Despite opposition from the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP), the House of Commons voted, 472 to 117, to build new submarines. Although Labour’s official policy is to maintain Trident, a large number of anti-nuclear activists have voiced their opinion in the party’s ranks. The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), which holds 54 of the 650 House of Commons seats, firmly opposed renewing the Trident fleet, which is based on Scotland’s west coast. Other parties supported the decision.

The government estimates the cost of the new subs at up to $54 billion over 20 years. The vote was not on full approval for the new submarines as the government has opted to approve the investment in stages in an effort to control costs.

Asked if she be willing to order a nuclear strike, Prime Minister Theresa May didn’t hesitate to say «Yes». It was her first address to parliament since taking office. Obviously, the Prime Minister sought to rally the Conservatives after the bruising and divisive EU referendum campaign and her sweeping reshuffle of the cabinet. Theresa May said shortly before she became Prime Minister that there should be a vote in the House of Commons on replacing the Trident fleet before the summer recess and it would be «sheer madness» to give up the UK’s nuclear weapons because of the threat posed by other countries. Renewing the potential would show Britain was «committed» to working with NATO allies after voting for Brexit, she added. Replacing Trident was a Tory manifesto pledge in the general election.

The motion stated that Britain’s nuclear forces «will remain essential to the UK’s security today as it has for over 60 years» and the House of Commons «recognizes the importance of the Successor class submarines to the UK’s defence industrial base and in supporting thousands of highly skilled engineering jobs». The current generation of four submarines would begin to end their working lives some time in the late 2020s. Work on a replacement cannot be delayed because the submarines alone could take up to 17 years to develop.

The Trident program includes the potential replacement of the four submarines stationed at Faslane naval base on the west coast of Scotland. The submarines carry up to eight missiles and can be fitted with up to 40 warheads. At any time at least one submarine is on patrol. Trident’s ballistic missiles have a range of up to 7,500 miles. Currently, the government is spending around 6% of its annual defence budget on Trident. The vote allows to proceed with building a fleet of Successor-class submarines, to be operational by the 2030s, thereby renewing the Trident system and extending its life until the 2060s.

Construction on the first of these is planned to begin in Barrow-in-Furness in autumn 2016 in order to be operational by 2028. The four Vanguards are scheduled to be phased out by 2032. Trident II D-5 missiles are expected to continue in service until at least 2040 following an upgrade.

The idea to have Trident submarines in the Navy’s inventory is substantiated by the fact that the boats cannot be detected. This reason d’etre is being undermined by new technology, including underwater drones, surveillance of wave patterns and other advanced detection techniques that could make the submarines redundant by the time they are operational.  

The decision is taken at the time the defense budget is under strain. The money on Trident comes out of the same pot used to pay for the rest of the British military. The money can be directed towards conventional forces. This is the time when the British surface fleet has been drastically reduced. Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the current threats, particularly international terrorism.

Britain’s nuclear deterrent is not independent. The Trident program cuts to the heart of the US-UK special relationship. It serves more the interests of the US than the UK. While the Trident submarines are produced by BAE Systems in Scotland, and the warheads are produced at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment in Berkshire with the help of US know-how, the actual missiles are manufactured in the United States. The maintenance program is also run by the US, with a pool of missiles held at the US Strategic Weapons facility at King’s Bay, Georgia, USA, from which the US itself and Britain draw serviced missiles as required. The United States controls the software for firing, targeting and detonating the missiles.

It makes Britain completely dependent on its North American ally for the most crucial part of its supposedly «independent» nuclear potential effectively controlled by the US, while being paid for by the British taxpayer.

According to the report of the independent all-party Trident Commission, «The UK is dependent on the United States for many component parts of the guidance and re-entry vehicle, and for the Trident ballistic missile system itself».

Just before the vote, the US retired high-ranking military published a letter in the Times in an evident attempt to influence the outcome. «Every US Administration from both parties since 1958 has valued the UK’s independent deterrent, and we urge the UK to continue its vital contribution to transatlantic security», the letter says.

Besides, unlike the French, the British nuclear weapons are specifically pledged to operate according to NATO plans. Except in an undefined emergency situation, Trident is assigned to NATO and under the command of a US general. If the purpose is to guarantee the security of other states, then why should the UK shoulder the financial burden alone?

The vote in favor of Trident’s renewal leads to the splintering of the United Kingdom as the majority of Scotland wants Trident removed. It is highly likely that the Scottish National Party (SNP) will launch an independence referendum. If Scotland leaves the UK, the government will have to spend huge sums on building a naval base for strategic submarines.

Nuclear weapons are not a guarantee against an aggression. Britain was attacked in the Falklands, despite having nuclear weapons. Israel has been attacked, despite having nuclear weapons.

Countries like Japan, Germany, Canada, among many others, do without nuclear potentials and have as much global influence as the UK.

A new, multilateral Nuclear Ban Treaty now looks plausible, and could come into force under International Humanitarian Law as early as 2020. This is the potentially transformative diplomatic development that has been missed by practically all mainstream coverage of Trident replacement.

Finally, by maintaining the nuclear potential, Britain remains to be a target for retaliatory strike.

There is each and every reason to doubt the wisdom of the decision to renew the Trident program. One thing is certain – the parliament’s vote is fraught with serious implications. All the reasons against the program pale, probably, because the government and the lawmakers, who voted for the program, don’t view Trident as simply a weapon but rather as a symbol of power, projected across the globe – a hangover from bygone days of influence and clout.

“Some fell to the ground and their stomachs already expanded full, burst and organs fell out. Others had skin falling off them and others still were carrying limbs. And one in particular was carrying their eyeballs in their hand.”

The above is an account by a Hiroshima survivor talking about the fate of her schoolmates. It was recently read out in the British parliament by Scottish National Party MP Chris Law during a debate about Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

In response to a question from another Scottish National Party MP, George Kereven, British PM Theresa May said without hesitation that, if necessary, she would authorise the use of a nuclear weapon that would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Previous PMs have been unwilling to give a direct answer to such a question.

But let’s be clear: a single modern nuclear weapon would most likely end up killing many millions, whether immediately or slowly, and is designed to be much more devastating than those dropped by the US on Japan.

On the other hand, opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has stated that he would not make a decision that would take the lives of millions. He said, “I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to go about international relations.”

It says much about the type of society we have when someone like Corbyn or Green Party MP Caroline Lucas is attacked by the mainstream and depicted as some kind of harebrained extremist who places ‘the nation’ in danger because they do not want Britain to renew its submarine-based Trident nuclear missile system (at the cost of at least £100 billion in ‘cash-strapped’ austerity Britain).

Chiming in with emotive gutter tactics, May suggested that those wishing to scrap Britain’s nuclear weapons are siding with the nation’s ‘enemies’.

Theresa May reading from the script

Politicians like May are reading from a script devised by the elite interests. Members of this elite comprise the extremely wealthy of the world who set the globalisation and war agendas at the G8, G20, NATO, the World Bank, and the WTO. They are from the highest levels of finance capital and transnational corporations. This transnational capitalist class, dictate global economic policies and decide on who lives and who dies and which wars are fought and inflicted on which people.

The mainstream narrative tends to depict these individuals as ‘wealth creators’. In reality, however, these ‘high flyers’ have stolen ordinary people’s wealth, stashed it away in tax havens, bankrupted economies and have imposed a form of globalisation that results in devastating destruction and war for those who attempt to remain independent from them, or structurally adjusted violence via privatisation and economic neo-liberalism for millions in countries that have acquiesced.

While ordinary folk across the world have been subjected to policies that have resulted in oppression, poverty and conflict, this is all passed off by politicians and the mainstream media as the way things must be.

The agritech sector poisons our food and agriculture. Madelaine Albright tries says it was worth it to have killed half a million kids in Iraq to secure energy resources for rich corporations and extend the wider geopolitical goals of ‘corporate America’. The welfare state is dismantled and austerity is imposed on millions. The rich increase their already enormous wealth. Powerful corporations corrupt government machinery and colonise every aspect of life for profit. Environmental destruction and ecological devastation continue apace.

And nuclear weapons hang over humanity like the sword of Damocles – not to protect the masses from the wicked bogeyman, but to protect the power and wealth of a US-led capitalist elite (that institutes all of the above) from competing elites in other countries or to bully, cajole and coerce with the aim of expanding influence.

The public is supposed to back this status quo. And ordinary young men (and women) are supposed to sign up to fight ‘their’ wars. In reality, to fight for what? Austerity, powerlessness, imperialism, propping up the US dollar and a moribund system. For whom? Monsanto, Occidental Petroleum, Soros, Murdoch, Rothschild, BP, JP Morgan, Boeing and the rest of the elite and their corporations whose policies are devised in think tanks and handed to politicians to sell to a largely ignorant public.

For those who are aware of the ruthlessness of imperialist intent and the death and destruction it brings, Theresa May’s comments may come as no surprise at all.

But what about the wider population? Those who swallow the lie about some ‘war on terror’ or Washington as the world’s policeman, protecting life and liberty. Those who believe the sanctimonious dross pumped into their heads by Hollywood, the BBC and other mainstream media about the US-led West being a civilising force for good in a barbaric world.

What civilised ‘values’ is May basing her threat of mass murder on when she talks about unleashing a nuclear weapon? The media and much of the public seem to shrug their shoulders and accept that nuclear weapons are essential and the mass murder of sections of humanity is perfectly acceptable in the face of some fabricated, whipped-up paranoia about ‘Russian aggression’ (or Chinese, Iranian or North Korean – take your pick).

Many believe nuclear weapons are a necessary evil and fall into line with hegemonic thinking about humanity being inherently conflictual, competitive and war-like. Such tendencies do of course exist, but they do not exist in a vacuum. They are fuelled by capitalism and imperialism and played upon by politicians, the media and elite interests who seek to scare the population into accepting a ‘necessary’ status quo.

Co-operation and equality are as much a part of any arbitrary aspect of ‘human nature’ as any other defined characteristic. These values are, however, sidelined by a system of capitalism that is inherently conflict-ridden and entangled in its own contradictions and which fuels wealth accumulation for the few, exploitation (of labour, peoples and the environment), war and a zero-sum class-based system of power.

Much of humanity has been convinced to accept the potential for instant nuclear Armageddon hanging over its collective head as a given, as a ‘deterrent’. However, the reality is that these weapons exist to protect elite, imperialist interests or to pressure others to cave in to their demands. If the 20th century has shown us anything, it is these interests are adept at gathering the masses under notions of the flag, ‘the bomb’ and king/god/goodness (or whatever) and country to justify their slaughter.

Theresa May is on cue with her finger-pointing ‘enemy of the state’ rhetoric concerning opposition to nuclear weaponry.

Now and then, though, the reality of a nuclear armed world comes to the fore, as May’s response demonstrates. But to prevent us all shuddering with the fear of the threat of instant nuclear destruction on a daily basis, it’s a case of don’t worry, be happy, forget about it and watch TV. It was the late academic Rick Roderick who highlighted that modern society trivialises issues that are of ultimate importance: they eventually become banal or ‘matter of fact’ to the population.

People are spun the notion that nuclear-backed militarism and neoliberalism and its structural violence are necessary for securing peace, defeating terror, creating prosperity or promoting ‘growth’. The ultimate banality is to accept this pack of lies and to believe there is no alternative, to acquiesce or just switch off to it all.

There is an alternative

Instead of acquiescing and accepting it as ‘normal’ when someone like May advocates mass murder in the name of peace or she and others accuse those who refuse to comply as being a danger to the nation, it is time to move beyond rhetoric and for ordinary people to take responsibility and act.

Writing on the Countercurrents website, Robert J Burrowes says this about responsibility:

“Many people evade responsibility, of course, simply by believing and acting as if someone else, perhaps even ‘the government’, is ‘properly’ responsible. Undoubtedly, however, the most widespread ways of evading responsibility are to deny any responsibility for military violence while paying the taxes to finance it, denying any responsibility for adverse environmental and climate impacts while making no effort to reduce consumption, denying any responsibility for the exploitation of other people while buying the cheap products produced by their exploited (and sometimes slave) labour, denying any responsibility for the exploitation of animals despite eating and/or otherwise consuming a range of animal products, and denying any part in inflicting violence, especially on children, without understanding the many forms this violence can take.”

Burrowes concludes by saying that ultimately, we evade responsibility by ignoring the existence of a problem.

The ‘problem’ humanity faces goes beyond the threat of nuclear war.

The ‘problem’ encompasses not only ongoing militarism, but the structural violence of neoliberal capitalism, aided and abetted by the World Bank, IMF, WTO and trade deals such as NAFTA or the proposed TTIP. It’s a type of violence that is steady, lingering and a daily fact of life under globalised capitalism.

Of course, not everything can or should be laid at the door of capitalism. Human suffering, misery and conflict have been a feature throughout history and have taken place under various economic and political systems. Indeed, in his various articles, Burrowes goes deep into the psychology and causes of violence.

Burrowes is correct to argue that we should take responsibility and act because there is potentially a different path for humanity. In 1990, the late British MP Tony Benn gave a speech in parliament that indicated the kind of values that such a route might look like.

Benn spoke about having been on a crowded train, where people had been tapping away on calculators and not interacting or making eye contact with one another. It represented what Britain had become under Thatcherism: excessively individualistic, materialistic, narcissistic and atomised.

The train broke down. As time went by, people began to talk with one another, offer snacks and share stories. Benn said it wasn’t too long before that train had been turned into a socialist train of self-help, communality and comradeship. Despite the damaging policies and ideology of Thatcherism, these features had survived her tenure, were deeply embedded and never too far from the surface.

For Tony Benn, what had been witnessed aboard that train was an aspect of ‘human nature’ that is too often suppressed, devalued and, when used as a basis for political change, regarded as a threat to ruling interests. It is an aspect that draws on notions of unity, solidarity, common purpose, self-help and finds its ultimate expression in the vibrancy of community, the collective ownership of productive resources and co-operation. The type of values far removed from the destructive, divisive ones of imperialism and capitalism, which May and her backers protect and promote.

rinf.com

He wants to make sure the next US administration does not interrupt the further reduction of nuclear weapons deployment.

Under the terms of the 2010 treaty (in force since February 5, 2011), the United States and Russia each must reduce numbers of long range nuclear missiles by 50 percent and reduce their total number of warheads by 75 percent by February 2018 to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads on no more than 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-capable bombers. In addition, each side is limited to no more than 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM and SLBM launchers and nuclear-capable bombers. Both sides must then keep their arsenals at these levels until 2021. As of September 1, 2015 (the date of the most recent semi-annual data exchange required by the treaty), the United States had 1,538 deployed strategic warheads on 762 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear-capable bombers. The Russian numbers were 1,648 deployed strategic warheads and 526 deployed strategic missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.

Beyond the regular data exchanges, New START requires that each side notify the other of certain types of changes to its strategic forces and other activities concerning them. As of late January, the sides had made over 10,200 treaty-required notifications. New START also permits each side to carry out 18 inspections per year of the strategic forces of the other. Both fully used their inspection quotas in the first four treaty years and, as of late January, each had carried out all 18 of its allowed inspections in the fifth treaty year.

The New START stipulates that the parties may agree to extend the treaty for a period of no more than five years. A five-year extension in the last months of Obama’s tenure would see it in force until 2026, taking the decision on extension out of the control of the president to be elected this November.

The treaty has obvious strong points. First of all, each side has accepted that its overall strategic nuclear potential will be reduced and capped in a verifiable manner. That bounds and stabilizes a key area of their military competition. The New START’s limits and transparency measures have been proven to be valuable. The envisaged transparency and verification measures – including semi-annual data exchanges, notifications, and inspections – give each side far more information about the other’s strategic forces than it would otherwise have. It reduces the risk of miscalculation on both sides.

Nevertheless, from Russia’s perspective there are concerns that should be taken into account before the issue hits the arms control agenda.

One is the US ballistic missile defense (BMD). Russia views it as a threat to its strategic nuclear potential. There is no certainty in Russia about the future prospects for American BMD. New START, in mentioning the interaction of offensive and defense arms, in no way legally limits the United States in its plans to enhance the BMD capability that would make the Russian deterrent less credible because the US would be able to degrade Russian second strike retaliatory capability – a basis for nuclear deterrence.

There is another point of criticism to evoke questions in Russia. The New START counting rules discount a lot of weapons systems that could really add to the US strategic offensive potential. In contrast to START I, which counted each bomber as one delivery system carrying ten or more warheads, New START counts each bomber as one delivery system, and one warhead. So it would easily fit under the ceiling of 1550 and 700 deployed launchers. Understandably, each bomber normally carries many more munitions – up to twenty cruise missiles and gravity bombs.

According to the treaty, only nuclear warheads actually deployed on missiles would be counted, rather than the maximum number of missiles it can carry according to its previous tests. If the US reduces the number of warheads partially by removing some of them, there is no way to know what will happen with the warheads afterwards. No actual warhead elimination has ever been agreed on in the history of arms control. Before the New START agreement was signed main delivery systems had been usually dismantled. No way could removed warheads be returned. It is different now with New START in force. Within the 1550 ceiling the US is permitted to remove some warheads to the level beyond the actual capacity of the delivery means. For instance, in theory the Trident missile can carry 8-14 warheads. It has been tested with 8 warheads for each missile. Suppose the US leaves a missile with two or three warheads and counts it as carrying two or three warheads. Russian inspectors would be able to come and really count them from time to time. But it does not solve the problem of the United States acquiring a substantial upload capability. The US withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002 to undermine its credibility as a partner. True, there was no violation. America had the right to withdraw but it was the first time that a superpower withdrew from an arms control treaty. Every agreement of this type has a special article provision that permits each party to withdraw with certain advance warning in case extraordinary events make provisions of the treaty incompatible with extreme interests of national security. What if the United States decides to withdraw from the New START treaty? One consequence is clear – it would be able to return warheads from storage back to missiles, and build up its strategic potential by several thousand warheads in several months at most. This is true not only for Trident sea based nuclear missiles, but also for Minuteman III land based ICBMs, which can carry three warheads but many of them would be changed to carry one or two warheads. Russia’s concern is understandable.

One more point of criticism surfaces as a result of US plans to maintain and increase the superiority in long-range nuclear conventional weapons with precision guidance systems relying on space intelligence navigation and targeting. These weapons could theoretically deliver a disarming strike on Russian command and control assets.

The non-strategic weapons in Europe are also a problem to be taken into account. Russia considers US forward-based tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe to be an addition to the United States strategic arsenal that is capable of striking deep into Russian national territory. Moscow has, therefore, demanded that the United States withdraw these weapons (which amount to about 200 air-dropped gravity bombs in the process of being upgraded) from Europe as a precondition to any possible talks on the issue. The process is stalled. «It would be a contribution to international security if all nuclear charges were returned to the territories of countries, which possess them. This is exactly what Russia did», Russia’s Permanent Representative to NATO Alexander Grushko said commenting on the US authorities’ intention to offer Russia to extend the treaty for another five years.

There are ways to get the situation out of the current impasse. Where there’s a will there’s a way. The United States can address Russian concerns on missile defense in exchange for further negotiated arms reductions. Washington could pursue major nuclear arms reductions on its own. Russia and the United States could agree to reevaluate the requirements for mutual deterrence in the contemporary context taking into consideration Russia’s concerns mentioned above.

There is another aspect of the problem to be taken into consideration – most of the actions taken by the outgoing US president can be reversed by the next administration. There will be changes in Congress to influence the lawmakers’ position on further nuclear arms reductions. Today a number of Republicans in Congress question the wisdom of nuclear reductions, even those mandated by the New START. They may block ratification of a new nuclear arms agreement. Democrats tend to be more interested in arms control, and that interest could grow as Congress comes to realize the full cost of the modernization in case there is no arms control deal with Russia. There may be changes after the November congressional election. The deteriorated state of US-Russian relations does not make the challenge less relevant; on the contrary, it makes it even more vital to overcome the hindrances.

There is always a hope for some new initiatives to push the process in the right direction. Binding agreements on the capabilities of BMD systems, limitations on existing and emerging long-range, precision-guided conventional offensive weapons and reductions in substrategic nuclear arms could help achieve progress to benefit all.

Merkel, of course, is the grand dame of Cold War-era saber-rattling. In words that could have emanated from the lips of a previous German chancellor, Adolf Hitler, Merkel called the massing of NATO troops on Russia’s borders with Poland and the Baltic states a «deeply defensive concept». Hitler used similar language to describe Germany’s buildup of troops in 1939 on its borders with Poland. The troops, Hitler argued, were to defend Germany from the aggression posed by Poland. Like Hitler, Merkel today justifies such troop buildups on the Russian border as merely «defensive» in nature. NATO’s actions, since its inception in 1949, have never been «defensive». NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia in the 1990s, an action brought about by the husband of the woman who wants to join Merkel and May in Sicily in May 2017, is a case in point. NATO’s actions against Yugoslavia were purely those of an aggressor.

As for NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, that civil war-wracked nation was never a threat to Europe. The United States became the first NATO state to invoke the collective self-defense security measures of Article 5 of the NATO charter as a mere cheap publicity stunt to create global support for Washington’s nebulous «war on terror».

Merkel’s excuse for sending a full German battalion to the Lithuanian border with Russia was decried by her own Foreign Minister in her Christian Democratic «Grand Coalition» with the rival Social Democrats. It was Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of the Social Democrats who warned NATO against «saber-rattling and war cries» directed against Russia. Merkel’s own Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, also of the Social Democratic Party, has been a critic of renewed European Union sanctions against Russia, something that is being pushed hard by Merkel. The world could only hope that it might be Gabriel or Steinmeier who would join May and Clinton in Sicily in 2017, but Merkel shows no signs of leaving the post of chancellor any time soon.

The second war maiden due to be in Sicily for G7/43 is Theresa May, the British Home Secretary who succeeded David Cameron as British prime minister after the Brexit referendum on continued UK membership in the EU. May, like Cameron, supported a «Remain» vote and, although May has said there should be no second referendum, she and Merkel may plot in behind-the-scenes coffee klatches to seek some sort of «third way» solution.

As Home Secretary, May has been the «Queen of Surveillance». May has served in the office of Home Secretary longer than any recent predecessor and she has supported every Orwellian system of spying and data collection that came to her desk.

May’s pet project has been the Investigatory Powers Bill, currently before the House of Lords. Also dubbed the «snooper’s charter», the proposed surveillance bill would give law enforcement and the intelligence services broad powers to access a full year’s worth of stored Internet browsing data and carry out the bulk collection of raw data. The law, if enacted, would make Britain the world’s foremost surveillance society. May had also championed the placement of intrusive video surveillance systems across the United Kingdom.

May’s bill also permits the government to hack into any computer system or data network of its choosing. The language in the bill mandates that the government could employ «a range of techniques used by the equipment interference agencies that may be used to obtain communications, equipment data or other information from the equipment. The material so obtained may be used evidentially or as intelligence, or in some cases, may be used to test, maintain or develop equipment interference capabilities». «Equipment interference capabilities» is a just a British upper crust high tea expression meaning «hacking».

May, like Merkel and US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, is a war hawk. May voted to send British troops to Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan. In the case of Iraq, May voted for the House of Commons bill authorizing Britain to join the war in Iraq, which, as is now known from the Chilcot Inquiry report on the war, was based on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s deceit and outright lies about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. May also favors Britain retaining its fleet of Trident nuclear submarines, a view that is most welcome in the halls of NATO.

The third war maiden who would attend the first-ever G7 summit having three female leaders present is Mrs Clinton. Like May, Clinton voted, as a senator, to commit forces to war in Iraq. Although Clinton is a Democrat and May is a Conservative, in the neoconservative/neoliberal political world, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between mainstream conservatives and liberals – they are all controlled by corporate elites who ensure that governments sing from the very same pro-globalization and anti-labor song sheet.

For Israel, the three war maidens will be a God-send. Unlike Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has been a reasoned critic of Israeli policies – and is paying a political price for it – May is a champion of Israel and its draconian policies in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Mrs Clinton has made strengthening US ties with the fanatic right-wing regime of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu a primary foreign policy goal of her administration. As for Merkel, the German chancellor has only heaped praise on Israel and has continued to supply German submarines to the increasingly-apartheid state.

The arrival of the three war maidens in Sicily next May will cause the world to shudder. However, there is another female leader-in-waiting who would be in a position of stopping any joint aggressive stance by Merkel, May, and Clinton. The French presidential elections are scheduled for April 23 and May 7, 2017. The French National Front leader Marine Le Pen has been running neck-and-neck with incumbent President Francois Holland in opinion polls. A President Le Pen confronting, a week after her swearing in, the three war maidens in Sicily might save the world from military conflict in such hot spots as Ukraine and Syria. Only in a world where political lines have been blurred by massive amounts of corporate money being introduced into politics could a standard bearer for a right-wing nationalist party like Le Pen actually advance the cause of peace. The old political score cards from the last century are no longer relevant. Today, a progressive would have to vote for a right-winger like Le Pen and even a Donald Trump in order that the G7 in 2017 does not come under the spell of three female war maidens intent on plunging the world into dangerous conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.