brett Tingley
June 27, 2017

At last, it looks like the future is finally here: the Cold War has officially made its way into space. Over the last few years, the world’s military superpowers have been bolstering their space combat capabilities, mainly centered around so-called “killer” satellites which have the ability to take out or commandeer enemy spacecraft. The threat of some new form of space combat is looming close enough for the U.S. military to create a new space command position, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Space Operations. Not to be outdone by its western rival, Russia just this week launched a mysterious new satellite believed to be part of the growing arms race in space.

Russia Launch

The launch was broadcast by Russia state news agencies.
According to RussianSpaceWeb.com, the satellite launched on June 23rd after a series of scrubbed attempts. The launch site was the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Russia’s icy northwest near its border with Finland. A Soyuz-2-1v rocket carried the satellite over the Arctic and Canada, dropping its boosters into the Barents Sea along the way before entering a tight orbit around the north pole. Put this launch alongside other strange developments in the Arctic recently, and it’s becoming clear that the north pole could be the next big front in the new Cold War that’s brewing.

Russia Satellite

The launch site and trajectory of the secret satellite.
Russia’s state-owned Tass news agency reported the launch but kept the satellite’s purpose out of their reporting, noting only that the satellite, named Napryazhenie (“voltage”) is a Russian defense ministry satellite. Aerospace watchdog blogs believe the satellite is likely an instrument used to take geodetic measurements, which are a way of measuring the size and shape of Earth.
Why would Russia’s defense ministry be interested in charting the dimensions of the Earth, you ask? Why, to plot trajectories for intercontinental ballistic missiles, of course. What other purpose does technology serve other than to realize our mutually-assured destruction?

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06/russia-launches-mysterious-military-satellite-from-arctic-base/