There’s an unmissable irony in the way feminists today are rushing to defend mothers who kill their own children.

In doing so, they have effectively revived the old idea of female hysteria. Hysteria was once a widespread diagnosis, rooted in the belief that women were uniquely prone to mental and behavioural disorders because of their biology.

The term dates back to Ancient Greece, from hystera, meaning “womb”. Hippocrates and Plato even believed the womb could wander through a woman’s body, producing various physical and mental symptoms.

Modern medicine abandoned hysteria as a legitimate diagnosis long ago. Yet when a woman commits an unspeakable act today, we increasingly hear a remarkably familiar argument: her hormones, pregnancy, childbirth, mental state or female biology somehow explain, or even excuse, her irrational behaviour.

The irony is hard to miss here. In their attempt to defend women, they are resurrecting what feminists have long argued is one of history’s most patronising stereotypes about women.

Read more

Donald Trump’s campaign to bring Greenland under United States control has often been dismissed as bluster. That is a mistake. Behind the language of a property deal lies a serious attempt to revive an old imperial principle: that Washington may decide the political and economic future of the entire Western Hemisphere. Greenland, strategically placed between North America and Europe, has become a test of that claim – and of whether the sovereignty of a small Indigenous nation counts when it conflicts with the ambitions of a great power.

Trump floated buying Greenland during his first presidency in 2019. After his re-election, the proposal became more aggressive. In December 2024 he declared US “ownership and control” of Greenland as an “absolute necessity.” On January 7, 2025, he refused to rule out military or economic coercion against Greenland and the Panama Canal, saying, “We need Greenland for national security purposes.” He subsequently insisted that the United States would obtain the island “one way or the other.” The claim mixed several arguments: Greenland is vital to missile defense, Russia and China threaten the Arctic, Greenland’s rare-earth deposits are strategically valuable, and Greenlanders would supposedly welcome US rule.

The last claim was demonstrably false. A January 2025 survey conducted in both Greenlandic and Danish found that 85% of Greenland’s population opposed leaving the Danish realm to join the United States, while only 6% supported it. Yet the same poll showed a majority favoring eventual independence. That distinction is central. Greenlanders’ desire to end Danish colonial tutelage cannot be converted into consent to US annexation.

A military relationship without annexation

The security case for US ownership is misleading because Washington already enjoys extensive military rights in Greenland. The relationship began during the Second World War. With Denmark occupied by Nazi Germany, its ambassador in Washington signed a 1941 agreement permitting the United States to defend Greenland and construct facilities there. Denmark sought a US withdrawal after the war, but Cold War strategy prevailed.

The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement, concluded under the North Atlantic Treaty, authorized the United States to establish and operate “defense areas.” It enabled the rapid construction of Thule Air Base – renamed Pituffik Space Base in 2023 – at a location ideal for the shortest air and missile routes between the Soviet Union and North America. At its Cold War height, the US operated numerous installations across Greenland. Today Pituffik, Washington’s northernmost military base, performs missile-warning, missile-defense and space-surveillance functions.

The agreement offers Washington wide operational freedom. A 2004 amendment – the Igaliku Agreement – recognized Greenland’s Home Rule government, made Pituffik the sole existing defense area, and required consultation before significant changes or the creation of new defense areas. It also established cooperation on economic, technical, and environmental issues. In other words, if the United States believes more radar, ports, airfields or personnel are necessary, a legal mechanism already exists to negotiate them with Denmark and Greenland. Sovereignty is, therefore, not a military requirement.

The history of the bases also explains why “security” is not a neutral word in Greenland. In 1953, Danish authorities ordered 116 Inughuit – 27 families – to leave the newly established Qaanaaq, while the others relocated to settlements elsewhere in the district. Camp Century was constructed beneath the ice in 1959-60 and was connected with the secret Project Iceworm proposal for an extensive network of nuclear-missile launch sites.

In 1968, a US B-52 carrying four hydrogen bombs crashed on the sea ice at Thule Air Base, causing plutonium and other contamination. The accident exposed the inconsistency between Denmark’s publicly declared policy against nuclear weapons on Danish territory in peacetime and the Danish government’s secret permissions for the US to store nuclear weapons in Greenland. Abandoned installations left fuel, waste and other pollution. Greenlandic reporting continues to question who will pay for future clean-ups. The military relationship protected US strategic interests while its human and environmental costs were disproportionately borne by Greenlanders.

Greenland ceased formally to be a colony in 1953, gained Home Rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009. The Self-Government Act recognizes Greenlanders as a people entitled to self-determination and provides a path to independence. Washington reopened its Nuuk consulate in 2020, and cooperation grew in trade, education, mining, and research. Greenland’s governments (from Kuupik Kleist to Jens-Frederik Nielsen) have welcomed economic ties with Washington, but reject the tendency of Washington to want more and more from the island for its military needs.

From Monroe to Donroe

Trump’s Greenland demand belongs to a wider hemispheric policy. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 warned European powers against new colonial intervention in the Americas. Presented as anti-colonial, it evolved into a claim of US supremacy. Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 corollary asserted a right of intervention in Latin America, furnishing ideological cover for occupations, regime changes, and control over strategic assets.

Trump’s supporters rechristened its latest version the “Donroe Doctrine.” The label links pressure on Greenland with demands concerning the Panama Canal, threats against Cuba and Colombia, claims over Canada, and US intervention in Venezuela. In late 2025, the White House formally proclaimed a Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US leadership throughout “our hemisphere.” Greenland is swept into this sphere because it is geographically part of North America, even though it is politically tied to Denmark and its Inuit people possess their own right of self-determination. This doctrine contains a revealing contradiction. Trump denounces European control of Greenland as an anachronism while demanding that the island be transferred to the United States. Colonialism is not abolished; the proposed colonizer merely changes. Trump’s references to minerals, sea routes, and military geography reduce Greenland to an asset and its 56,000 people to an obstacle in a transaction between powers.

A crisis inside the Western alliance

Trump’s threats produced an extraordinary rupture between the United States and Europe. Denmark is not an adversary, but a NATO ally whose troops fought alongside US soldiers in Afghanistan. A threat to seize territory from one ally by force attacks the premise of the alliance itself. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that a US attack on another NATO country would bring the post-war security order to an end. European governments rallied behind the principle that borders cannot be changed by coercion, a principle they invoke against Russia in Ukraine.

The crisis exposed Europe’s dependency. NATO has no comfortable procedure for defending one member against its strongest member. European states rely heavily on US military power while being asked to resist US coercion. Copenhagen responded with careful diplomacy, greater Arctic military spending, and insistence that decisions belong to Greenland and Denmark. France, Germany, the Nordic states, and the European Union expressed solidarity, but the episode sharpened calls for European strategic autonomy. It also damaged Washington’s claim to lead an alliance of democracies against authoritarian revisionism.

On September 18, 2026, Trump announced an emerging trilateral security agreement after months of negotiation, claiming “permanent control” over Greenland’s security. Danish and Greenlandic leaders described it more narrowly: an expansion of US military cooperation that preserves sovereignty and Greenlandic self-determination. The full text remains to be signed and approved. If their account holds, the outcome confirms what was apparent from the beginning: the United States could obtain additional security arrangements without owning Greenland. Yet the pressure that preceded the deal remains a warning about negotiations conducted under threats.

Greenland speaks for itself

Greenland’s response has combined rejection, unity, and political complexity. Kalaallit Nunaat – the Greenlandic name for the country – became the center of declarations that Greenland belongs to its people and is not for sale. In March 2025, large demonstrations in Nuuk, Sisimiut, and Qaanaaq marched under the red-and-white Erfalasorput flag. Protesters told Trump to respect Inuit, their country, and their nationality. Greenland’s political parties, despite deep disagreements over the speed and economic terms of independence, jointly condemned external pressure. Parliament prohibited foreign and anonymous political donations, explicitly defending the integrity of Greenlandic democracy amid great-power interest.

Danish colonialism left profound injuries: forced assimilation, social engineering, unequal development, and decisions taken in Copenhagen about Greenlandic land and people (the entire fourth season of the popular television drama, Borgen, in 2022 centered on a conflict between Copenhagen and Nuuk about the discovery of a new oil field with a China and Russia angle). Many Greenlanders want independence, and some see heightened US interest as leverage for investment and a more equal relationship with Denmark.

Greenland reveals the real content of the Donroe Doctrine: a twenty-first-century claim that geography gives Washington superior rights over neighboring peoples. The answer from Greenland is equally modern and universal. Strategic location does not cancel popular sovereignty, minerals do not erase nationhood, and no great power acquires a country merely by declaring that it needs one.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa. He is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books (New Delhi). He also appeared in the films Shadow World (2016) and Two Meetings (2017).

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

GlobalResearch.ca

Caitlin Johnstone | caitlinjohnst.one

The biggest AI threat isn’t artificial superintelligence wiping out humanity in a fit of mechanical vengeance like some digital Old Testament God, it’s the same oligarchs and empire managers as usual inflicting the same evils and abuses as usual upon their fellow man.

We’re already presently watching the empire building AI into its killing machines and causing all kinds of horrifying problems while these technologies become more and more complex and unpredictable.

CNN reports that US military AI “almost started a war” with China when it hallucinated intelligence showing a Chinese ship transporting nuclear weapon components to Iran; US military planes were apparently already in the air preparing to attack the vessel before human intelligence picked up on the error.

A recent Pentagon report has officially concluded that an over-reliance on Palantir’s AI-powered command-and-control system Maven contributed to the bombing of a school in Minab which killed 120 children attending classes on the first day of the US-Israeli war with Iran.

We learned early on in the Gaza holocaust that the IDF was using AI to help it bomb suspected Hamas members when they are at home with their families rather than when they are out in the battlefield using a program called “Where’s Daddy?” — a bit of Israeli humor about the fact that they would be killing the children of Palestinian resistance fighters when their fathers came home.

We’re seeing politicians like Bernie Sanders voice concerns that “AI could soon be smarter than humans and function outside of our control,” but the most obvious and imminent threat right now is not that artificial intelligence will outsmart us and escape our control, it’s that it is being fully controlled by humans who are stupid and evil.

Again, we know for a fact that powerful nuclear-armed military forces are knitting AI into all their systems. We’re watching them do it, right in front of our faces. An increasingly complex and confusing element has been added to an environment of already tense and dangerous military standoffs around the world as the US and its allies work to absorb the few remaining nations who have managed to retain sovereignty into the imperial power umbrella. And yet recent weeks have seen the mass media flooded with punditry speculating about possible scenarios under which AI might perhaps wind up leading to human extinction.

We already know the most likely scenario under which AI will get us all killed. If it happens, it will be because rich and powerful sociopaths knit these technologies into war machinery that is designed for killing humans at mass scale. Duh.

These developments are unfolding in the context of a frenetic new arms race with China in which nobody’s willing to tap the brake pedal for fear of falling behind. Any talk of regulation or slowing things down before they get out of control is dismissed because the competition-based systems which currently govern human behavior have thrust us into a nightmare of constant military expansionism and brinkmanship instead of collaboration and harmony, all fueled by the fact that this paradigm makes tech plutocrats and war profiteers obscenely wealthy.

That’s clearly the most immediate existential threat that AI poses to our species right now. There’s also the only slightly less frightening threat of artificial intelligence enabling our rulers to use mass surveillance and autonomous weapons systems to stifle any revolutionary political movement before it gets off the ground, locking us into this freakish capitalist dystopia until the planet is an uninhabitable wasteland.

In any case, this isn’t a new threat. It’s the same old threat with new toys. Capitalism must end, and the empire must fall. Our very existence depends on it.

Original Article: https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-real-danger-of-ai-is-that-it

Two reports released last week by the U.S. government shed light officially, for the first time, on the damage Iran has inflicted on the Pentagon’s aerial fleet since the war began almost seven months ago. TWZ has combined their accounting with open-source intelligence (OSINT) reporting and our own tracking to produce a comprehensive graphic visualizing what the U.S. has lost – and what it will cost to replace. The picture it paints is not a pretty one, with implications should the U.S. trade blows with a peer adversary in the Pacific.

On September 14, the Pentagon’s Lead Inspector General (IG) released its first quarterly report to Congress on Operation Epic Fury (OEF), which included aircraft casualties suffered by the U.S. from the beginning of the war on February 28, 2026, through June 30. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) followed the next day with even more detail, assessing the costs incurred during combat operations against Iran with an overview of aircraft losses through August 1, as well as the estimated replacement cost in 2026 dollars. TWZ went a step further, continuing where both reports left off with the help of the OSINT community, to update our previous visualization and tally losses through September 18, incorporating damage from attacks by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on American bases in the Middle East over the past two months. The final accounting can be viewed in the high-definition graphic below.

Drone Fleet Takes The Brunt Of The Blow

America’s MQ-9 Reaper drone fleet has absorbed the bulk of the damage and accounts for the largest single line-item expenditure in the CBO’s letter to the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. According to the Lead IG, “as many as 30” MQ-9A Reaper drones were destroyed in “various circumstances,” while the CBO booked 24 at a unit cost of $30 million (based on the Foreign Military Sales program), which totals $720 million to $900 million in lost equipment. The cost of a fully kitted-out Reaper can approach $50 million, depending on the sensors, weapons, and other mission equipment it carries. The Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, told the House Armed Services Committee in May that the Reaper was the war’s “most valuable player.”

But both numbers are stale. The Washington Post reported in August that at least 45 Reapers, approximately a quarter of the pre-war fleet, were shot down, crashed, or destroyed on the ground, citing three U.S. officials familiar with the matter. That figure covers MQ-9s lost across the Middle East, including those downed over Iran and by the Houthis in Yemen. The Air Force is on record admitting that the Reaper fleet shrank to 135 airframes as of May, down from an official total of 165 at the start of fiscal year 2026. Another two have been shot down since the Post’s report, according to open-source intel, bringing the total to 47, or more than $1.4 billion based on the CBO’s methodology. While every Reaper lost is expensive, in some cases at least, each would represent a soul, or crew, that may have been at risk in a previous era’s conflict, and no dollar figure captures that trade-off.

General Atomics’ iconic MQ-9A is no longer in production, and the service does not view the newer, in-production MQ-9B as a platform to meet its current needs and cost demands. Instead, it is targeting a replacement with a unit cost of around $10 million (excluding sensors) and pushing to accelerate the program to acquire these lower-cost platforms, dubbed the Massed Modular Aircraft (MMA). “If you don’t like losing an MQ-9A that cost on the order of $50 million, with the sensors, you’re probably not going to like losing an MQ-9B at a higher price point,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the Air Force’s Chief Modernization Officer, said at a roundtable in September, according to a report from Air & Space Forces Magazine.

In June, the USAF confirmed to TWZ that after a relatively frantic hunt for additional airframes, it was planning to purchase a number of unused Reapers from General Atomics, which turned out to be fewer than 10. There is no easy answer to this problem, as cheaper alternatives cannot replace all the capabilities provided by pricier platforms. There are several more attritable alternatives in development, such as the General Atomics Wildfire, which the company is building specifically to meet the needs outlined in the MMA program. Swarm Aero’s Gamera is another possible contender.

The Reapers were not the only aerial drones lost. An MQ-4C Triton went down over the Persian Gulf in April after squawking a lost-link code and general emergency on its way back to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy. The Navy logged it as a Class A mishap and the cause remains unknown. There are only 20 in the fleet, and at $150 million a pop, the loss represents a significant outflow. Navy budget documents place the unit price higher at $238 million. And, in late May, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that Iran shot down an MQ-1 over international waters. CENTCOM declined to tell TWZ whether it was an Air Force Predator, which is officially out of service, or an Army Gray Eagle platform, and neither appeared in the government reports.

The Crewed Aircraft Tally

In terms of manned aircraft, the KC-135 Stratotanker fleet took the biggest hit. The workhorse aerial refueling tanker is primarily tasked with keeping America’s fighters, bombers, and cargo haulers airborne, and crews have been flying nearly nonstop sorties to support active operations in the CENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR). Two were destroyed and up to seven have been damaged, although the Air Force has become relatively efficient at repairing the damaged aircraft enough to fly them home. In a tragic incident on March 12, a collision between two Stratotankers that was “not due to hostile fire or friendly fire,” according to CENTCOM, resulted in the loss of six airmen after one of the aircraft went down over western Iraq.

Three F-15E Strike Eagles were destroyed early in the conflict due to friendly fire over Kuwait, and one was shot down over Iran on April 3, leading to a massive combat search and rescue (CSAR) operation. “Roughly eight” more were damaged in a recent salvo of ballistic missile fire on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, first reported by CBS News and confirmed by Air & Space Forces Magazine, both citing unnamed U.S. officials. President Donald Trump dismissed the reports, telling NewsNation there was “no damage, no nothing.”

The daring CSAR mission to save the two F-15E crew members who ejected inside Iran, one of whom 60 Minutes interviewed on September 13, took place between April 3 and 5. While no American lives were lost during the operation, several aircraft were destroyed, including two MC-130J Commando IIs and four Night Stalker MH-6 Little Bird helicopters (which TWZ was first to report), representing, at north of $400 million, the costliest single operation of the war for aircraft inventory. The mission reportedly included more than 150 aircraft and 92 special operators on the ground deep in enemy territory. The MC-130Js became stuck on a temporary remote airstrip and were deliberately destroyed by American forces to prevent capture, along with the Little Birds operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR). An HH-60W Jolly Green II was also struck but continued flying. The CBO booked the MC-130Js at $300 million, and the five helos at $122 million.

Two A-10C Warthog close air support jets also took hits. The first, while flying in a “Sandy” escort role during the rescue operation, was hit by enemy fire. “This pilot continued to fight, continued the mission, and then upon exit, flew his aircraft into another country and determined that the airplane was not landable,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, said during a presser in April. “The pilot then made the decision to eject over friendly territory, and was quickly and safely recovered.” The second Warthog sustained damage on the ground in Jordan during the IRGC’s latest round of strikes referenced above.

The most expensive single crewed loss was an E-3G Sentry, which is out of production and can only be replaced by the E-7A Wedgetail, a program that the Pentagon recently revived, at a unit cost the CBO estimates to be half a billion dollars. The jet, serial number 81-0005, was struck on the taxiway at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia on March 27, one of just 16 Sentries the service had left after initially deploying six to the theater before the conflict kicked off. The IG report lists it as damaged, but that is generous, considering that photographs and satellite imagery show the plane cut in half with the rear fuselage destroyed. The CBO report is more candid, categorizing the Sentry as lost in battle and assigning a $500 million replacement value. The Pentagon tried to cancel the E-7 program last year, but has since reversed course, after Secretary Pete Hegseth said the department’s mindset “completely changed.”

A handful of other hits round out the tally. A 5th-generation F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was struck by Iranian fire in mid-March and forced to make an emergency landing. As far as we know, this was the first time an F-35 took hostile fire in combat. The following week, a first-person-view (FPV) short-range kamikaze drone successfully targeted a U.S. Army Black Hawk parked at a base outside Baghdad, Iraq. The next month, images circulated by Iranian state media, which TWZ did not independently verify, showed a CH-47F Chinook wrecked on the ground at Camp Buehring in Kuwait. And, in June, an AH-64 Apache was shot down near the Strait of Hormuz.

Recent retaliatory attacks by IRGC forces on U.S. bases have damaged additional aircraft in the weeks following the CBO’s cutoff date. Another four helicopters were hit since September 10, @DefenceGeek, a UK-based OSINT researcher and flight tracker, told TWZ. His team at @MATA_osint reviewed open-source videos and identified them as H-60 models, likely UH-60M/L variants.

The True Cost Explained

Through August 1, the CBO estimated that the losses represented nearly $1.9 billion in 2026 dollars, but that figure only counts hardware the Pentagon “would have to change its plans to replace.” If the department sought funding to replace everything it lost with platforms available today, the true cost rises to $3.3 billion. For example, the A-10C Warthog is no longer being built, and the CBO assesses that if it were to be replaced with an F-35A instead, the price balloons from $0 to $120 million. Similarly, since the F-15E has no active production line, the replacement cost of four F-15EX would total $400 million, compared to $0 on paper. The CBO figure also includes a $500 million charge for a lost THAAD AN/TPY-2 radar, a prized air defense asset, one of only eight radars the Army has for its THAAD batteries. It is (obviously) not an aircraft but counted in the report’s accounting.

Taking into consideration the losses suffered since the CBO’s assessment on August 1, and the cost to repair damaged aircraft, which is not included in the table above, the $3.3 billion figure could top $4 billion. Additionally, CENTCOM told the IG that “hundreds of buildings and structures” were damaged and destroyed at various bases across the AOR, in addition to miscellaneous equipment, sensors, and other installations that were targeted but not included in the estimates. However, these are rough calculations, and the actual outlays will likely differ substantially.

Reports Highlight Strain On America’s Munitions Stockpile

The Lead IG and CBO both address the precarious state of America’s munitions stockpile, which contradicts recent commentary by some senior military officials. The IG reiterated that the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment said the “munitions expenditure in OEF has resulted in strategic inventory shortfalls and revealed industrial base bottlenecks for munitions resupply.” The CBO report goes further, concluding the U.S. has “probably used between one-half and two-thirds of its inventory” of Patriot, THAAD, Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), and SM-6 missiles since June 2025, and states that rebuilding those stocks “would probably take at least five years, even if production was increased.” These numbers generally align with a report earlier this year from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that highlighted the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how it could affect a future fight against China.

CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper, who is responsible for executing the day-to-day operations against Iran, said he was “not concerned at all” when asked about America’s munitions stockpile during the 60 Minutes segment mentioned above. “We’re well armed and ready for any contingency,” he told Norah O’Donnell. This may be sincere, as the commander overseeing an active war tends to get whatever is required, but other theater-level commanders don’t necessarily share the same sentiment.

Last month, the heads of U.S. European, Pacific, and Southern Commands, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations, each registered a formal “non-concur” in the August 14 Secretary of Defense Orders Book (SDOB), warning that extending their forces’ commitment to the Iran fight risked draining America’s combat power, especially in the Pacific. In an exclusive citing people familiar with the assessment, the Washington Post reported that Adm. Samuel Paparo, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, “disagreed with the level of support he was ordered to continually provide, including an aircraft carrier strike group and naval destroyers.” On social media, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman called the story inaccurate but stated, “Non-concurs are standard. The Secretary sees them constantly.”

Back in 2024, prior to Operation Rough Rider, the Twelve-Day War, Midnight Hammer, and Epic Fury, Adm. Paparo voiced concerns about munitions expenditures, saying, “With some of the Patriots that have been employed, some of the air-to-air missiles that have been employed, it’s now eating into stocks, and to say otherwise would be dishonest.” He continued, “Inherently, it imposes costs on the readiness of America to respond in the Indo-Pacific region, which is the most stressing theater for the quantity and quality of munitions, because the PRC [People’s Republic of China] is the most capable potential adversary in the world.”

The math does not bode well should the U.S. get into a dust-up with China before stockpiles can be replenished. The CBO notes China “has many more ballistic and cruise missiles than Iran had at the onset of Operation Epic Fury,” with a “significantly larger economic base” that “can produce such missiles more rapidly.” As Iran has shown, stationary bases make for easy targets, and U.S. installations in the Pacific that fall under the PRC’s ballistic missile umbrella are exposed, unhardened, and require a high volume of interceptors to defend. “Having used a large portion of its missile defense inventory in combat operations against Iran, DoD now has fewer interceptors on hand to use in a potential conflict with the PRC,” the CBO concluded.

The Pentagon has since announced deals with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to drastically increase Patriot and THAAD production, but that ramp-up will take years to materialize. According to the CBO, “Boosting missile production has historically been a slow process with lags of three to five years between the placement and delivery of new orders. After production was increased, several more years would be required to replace the missiles that have been used in the conflict with Iran.”

The Impact On Deterrence

Aircraft casualties are to be expected in any conflict, especially considering the intensity, scope, and length of operations against a formidable opponent with home-field advantage. Airframes can be rebuilt and stockpiles replenished. But such dynamics impact deterrence in other regions, as America’s own military leaders have said on the record in the past.

“Deterrence is achieved by that ability to demonstrate capability and will, and it comes down to your ability to either impose costs on an adversary or including in response to aggression. And it’s also a big part of defending yourself against missiles and so China is building 800+ missiles per year,” Adm. Paparo explained in a recent interview with Hawaii News Now. “And so the ability to defend that, the ability to impose costs, this gets back to the changing character of warfare with information operations, drone operations, and deep precision strike are much more salient instruments of national power than they’ve been in the past. And to be able to deter is to be able to demonstrate that the risk of armed conflict far outweighs the benefits and part of that is imposing costs and part of that is defending ourselves against those costs.”

TWZ noted many of these questions in February, before the first Tomahawk was fired, and has been reporting on stockpile concerns for years. Now, the Pentagon’s bill for the conflict conservatively sits at over $38 billion, America’s fleet of Reapers is down a quarter, and its bases in the Middle East are battered and could still be targeted. The interceptors that kept the number of aircraft depicted on our graphic from being higher are, by the CBO’s own estimate, years from being replaced – a notable dynamic considering military leaders have suggested China, with a much larger missile arsenal than Iran, could be prepared to move on Taiwan by 2027.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@recurrent.io or @ianellisjones

Author’s note: Special thanks to @DefenceGeek and the team at the Military Air Tracking Alliance (MATA) for assisting with the open-source analysis and battle damage assessment. Be sure to follow them on X at @DefenceGeek and @MATA_osint.

The post Every American Aircraft Lost Or Damaged During The Iran War, Visualized appeared first on TWZ.

The coalition took exception with how mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which Kennedy once described as the deadliest vaccines on the market, remain available for Americans.

ZeroHedge News | ZeroHedge.com | Tyler Durden

Zachary Stieber | The Epoch Times | theepochtimes.com

Some leaders in the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement on Sept. 21 warned President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over their inaction regarding messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, [bioweapon injections] including vaccines against COVID-19 [flu renamed].

"While the centerpiece of the MAHA and health freedom agenda has been removal of mRNA shots, you have failed to take decisive action on this front despite overwhelming credible evidence to the harm of this technology," the activists said in an open letter to Trump and Kennedy.

"Instead, your policies related to mRNA technology are neutered and self-defeating, putting pregnant women and children at risk, misleading parents and eroding their rights, and failing to help those harmed by vaccines."

They added, "If you continue to ignore our central issue of removing the mRNA platform, the MAHA and health freedom movements will withdraw their support of you, and you will face the political consequences."

The letter came after Kennedy told supporters that it takes time to make change inside the government, and that officials under him are carrying out vaccine safety studies that will inform future developments.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Texas doctor, organized the letter. She has criticized several actions by Kennedy and the officials he oversees since he became health secretary in 2025 and heads Americans for Health Freedom.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), and commentator Tucker Carlson, all one-time Trump allies who have fallen out of favor with the president, signed the letter.

Other signatories include Dr. Joe Varon, president and chief medical officer at the Independent Medical Alliance; Dr. Robert Malone, who was chosen by Kennedy to advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines; Leslie Manookian, founder and president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, which has fought vaccine and mask mandates in court; and Dr. Joel Wallskog, who was injured by a COVID-19 vaccine and serves as co-chair of the vaccine injury advocacy group React19.

The coalition took exception with how mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which Kennedy once described as the deadliest vaccines on the market, remain available for Americans. They also raised concerns about how the administration recently cleared an mRNA vaccine against influenza even though it was not tested against a placebo, which ran counter to a promise made by Kennedy that no new vaccines would be approved absent placebo-controlled trials. And they said there has been an "absence of meaningful help for those injured from the mRNA shots."

"The man who spent years warning America about mRNA vaccines now presides over a department that has approved another one," Malone and his wife, Jill Glasspool Malone, wrote in a blog post on Monday. 

That is not a minor detail. It is the sort of contradiction that the medical freedom movement once would have torn apart."

[Genocidal] Proponents of mRNA vaccines [bioweapon injections], including CDC Director Dr. Erica Schwartz, say data show they are safe and effective. [Total crap, hang them all]

The White House did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told news outlets in a statement that Kennedy "has been clear that he believes mRNA products warrant heightened scientific scrutiny." [Way too late for this statement]

The spokesperson added: "HHS continues to support mRNA research where the science shows promise [in killing people], including for hard-to-treat cancers [Causing the cancers]. At the same time, HHS wound down investments in mRNA vaccines for upper respiratory viruses because the technology does not effectively protect against infection from [alleged] rapidly mutating viruses such as COVID [flu renamed] and flu [same thing]."

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/maha-leaders-warn-trump-rfk-jr-over-inaction-on-mrna-vaccines-6093219?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge

Image: Source [Truth11.com Meme | Used previously on another article on Truth11.com]

Original Article: https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/maha-leaders-warn-trump-rfk-jr-over-inaction-mrna-vaccines

Note: Comments placed in [ ] are added by Truth11.com editor.  For example; [Flu]

Spanish reality show “Survivor” (Supervivientes) has been filming on the land of the Afro-Indigenous Garífuna peoples in Honduras since 2006. The filming of “Supervivientes,” as well as other versions of the “Survivor” show, have sparked intense local protests over land, human rights, restrictions to fishing access, and forced evictions.

In 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) found that the filming of the reality show violated several rights of the members of the Garífuna community. But it wasn’t the first time the Honduran government has been found in violation for its treatment of the Afro-Indigenous people of Central America. In total, the Inter-American Court has issued warnings four times regarding the mistreatment suffered by this community.

This story, though not entirely recent, has resurfaced in recent weeks when, on July 6, nearly two hundred police officers arrived in San Juan to evict several community members, claiming they were on property that did not belong to them.

However, the Garífuna assert that these lands belong to the community, and therefore an eviction order cannot be issued for communal lands that, in essence, are being targeted for privatization in favor of private interests (particularly those of the Rosenthal family, one of the wealthiest and most powerful families in Honduras). The dispute led to the arrest and prosecution of five community members by the Honduran judicial system. Those detained are Deinor Mejía, Irbin López, Carlos Fernández, Onil Hernández, and Sara Acosta.

Protests against evictions

Following this, several members of the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization (OFRANEH) arrived in the capital, Tegucigalpa, to protest in front of the Supreme Court against what they consider to be unfair treatment. They set up the “Viva Berta” Camp and plan to remain there until the proceedings against the five defendants are concluded and the court stops treating the matter as if it were a criminal case.

Furthermore, OFRANEH has rejected the intentions of Supreme Court President Wagner Vallecillo to establish dialogue forums to resolve the conflict, as the organization defending the rights of Black Hondurans asserts that this would imply recognizing that these territories do not belong to the peoples settled there – a fact already established several years ago by international courts and specifically recognized in 2023 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which ruled that the territories of San Juan belonged to the communities settled there.

Thus, while the government promotes negotiations, the Garifuna people continue to resist what they see as an onslaught by private interests that are using the Honduran government to their advantage in order to strip them of something that – despite the racist rhetoric of certain media outlets – is rightfully theirs by virtue of hard-won rights.

Isolated incident or state policy?

However, in the Honduras of right-wing President Nasry Asfura, a law known as the Agroindustrial Law, the Employment and Economic Development Zones (ZEDE), was recently passed. This law authorizes law enforcement to act as they did on the day of the eviction, even though it contradicts the rulings of the IACHR, which could lead to another case against the Honduran state. 

OFRANEH asserts that this is part of a long-standing pattern of the Honduran state’s actions against Indigenous peoples. For two decades, various institutions have promoted the dispossession of lands in favor of private interests, they stated. In one such example, the National Agrarian Institute reportedly failed to recognize more than 172 hectares for the Garifuna people but did recognize them for the company Promotur, a firm linked to Jaime Rosenthal Oliva, a prominent Honduran banker and politician who died in 2019. 

This organization has also denounced the clear ties between the Rosenthals and the Supreme Court of Justice, which could jeopardize fair treatment and recognition of the territories in favor of Indigenous peoples.

For their part, several United Nations special rapporteurs have called on the Honduran government not to carry out more than 1,000 eviction orders that would affect tens of thousands of peasant, Indigenous, and Afro-descendant families. These orders would jeopardize not only territorial rights but also the food security of thousands of people, as these families rely primarily on working the land for their livelihoods.

What will a DSA-led state look like — will it back defund and community control of police, or bow to the powers that block affordability? Lawrence Grandpre, political commentator for Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, explores this question in his recent Baltimore Times article, “The Dangers of ‘Law and Order’ Leftism: Toward a Black Power Public Safety,” asking whether DSA will embrace the outmoded Law and Order politics that fueled America’s prison boom. As officials like AOC and Mamdani backtrack on defunding police — one of the biggest carceral drains on housing, healthcare, and education funding — Grandpre sits down with former political prisoner and Rattling the Bars host Mansa Musa to unpack these contradictions ahead of the midterms, where Democrats hope to retake the House and Senate. Tune in for an unflinching look at the Left’s relationship to the state and to law and order.

Related Links:

• The Dangers of “Law and Order” Leftism- Toward a Black Power Public Safety
• Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle Facebook, X, Instagram, Bluesky, LinkedIn, Youtube

Credits:

• Production/Post-production: Cameron Granadino

A French Navy Mistral class amphibious assault ship has been photographed carrying Naval Group’s new Rampart modular launcher, a system designed to allow a single weapon station to employ different types of rockets, missiles, and other effectors against a wide range of threats.

The imagery, captured off Toulon during training on September 21, reveals the launcher installed on the ship’s forward starboard sponson. While the specific identity of the vessel is unclear, this represents the first publicly observed evidence that Rampart has moved into shipboard testing.

Naval Group announced in June that the first at-sea firing campaign for Rampart was planned for October aboard a Mistral class ship during the French Navy’s Wildfire counter-drone exercise.

What makes Rampart unusual is its modular architecture. Rather than being built around one missile or rocket, the system uses interchangeable launch modules that can accommodate different weapons. This allows a ship to carry large numbers of relatively inexpensive guided rockets for counter-drone work while retaining the option of using larger and more capable short-range missiles against more challenging targets.

Because the launch modules are interchangeable, the mix can theoretically be changed as the mission or threat environment changes.

The approach is aimed squarely at a problem that has become increasingly important for naval forces: defending expensive ships against potentially large numbers of inexpensive uncrewed systems and missiles without relying exclusively on high-cost interceptors.

Rampart was previously known as the Multi-purpose and Modular Launching System (MPLS). Naval Group unveiled the concept in 2023 as a self-funded development effort and formally presented the Rampart earlier this year.

The launcher uses four interchangeable ammunition modules. Depending on the configuration, Naval Group says that the system can accommodate up to 80 Thales 68mm laser-guided rockets or 48 NATO-standard 70mm laser-guided rockets. Other configurations can carry smaller numbers of short-range missiles (four to six per module, depending on type) or other effectors, including decoys.

The system has already been demonstrated with guided rockets. A January 2026 test involved a Thales 68mm guided rocket, followed by a series of firings at the Canjuers range in southern France in May. Those trials, seen in the video below, included engagements against targets at roughly two miles and a five-rocket salvo.

The relatively small guided rockets are particularly relevant to counter-drone operations. They offer a way of engaging aerial targets with a weapon substantially smaller than a conventional surface-to-air missile, while still providing precision guidance.

As well as rockets, Naval Group has been working with Thales on the Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM). Also known as Martlet, the LMM is intended to tackle a range of challenging airborne and surface targets, as you can read about here.

The company has also explored integration of loitering munitions and other missiles, while a separate agreement with the UAE-based EDGE Group covers trials of the SkyKnight surface-to-air missile.

The company has also pursued integration of Poland’s Piorun short-range air-defense missile. This may well be with a view to a potential Polish purchase of Rampart to arm its forthcoming frigates, which you can read about here.

This means the launcher is effectively being developed as an open weapons-integration platform, rather than as a dedicated launcher for one or a small set of particular munitions.

That openness could make Rampart attractive to a wide range of navies. Instead of requiring customers to adopt a completely new missile family, the launcher can potentially be configured around weapons already in their inventories or sourced from their domestic defense industries. A country could therefore buy the common Rampart launcher while retaining control over the effectors it wants to integrate, whether those are guided rockets, short-range missiles, loitering munitions or other systems. At the same time, when it comes to air threats, this is very much a point defense system for close-in engagements, and a last line of defense to complement longer-range and more capable systems.

Naval Group has described the system as capable of operating either autonomously or as part of a ship’s combat system, with a stabilized turret and integrated fire-control equipment.

That integration will be particularly important during the upcoming sea trials. A launcher that works against stationary or land-based targets still has to contend with ship motion, vibration, sea spray, sensor integration, and the compressed timelines involved in defending a moving vessel.

France operates three Mistral class amphibious assault ships, which serve as major aviation, command, and amphibious warfare platforms. Their size and mission make them high-value assets that could face a broad range of aerial threats during operations. Another two vessels were built to the same design for Russia, before being placed under embargo, and then sold to the Egyptian Navy.

Naval Group’s choice of a Mistral for the initial at-sea campaign provides an opportunity to test Rampart under realistic operational conditions while integrating it with an existing French naval combat system.

In its basic form, each Mistral is armed with a pair of Simbad launchers, each of which is fitted with two Mistral short-range surface-to-air missiles. In terms of guns, each of the vessels is armed with two 30mm and two 20mm cannons, two 7.62mm M134 Miniguns, and four 12.7mm machine guns. Adding even a single Rampart launcher provides considerably more options against aerial targets across a wide range of threats — depending on the effectors that are included.

Recent U.S. and allied operations in the Middle East have highlighted the problem of large-scale missile and drone attacks causing forces to expend substantial numbers of interceptors, raising concerns about both magazine depth and the cost of using high-end missiles against lower-cost threats. Directed-energy weapons could eventually provide a way out of that cost-exchange problem, but shipboard laser systems remain in the early stages of operational development. Navies cannot simply wait for them to mature, creating an immediate requirement for lower-cost, high-capacity kinetic options. Rampart’s large guided-rocket capacity and ability to mix different effectors are aimed at exactly that gap.

If Rampart can reliably engage drones with inexpensive guided rockets while retaining the ability to employ more capable missiles from the same launcher, it could offer navies an additional defensive layer between conventional guns and high-end surface-to-air missile systems.

Critically, new effectors could potentially also be integrated as they become available, allowing the system to evolve without replacing the entire turret.

Reflecting the urgency of the requirement, Naval Group’s development path for Rampart has been relatively rapid.

Naval Group has also demonstrated a ground-based Rampart, mounted on a high-mobility truck chassis. This configuration is intended for mobile air defense missions as well as protection of fixed sites, giving the system a role beyond ship self-defense. The truck-mounted version could provide a rapidly relocatable launcher for counter-drone and short-range air-defense missions, while retaining the same basic modular architecture and ability to employ different effectors.

The photographs from Toulon indicate that the Rampart concept is now moving from the range to the French fleet, albeit on an experimental basis. The forthcoming sea campaign will be an important milestone and should provide a better idea of how this system works at sea.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post France’s Modular Rampart Point Defense Launcher Has Gone To Sea appeared first on TWZ.