Medical Material Condition Status Report Objectives 1. Terminal: Fill & Download for Free

How destructive is the World's nuclear arsenal? A topic prone to extreme exaggeration and conjecture with little reliance on the facts.The destructive force of all the world's nuclear weapons is a fraction of what it once was. Surprisingly quietly, the USA and Russia have dismantled over 50,000 nuclear weapons over the past 30 years. The nuclear materials from these bombs and other stockpiles of weapons grade materials, was recycled and used in nuclear power generation over the past 20 years. [1] A fact that few may be aware of, the situation actually crashed the uranium market in the early 2000’s. The glut of available fuel brought the open market trading value down from $20 dollars a pound to near $2 per pound at that time. So a lot has changed from the time when many of us can remember the very real threat of mutually assured destruction.Multi Megaton Weapons Now ObsoleteWhat has changed that the world no longer is building megaton weapons? The need for multi-megaton weapons was the result of low accuracy of warhead deliver on target…. we needed a sledgehammer approach to take out hardened targets and the way that was done was through very high yield bombs >=5 mt typically. The average nuclear weapon size today in 2016 is about 443kt at full yield but a large portion of those bombs can be adjusted in the field to a very small fraction of their potential yield.Today the accuracy of on target delivery has massively improved ..we hit what we aim for. This means we need less hammer to do the same job. In the 1980’s the development of earth penetrating rounds was another game changer. Not only were we on target but now we could penetrate hundreds of feet of earth and concrete before detonating the warhead. This allowed a 100 kt weapon to do the damage of a >1 mt surface detonation. This is the primary method now for targeting hardened targets and is the final driver for smaller yield bombs.The net effect of the use of EPW’s (Earth Penetrating Weapons) is a reduction in the number of casualties as compared with the number of casualties from a surface burst. This is primarily due to a 96% reduction in the weapon yield needed using an EPW. The greater coupling of the released energy to the ground shock for a buried detonation is the same as a surface burst with 25 times the explosive energy. For rural targets, the use of a nuclear earth-penetrator weapon is estimated to reduce casualties by a factor of 10 to 100 relative to a nuclear surface burst of equivalent probability of damage.[2]War room from Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)A Common Story: “There are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.” This is nothing more than poorly crafted fiction an urban legend. This common conclusion isn't based in any factual data. It is based solely in hype, hysteria, propaganda and fear mongering.If you take every weapon in existence today, approximately 6500 megatons between 15,000 warheads with an average yield of 433 kt, [3] and put a single bomb in its own 100 square mile grid… one bomb per grid (10 miles x 10 miles), you will contain >95% of the destructive force of each bomb on average within the grid it is in. [4] This means the total landmass to receive a destructive force from all the world's nuclear bombs is an area of 1.5 million square miles. Not quite half of the United States and 1/38 of the world's total land mass…. thats it!In truth it would be far less. A higher concentration of detonations would take place over military targets and would be likely 10–30 times greater in concentration over those areas. [5] If they were used in war it is unlikely more than 40% would get used even in a total war situation. So the actual area of intense destruction in a nuclear war is somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 square miles or 1/384 to 1/192 of the worlds land mass.You win wars by taking out the opposing teams ability to make war, not their population centers. The arsenals of today are just enough to cover military objectives. There would be no wholesale war against civilians. That is just more fear mongering and Hollywood story telling.milliseconds after a detonation the bombs heat is conducted faster down the scaffolding support cables making these erie tentacles (called rope tricks). Contrary to most beliefs, the majority of the scaffolding often remains. Broken and thrown asunder after the detonation, the scaffolding will be scattered but it does not always vaporize.Continued from aboveThese numbers are easily verifiable, and they are right. So many have bought into the endless rhetoric of the world shattering destructiveness and the inevitable end of civilization scenarios that they can no longer be objective or analytical as they have put their beliefs in front of rational thinking. I find this true even with most scientists. I challenge anyone to just do the math …it is easy.Fallout is a short lived problem in most places.Using the 7/10 rule of exponential radionuclide decay, after just 49 days the radiation will be 1/10,000 the level it was an hour after the bombs went off and after a year and a half the radiation will have dropped below 1/100,000 of that initial level. The majority of bombs would be airburst which create little to no fallout which significantly reduces these dangers.[6]Where are you safest from fallout?A regular cellar isn't much better than being outside. A good fallout shelter has a rating of 1000, meaning it reduces your exposure to the fallout outside by a factor of 1000. A typical basement is only rated at a 10 which means you're dead if you are in the path of some major fallout.Places rated at a 1000 or higher:a sub-basement (basement under a basement) you need at least 6 feet of dirt over your head to protect you from all forms of radiation.the second level below street level of a concrete reinforced parking garage (obviously that also can be closed off at the entrance as well)the inner windowless rooms on the 4th floor or higher in a highrise building (always leave at least 2 floors above you before the roof.According to FEMA these are your best bets. Whatever gives you the greatest distance from the source of the radiation is your best option. If none of these examples are available you just need to apply that distance guideline and some common sense.[7] [8]Plan on being there at least 2 weeks and perhaps a monthA problem of scaleNuclear weapons are puny on the scale of things in nature. They may be impressive to man but they mean nothing to nature. A typical hurricane releases more energy than all the world's nuclear weapons combined in its brief lifetime. At its peak, a severe storm may have a total power near to 10^15 Watts: about 3,000 times the total electrical power generated in the world. This is equivalent to exploding 500,000 Hiroshima bombs per day. [9]The Chisholm Fire, a man-caused forest fire in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 2001 released the equivalent energy of 1200 Hiroshima atomic bombs or 18 megatons. [10]Large forest fires release hundreds to 10’s of 1,000’s the times of energy of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Forest fires release on the order of 1 megawatt per second per acre of fire area, a staggering number. [11] Its a perspective and scale issue… man doesn't have a chance in challenging nature.Another comparison of scale is the Chicxulub impact event which is thought to be the cause of the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago. That impact released over 100,000,000 megatons of energy or over 15,300 times the world total nuclear arsenal without dramatically changing the climate in the long term.[12]How destructive is the worlds nuclear arsenals … as it relates to a possible war between Russia and the USA. A real world risk assessment.Since the early 2000’s there have been numerous scholarly papers written about an American nuclear and conventional weapons primacy and the end of MAD (Mutually Assured destruction)[13] [14] These papers suggest that the USA has such an advantage technologically that we now possess a first strike capability and that there isn't a credible threat to US dominance in the world today or in the upcoming decade. The underlying message is that the unthinkable is becoming thinkable.[15] That military planners may consider the use of local in theater nuclear strikes. Some say the risk of a nuclear exchange has never been greater.[16][17]So how would a war between Russia and the USA unfold in 2016 in a scenario of sudden escalation? There have been many relevant changes in how we posture our nuclear arsenals. In the event of a war breaking out and going nuclear there is one key difference than in the past. The majority of the available nuclear weapons have been taken off high alert. This creates a natural pause that would occur between a strike using high alert strategic assets and mobilization of non alert tactical assets. The strategic assets that would be used will include ICBM’s and SLBM’s, but not all of them. The USA and Russia, per our current treaty agreement, should have no more than 1550 warheads each in this category, all of them considerably less than 1 megaton (80–800kt typical).[18]In the USA it is estimated that approximately 1,930 warheads are deployed of which roughly 1,750 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and at bomber bases in the United States. Another 180 tactical bombs are deployed in Europe. The remaining approximately 2,740 warheads – more than 58% – are in storage as a so-called hedge against technical or geopolitical surprises. Many of those are scheduled to be retired before 2030. In addition to the warheads in the Defense Department stockpile, approximately 2,340 retired, but still intact, warheads are in storage under the custody of the Energy Department and awaiting dismantlement, for a total US inventory of roughly 6,970 warheads. As of 1 September 2015, the United States reported that its nuclear arsenal contained 1,538 strategic warheads attributed to 762 deployed missiles and bombers on high alert– a decrease of 105 warheads and 30 launchers compared with a year ago.[19]Russia, as of early 2016, is estimated to have a stockpile of approximately 4500 nuclear warheads assigned for use by long-range strategic launchers and shorter-range tactical nuclear forces. Of these, roughly 1800 strategic warheads are deployed on missiles and at bomber bases on high alert. Another 700 strategic warheads are in storage along with nearly 2000 nonstrategic warheads. In addition to the military stockpile for operational forces, a large number – perhaps 2800 – of retired but still largely intact warheads await dismantlement for a total inventory of 7300 warheads. With its total inventory of roughly 550 deployed strategic launchers out of the 1550 warheads that is allowed by treaty, 768 warheads are on SLBM’s with a total yield of less than 70mt. Russia is already well below the limit of 700 set by New START for February 2018.[20]You may not be able to use any weapons in your active stockpile that wasn’t already deployed in the field. Since the USA no longer keeps large quantities of nukes in the field, you won't use up your strategic assets in the first exchange. The nukes that used to be kept on alert in the field have been removed from the Navy’s surface fleet and the Air Force’s available active weapons. These nukes would have to be staged from inventory first and then loaded onto vehicles. This will take some extra time. Knowing that these locations will be the first targets of a nuclear strike, time is one thing either side wont have available to spare.War on Civilians?With a limited resource of strategic warheads on high alert, you can be assured that the initial targeting is going to be all the hard military assets. Neither side is going to have the assets available for a long shopping list. ICBM’s are seen as a use it or lose it asset. If you don't use them they will be taken out in a major strike. Both the USA and Russia would put a high priority to get all the missiles launched as quickly as possible. Most SLBM’s would be held in reserve though they would still see some launched at command and control assets as the first volley in any war.After the Korean war the U.S. Army’s revised the field manual on the law of land warfare introduced a new statement that expressed as doctrine the growing importance of intention. The revised 1956 manual said, “It is a generally recognized rule of international law that civilians must not be made the object of attack directed exclusively against them.” Previous army manuals had left this rule unexpressed. As a subculture, military professionals may have placed even more emphasis on their intentions not to harm noncombatants even in the face of widespread civilian deaths. While the sources make it difficult to assess the personal sentiments of officers and soldiers about civilian casualties during the Korean War, it is not hard to believe that many in private did not want to think of themselves as waging war against defenseless civilians.[21]Military Doctrine is to minimize civilian casualties not take out the citiesThe committee notes that although some scenarios show substantial nuclear-radiation-induced fatalities, military operational guidance is to attack targets in ways to minimize collateral effects. Calculated numbers of fatalities to be expected from an attack on an HDBT might be reduced by operational planning and employment tactics. Assuming that other strategic considerations permit, the operational commander could warn of a nuclear attack on an HDBT or could time such an attack to take advantage of wind conditions that would reduce expected casualties from acute and latent effects of fallout by factors of up to 100, assuming that the wind conditions were known well enough and were stable and that defenses against the attack could not be mobilized. However, a nuclear weapon burst in a densely populated urban environment will always result in a large number of casualties.[22]MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has never been an accepted strategy in the military.Even today (2001), however, much discussion of MAD misses one central point: It is not the prime nuclear doctrine of the United States. For more than 30 years, increases in the size, accuracy, and sophistication of the US nuclear arsenal have reduced Mutual Assured Destruction to the status of one among many competing national strategic options.Perhaps any exchange of warheads between nuclear powers would escalate, inevitably, to total war and obliteration of both nations. That is what McNamara fervently believes to this day.However, the US military believes in preparing other, more flexible, strategic plans. Anything less would be an abdication of duty, says Gen. Russell E. Dougherty, a former commander in chief of the Air Force's Strategic Air Command."I don't think Mutual Assured Destruction was ever a military-espoused doctrine," says Dougherty.From a force planner point of view, MAD is a minimalist approach. It requires only that the American nuclear arsenal have enough warheads after any surprise first strike to destroy any opponent's population centers and civilian industry.The Air Force, by contrast, favors a larger and more complicated force structure capable of riding out a first strike and then retaliating against elusive, hardened military targets.[23]"Our philosophy has always been counterforce," says Dougherty. "Force is what hurts us. Find his force, and dis-enable it or denude it."“Riding the bomb” a scene from Dr Strangelove. The world has changed a lot or has it? General Ripper can be substituted with a rogue nuclear state in 2016.Continued from aboveAfter the Initial StrikeThis is where the natural pause after launching your strategic assets will come in handy. Cooler minds will hopefully be clammering for a cease fire.In a real world situation today, it is likely that both sides would see massive losses of their strategic, tactical and reserve nuclear weapons stockpiles as a result of not having these weapons on high alert. The military would be scrambling to get these assets staged and mounted on delivery vehicles with less than an hour of working time, more likely less than 30 minutes. Very few tactical assets would make it out into the field before that area is hammered by dozens of warheads. As a result, any war will see only a fraction of the prewar quantity of warheads actually get used. I would bet that both sides would lose at least 50% in the first strikes. The challenge here is that civilian casualties will always be high due to the close proximity of nuclear assets to population centers.The known locations of nuclear weapons stores at 111 locations in 14 countries, according to an overview produced by FAS and NRDC.Russia: Nearly 1,000 nuclear weapons surround Saratov. Russia has an estimated 48 permanent nuclear weapon storage sites, of which more than half are on bases for operational forces. There are approximately 19 storage sites, of which about half are national-level storage facilities. In addition, a significant number of temporary storage sites occasionally store nuclear weapons in transit between facilities. This is a significant consolidation from the estimated 90 Russian sites ten years ago, and more than 500 sites before 1991.Many of the Russian sites are in close proximity to each other and large populated areas. One example is the Saratov area where the city is surrounded by a missile division, a strategic bomber base, and a national-level storage site with probably well over 1,000 nuclear warheads combined.There is considerable uncertainty about the number of Russian nuclear weapons storage sites, for several reasons. First, the Russian government provides almost no information about its nuclear warhead storage program. Second, Western governments say very little about what they know.Moreover, estimates vary on what constitutes a “storage site;” some count each fenced storage bunker as a site, even though there may be several individually fenced bunkers within a larger storage complex.We count each storage complex as one site or storage location and estimate that Russia today stores nuclear weapons permanently at 40 domestic locations. This is a slight reduction from our 2009 estimate, but a significant reduction from the 100 sites in the late-1990s, 250 sites in the mid-1990s, and 500 sites in 1991.Although the Russian government provides almost no public information about its nuclear weapons storage program, it has occasionally made declarations. For example, at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, Russia declared that “the total number of nuclear weapons storage facilities has been reduced fourfold” since 1991 (Russian Federation, 2010a: At the same event, the Russian delegation distributed a publication stating that “ Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons are concentrated in centralized storage bases exclusively ob the national territory” (Russian Federation, 2010b: Moreover, twice a year under the terms of New START, the Kremlin hands over a detailed list of its strategic force deployments to the US government. Unfortunately, the list is secret.There is also uncertainty about the status of many nuclear weapon systems, including what constitutes “non-strategic” weapons. For example, medium-range Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers are sometimes described by Russians as more than tactical, but they are not considered strategic in arms control agreements signed by Russia. Consequently, this notebook considers the Tu-22M3 and all other weapons not covered by New START to be non-strategic and to be covered by the Russian declarations that all non-strategic nuclear warheads have been placed in central storage.Russian permanent nuclear weapon storage locations fall into three main categories: operational warheads at Strategic Rocket Force, navy and air force bases; non-strategic and reserve/retired warheads at national-level storage sites; and warheads at assembly/disassembly factories.The storage locations for operational warheads include 11 ICBM fields and garrisons, two nuclear submarine bases, and two heavy bomber bases. The national-level storage sites include 12 separate storage sites, although the status of a few of these is unclear. The warhead production complexes also have warhead storage facilities. [24]The United States in 2014 stores nuclear weapons at 18 sites, including 12 sites in 11 states in the United States and another six sites in five European countries. At the end of the Cold War, the United States maintained thousands of nuclear weapons outside of its borders on land and on the high seas.In 2014 the United States has further consolidated its nuclear weapons into fewer sites. Most significant is the apparent termination of nuclear weapons storage at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, which only a decade ago contained one of the world’s largest concentrations of nuclear weapons. Similarly, nuclear weapons have been removed from Barksdale Air Force Base, one of three remaining heavy bomber bases,4 and from all tactical fighter-bomber bases in the continental United States. All Air Force nuclear warheads are now stored at five locations: three intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) bases (F. E. Warren, Malmstrom, Minot), two bomber bases (Minot, Whiteman), and one central storage facility, Kirtland Underground Munitions Storage Complex (KUMSC).The last naval non-strategic nuclear weapon system—the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM/N)—was eliminated in 2012. The weapons were stored at the Strategic Weapons Facilities at Bangor in Washington and at Kings Bay in Georgia, the only two remaining naval nuclear weapons storage sites.The United States is the only nuclear-armed state that deploys nuclear weapons in other countries. Approximately 180 non-strategic nuclear bombs are stored in underground vaults beneath 87 aircraft shelters at six bases in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey) for delivery by US and NATO fighter-bombers. [25]Approximately 50 B61 (variable yield bomb 0.3 to 340 kiloton) nuclear bombs inside an igloo at what might be Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. Seventy-five igloos at Nellis store “one of the largest stockpile in the free world,” according to the U.S. Air Force, one of four central storage sites in the United States.Continued from aboveThere is little comfort in this scenario other than the scope of a real nuclear war would likely only involve a fraction of the world's nuclear arsenals, perhaps 1/3 of the world total at most and that a natural pause in the hostilities early on might prevent it from being even that much. It isn't much and it shouldn't make you happy as we are on the verge of going backwards it seems. I am just calling a spade a spade here. This shouldn't be such a risk after making so much progress on disarmament, but it is.Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services From Attacks by Russian Nuclear ForcesA 2002 study puts the US death toll from a strategic counterforce strike from the combined effects of blast, burns, and radiation, the attack by 2,000 warheads would cause 52 ± 2 million deaths and 9 ± 1 million injuries, even though it was primarily directed at military targets in sparsely populated areas. The goal of the first attack to recall, was to destroy US military, political, and economic targets. In the 2,000-warhead scenario, there were 660 air bursts, many of which had overlapping zones of mass fires and blast damage because the distances separating some of the targets were less than the diameter of the zones.In a second analysis a vengeance strike against countervalue targets (non-strategic population centers) In this second scenario, the US targets for 500 Russian nuclear weapons are chosen to maximize loss of life. If all 500 warheads detonated over their targets, a total of 132 million deaths and 8 million injuries are calculated to occur.The US Major Attack Options (MAO) in this first scenario assumes a Russian attack similar in target categories to a comprehensive US MAO, with 1,249 discrete targets, some receiving multiple warheads.[26]This 2002 study was made in a time when the world had twice as many nuclear weapons as we have today in 2016. The high alert weapons are fewer and have smaller yields in 2016. The list of high priority targets still remains high which means that there will be no available weapons for countervalue targets of population centers.This report intentionally emphasised a high casualty countervalue attack with the targets chosen for the highest loss of life. This was in response to a proposed National Missile Defense system which for some reason would mean the Russians would target civilians. I don't know why that is a logical conclusion. It really makes no sense and in the scenario in 2016 there isn't going to be strategic weapons available to do such a thing.All the strategic high alert Russian weapons will be aimed at the 1249 targets referenced in that study. In truth, the available weapons to cover this is insufficient to ensure all those targets are taken out. Using all 1800 high alert Russian warheads against 1249 targets only gives you a coverage of 1.4 warheads on a target. In the height of the cold war some targets had over 60 warheads assigned to them. While this is clearly overkill the ratio of 1.4 to 1 is not. It is unlikely that this force of missiles would be able to take out all the known targets as a result.The total military targets of the USA easily consumes all of Russia’s strategics weapons destructive power leaving zero weapons available for civilian targets.There are over 6000 military bases and military warehouses located in the U.S.A. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments [27] with a total building area 2.1 billion square feet or 75 square miles.[28] The US also has over 800 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of TBD (in excess of 100,000 square miles - online numbers reported add up to more than the reported total), which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide.So while the destruction would be less and the cities would not be targeted, the 52 million dead is probably a reasonable figure since the us population has increased over 20% since the time of this report.Map of military facilities in the United States (full size here [29] )EMP EffectsIn the case of high altitude nuclear bursts, two main EMP types come into play, “fast pulse” and the “slow pulse.” The fast pulse EMP field is created by gamma ray interaction with stratospheric air molecules. It peaks at tens of kilovolts per meter in a few nanoseconds, and lasts for a few hundred nanoseconds. The broad-band frequency content of (0-1000 megahertz) enables it to couple to electrical and electronic systems in general, regardless of the length of their penetrating cables and antenna lines. Induced currents range into the 1,000s of amperes. The “slow pulse” EMP is caused by the distortion of the earth’s magnetic field lines due to the expanding nuclear fireball and rising of heated and ionized layers of the ionosphere.DoD has adopted protective priorities using commercial protective equipment. The Department of Defense (DoD) has experience in prioritizing and protecting systems since the 1960s. The DoD has prioritized and has protected selected systems against EMP (and, by similitude to E3, GMD effects). DoD places emphasis on protecting its strategic triad and associated command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence (C4I) systems.Nuclear EMP will burn out every exposed electronic system is FALSE. Based on DoD and Congressional EMP Commission’s EMP test data bases we know that smaller, self-contained systems that are not connected to long-lines tend not to be affected by EMP fields. Examples of such systems include vehicles, hand-held radios, and disconnected portable generators. If there is an effect on these systems, it is more often temporary upset rather than component burnout. [30]“The most probable effect of EMP on a modern nuclear power plant is an unscheduled shutdown. EMP may also cause an extended shutdown by the unnecessary activation of some safety-related systems. In general, EMP would be a nuisance to nuclear plants, but it is not considered a serious threat to plant safety. Counter-measures to minimize the effects of EMP have been recommended. Implementation of these recommendations would also increase the protection of the plant against damage by lightning, switching, and electromagnetic interference transients as well as general failures in electrical, control, and instrument power. “ [31]In SummarySo here is the bottom line. The countries involved, the USA and Russia, will live on and the vast majority of the world would remain untouched. I am not saying it would be pretty as it certainly would not. It would be an unprecedented catastrophe for the USA without a parallel. While Russia has lived through invasions and suffered 10’s of millions dead in WII this would surely exceed that as well. Between the two countries there would be 10’s of millions dead, a total of 150 million is certainly a possibility but even that number means hundreds of millions more survived and for the majority it would be imminently survivable.It would not be the end of man, the world, civilization and not even the end of our countries. All the hype and fear mongering is just that. It isn't hard to do a valid analysis for your own peace of mind.MAD or mutually assured destruction, as a strategy does not exist in 2016 . The above math makes that evident. MAD actually has never been the official accepted position of the USA or Russia. For most of the post cold war era the USA has adopted deterrence as our primary policy.[32] Evidence suggests that this may be changing. A more important epiphany than realizing MAD no longer applies would be to understand the impact of this new reality in the world's future political and military decisions. [33]Further detailed reading on this subject and an analysis debunking a nuclear winter Allen E Hall's answer to In a total nuclear exchange where the entire worlds arsenals are used, how long would the nuclear winter last and would we survive?In the News:Russia Withdraws From a Post-Cold War Nuclear DealU.S. Accuses Russia of Violating Missile TreatyRussia calls new U.S. missile defense system a ‘direct threat’Russia says US missile system breaches nuclear INF treaty - BBC NewsThe future of U.S.-Russian arms control | Brookings InstitutionThe LRSO: US Plans for Nuclear PrimacyNote: I make no claim that I an right… I only offer an analysis with considerations for details and data overlooked by others … sometimes intentionally. Please do your own due diligence and make an educated determination for yourself. Feel free to challenge my analysis, I welcome opposing views.Footnotes[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[2] The National Academies Press[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[4] NUKEMAP[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[9] What is Physics Good For?[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[11] The Nuclear Imperative[12] The KT extinction[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[21] http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007[22] The National Academies Press[23] Air Force Magazine[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[29] Image on wikimedia.org[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

(Image courtesy of: 2019 brings changes to military justice system)Criminal acts are generally adjudicated before medical separations, but “going AWOL” (also known as “unauthorized absence,” or UA) is not normally a “firing offense” that will get someone either kicked out of the Service (“fired from their employment”), or court-martialed. But the UCMJ provides for disciplining such violations either by court-martial, or non-judicial punishment, or various lesser corrective actions such as,“…counseling, admonition, reprimand, exhortation, disapproval, criticism, censure, reproach, rebuke, extra military instruction, or the administrative withholding of privileges, or any combination of the above…Other administrative measures, which are subject to regulations of the Secretary concerned, include matters related to efficiency reports, academic reports, and other ratings; rehabilitation and reassignment; career field reclassification; administrative reduction for inefficiency; bar to reenlistment; personnel reliability program reclassification; security classification changes; pecuniary liability for negligence or misconduct; and administrative separation.”[1]Punitive Article 86 of the Uniform Military Code of Justice covers the majority of simple “failure to go” or “failure to be there” offenses. All of the various sub-types of AWOL/UA (with one exception) are considered “minor offenses” under the UCMJ, which means they are essentially like misdemeanor offenses under civil law, with lesser punishments than one year of confinement.Here is the actual text — straight from the UCMJ:10. Article 86 (10 U.S.C. 886)—Absence without leavea. Text of statute.Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;(2) goes from that place; or(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.[2]The exception is aggravated unauthorized absence of more than 30 days in duration, which has a maximum punishment of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year. (And with a further specification or “special circumstance” added to this type of aggravated AWOL/UA offense, that of “terminated by apprehension,” the maximum punishment goes up to 18 months of confinement.)Here is the list of maximum punishments for each of the sub-types of AWOL/UA, note especially the maximum punishment for (c) and (d), those are the only sub-types of this offense that are considered “serious offenses,” i.e., felonies under civil law, because their maximum adjudged punishments include confinement for a year or more and they include the punitive separation known as “dishonorable discharge”:d. Maximum punishment.(1) Failing to go to, or going from, the appointed place of duty. Confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month.(2) Absence from unit, organization, or other place of duty.→ (a) For not more than 3 days. Confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month.→ (b) For more than 3 days but not more than 30 days. Confinement for 6 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months.→ (c) For more than 30 days. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.→ (d) For more than 30 days and terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 18 months.(3) From guard or watch. Confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months.(4) From guard or watch with intent to abandon. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.(5) With intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.[3]Assuming that the mentally ill Sailor, who was already being processed for separation (or retirement, depending on the outcome of the Chapter 61 disability evaluation system), “went AWOL” without any intent to permanently remain at large (which intent makes simple Article 86 AWOL/UA offenses into the much more serious offenses of Article 85, Desertion, or Article 87, Missing Movement), then here is a simplified way ahead for that Sailor and their commander:On the day the Sailor disappears (or is seen leaving, but subsequently does not return…circumstances depending), or if not required to be at a particular duty or location on that day, on the next day when they are required to be at a particular place or perform a particular duty — and they aren’t where they are supposed to be — their chain of command initiates attempts to find them.This would usually start with their immediate shipmates and petty officers asking around about “Where is Bob?” and intensify to include making phone calls, texts, emails, visits to their quarters (whether on ship, ashore, or even off-base), perhaps calling their “significant other” if known, etc.The chain of command would also verify that the Sailor doesn’t, in actuality, have authorized time off or leave…because someone could have arranged for that to happen and it not be immediately obvious to their leading petty officer and shipmates.After the blindingly obvious places and people are checked, and “Bob” isn’t at sick-call or with the Chaplain or in quarters or in the brig, the higher chain of command is informed and gets involved. People reach out to local hospitals, perhaps the local police, certainly the MP’s/MA’s on their base (to make sure they aren’t sitting in a police car or inside their local holding cells, or were apprehended and turned over to civilian authorities or something weird and unlikely).Based on what “Bob’s” rating is, and his access to classified materials and other sensitive objects, his security clearance and access may be suspended pending his return (assuming they weren’t already suspended or terminated because of his prior problems).Given “Bob” had some existing, known mental issues, the command is going to ask some doctors (and the Chaplain) some questions, to see if anything “Bob” said or did was, perhaps in retrospect, learned by their doctors that could be of use in finding them, things like, “Did they mention self-harm? Where they might go if they wanted to leave? Anything at all that might help us find Bob?”Leave no stone unturned to find them, because in the early stages the command is more concerned about where their Sailor is, and are they safe and well, than whether to charge Article 86, or 85, or 87, or other criminal violations. This is doubly true with a Sailor with known mental issues (even if all the specifics of their medical status aren’t known, the general gist of it must already be known to the command, or they wouldn’t be getting processed for any sort of medical separation, because all such administrative proceedings require commander’s input and attention).After a day or two, the Sailor’s next of kin shown in their service records will be contacted to see if they know where “Bob” is, and asked to help find him and get him to return safely.Let’s assume here that “Bob” either returns relatively quickly, either voluntarily or is “apprehended” by civil or military authorities and returned to their command. What happens next?The Commander has to make some decisions:Did the Sailor commit a crime?Was the Sailor under some sort of duress or medical crisis?Did the Sailor understand the nature of what they did and what is happening?Are there other mitigating factors in play?Does the Sailor need to be physically or morally restrained (pre-trial confinement for an upcoming court-martial, committed by medical authorities to a mental health facility, arrest either in quarters or more generally, restriction in lieu of arrest, conditions placed on liberty and leave) to prevent another “episode” of AWOL/UA — or worse, to prevent self-harm or harm of others?Did the Sailor breach arrest or restriction in lieu of arrest previously in place (which are UCMJ offenses in their own right)?Can the Sailor’s security clearance and access, and various other work-related issues, be reactivated safely for the Sailor to return to work, or is the Sailor unable to perform their normal duties? Or any duties at all.Is this situation so far beyond “normal” that a special investigation (a “JAGMAN,” so named for the JAG Manual that governs naval investigations of the common sort by commanders) is required to figure out just what happened, and provide recommendations (in writing, and rather formally) to the Commander?The Commander will be advised in this preliminary inquiry by various individuals on these and other questions before making decisions, to ensure the CO has all the relevant information: by the medical officer(s), chaplain, senior enlisted advisor, XO, lower chain of command, the personnel and command legal officer, perhaps even a JAG. Plus the input from the Sailor themselves.The Commander will also be guided by this paragraph out of the Manual for Courts-Martial:[4](6) Inability to return. The status of absence without leave is not changed by an inability to return through sickness, lack of transportation facilities, or other disabilities. But the fact that all or part of a period of unauthorized absence was in a sense enforced or involuntary is a factor in extenuation and should be given due weight when considering the initial disposition of the offense. When, however, a person on authorized leave, without fault, is unable to return at the expiration thereof, that person has not committed the offense of absence without leave.Since the Sailor was already being processed under the Chapter 61 disability evaluation system (DES), the Commander will want to know — exactly — where the Sailor is in that process, because the DES can take months…years even…and if they are days away from a decision by the Physical Evaluation Board (meaning the end is near, one way or the other: fit to return to duties or unfit to perform their duties, and if unfit, how unfit — disability separation or disability retirement). In contrast, if the Sailor had just begun or was in the middle of the DES process, there may not be any official decision for weeks…months…even longer. Sometimes the DES takes years to complete the process of defining the servicemember’s fitness to perform their duties, based on particularly challenging cases. The Sailor’s exact standing in the DES process helps inform the CO’s decision about some of the questions above, because anything that changes the information already processed by the DES, or suspending the entire process, is likely to significantly slow down an already glacial process…and are generally to be avoided at all costs if the Command wants their Sailor to be processed — at all — let alone quickly and correctly.Here is the “eye chart” for just part of the DES…notice the entire process can easily take an eye-watering (and Command bemoaning!) 300+ days — and that’s without appeals that may take months or more…[5]It is also completely possible that the Sailor may be charged with a simple offense, like a basic Article 86, AWOL/UA, specification, because the Commander believes that the Sailor understood the nature of their offense, and the likely outcome of their actions, regardless of their disability, and thus the needs of the Service, and good order and discipline, require some form of discipline. In most cases, simple UA violations are disposed of at the lowest level in the naval service, meaning the lowest commander in the chain of command with NJP authority (as described in the Manual for Court-Martial’s Rules for Court-Martial 401(c) and 601(f), and Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment, as defined in Part V of the Manual for Court Martial), either a Commanding Officer, or sometimes an Officer-in-Charge.[6]It is quite possible to hold NJP (or other lesser admonishments) simultaneously with processing under the DES…so as to not delay or interfere with DES processing, because as noted above any new inputs or changes to the DES are likely to significantly slow down the processing.It is also quite likely, that is the Sailor really was having a bad mental health day (or week perhaps), and the Commander is convinced it won’t happen again, the Sailor isn’t a continuing threat to themselves or others, didn’t understand fully the nature of their actions while AWOL/UA…the Commander may decide to hold disciplinary actions in abeyance pending the continued processing of the DES. In effect, the Commander can hold the entire disciplinary process as a sort of “pending” status to help ensure the best behavior going forward for “Bob,” as “Bob’s” DES processing winds down.Because, as noted above, the alternative for the Commander is to suspend the disability processing of the DES, and instead commence disciplinary proceedings, especially if there is potential for a court-martial (very unlikely with simple AWOL/UA, but perhaps there are other offense that must be handled, as well, even disparate offenses previously overlooked that are gathered up and handled all at once in a formal disciplinary event — like NJP or a court-martial). In reality, especially in today’s Service where mental health is actually considered relevant (as opposed to the not so distant past — barely more than a decade ago — where mental health was “suck it up, buttercup!” or “What is your major malfunction?” and the Chaplain had a “crying towel” for those who couldn’t “suck it up” any longer…).Commanders — today — generally do not want to hold unnecessary disciplinary proceedings, or suspend bonafide Chapter 61 DES processes, just to pound on anyone, let alone someone with diagnosed mental health issues. Literally everyone is agreed on that point: if the servicemember has mental issues that affect their work, that cannot be treated or medicated properly so the member can return to work safely…well, then it’s best for everyone involved if that servicemember be processed quickly out of the Service, whether with a disability separation and follow on VA treatment and disability compensation, or with a disability retirement with follow on VA and TRICARE treatment and disability compensation along with disability retired pay).In the past, and the further back, the more likely it was, various discharges and disciplinary problems that really were the result of, or certainly aggravated by, mental health issues were not treated any differently than other disciplinary problems: such cases were often confused with and wrapped up with “malingering,” “deserting,” “AWOL/UA offenses,” “pattern of misconduct,” “minor disciplinary offenses,” “failure to adapt,” “willful disobedience,” and others. IN many of those cases, there WAS some sort of misconduct…but was that the chicken or the egg? Did their underlying mental health issue cause their misconduct, or at least aggravate it, or was their misconduct unrelated to their mental health disability…and the servicemember knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. (Picture Klinger, on MASH…he might actually have had some sort of mental issue, but he knowingly and deliberately acted out in bizarre ways trying to get his Section 8 discharge…)[7](Wow, that image translated big…but you get the picture. He could function quite well as needed, but didn’t hesitate to push the limits on the TV show, where a real Commander might very well have put the screws to his misconduct…or actually pushed for his Section 8 maybe…)CONCLUSION: if a Sailor goes AWOL/UA, the Navy tries to find them because a lost shipmate is a terrible thing. That is more important than determining a specific disciplinary or administrative way ahead. After the Sailor is found, and returned to the control of the Service, decisions must be made about that way ahead, and those decisions are deliberate and informed.Even in cases where the Sailor knowingly violated the UCMJ, if their case is of a minor offense nature, and no one was hurt or other crimes occurred, the Commander has the right and obligation to balance the needs of the Service for good order and discipline against the extenuating factors in favor of the Sailor to handle the situation without formal discipline. Or with only the least form of discipline, or a suspended sentence pending their good behavior, or even alternative forms of censure like a letter of reprimand, or sometimes even a verbal reprimand or service record entry.Only in fairly extreme cases would a Commander suspend or delay the disability processes of the DES solely to commence punitive proceedings of the judicial sort, i.e., courts-martial. Much better to let the DES play out to make an informed decision from the medical experts, than to put even the slightest brakes on the DES process…because the DES process can take a very long time, and rocking that particular boat may either sink it entirely and a new process must be begun, or it may be delayed significantly from its stately, glacial path to a decision about the fitness for duty of the Sailor (or other Servicemember, as the DES is standardized across the Services).A wise Commander will take all the known facts into account, and do their very best to balance those Service and individual needs, to make the best decision in what are often bad situations.Footnotes[1] https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2019.pdf, Part II-28, Rules for Court-Martial 306(c)(2)[2] https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2019.pdf, Part IV-13, par. 10[3] https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2019.pdf, Part IV-15, par. 10d, "Maximum Punishment"[4] https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2019.pdf, Part IV-14, par. 10.b.(6) -- "Inability to Return"[5] Integrated Disability Evaluation System[6] https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2019.pdf, Part V -- Non-Judicial Punishment[7] (*PERSONNEL FILE*) Cpl. Maxwell Q. Klinger

BACKGROUND"Labour" is a subject in the "Concurrent List" under the Constitution of India where both the Central and State Governments are competent to enact legislations subject, however, to reservation of certain matters for the Central Government. The constitutional status of labour jurisdiction has been explained in the following table:Union List(Central Government)Concurrent List(Central as well as State Government)Entry No. 55Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oil fieldsEntry No. 22Trade unions, industrial and labour disputesEntry No. 61Industrial disputes concerning Union employeesEntry No. 23Social security and insurance, employment and unemploymentEntry No. 65Union agencies and institutions for "... vocational ... training ..."Entry No. 24Welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers' invalidity and old-age pension and maternity benefitsThe Ministry of Labour and Employment seeks to protect and safeguard the interests of workers in general and those who constitute the poor, deprived and disadvantaged sections of the society, in particular, with due regard to creating a healthy work environment for higher production and productivity, and developing and coordinating vocational skill training and employment services. Government's attention is also focused on promotion of welfare activities and providing social security to the labour force both in the organised and unorganised sectors, in tandem with the process of liberalisation. These objectives are sought to be achieved through enactment and implementation of various labour laws, which regulate the terms and conditions of service and employment of workers.The following are the thrust areas of the Government concerning labour laws:Labour policy and legislation;Safety, health and welfare of labour;Social security of labour;Policy relating to special target groups such as women and child labour;Industrial relations and enforcement of labour laws in the central sphere;Adjudication of industrial disputes through Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts and National Industrial Tribunals;Workers' education;Labour and employment statistics;Emigration of labour for employment abroad;Employment services and vocational training;Administration of central labour and employment services; andInternational cooperation in labour and employment matters.India has a number of labour laws that govern almost all the aspects of employment such as payment of wages, minimum wages, payment of bonus, payment of gratuity, contributions to provident fund and pension fund, working conditions, accident compensations, etc. The Government has enacted certain central legislations, viz, the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, Employees State Insurance Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, Equal Remuneration Act, Maternity Benefits Act, etc.In addition, at the State level, the State Governments usually have a separate Labour Ministry, which seeks to ensure compliance with State labour laws (viz, State Shops and Establishments Act, Labour Welfare Fund Act, etc) through its Labour Department, which is generally operational at the district level.The various labour legislations enacted by the Central Government can be classified into the following different broad categories:Laws relating to Industrial Relations-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Trade Unions Act, 1926Laws relating to WagesMinimum Wages Act, 1948Payment of Wages Act, 1936Payment of Bonus Act, 1965Laws relating to Social SecurityEmployees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948Labour Welfare Fund Act (of respective States)Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972Employee's Compensation Act, 1923Laws relating to Working Hours, Conditions of Services and EmploymentFactories Act, 1948Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (of respective States)Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979Weekly Holiday Act, 1942National and Festival Holidays Act (of respective States) 1963The Plantation Labour Act, 1951The Mines Act, 1952The Dock Workers (Safety, Health & Welfare) Act, 1986Laws relating to Equality and Empowerment of WomenEqual Remuneration Act, 1976Maternity Benefits Act, 1961Prohibitive Labour LawsBonded Labour System (Abolition), Act, 1976Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966The Sexual Harassment at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013Laws relating to Employment and TrainingApprentices Act, 1961Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959LAWS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the "ID Act") has been enacted for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in any industrial establishment.The Industrial Disputes Act defines "Industrial dispute" as a dispute or difference between workmen and employers or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour. Dismissal of an individual workman is deemed to be an industrial dispute.The ID Act provides for the constitution of the Works Committee, consisting of employers and workmen, to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and the workmen and, to that end, endeavours to resolve any material difference of opinion in respect of such matters.The ID Act provides for the appointment of Conciliation Officers, Board of Conciliation, Courts of Inquiry, Labour Courts, Tribunals, and National Tribunals for settlement of disputes. Another method recognised for settlement of disputes is through arbitration. The Industrial disputes Act provides a legalistic way of settling disputes. The goal of preventive machinery as provided under the Act is to create an environment where the disputes do not arise at all. The ID Act prohibits unfair labour practices which are defined in the Fifth Schedule—strikes and lockouts (except under certain defined conditions and with proper notice). It also provides for penalties for illegal strikes and lockouts and unfair labour practices and provisions regarding lay off and retrenchment as well as compensation payable thereof.The ID Act provides that an employer who intends to close down an industrial establishment shall obtain prior permission at least ninety days before the date on which he intends to close down the industrial establishment, giving the reasons thereof.Trade Unions Act, 1926The Trade Unions Act, 1926 (the "Trade Unions Act") seeks to provide for the registration of Trade Unions in India and for the protection of the same. Further, the Trade Unions Act also in certain respects defines the law relating to registered Trade Unions like mode of registration, application for registration, provisions to be contained in the rules of a Trade Union, minimum requirement for membership of a Trade Union, rights and liabilities of registered Trade Unions, etc.LAWS RELATING TO WAGESMinimum Wages Act, 1948The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Minimum Wages Act) provides for fixing of minimum rates of wages in certain employments. The minimum wages are prescribed by States through notifications in the State's Gazette under the Minimum Wages Rules of the specific State.In terms of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, an employee means (i) any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed; (ii) an outworker, to whom any articles or materials are given out by another person to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of that other person; and (iii) an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government.The term "wages" has been defined to mean all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money which would, if the terms of the contract of employment express or implied were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or work done in such an employment and includes house rent allowance but does not include:The value of:Any house accommodation or supply of light, water and medical attendance; orAny other amenity or any service excluded by general or special order of the appropriate Government;Any contribution paid by the employer to any personal fund or provident fund or under any scheme of social insurance;Any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;Any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; orAny gratuity payable on discharge.Further, the Minimum Wages Act requires the employer to pay to every employee engaged in schedule employment wages at a rate not less than minimum rates of wages as fixed by a notification without any deduction (other than prescribed deductions, if any).Payment of Wages Act, 1936The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (the Payment of Wages Act) is an Act to regulate the payment of wages to certain classes of employed persons. The Payment of Wages Act seeks to ensure that the employers make a timely payment of wages to the employees working in the establishments and to prevent unauthorized deductions from the wages.According to the Payment of Wages Act, all wages shall be in current coin or currency notes or in both. It is, however, provided that the employer may, after obtaining the written authorisation of the employed person, pay him the wages either by cheque or by crediting the wages in his bank account.Payment of Bonus Act, 1965The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (the "Bonus Act") provides for the payment of bonus to persons employed in certain establishments in India either on the basis of profits or on the basis of production or productivity and is applicable to every establishment in which 20 or more persons are employed and to all employees drawing a remuneration of less than Rs 10,000. Those employees who have worked for less than thirty days are not eligible to receive bonus under the Bonus Act. The Bonus Act provides for the payment of bonus between 8.33% (minimum) to 20% (maximum). However, for the calculation of bonus, a maximum salary of Rs 3,500 is considered.LAWS RELATING TO SOCIAL SECURITYEmployees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the "EPF Act") provides for the institution of provident funds, pension funds, and deposit-linked insurance funds for employees and applies to all establishments employing 20 or more persons or class of persons. An establishment to which the EPF Act applies shall continue to be governed by this Act, notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below 20.On account of 2014 Amendment to the said Act, The definition of "excluded employee" has been amended whereby the members drawing wages exceeding Rs 15,000 per month have been excluded from the provisions of the PF Scheme. Accordingly, the wage ceiling for an employee to be eligible for the PF Scheme has been increased from Rs 6,500 per month to Rs 15,000 per month. It further provides that every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment is required to become a member of the Provident Fund.The 2014 Amendment further lays down the following changes:New members (joining on or after 1 September 2014) drawing wages above Rs 15,000 per month shall not be eligible to voluntarily contribute to the Pension Scheme.The pensionable salary shall be calculated on the average monthly pay for the contribution period of the last 60 months (earlier 12 months) preceding the date of exit from the membership.The monthly pension for any existing or future member shall not be less than Rs 1,000 for the financial year 2014-2015.The contribution payable under the Insurance Scheme shall also be calculated on a monthly pay of Rs 15,000, instead of Rs 6,500.In the event of death of a member (on or after 1 September 2014), the assurance benefits available under the Insurance Scheme has been increased by twenty percent (20%) in addition to the already admissible benefits.Contributions to the Provident Fund are to be made at the rate of 12% of the wages by the employers with the employee contributing an equal amount. The employee may voluntarily contribute a higher amount but the employer is not obliged to contribute more than the prescribed amount. Further, the EPF Act contains provisions for transfer of accumulations in case of change of employment.In terms of power conferred under s 143(11) of the Companies Act, 2013, the Central Government has issued the Companies (Auditor's Report) Order, 2015 (CARO), which came into force on 10 April, 2015. Clause (vii) (a) of Paragraph 3 provides that:The [Statutory] Auditor has to report, inter alia, on the following:Is the company regular in depositing undisputed statutory dues, eg, Provident Fund, Investor Education and Protection Fund, Employees' State Insurance, income tax, wealth tax, service tax, sales tax, customs duty, excise duty, cess and any other statutory duties with the appropriate authorities?If not paid regularly, the extent of the arrears of outstanding statutory dues as on the last day of the financial year concerned for a period of more than six months from the date they became payable, then it shall be indicated in the report.If such non-payment of dues is on account of any dispute, then the amount involved and for the forum where the dispute is pending should also be mentioned.The CARO is, however, not applicable to a banking company, an insurance company, s 8 company, one person company, small companies and certain class of private companies, as specified under the CARO.Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the ESI Act) is a social welfare legislation enacted with the objective of providing certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury. In terms of the provisions of the ESI Act, the eligible employees will receive medical relief, cash benefits, maternity benefits, pension to dependants of deceased workers and compensation for fatal or other injuries and diseases. It is applicable to establishments where 10 or more persons are employed. All employees, including casual, temporary or contract employees drawing wages less than Rs 15,000 per month, are covered under the ESI Act. This limit has been increased from Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000 w.e.f. May 1, 2010.The Government enacted as the Employees' State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No.18 of 2010). All the provisions of the ESI (Amendment) Act 2010 (except s 18) have come into effect from June 1, 2010. The salient features of the ESI (Amendment) Act are as under:facilitating coverage of smaller factories;enhancing age limit of dependent children for eligibility to dependants benefit;extending medical benefit to dependant minor brother/sister in case of insured persons not having own family and whose parents are also not alive;streamlining the procedure for assessment of dues from defaulting employers;providing an Appellate Authority within the ESI Corporation against assessment to avoid unnecessary litigation;continuing medical benefit to insured persons retiring under VRS scheme or taking premature retirement;treating commuting accidents as employment injury;streamlining the procedure for grant of exemptions;third party participation in commissioning and running of the hospitals;opening of medical/ dental/ paramedical/ nursing colleges to improve quality of medical care;making an enabling provision for extending medical care to other beneficiaries against payment of user charges to facilitate providing of medical care from under utilised ESI Hospitals to the BPL families covered under the Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojana introduced by the Ministry of Labour & Employment w.e.f. 1.4.2008;reducing duration of notice period for extension of the Act to new classes of establishments from six months to one month;empowering State Governments to set up autonomous Corporations for administering medical benefit in the States for bringing autonomy and efficiency in the working.The employer should get his factory or establishment registered with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) within 15 days after the Act becomes applicable to it, and obtain the employer's code number.The employer is required to contribute at the rate of 4.75% of the wages paid/ payable in respect of every wage period. The employees are also required to contribute at the rate of 1.75% of their wages.It is the responsibility of the employer to deposit such contributions (employer's and employees') in respect of all employees (including the contract labour) into the ESI account.Labour Welfare Fund Act (of respective States)The [State] Labour Welfare Fund Act provides for the constitution of the Labour Welfare Fund to promote and carry out various activities conducive to the welfare of labour in the State so as to ensure full and appropriate utilisation of the Fund.Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Gratuity Act) applies to (i) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company; (ii) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law, for the time being in force, in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which 10 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months; and (iii) such other establishments or classes of establishments, in which 10 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.The Gratuity Act provides for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments. The Gratuity Act enforces the payment of "gratuity", a reward for long service, as a statutory retiral benefit.Every employee, who has completed continuous service of five years or more, irrespective of his wages, is entitled to receive gratuity upon termination of his employment, on account of (i) superannuation; or (ii) retirement; or (iii) death or disablement due to accident or disease. However, the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of employment of any employee is due to death or disablement.The gratuity is payable even to an employee who resigns after completing at least five years of service.The gratuity is payable at the rate of fifteen days wages for every year of completed service, subject to an aggregate amount of Rupees ten lacs only. However, if an employee has the right to receive higher gratuity under a contract or under an award, then the employee is entitled to get higher gratuity.LAWS RELATING TO WORKING HOURS, CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND EMPLOYMENTFactories Act, 1948The Factories Act, 1948 (the Factories Act) lays down provisions for the health, safety, welfare and service conditions of workmen working in factories. It contains provisions for working hours of adults, employment of young persons, leaves, overtime, etc. It applies to all factories employing more than 10 people and working with the aid of power, or employing 20 people and working without the aid of power. It covers all workers employed in the factory premises or precincts directly or through an agency including a contractor, involved in any manufacture. Some provisions of the Act may vary according to the nature of work of the establishment.Some Major provisions of the Factories Act are explained below:Section 11 of the Act provides that every factory shall be kept clean and free from effluvia arising from any drain, privy or other nuisance. Section 13 of the Act focuses on ventilation and temperature maintenance at workplace. Every factory should work on proper arrangements for adequate ventilation and circulation of fresh air.Section 18 of the Act specifies regarding arrangements for sufficient and pure drinking water for the workers.Section 19 further mentions that in every factory there should be sufficient accommodation for urinals which should be provided at conveniently situated place. It should be kept clean and maintained.Section 21 of the Act provides from proper fencing of machinery. And that any moving part of the machinery or machinery that is dangerous in kind should be properly fencedFurther s 45 of the said Act specifies that every factory should have a properly maintained and well equipped first aid box or cupboard with the prescribed contents. For every 150 workers employed at one time, there shall not be less than 1 first aid box in the factory. Also in case where there are more than 500 workers there should be well maintained ambulance room of prescribed size and containing proper facility.Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (the IESO Act) is applicable to every industrial establishment wherein 100 or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. The IESO Act Amis to bring uniform terms and conditions of service in various industrial establishments. The IESO Act requires every employer in an industrial establishment to clearly define and publish standing orders with respect to conditions of employment / service rules and to make them known to the workmen employed by it. The Act further specifies that every employer is required to submit to the Certifying Officer five draft copies of the standing orders which he intends to adopt for his establishment.Further, the IESO Act requires display of standing orders in a prominent place for the knowledge of workers.Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (of respective States)The Shops and Commercial Establishments Act(s) of the respective States generally contain provisions relating to registration of an establishment, working hours, overtime, leave, privilege leave, notice pay, working conditions for women employees, etc. The provisions of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act apply to both white collar and blue-collar employees. IT and IT-enabled services have been given relaxations by various State Governments in respect of the observance of certain provisions of their respective Shops and Commercial Establishments Act.Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970The main objectives of the Contract Labour (Regulations & Abolition) Act, 1970 (the Contract Labour Act) are: (i) to prohibit the employment of contract labour; and (ii) to regulate the working conditions of the contract labour, wherever such employment is not prohibited.The Act defines a "worker" as a workman who shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour" in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer.The Contract Labour Act regulates the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and provides for its abolition in certain circumstances. It applies to every establishment or contractor wherein/with whom 20 or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months as contract labour. The Government may, however, by notification in the Official Gazette, make the provisions of the Contract Labour Act applicable to establishments or contractor employing less than 20 workmen.The Contract Labour Act is not applicable to establishments in which work only of an intermittent or casual nature is performed.The Contract Labour Act prohibits the employment of contract labour on jobs that are perennial in nature. For such jobs, permanent employees need to be employed.The Contract Labour Act provides that no contractor shall undertake any work through contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer.In terms of s 7 of the Contract Labour Act, the principal employer has to make an application in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee payable to the registering officer for registration.The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (formally known as "The Workmen Compensation Act, 1923")The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (the EC Act) aims to provide financial protection to workmen and their dependents in case of any accidental injury arising out of or in course of employment and causing either death or disablement of the worker by means of compensation.This Act applies to factories, mines, docks, construction establishments, plantations, oilfields and other establishments listed in Schedules II and III of the said Act, but excludes establishments covered by the ESI Act.The Act provides for payment of compensation by the employer to the employees covered under this Act for injury caused by accident. Generally, companies take insurance policies to cover their liability under the EC Act.Inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979The Inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (the ISMW Act) is an Act to regulate the employment of inter-state migrant workmen and to provide for the conditions of service and for matters connected therewith.The ISMW Act applies to (i) any establishment in which five or more inter-state migrant workmen are employed or who were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months; and (ii) every contractor who employs or who employed five or more inter-state migrant workmen on any day of the preceding twelve months.For the purpose of the ISMW Act, an inter-state migrant workman means any person who is recruited by or through a contractor in one state under an agreement or other arrangement for employment in an establishment in another state, whether with or without the knowledge of the principal employer in relation to such an establishment.Weekly Holiday Act, 1942The Weekly Holiday Act, 1942 provides for the grant of weekly holidays to persons employed in shops, restaurants and theatres. The Act provides that every shop shall remain entirely closed on one day of the week, which day shall be specified by the shop-keeper in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop. Further the state government may require in respect of shops or any specified class of shops that they shall be closed at such hour in the afternoon of one week-day in every week in addition to weekly day off.The Plantation Labour Act, 1951The Plantations Labour Act (PLA) seeks to provide for the welfare of labour and to regulate the conditions of workers in plantations. This Act empowers the State Governments to take all feasible steps to improve the lot of the plantation workers. The passing of PLA has helped in creating conditions for organising the workers and the rise of trade unions.The Act defines an employer as, the person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of the plantation and where the affairs of the plantation are entrusted to any other person, such other person shall be the employer in relation to that plantation.Plantation: Any plantation to which this Act applies and includes offices, hospitals, dispensaries, schools and any other premises used for any purposes connected with such plantation.The Act makes it mandatory for every employer to get their plantation registered within 60 days of its coming into existence.The Mines Act, 1952The Mines Act, 1952 (Mines Act) aims to secure safety and health and welfare of workers working in the mines. "Mine" is defined under the Mines Act as a place where any excavation work is carried on for the searching and obtaining of minerals.The Mines Act provides that persons working in the mine should not be less than 18 years of age.The Mines Act lays down provisions for appointment of one chief inspector who would be regulating all the territories in which mining is done and an inspector for every mine who would be sub ordinate to the chief inspector. Moreover, the District Magistrate is also empowered to perform the duties of an inspector subject to the orders of the Central Government. The chief inspector or any of the inspectors may make such inquiry, at any time whether day or night, in order to check whether the law is being abided in the mines or not.LAWS RELATING TO EQUALITY AND EMPOWERMENT OF WOMENEqual Remuneration Act, 1976The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 provides for the payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers for the same work and prevents discrimination, on the ground of sex, against women in the matter of employment, recruitment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This Act applies to virtually every kind of establishment.Maternity Benefit Act, 1961The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Maternity Benefit Act) regulates the employment of women in certain establishments for a certain period before and after childbirth and provides for maternity benefits and certain other benefits including maternity leave, wages, bonus, nursing breaks, etc, to women employees.The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 applies to (a) a factory, mine or plantation including any such establishment belonging to Government and to every establishment wherein persons are employed for the exhibition of equestrian, acrobatic and other performances; (b) every shops or establishments within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months.Except for s 5A and 5B, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act shall not apply to the employees who are covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for certain periods before and after child-birth and for which the ESI Act provides for maternity and other benefits. The coverage under the ESI Act is, however, at present restricted to factories and certain other specified categories of establishments located in specified areas. The Maternity Benefit Act is, therefore, still applicable to women employees employed in establishments which are not covered by the ESI Act, as also to women employees, employed in establishments covered by the ESI Act, but who are out of its coverage because of the wage-limit.Under the Maternity Benefit Act, an employer has to give paid leave to a woman worker for six weeks immediately following the day of her delivery or miscarriage and two weeks following a tubectomy operation. The maximum period for which a woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be 12 weeks, of which not more than six weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery.A pregnant woman is also entitled to request her employer not to give her work of arduous nature or which involves long hours of standing, etc, during the period of one month immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery or any period during the said period of six weeks for which the woman does not avail leave of absence. When a woman absents herself from work in accordance with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, it shall be unlawful for her employer to discharge or dismiss her during or on account of such absence.PROHIBITIVE LABOUR LAWSBonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 ( Bonded Labour Abolition Act) is a prohibiting legislation which provides for the abolition of the bonded labour system with a view to prevent the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker sections of the society, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.Under the Bonded Labour Abolition Act, the term "bonded labour" has been defined to mean any labour or service rendered under the bonded labour system.The term "bonded labour system" has been defined to mean the system of, forced or partly forced, labour under which a debtor enters or has, or is presumed to have, entered into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that:In consideration of an advance obtained by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants (whether or not such advance is evidenced by the document) and in consideration of the interest, if any, due on such advance; orIn pursuance of any customary or social obligation; orIn pursuance of any obligation devolving on him by succession; orFor any economic consideration received by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants; orBy reason of his birth in any particular caste or community.The debtor would render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person dependent on him, labour or service, to the creditor, or for the benefit of the creditor, for a specific period or for an unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal wages.Section 3 of the Bonded Labour Abolition Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.Section 20 of the Bonded Labour Abolition Act provides that whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act shall, whether or not the offence abetted is committed, be punishable with the same punishment as is provided for the offence which has been abetted. For the purpose of this Act, "abetment" has the meaning assigned to it in the Indian Penal Code.Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986The Constitution of India incorporates provisions to secure labour protection to children. It expressly prohibits the employment of a child below the age of 14 years in work in any factory or mine or engagement in any other hazardous employment.The policy of the Government is to ban the employment of children below the age of 14 years in factories, mines and hazardous employments and to regulate the working condition of children in other industries.The Government enacted the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 (the Child Labour Prohibition & Regulation Act), which prohibits the employment of children who have not completed their 14th year in 16 occupations and 65 processes1like cinder picking, cleaning of ash pits, building operation, manufacturing or handling of pesticides and insecticides, and manufacturing of matches, explosives, fireworks, etc.In addition, the Child Labour Prohibition & Regulation Act regulates the working conditions of children in all employments, which are not prohibited under the Act. It also fixes the number of hours and the period of work and requires the occupiers of establishments employing children to give notice to the local inspector and maintain the prescribed register.Apart from the Child Labour Prohibition & Regulation Act, there are other legislations which also protect the interest of child labour. For example, the Factories Act, 1948 and the Mines Act, 1952 prohibit the employment of children below the age of 14 years. The Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, 1933, makes an agreement to pledge the labour of children void.Directions of the Supreme Court on the Issue of Elimination of Child LabourIn a landmark judgment on 10 December 1996, in the case of MC Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 6 SCC 756 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 465/1986], the Supreme Court of India gave certain directions on the issue of elimination of child labour. The main features of the judgment are as under:Survey for identification of working children;Withdrawal of children working in hazardous industry and ensuring their education in appropriate institutions;Contribution at the rate of Rs 20,000 per child to be paid by the offending employers of children to a welfare fund to be established for this purpose;Employment to one adult member of the family of the child so withdrawn from work and if that is not possible a contribution of Rs 5,000 to the welfare fund to be made by the State Government;Financial assistance to the families of the children so withdrawn to be paid out of the interest earnings on the corpus of Rs 20,000/25,000 deposited in the welfare fund, as long as the child is actually sent to a school; andRegulating hours of work for children working in non-hazardous occupations so that their working hours do not exceed six hours per day and education for at least two hours is ensured. The entire expenditure on education is to be borne by the concerned employer.The implementation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is being monitored by the Ministry of Labour and Employment and compliance with the directions has been reported in the form of affidavits on 5 December 1997, 21 December 1999, 4 December 2000, 4 July 2001 and 4 December 2003, to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of the information received from the State Governments/Union Territories.The Government is committed to eliminate child labour in all its forms and is moving in this direction in a targeted manner.Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prohibition, Prevention and Redressal) Act, 2013The Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prohibition, Prevention and Redressal) Act, 2013 (SHW Act) was enacted by the Parliament to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith.The SHW Act makes it mandatory for every organization having 10 employees and more to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to entertain complaints that may be made by an aggrieved women.The SHW Act also incorporates provisions for formation of a Local Complaints Committee (LCC) in every district for entertaining complaints of sexual harassment at workplace from organisations where ICC has not been established due to having less than 10 employees.The SHW Act provides that an aggrieved women may in writing make a compliant of sexual harassment to the ICC or LCC as the case may be within a period of three months from the date of occurrence of such incident. Further, in a case where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical incapacity or Death, a complaint may be filed inter alia by her relative or legal heirs.LAWS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT AND TRAININGApprentices Act, 1961The Apprentices Act, 1961 (the Apprentice Act) provides for the regulation and control of training of apprentices to supplement the availability of trained technical employees for the industry and matters in connection thereto. It provides for qualification for being engaged as an apprentice, contract for apprenticeship, renewal of contract of apprenticeship, period for apprenticeship, termination of apprenticeship contract, obligation of employers and obligations of apprentices, payment to apprentices, health safety and welfare of apprenticeship, hours of work, overtime, leave and holidays and other conditions of working of apprentice.The Apprentice Act requires employers to hire apprentices in certain designated trades, as notified by the Government. Accordingly, appointment of apprentices, according to the Apprentice Act, will be obligatory if the company falls under the notified industry.The Government is considering amending the Apprentices Act, 1961, in consultation with all concerned Ministries. One of the proposed amendments relates to reserving 50% of direct recruitment posts for trained Trade, Graduate, Technician and Technician (Vocational) apprentices who have been trained under the Apprentices Act, 1961 in the same establishment.2Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (the Employment Exchange Act) provides for the compulsory notification of vacancies to employment exchanges by the employers. Section 4(1) of the Employment Exchange Act makes it obligatory on every establishment in the public sector to notify, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, vacancies to such employment exchanges as may be prescribed.Further, s 4(2) of the Employment Exchange Act provides that the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, require that from such date as may be specified in the notification, the employer in every establishment in the private sector (ordinarily employing more than 25 employees) or every establishment pertaining to any class or category of establishments in the private sector shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify vacancies to such employment exchanges as may be prescribed.E-Kranti: Ministry of Labour & Employment E-governance initiativeThe Ministry of Labour & Employment has come up with a unique E-governance service called "E-kranti" which aims to make government services accessible to the common man in his locality, through Common Service Delivery outlets and ensure efficiency, transparency and reliability at affordable costs. For the purpose of E-governance the ministry has also developed a unified Web Portal called "Shram Suvidha Portal". This portal integrates four major Organizations under the Ministry of Labour, Thef Chief central Labour Commissioner. The Directorate General of Mines Safety, Employees' Provident Fund Organization and Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The portal facilitates the following:A Unique labour identification number (LIN) for Units to facilitate online registration.Filing of self-certified and simplified Single Online Return by the industry Units.Provides for filing a single consolidated Return online instead of filing separate Returns.Timely redressal of grievances.Transparent Labour inspection scheme through computerised system.