If only we did, and those of us who remember this great Song by the "Satchmo" - Louis Armstrong - wax very nostalgically for the time it was recorded.
People into Heavy Metal Music might feel the same about when Iron Maiden did their tremendous 1980's Song "2 Minutes to Midnight".
Why?
Because even the latter reminds us of a time when things felt a lot safer. (If that was possible)
To measure how close we are to a combination of Nuclear and other Catastrophes People refer to something called the Doomsday Clock.
The Doomsday Clock: Measuring Humanity’s Risk
The Doomsday Clock is one of the most famous symbols of humanity’s vulnerability to global catastrophe. It was created to warn the public about dangers that could threaten civilization and, potentially, human existence itself. Although it looks like an ordinary clock, its hands do not measure hours and minutes. Instead, they represent how close experts believe humanity is to a hypothetical “midnight”—the point of global catastrophe.
The Origins of the Doomsday Clock
The Doomsday Clock was created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organization founded by scientists who had become deeply concerned about the consequences of nuclear weapons.
The idea emerged shortly after the Second World War, when the world had witnessed the destructive power of atomic bombs. Scientists who had worked on or been associated with nuclear research recognized that humanity had entered a new and dangerous era. Nuclear weapons could now potentially destroy entire cities and cause unprecedented global devastation.
Artist Martyl Rees designed the original clock for the cover of the Bulletin. Its hands were positioned at seven minutes to midnight. The image was intended to communicate urgency: humanity was living dangerously close to disaster.
What Does the Clock Mean?
Midnight on the Doomsday Clock represents a metaphorical point at which humanity faces catastrophic consequences. The closer the minute hand is to midnight, the greater the perceived danger.
However, the clock is not a scientific instrument that predicts the future. It does not tell us that catastrophe will happen at a particular time. Instead, it is a symbolic assessment made by experts who consider major threats facing humanity.
Over the decades, the scientists behind the clock have considered several different dangers, including:
- Nuclear weapons and nuclear war
- Climate change
- Biological threats
- Emerging technologies
- Artificial intelligence and other rapidly developing technologies
- International conflicts and political instability
- The spread of misinformation and the weakening of institutions
The factors considered have changed as the world itself has changed.
The Clock During the Cold War
Nuclear weapons remained the central concern during much of the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union accumulated enormous nuclear arsenals, while political tensions between the two superpowers created the possibility of a devastating confrontation.
In 1953, after both countries developed increasingly powerful thermonuclear weapons, the Doomsday Clock was moved to two minutes before midnight—the closest it had been to catastrophe at that time.
The clock later moved farther from midnight during periods of reduced tension. For example, improvements in relations between the United States and Soviet Union contributed to the clock being set back during the 1970s.
This history demonstrates that the clock is not permanently moving toward midnight. Its position can change in either direction depending on the circumstances of the world.
Beyond Nuclear Weapons
Although nuclear war remains an important concern, the Doomsday Clock eventually came to represent a broader range of global dangers.
Climate change, for example, became increasingly important as scientists documented rising global temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and increasingly severe environmental risks. The clock's message therefore expanded: humanity's survival depends not only on avoiding war but also on managing the consequences of technological and environmental change.
In recent years, advances in artificial intelligence and biotechnology have also raised new questions. These technologies can provide enormous benefits, but experts have debated how to manage their potential risks and prevent powerful technologies from being misused.
Why Is the Clock Important?
The greatest importance of the Doomsday Clock may be its ability to turn complicated global problems into a simple and memorable image.
Nuclear strategy, climate science, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and international relations can be difficult subjects to understand. The clock provides a straightforward question: How close are we to creating conditions that could seriously threaten humanity?
It is also intended to encourage action rather than hopelessness. Moving the hands closer to midnight is a warning, not a declaration that disaster is inevitable. If governments, scientists, organizations, and individuals address major global risks, the clock can move backward.
A Symbol of Responsibility
The Doomsday Clock ultimately represents a choice. Humanity possesses technologies capable of producing extraordinary progress, but some of those same technologies can create extraordinary dangers.
The clock reminds us that the future is not completely predetermined. Decisions made today—about nuclear weapons, the environment, scientific research, emerging technologies, international cooperation, and public policy—can influence the risks faced by future generations.
Rather than simply asking when the world will end, the Doomsday Clock asks a more important question: What can humanity do to prevent catastrophe?
That is why the clock continues to matter. It is not really counting down to the end of the world. It is a warning that the future depends, to a significant extent, on the choices people make today.
Doomsday Clock timeline of Settings .....
- 1947 (7 minutes): Created on the magazine cover by artist Martyl Langsdorf to reflect nuclear threats.
- 1949 (3 minutes): Moved forward after the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb.
- 1953 (2 minutes): Advanced following US and Soviet hydrogen bomb tests.
- 1963 (12 minutes): Moved back after the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty.
- 1984 (3 minutes): Shifted forward as US-Soviet diplomatic relations hit a low point.
- 1991 (17 minutes): Set at its furthest distance from midnight following the end of the Cold War and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
- 2007 (5 minutes): Climate change is formally added alongside nuclear threats as a core existential danger.
- 2020 (100 seconds): Pushed past the two-minute mark for the first time due to compounding nuclear and climate inaction.
- 2023–2024 (90 seconds): Moved closer amid escalating geopolitical tensions from the Russia-Ukraine war.
- 2025 (89 seconds): Ticked one second forward amid mounting global instability.
- 2026 (85 seconds): Advanced to 85 seconds to midnight, marking the closest point in the clock's history.
As you can see the combination of everything that has happened in the last 6 years has pushed that Minute hand closer and closer to Midnight. This is unprecedented as, while it happened twice in the 1950's, the next Setting was far more reassuring.
So how have Events forced this very alarming Situation?
It started in 2020 as Tensions mounted with the growing Crisis in Ukraine, the absence of both the JCPOA Treaty with Iran and the Intermediary Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia (cancelled during Trump#1) and inaction on Climate Change.
Then things really began getting out of hand.
The Crisis in Ukraine worsened as Russia invaded in 2022 and Europe fractured. Nordstream was destroyed and Geopolitics in the Region began unravelling faster than anyone imagined, Tensions increased in the Caucasus and Israel began their Slaughter in Gaza. The Levant and Asia minor watched their Aggression with increased nervousness and then they (Israel) and America launched several illegal Wars on Iran and the general Consensus within Geopolitical Commentators was that the Age of Diplomacy and International Law was dead.
It was like the Peace of Westphalia never existed.
The terrifying thing about all this - throwing Threats to Food and Energy Security into the Mix - is how a World War doesn't erupt in a single Day.
World War 2 was what happened when years of regional Conflicts merged into each other.
Japan invaded Manchuria. Mussolini started flexing his Muscles in North Africa and Abyssinia, and Hitler started expanding Germany. He did this internally first, then annexed the Sudeten before invading Czechoslovakia and Poland. The War spread to the British, Dutch, Belgian and French Empires as the Axis Powers invaded their Dominions in Asia, Africa and then the home Countries of Europe. The War finally went global when Germany invaded the Soviet Union and declared War on America after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour in December 1942.
This starts looking very familiar to anyone paying attention to what is happening now.
Civil War has erupted in Yemen as government Forces supporting the Saudis relaunch their War on the Houthis. How long will it be before others do the same like they did in the War of 15 years ago? This included Sudan whose Government have the support of Ukrainian Soldiers based there. The Conflict moves closer to the strategically crucial Seaport of Djibouti at the narrow end of the Red Sea. Gamal Nasser might have tried nationalising the Suez Canal but the Red Sea always remained navigable.
The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement.......
This was signed in recent Days and is an Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. It is a Pact effectively saying that an attack on any one of these is an attack on all of them. It's not clear what that means in the Context of Houthi attacks on the Saudis or any of the others by the Axis of Resistance, or if it will even invoke a Response from the other two in the Agreement, but taken at face value it could cause the War to spread as others in it are drawn in to the Conflict. Turkey could find itself fighting Iraqi Militias while Pakistani Troops in Saudi Arabia might have to join the War against the Houthis in Yemen.
They're all merging into each other and involve Governments as far away as Pyon Yang and Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo..... and Taipei.
The worrying thing is that it took 2 Nuclear Bombs to end World War 2. The Nuclear Weapons that could be deployed now won't just destroy 2 Cities thousands of miles away and will end a lot more than just a World War.
The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement.
ReplyDeleteIt has been denied that the Treaty signed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan is a Sunni Islamic equivalent of NATO but might it be?
It's premise is that if any one of the Signatories are attacked it will be seen as an Attack on all - invoking a Response from each of them.
Geography tells you something about it.
Which Country has Saudi Arabia to it's West. Turkey to it's North and Pakistan to its East? Which of those Countries has been subjected to retaliatory Attacks by Iran in recent Months?
So who is the Treaty ranged against?
The same Question must have been asked in Moscow as Russia saw NATO encroaching further east while it was excluded. Who is NATO allying up against if it isn't us?
You might argue that Iran has very strong links with Pakistan but then, so did Germany with Russia, and while Angela Merkel's Bundestag was being fueled by Russian natural Gas she and other western Politicians were conspiring against Moscow during the Minsk Negotiations (by her own admission).
When Nordstream was being built NATO expanded to include the Baltic States.
Coupled with rumours that Israel could join the Treaty merely reinforces this.
All this just after the EU held a Summit in Yerevan, Armenia!
But the Caucasus is nowhere near Europe - being further east than what used to be called Asia Minor. The UN regards it as West Asia while a lot of it has more in common with the Countries around the Caspian Sea than it does Brussels or Paris. Politically and Economically it is part of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and is subsequently inconducive to concurrent Membership of the EU.
And while there is less and less daylight between the EU and NATO what are the strategic Motives of such a move?
Moscow has seen this and called Armenia's joining the EU as "unacceptable".
Ironically, while the EU tries bringing west Asian Countries into the EU their Drones and Missiles have been hitting Russian Cities that are so European Film makers including David Lean used to film in western European Cities to represent them.
So these Treaties and Meetings look more like Threats to expand a Conflict than they do to end them.
Meanwhile, because the last 4 years have shown how vulnerable Food and Energy Security can be maybe the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists should add these to the Criteria when deciding the Clocks settings.
The awful thing about this is how, even if Einstein himself came forward and said some of this the Politicians probably wouldn't take any notice.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure some of those War Sceptics would take any notice either given how they choose to ignore everything else.
A lot of People, including them, draw comparisons to the 1973 Oil Crisis - when the Arabs turned the Spigot off to Countries who supported Israel.
If a full blown War broke out in the Gulf between Iran and their Allies and Saudi Arabia and theirs it would become so existential there would be no Spigot left to turn back on again.
Because there would be no Infrastructure left in the Region as it would all have been destroyed, while the Scale of the Conflict would make it very difficult to repair like they did the Facilities that were damaged during the various War with Iraq. Very little would remain unscathed.
That's if the intensity of the Fighting didn't do irreparable damage to the Water and Energy Infrastructure and caused Millions to abandon the Area.
I don't buy the Idea that the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement is nothing more than a Formality - a glorified Talk Shop that exists only on Paper - and I certainly don't compare it to the League of Nations.
ReplyDeleteTurkey and Iran have always jostled for influence in the Region - particularly the Caucasus. Iran has supported Armenia against Azerbaijan - supported by Turkey. Iran is deeply suspicious of Turkish backed Azeri Separatists in northern Iran while the Turks have similar reservations about Kurds in the Region. The Kurds might have similar separatist Aspirations to the Azeris but how does this sit with the Turks who see this happening on their Border while they have problems with Kurds in their own Country? Your Enemies Enemy isn't necessarily your Friend.
Besides which, Iran would probably rather their Kurds upset the Turks rather than them.
Turkey and Iran clashed many times during the Syrian Civil War as Tehran supported the Assad Regime and Ankara the Sunni Insurgency. Turkey supported the Syrian National Army operating in northern Syria against the Government. The final Collapse of Assad suited Turkish Ambitions because it was largely at Iran's expense - Tehran losing its most substantial Ally in the Region.
Erdogan might have publicly condemned the current American and Israeli War on Iran but it does further Turkish Ambitions, while his Azeri Allies facilitated Israeli Attacks. Iran retaliated against them and even fired Missiles at Turkey itself.
While Iran has put up a stubborn and resilient Defence against the current onslaught their Position in the Region has been diminished. It must be tempting for the Turks to exploit the Situation to its advantage.
Saudi Arabia must see all this and devised a way to harness it to their advantage too. Why not sidle up to the Turks to try and bolster their Position in the Region....particularly against the Iranians? It was said that the Saudis condemn Turkish support for the Muslim Brotherhood, calling them "Terrorists" but this is meaningless while a former Al Qaeda Leader is now running Syria due largely to support from Riyadh. The Condemnation is probably mostly for public consumption rather like Erdogan's critique of the War on Iran.
And who would a regional Alliance against Iran suit more than Israel? Their and Americas War on Tehran has been very frustrating as the Iranians didn't collapse within days of it starting. Many believe America is behind the Mecca Treaty - which - by definition - includes Israel.
ReplyDeleteSaudi Arabia might not be Signatories to the Abraham Accords - but President Trump is working on that to ensure they do. This affords huge Guarantees to Netanyahu, reducing any Threat from other Arab Actors in the Region.
The Saudis have attached a Caveat to their signing the Accords, being a 2 State Solution for the Palestinians, but if anything could be called nothing more than a Talk Shop it's Arab support for Gaza and the West Bank.
Erdogan is similar. He condemns Israeli excesses in Gaza while still indirectly and knowingly supplying Israel with Azeri Oil via his Infrastructure.
Neither Countries Policy on Israel have been at all effective in defence of the Palestinians.
And neither have Pakistan's attempts at mediating an end to the War on Iran.
ReplyDeleteThe ongoing Process of Negotiations have become as much of a Farce as the continuing Talks on Ukraine. How many times now have we seen the Toing and Froing of Dignatories to the latest batch of Meetings and how little has actually been achieved?
The Talks that very nearly did yield anything substantial were those brokered by Oman the day before the War started when Iran offered to abandon their Nuclear program completely.
No less significantly, it's the same Omanis Iran is negotiating a Deal with to permanently reopen the Straits of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, this should be happening everywhere ...... even in temperate Climates like our own in the UK .....
ReplyDeleteCould battery manufacture be a useful by product of desalination?
Yes, battery manufacturing can absolutely be a structural byproduct of desalination through an emerging practice known as brine mining.
When desalination plants purify seawater to create fresh water, they produce a highly concentrated, toxic waste stream called hypersaline brine. Rather than dumping this environmental hazard back into the ocean, advanced recovery technologies can extract the vital critical minerals needed to manufacture modern batteries.
Additionally, cutting-edge "desalination batteries" are being developed where the actual hardware acts simultaneously as an energy storage device and a water purifier.
1. Extracting Key Battery Elements (Brine Mining)Seawater naturally contains over 40 dissolved elements, but their highly diluted states make standard mining economically unviable. Desalination inherently solves this constraint by pre-concentrating these minerals into brine. Several core battery elements can be cleanly siphoned out:
Lithium: The backbone of electric vehicle (EV) batteries. Utilizing Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) technologies—such as selective membrane filtration and electrosorption—facilities can pull battery-grade lithium directly from the concentrated waste stream.
Sodium: The primary material for Sodium-ion (Na-ion) batteries, which are rapidly scaling up as a sustainable, non-toxic, and cheap alternative to lithium for grid energy storage. Sodium makes up roughly 30% of the dissolved salts in seawater.
Magnesium: Essential for structural battery housing, thermal management alloys, and next-generation magnesium-ion chemistries.
2. Upstream Chemical Production beyond raw minerals, the processing of desalination brine via electrolysis yields heavy chemicals essential to the battery manufacturing supply chain:
Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic Soda): Crucial for refining and synthesizing cathode precursor materials (like nickel, cobalt, and manganese hydroxides) in lithium batteries.
Hydrochloric Acid: Heavily utilized in battery recycling and the processing/purification of battery-grade metals.
3. Dual-Purpose Desalination Batteries in a complete reversal of the traditional relationship, researchers are building batteries that desalinate water as they cycle power.
How it works: During the charging phase, an electric current pulls sodium and chloride ions out of saltwater and stores them directly within the battery's specialized electrodes (such as Prussian blue analogues or sodium vanadium oxide).The byproduct: The fluid flowing out of the battery during this chemical storage process is stripped of its salt, yielding clean, fresh water.
The benefit: These systems can cut the massive energy requirements of traditional reverse-osmosis desalination plants by up to 30% to 50% by actively recovering energy inputs during discharge.
.
The benefits are obvious and can be summarised by comparing traditional Methods with desalination byproduct sourcing......
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental Cost; Traditional methods = high land damage, toxic evaporation ponds.
Byproduct Sourcing mitigates ocean toxicity from waste brine.
Water Consumption; Massive freshwater expenditure.
Which could be replaced by net positive freshwater production.
Geopolitics; Currently heavily concentrated in a few countries.
Or decentralized to any coastal desalination hub.
SUMMARY
Co-locating a battery manufacturing infrastructure or mineral extraction refinery next to a seawater desalination plant transforms a hazardous, expensive-to-manage waste product (brine) into a multi-billion dollar goldmine of critical materials. This synergy effectively closes the loop on a sustainable, circular economy for both clean water and green energy storage.
As Drought is starting to effect even temperate Countries like our own this Technology isn't just desirable it could become increasingly essential
And what is brilliant about this is how you not only provide fresh drinking Water you also generate Electricity, create Storage for the Grid and build Batteries to promote the use of EV's.
ReplyDeleteIt also helps reduce the Impact of Lithium Mining on Land and gives any Country with a Coastline the chance to become part of that Process.
Given the Shortage of Water in some northern hemisphere Counties - including Britain. Europe and the USA - this Technology ought to have been created years ago.
It would concurrently reduce the production of Pollutants caused by Fossil Fuels and create a valuable Contingency against Climate induced Droughts.
At the moment the Heatwaves and very dry weather are causing devastation in Agriculture and Warnings of a Food shortage next year. If desalination had been applied you not only have irrigation for Crops and Feed for Livestock you also protect against the arid Landscapes that have seen huge Wildfires in recent Weeks.
One of the side effects of the Lockdowns during the COVID Pandemic when People stayed at home and a huge reduction of Vehicle use was a noticeable improvement in Air quality.
This should have shown People what can happen if there were far fewer Internal Combustion Engines and their emissions.
And that was after only a year and a half, so what could be achieved if it was done on a more regular basis?
Not only that but it also uses Technology that already exists which eliminates years of Research and Development before it can be applied.
The Benefits become exponential.
Given that we are now in a 1976 Scenario after Weeks of hot, dry Weather wouldn't it have been a good Idea to have built a desalination Plant somewhere on the Thames Estuary after the Drought of 50 years ago? This could have helped supply London and removed the Demand from established Reservoirs by the Capital.
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't only have been restricted to the home counties either as similar things could have been done across the Regions from Aberthaw and Uskmouth in south Wales to Great Yarmouth in East Anglia with sites of former coastal Power Stations.
This could have been extended to those of some former Magnox Nuclear Power Stations too, all of which have been decommissioned and/ or demolished.
If they had we could now have our own Lithium and Sodium Battery industry.
Feed the World ......?
ReplyDeleteWhen Band Aid recorded their Song in 1984 to alleviate the Famine in Ethiopia and Sudan British. European and American Agriculture was producing a Surplus. We all remember that moment when Bob Geldof argued with a rather patronising Margret Thatcher about freeing up the Food and Drink Mountains and Lakes of Europe to do this.
Before that, in 1976 Drought afflicted British Food Production as Farmers brought Crops in early to stop them from dying in the parched Ground. The problem with doing that is that they aren't as mature as they should be and reduced as a Result.
But while they did that most of mainland Europe was largely unaffected by that years hot, dry Weather - even Greece - the Red Sea and Persian Gulf were navigable and Ukraine's main Seaports exported the continents most abundant Agriculture
2026 is very different, as a lot of mainland Europe is no less afflicted as we are, America faces similar Problems, the Persian Gulf remains closed (affecting Fertiliser for Growth and Diesel for Transport), and the War in Ukraine has effectively closed all sea bourne Exports including it's Food.
The Threat to Food Security is quite apparent, but might not have been so bad if someone didn't decide to launch a War with Iran and continue the War in Ukraine.
In 2026 some of the Donor Countries who sent Aid to North East Africa in 1984/5 face Food shortages of their own.
And when it looked like it couldn't get any worse - it does - because it is emerging that Trump is considering using a Nuclear Weapon on Pick Axe Mountain - the home of Iran's Nuclear Program. The same thing has been discussed by Israel although what their intended Target might be is unclear.
ReplyDeleteAll this is subject to verification but former MAGA insider Marjorie Taylor Green has posted that sources close to both her and the President have told her this is happening.
Utterly terrifying. with catastrophic Consequences.
A Commentator tried reducing the Risk by saying that similar Detonation sizes have been routinely used in tests. Except, even when these went on during the Cold War protocols demanded each side notified the other when they were going to do it. This removes the Risk of fatal misunderstandings.
Not only would this use not be a Test it would also happen without prior notice given to Moscow, Beijing and any other Nuclear Power.
How would it be interpreted by Russia and China once their Surveillance Satellites detect it? Would they assume they could be next?
More importantly, how would they respond?
The only other time Nuclear Weapons were used they were used by the only Country that had the Bomb while Sino Soviet Geopolitics with that Country were far friendlier than they are now.
None of that applies now.
Has anyone thought that the very peculiar Weather we have had in the last couple of Months might have been partially caused by 4 and a half Years of War?
ReplyDeleteWhat do they suppose happens every time another Refinery is destroyed or Oil Tanker burns, and how about all that Cordite and those high intensity Detonations?
The huge use of Fossil Fuels in an unnecessary Conflict that shouldn't have happened or at least been ended within Weeks.
I did some calculous recently. comparing the use of Fuel for the War in Iran to what should have been used for Infrastructure like Food distribution and the results were staggering.
Exact Figures are classified but Environmentalists estimated that the first 2 weeks of the Iran War waged by Israel and America consumed up to 270 Million Litres of Fuel.
That would be enough to Fuel up 150000 18 Wheeler Trucks doing Food and Health Supplies Distribution. Each one could do about 500 Miles on a full Tank so that would have covered 750 million miles of Deliveries and Transport.
And that was just in the first 2 Weeks, so how many other Fortnights like these have been replicated since Feb 28th?
Couple that with the Fuel that was destroyed by Attacks on Tehran Storage Tanks (80 Million Litres) and those on the Shahran Oil Depot (260 Million Litres), plus whatever has been destroyed in the Gulf States and the Figures are mind boggling.
How can that and those attributed to Russia and Ukraine not only be irreconcilably wasted but also not make a huge Impact on the Ecosphere?
This means Fuel Consumption for 2 Weeks of War in Iran equals twice the total amount used in Britain every day.
The figures are nearly the same for Fuel Destruction. The difference is that while Fuel in your Car might be put through a Catalytic Converter any Fuel that is burnt in the open Air releases the full gamut of Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen..
And that is just what might be called Road Fuel - because even if you added all other Fuel use - from Aviation, heating and industrial use - Britain still consumes less Fuel than 2 Weeks of illegal War on Iran.
The War has gone on for 24 Weeks so has consumed more Fuel than a Country as developed and populated as Britain would use in 12 days.
And this just examines the Consequences of a War that has raged since February 28th 2026, I haven't begun to do same with one that has gone on since the same Month in 2022.
How much Fuel has been used by Ukraine and Russia in that time. and how much has been destroyed by Fires and Explosions, while what impact have both made on the Environment?
How about the Weapons that are being used, and how much bigger is all this than anything that has gone on in the Persian Gulf for the last 6 Months?
How can nearly 5 years of industrial scale Warfare not have effected the Climate and be connected with what we have seen in recent weeks?
So, anyone complaining about everything from the Fires that rage across Britain, North America, Europe and Australia to not being allowed to use a Hosepipe should consider this ....
Scale of Military Fuel Consumption
Armored Vehicles and Tanks: A single modern battle tank can use 300 to 500 liters of fuel for every 100 kilometers traveled, meaning large-scale offensives require massive logistics trains.
Aviation: Fighter jets, transport planes, and attack helicopters consume thousands of liters per flight hour.
Drone Warfare: Open-source tracking indicates that specific monthly drone saturation campaigns by Russia require upwards of 500,000 liters of specialized fuel for long-range UAV inventories.
And it isn't just the Russians using Drones is it.
While this has been very extensive it doesn't include the Gases from burning Refineries, Ships, industrial and Storage Facilities and Buildings.
So, if a War against Iran - which doesn't have a Ground Campaign - is using up Britain's entire daily Consumption every two Weeks how many days Fuel is being burned up in the Ukraine War?
Not too sure about a 'Protest' against Support for the War in Ukraine that happened in London.
ReplyDeleteWhile it was meant to highlight the injustice of £Billions being sent to Kiev while our People face spiralling costs of Living, homelessness, collapsing infrastructure etc, was it a good Idea to have Russian and North Korean Flags on show?
How might this be seen by anyone who saw it?
But then. If it was a 'Protest' rather than a Protest would that be the desired effect?
"Huh, look at the Agents of Moscow and Pyon Yang" - that sort of thing.
What intrigued me about CND - the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - is where all their Protestors went?
Starting with the Duffle Coat People in the 1950's - into Brubeck and Kerouac - to the vast Demos of the 1980's in Britain and Europe - CND could field 100's of 1000's of Protestors, and couple this with Films like "The Day after" and "Countdown to looking Glass", along with Songs by everyone from Prince to Iron Maiden, even hard boiled Cold Warriors like Ronald Reagan were finally convinced to negotiate with the Soviets.
These days CND gleefully tell us they had a Demo and a few 1000 turned up. Hardly the huge Movement of 40 years ago and not even the vast Crowds who protested at the proposed War in Iraq.
Given how the Doomsday Clock is closer to Midnight than it ever was during any of this - beit the Marches on Aldermaston, the annual CND Festival at Glastonbury, or the big Protests across Britain and Europe - it's astonishing that this has happened.
So while we need Demonstrations desperately like the ones we had during the Cold War I'm not sure those that merely give Grist to their Detractors are particularly helpful.
Meanwhile, back to the Idea that Lithium and Sodium Batteries is a doable and should be made a crucial byproduct of Desalination for the Reasons mentioned above, lets not confuse a Process used in many arid parts of the World to create drinking Water with the Scenario in the Film "The day after Tomorrow"
ReplyDeleteThe Film is based on the Premise that global Warming is melting Polar Ice - causing the Ocean to desalinate and disrupting the ebb and flow of Climate affecting Currents.
This is completely different to Plants creating drinking Water and Irrigation.
The byproduct - using the Brine rich in Lithium and Sodium to make Batteries, Storage for Energy and even Energy itself - would be a huge contribution to reducing Emissions that cause Global Warming by further replacing the dependence on Fossil Fuels.
I don't suppose anyone has noticed a Parallel here...
ReplyDeleteThat President Trump and his Retinue are seriously considering using a Nuclear Weapon against an Iran that won't back down is similar to an exasperated President Nixon wanting to do the same to Hanoi.
Months of conventional Strikes on Iran - including the decapitation of it's Leadership - has not brought Tehran to its knees like the years of intense Bombing and defoliation of Vietnam did not cause the North Vietnamese to surrender.
The difference is that Nixon had Henry Kissinger, and for some of his Faults at least counselled his President against something that would raise the not unsubstantial Eyebrows of Leonid Brezhnev and cause Alarm in Beijing. Both were crucial in other Areas of Nixon's foreign Policy - detente with one and final recognition and diplomacy the other.
Can the same be said of Trumps Government which seems completely bereft of anyone of Kissinger's Gravitas imparting any sort of cautionary Advice at all?
Going back even further, President Kennedy was being urged to bomb Cuba into the Stone Age in 1962, but he held back knowing how the Soviets would have to respond.
Unfortunately President Trump has been quite public about threatening to nuke Iran so there isn't the same restraint in the Oval Office as there was 64 years ago.
I realise that a lot of what he says is bluster that ought to be taken with a very large Pinch of Salt, but this is one time when we could do with a very large pile of S.A.L.T.