Nuclear Security and Strategic Analyses Dr Marko Beljac

Despite Julia Gillard’s Support for Neoliberalism, Progressives in Australia Should Now Back Her

Australia has a new Prime Minister after the bursting of the Rudd asset price bubble. As I stated long ago, when the Rudd bubble was in full flight, his leadership of the ALP was based on little else but his high poll numbers. These numbers were a bubble, I had argued, for Rudd was a leader distinctly lacking in substance.

Mark Latham summed him up very well in his diaries.

I had stated that the Rudd bubble might prove to be a dilemma for the ALP in the future. I had not expected that the bubble would burst so suddenly and with such force. If the property bubble, that the former PM has helped to sustain, bursts like the Rudd bubble then heaven help us.

Julia Gillard has achieved the highest political office in the land by betraying her socialist beliefs and her core working class constituency. If she had not done either of these things during the course of her political career, rather than being PM, she would be organising the next Altona ALP chook raffle. Lindsay Tanner, who has done the same, was right to have characterised her as a “careerist”.

In the Tanner lexicon no pejorative ranks higher.

Although in media commentary much as been made of Gillard's working class roots, this all should not be taken too seriously. Gillard has announced, loudly and clearly, her whole hearted support for neoliberalism and her dedication towards the further pursuit of neoliberal reforms.

The Age reports newly minted PM Gillard as stating today that

..."I give credit to the Labor giants Bob Hawke and Paul Keating as the architects of today’s modern prosperity," she said.

"I give credit to John Howard and Peter Costello for continuing these reforms," she said...

These remarks are truly amazing. The former socialist Gillard even has gone so far as to praise Howard and Costello for continuing and extending neoliberal reforms!! This is how low the ALP has sunk since Gough Whitlam took away the power of the organisational wing.

If Gillard stays true to these comments then this change over will amount to what Keating would have called “embroidery.” Gillard might change the style and packaging of neoliberal Labor, but the essential commitment to neoliberalism, one of the defining features of the Rudd leadership, will continue to obtain.

The ALP power hierarchy will remain committed to neoliberal policies and programs so long as the current structure of the party endures. The ALP requires root and branch reform if it is to return to being a genuine working class party.

Changing leaders could be a start. However, if so the new leader would need to be dedicated toward the dismantling of the Hawke-Keating legacy. That, Gillard has stated, she won't do. Quite the opposite. She will continue the neoliberal programs that Hawke and Keating, but also Howard and Costello, did so much to bring into being.

There can be little doubt ,however, that a Gillard government would be better than an Abbott government. It would truly be a disaster for progressive politics in Australia if Abbott should win the next election. He is a rabid right wing extremist. So are the people pushing his cart.

I don't expect much from Gillard, but in saying this I nonetheless maintain that she should be supported by progressives. Those of a left wing persuasion should not allow their justified scepticism of Gillard to obscure the huge stakes involved in the next election.

I sincerely hope that both she and the ALP win the next election. When she does, we should continue the struggle against neoliberalism. That, judging by these remarks, will mean that the Australian left will end up opposing her.

I submit that now is definitely not the time for all that. I submit that it is possible for progressives to support Gillard but also at the same time to continue to work against neoliberal policy and ideology.

Surely Gillard still has some place inside her that remains true to her old fiery and passionate commitment to social justice. I don't think there was anything of that in Rudd. If there was, he kept very well hidden.

Hopefully, some of that old passion will emerge during her leadership. I personally doubt that it will, but we always have “the audacity of hope.”

Sole Purpose or Primary Purpose for Obama’s Delayed Nuclear Posture Review?

Having gotten through a few server problems I am once again able to blog, and there is one issue that has attracted attention in the interim. Of course, I speak of the Nuclear Posture Review.

The review has been delayed yet again, as I also notice, has the post START arms control accord. They really do seem to be tracking each other quite nicely.

The NPR has attracted attention because of two articles, one appearing in The New York Times and the other in The Washington Post. Of the two the Post's is the more meaty, as you would expect given that it was cowritten by Walter Pincus, so let's go through that one.

Both articles, by the way, are pretty sure that the US will not adopt a no-first use pledge. Let us not quibble with that. One thing that I noticed about the Post article was the following point, which has not been much discussed,

...Until recently, Obama generally has not intervened in the Pentagon-led process, which also involves officials from the State Department, the Energy Department and other agencies...

Early in the process it was alleged that Obama basically vetoed a Pentagon first draft. That doesn't square with what the Post is reporting above. It seems that this little story has already become history. Analysts must be careful not to repeat the "Obama sent back the first draft" story uncritically from here on in.

Let's get to some substance. The Post article states,

...Does he substantially advance his bold pledge to seek a world free of nuclear weapons by declaring that the "sole purpose" of the U.S. arsenal is to deter other nations from using them? Or does he embrace a more modest option, supported by some senior military officials, that deterrence is the "primary purpose"?...

The NYT article kind of suggested that the latter would get up. The Post is not so sure. In fact, at the end it suggested that "sole purpose" would in fact be adopted, sort of,

...As part of his declaratory policy, Obama will have to consider whether to break with the Bush and Clinton administrations' studied ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons to respond to chemical or biological attacks planned by non-nuclear countries.

The president is expected to adopt that change, but with an important caveat, officials said. The new policy would drop that threat only for countries in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and thus not working on their own bomb...

So even if "sole purpose" is adopted that, in true Obama-Clinton style, need not really mean "sole purpose". For Iran, North Korea and perhaps Syria "sole purpose" would not apply. The rogue states are the states that matter (they were the one explicitly stated in the 2001-2002 NPR). If so, we have here a fudge and plenty of scope for wriggling out of any "sole purpose" pledge. Let's leave aside further comment until the NPR comes out.

The Post also stated,

...The first option would scale back the arsenal's war role, potentially leading to a smaller U.S. stockpile and taking weapons off alert. The second option would be less of a change, holding out the nuclear threat but still permitting a reduction in weapons. The president was briefed on the document this week and requested additional intermediate options, officials say...

That suggests an Obama health care style rush to the centre. But notice that there is an important error here. The "sole scope" option it is stated could lead to "taking weapons off alert". Not really. First of all Obama has already knocked back a dealerting resolution at the United Nations. Secondly, high alert levels under Launch on Warning have nothing really to do with chemical and biological attacks per se.

That's just wrong.

At the end of the day what we are talking about here is declaratory policy. That only counts if it leads to a change in Presidential Guidance and so then in US strategic planning conducted by Strategic Command. I suspect that this whole declaratory policy saga is Obama trying to set the scene for a successful NPT Review Conference for Washington without giving much away, in terms of the overall US strategic posture, in the process.

Now the Post article did state,

...Senior administration officials have indicated that the review is likely to roll back some George W. Bush policies, such as threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt or respond to chemical or biological attacks...

If so, that means the current Presidential Guidance, NSPD-14, would need to go.

One interesting thing about the "sole purpose" and "primary purpose" debate is that it, potentially, sheds light on Clinton's PDD60. "Primary purpose" is probably how PDD60 enabled STRATCOM to draw up war plans assuming chemical and biological attacks but without guidance appearing to do so explicitly.

I notice that, in the NYT article, the Arms Control Association strongly critiques the "primary purpose" fudge. When darling Clinton was in the White House they accepted this fudge hook, line and sinker.

The Dereel Optus Telecommunications Base Station

I have a property in the idyllic Aussie countryside, specifically in Dereel Victoria. I get great pleasure from cycling along the country roads, which you can easily do for hundreds of km without meeting a traffic light.

I ask the reader to be mindful of the picture at the above link. That is the Dereel Community Hall. Optus is proposing to build a Telecommunications Base Station right next to the Country Fire Authority Shed, which can be seen in the above image. Dereel is within the boundaries of Golden Plains Shire. People still prospect for gold long after the gold rush.

You should note the appearance of a children's playground right behind the CFA shed.

The Optus proposal has sparked fierce opposition from some residents, especially those who are closest to the proposed base station site. Others much further away from the site, such as the members of the Community Hall committee (a matter to which we return), have expressed themselves in favour of the proposed plan.

The Golden Plains Shire council is due to rule on the matter.

I oppose this proposal wholeheartedly.

One aspect of the debate has focused on the health and biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. You can get a flavour of this debate, from a supporter of the proposed base station, at the website of "grog", an IT specialist. Like, this guy is really into computers judging by the amount of monitors and what not he has.

The debate is; to what extent may we assert that there exists deleterious health effects from exposure, in this case long-term involuntary exposure, from electromagnetic radiation typical of that from telecommunications base stations?

Notice that this is an empirical issue that needs to be separated from our passions on the matter. Given that it is an empirical issue this makes it a scientific issue. In science, long a part of the necessitarian tradition of rationalism, we are interested in causality. For science to rule on the matter would require more than just epidemiology. We are interested, to be specific, whether non-thermal exposure to electromagnetic radiation may have deleterious consequences for cells, DNA, neurons and the like.

We may adopt 3 positions

1). It has been established by peer-review processes that there can be no causal link in principle between non-thermal exposure to electromagnetic radiation and biological effects at the cell, DNA, neuron etc level.

2.) It has been established by peer-review processes that there is a link between non-thermal exposure to electromagnetic radiation and biological effects at the cell, DNA, neuron etc level.

3.) There exists no broad scientific consensus at this time that either (1) or (2) hold, say as exists with the broad consensus for anthropogenic causes for global warming. This requires further research, replication of experiment and peer-review examination of claims.

The very fact that fierce debate exists in the Dereel community is suggestive that, as a literature review also confirms, the most appropriate position is (3).

I do not assert (2).

Groggy makes a few ambit claims. He makes a statement about being exposed to light all the time. Notice that prolonged exposure to UV rays leads to skin cancer and that people do avoid photons when they "slip, slop and slap." Of course, here we are interested in non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (UV is ionizing), but you get the picture.

He also seems to think that the issue only involves thermal effects

...the only immediate effect of electromagnetic radiation on the human body is to heat it up. After that, there is no radiation any more...

If (3) obtains what may we say follows?

Surely we must apply the precautionary principle which tells us

... if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action...

The burden of proof does not fall here on those in the Dereel Community who argue (2). Rather it is incumbent upon Optus, and others, to demonstrate (1). Given (3) we may say that (1) has not been established.

Therefore, according to an elementary application of the precautionary principle, the proposed Telecommunications Base Station should not be built close to homes (35 metres in one case) and children playgrounds.

Consider another effect of the proposed plan. Imagine a property, x, is for sale at price p close to the station. Imagine now that a property, belonging to a member of the Community Hall Committee, y, is for sale at ~p. Imagine that a buyer, z, who has their heart set on Dereel seeks to buy a property at price p.

Which property will z make an offer to buy? Clearly, z will offer ~p for y.

Why?

Because x will, being instrumentally rational, adopt (3) and thereby exercise the precautionary principle.

To compensate x would need to then be listed at < p.

Notice that we have a clear injustice.

Let me return to the initial point about the Dereel Community Hall Committee.

It has been established that a farmer with a sizable property has offered to have the Telecommunications Base Station built on his property, away from houses, literally at about peoples front yards, and children playgrounds.

However, this would involve the Committee, nor the Shire, from collecting rent from Optus.

Notice that it is possible to build a Base Station that would leave most people in Dereel happy. Those who want better reception will get it. Those who don't want a Base Station on their front door in the Aussie bush will not have one so located.

The Shire and Committee, being non-individual abstract entities, have no rights including a right to collect rent.

We may draw an inference from the forgoing.

Namely, the Dereel Telecommunications Base Station is an issue between building a facility that collects rent and violates the precautionary principle or building a facility that leaves most of the people of Dereel happy, abides by the precautionary principle but does not involve a transfer of rent from Optus to either the Committee or the Shire.

If moral agency were to play any role in which of these outcomes comes into being, it should be clear that it would involve the latter.

For the record I have Telstra 3G connection, and reception is not a problem.

Those who have to live with the tower every day have a right not have the damn thing built up onto their front doors.

Perhaps Committee members might be willing to put it on the front of theirs.

Do Cosmic Ray Observations Point The Way To Supersymmetry?

Shit, what a bad way to end the day. I have just read the following report at Physics Today on cosmic ray observations and an observed peak of electron-positron pairs by two separate experiments.

… Two groups of cosmic-ray observers have reported unexpectedly large fluxes of high-energy electrons and positrons. Those excesses suggest either that there are undiscovered astrophysical sources such as radio-quiet pulsars surprisingly nearby or that the positrons and electrons are annihilation products of WIMPs—weakly interacting dark-matter particles hundreds of times more massive than the proton. Standard cosmology predicts that dark nonbaryonic matter dominates the material content of the cosmos. But its constituent particles have yet to be identified. The ATIC balloon collaboration, led by John Wefel of Louisiana State University, reports a significant enhancement in the spectrum of cosmic-ray electrons, peaking near 600 GeV…

… The ATIC detector cannot distinguish positrons from the much more abundant cosmic-ray electrons. But the magnetic spectrometer aboard the orbiting PAMELA satellite can. Positrons are routinely produced in collisions between cosmic rays and ordinary interstellar matter. The ratio of such positrons to cosmic-ray electrons was expected to fall steeply with increasing energy. Instead, the PAMELA collaboration, led by Piergiorgio Picozza of the University of Rome “Tor Vergata,” reports that the positron fraction grows steadily with energy from 10 GeV to 100 GeV. So it appears that there must be some additional source of high-energy positrons. The collaboration will continue taking data for at least another year, hoping to find spectral structure suggestive of WIMPs or anisotropy pointing to a nearby astrophysical source. Both WIMP annihilations and pulsars are expected to produce high-energy gamma rays. So for the moment, all eyes are on the recently launched Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (originally called GLAST), which is designed to pinpoint gamma-ray sources and spectral features but can also confirm the ATIC electron result with higher statistics...

The bad thing here is the peak at 600GeV

… The peak suggests that 600-GeV WIMPs of the kind predicted by extra-dimensional extensions of standard particle theory might be annihilating with each other to create e+e– pairs in very dense concentrations of dark matter not far from our solar system…

That is a reference to supersymmetry especially to R-parity

… The R-parity of any particle is R (-1)L+3B+2S, where L, B, and S are its lepton number, baryon number, and spin. Thus for an electron (L = 1, B = 0, S = 1/2) R = 1, and the same is true for a quark (L = 0, B = 1/3, S = 1/2) or a photon (L = 0, B = 0, S = 1). Indeed R = 1 for all the known particles. But for a selectron (L = 1, B = 0, S = 1/2) or a photino (L = 0, B = 0, S = 1/2), the R-parity is -1, or ``odd''. In most versions of supersymmetry, R-parity is exactly conserved. This has the powerful consequence that the lightest R-odd particle - often called the ``lightest supersymmetric partner'' (LSP) - must be stable, for there is no lighter R-odd particle for it to decay into. The LSP is thus a natural candidate to be the dark matter…

People who really, really know me know that I used to be a real superstring nut, convinced that it was, like, the holy grail. However, now, I really, really don’t like it so anything that smacks of supersymmetry sucks; of course, supersymmetry need not necessarily imply M-theory but you can bet that this is going to make string theorists pretty happy.

I hope this pulse of e(+) and e(-) pairs is all about Pulsars.

I have always felt that if supersymmetry isn’t found it would be kinda exciting for it would really set the cat amongst the pigeonios.