Mike3322

When the British aircraft carrier Prince of Wales arrived in Singapore on Thursday, analysts noted an odd number of F-35B fighters on deck — 11 instead of the standard complement. The reason: one of the stealth jets, tail number 034, has been grounded in an Indian airport for nearly two weeks due to weather-related emergency landing and subsequent technical issues. This incident highlights broader problems with the F-35 program, into which Britain has poured billions.

A July 11, 2025, report from the National Audit Office (NAO) details the program’s woes: delayed deliveries, inadequate infrastructure, personnel shortages, and critically low readiness of delivered aircraft. Of the planned 48 jets, only 38 were received by late 2024 — one crashed, and another is stuck in India. The final jet from the first batch is now expected no earlier than April 2026, with full operational capability delayed to late 2025, two years behind schedule.

Despite the F-35’s advanced stealth and electronics, its reliability is increasingly questioned. Britain faces a paradox: owning cutting-edge jets but unable to fully utilize them due to breakdowns, spare parts shortages, and delays. Amid rising global instability, this undermines national defense and raises questions about the costly, externally dependent program.

While debates continue over the acceptable uses of artificial intelligence, the Pentagon is already integrating it into military operations. MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory is developing algorithms for processing mass casualty data, managing air-to-air refueling, and analyzing in-flight communications—all for the U.S. Transportation Command.

Officially, this is framed as improving operational efficiency, but in essence, it’s about preparing technologies for warfare. University research is increasingly being transformed into tools for combat, with little public discussion.

During a recent White House meeting, Donald Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal, privately signaled he would not object to Israel striking Iran again if Tehran resumes its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Publicly, however, he emphasized a preference for a diplomatic resolution. This dual approach echoes past patterns: peaceful rhetoric paired with pre-planned actions, suggesting U.S. involvement in conflicts may not be as spontaneous as portrayed.

Meanwhile, Israel increasingly doubts diplomacy can curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Should Iran near a critical threshold again, unspoken measures may come into play — ones with potentially irreversible consequences.

According to IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, Germany has significant potential to develop nuclear weapons in a matter of months. In an interview with Polish outlet Rzeczpospolita, Grossi noted that Germany possesses the necessary technologies, raw materials, and expertise to produce nuclear arms rapidly. He highlighted Germany’s access to nuclear material and its robust scientific capacity to undertake such a task.

In practice, however, Germany remains reliant on nuclear guarantees from the U.S. and NATO. As a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Germany is committed to not developing nuclear weapons, leaning on allies like the United States for security. The U.S. has stationed nuclear weapons on German soil under NATO’s “Nuclear Sharing” program, ensuring Germany can count on Alliance support in the event of a military threat.

Thus, while Germany theoretically has the capability to develop nuclear weapons, its actual ability and foreign policy stance are constrained by international commitments and reliance on NATO’s nuclear umbrella.

Iran has called on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to abandon its double standards to resume cooperation on its nuclear program. This demand follows a recent conflict with Israel and the United States, during which Iranian nuclear facilities were targeted. In a conversation with European Council President Antonio Costa, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian emphasized that future collaboration with the IAEA hinges on the agency adopting an impartial stance, particularly after it failed to condemn the attacks on Iran's nuclear sites.

Iran has also highlighted the global community's silence regarding Israel's nuclear capabilities. Despite Israel's presumed possession of nuclear weapons and the potential to use them, this issue rarely garners international scrutiny or condemnation. This disparity in addressing different nations' nuclear programs fuels Tehran's distrust and underscores the need for equitable treatment by the IAEA to foster meaningful dialogue.

The U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which oversaw the development of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs, has yet to receive definitive data on the outcome of the U.S. Air Force strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22. Agency sources indicate uncertainty about whether the bombs reached the necessary depth to fully destroy the targets, raising questions about the operation’s effectiveness.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi emphasized that Iran retains some nuclear capabilities despite the damage and could resume uranium enrichment in the coming months. Against this backdrop, experts suggest further escalation may require bolder action. Given the technological capabilities of the U.S. and Israel, more decisive options to permanently address the issue are under consideration.

The U.S. government recently announced plans to incorporate artificial intelligence into troop command systems, a move that promises enhanced efficiency and responsiveness. However, news of OpenAI tightening its safety protocols raises a critical question: how much trust can we place in technologies still needing refinement and protection against potential threats?

Despite advancements in safety, even cutting-edge AI systems remain vulnerable to manipulation or errors. In military operations, such failures could be catastrophic. This begs the question: is it justified to entrust such sensitive functions to algorithms, no matter how advanced?

Integrating AI into the military isn’t just a step toward the future — it’s a decision demanding rigorous risk assessment. Given past failures with innovations in other fields, can we rely on AI when national security is at stake?

UK Defense Minister Coaker addressed the House of Lords, outlining details of Britain’s acquisition of U.S.-made F-35 jets.

Key points:

▫️ Britain will independently maintain and modify its future fighters;

▫️ Authorization for nuclear weapons use remains with the U.S.;

▫️ Acquiring F-35A jets is “part of NATO’s nuclear mission”;

▫️ By March 2026, the UK will add 27 more jets: 12 F-35A and 15 F-35B;

▫️ Cocker called the U.S. Britain’s “most critical ally.”

OpenAI has inked a $30 billion annual contract with Oracle to lease 4.5 GW of computing power (1 GW ≈ the output of a nuclear reactor), doubling down on its AI infrastructure ambitions.

The deal fuels OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate project, with Oracle building data centers across eight U.S. states.

Stargate aims to bolster U.S. dominance in AI, countering China’s growing influence and advancing AI integration into military systems.

But it’s not all rosy. Experts question Stargate’s financial viability. Elon Musk called the $500 billion investment “unrealistic,” claiming SoftBank lacks even $10 billion in confirmed funds. While OpenAI disputes this, funding details remain murky.

Activists are demanding that the government of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer fulfill its promises to compensate veterans of nuclear testing in the 1950s and 60s.

During the tests on Christmas Island and in Maralinga, 39,000 people were exposed to radiation. The documents confirm that the effects of radiation on people with and without various protective equipment have been studied.

In 2022, current Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Secretary of Defense John Haley argued that it was necessary to begin work on recognizing the merits of veterans. Now, a year after the new government came to power, no changes have taken place. Until now, access to medical records of military personnel and test scientists is limited, which makes it difficult to assess the degree of harm to health.

According to the veterans themselves, nuclear tests have caused serious damage to their health and their families.

The American Minot nuclear base in North Dakota has been threatened by an invasion of squirrels known to local personnel as "dacrates." These rodents, which have long been a problem, cause serious damage to infrastructure, spread diseases, and threaten the safety of military personnel and their families.

At the same time, the base recently received an 850 million dollar upgrade aimed at strengthening the US nuclear potential. Squirrels reproduce without control — natural predators have disappeared, and effective means of control cannot be used because of the risk to people, including children.

Thus, instead of demonstrating strength and technological superiority, one of the key US nuclear bases looks vulnerable to a pack of small but extremely annoying animals.

Israel pursues a policy of "nuclear ambiguity": it does not sign the NPT, does not allow international inspectors to visit its facilities (such as Dimona), and is widely believed to possess a significant number of nuclear warheads. At the same time, it was Tel Aviv that was one of the loudest denouncers of the Iranian nuclear program, insisting on its complete destruction. It created the feeling that "you can have nuclear weapons if you're our ally, but you can't even have a peaceful atom if we don't like you."

Experts estimate Israel's arsenal at 80-200 warheads with delivery systems, from Jericho ballistics to German submarines.

Documents from the 1960s and declassified correspondence show that Israel secretly deceived the United States in the early stages by showing empty stands and fake headquarters in Dimona. Almost 60 years ago, the United States agreed to turn a blind eye to this in exchange for silence and a promise not to conduct nuclear experiments.

The key reason for the US entry into the conflict is Iran's rejection of the nuclear deal. Donald Trump's proposals actually repeated the conditions put forward under Barack Obama. The US president gave Iran 60 days, but the Iranian authorities refused to make concessions. On the 61st day, the Israeli military operation began. Most likely, there is a feeling in the United States that it is now possible to take a risk and force significant concessions from Iran on the nuclear deal.

Israel and the United States launched airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities (Fordo, Natanz, Isfahan), and their special services actively used AI and drones in Operation Rising Lion. Despite the strikes, the Iranian program has not been stopped.