nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Trump says Tuesday deadline for Iran to accept ceasefire ‘final, won’t change’; Israel takes out experienced IRGC intel chief.


SOTT Signs Of The Times, Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, Mon, 06 Apr 2026

Summary:


  • A Sunday night Axios report on a US-proposed 45-day ceasefire has by Monday morning been rejected by Iran    , which later on Monday issued a 10-point letter via Pakistan.
  • Israel strikes large petrochemical plant at South Pars, which is responsible for half of the country’s petrochemical production.
  • Trump reaffirms Tuesday deadline before vital infrastructure gets attacked as ‘final’, calls Americans opposed to Iran war ‘foolish’ – saying it’s all about Tehran not getting a nuke.
  • Israel kills experienced longtime head of IRGC intelligence; Iranian missile strike on Haifa residential complex kills 4.

With all that in mind, the odds of a ceasefire by April 30, 2026 are rising (but still low)…28%

IRGC Intel Chief Taken Out; Israel Suffers Heavy Casualties

The head of the Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was killed in a Monday airstrike, according to confirmation in Iranian media. IRGC-linked Tasnim News Agency reported that the IRGC Public Relations Department confirmed Monday that Major General Majid Khademi was killed earlier in the day during an attack by US and Israeli forces. However, Tasnim did not disclose the location of the strike.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) earlier stated on X that Khademi wasone of the IRGC’s most senior commanders with decades of experience. “Khademi worked to advance terrorist attacks worldwide, and was responsible for monitoring Iranian civilians as part of the regime’s suppression of internal protests,” it claimed.

RFE/RL reported that Khademi assumed the post last summer after Mohammad Kazemi was killed in Israeli strikes during the 12-day war. Before that, he led the Intelligence Protection Organization of the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.Iran is now vowing to enact vengeance on Israel for his death.


Meanwhile Sunday into Monday saw significant casualties in Israel, after the IRGC claimed in a statement carried by state media that Iranian forces had targeted an oil refinery in Haifa. But instead, it appears that the missile slammed directly into a residential building, killing at least four Israelis. Search and rescue teams have spent some 18 hours pouring through the ruins of the complex, recovering two bodies early Monday after an initial two had been found. The casualties could climb amid ongoing recovery efforts. Another regional source stated that “Over 160 Israelis have been transferred to hospitals over the past 24 hours, Israel’s Health Ministry said on Monday.”

Trump: Tuesday Deadline ‘Final, Won’t Change’; Americans Opposed to Iran War Are ‘Foolish’

At a White House annual Easter event, President Trump reaffirmed the Tuesday deadline is final, and further said he has seen every proposal. While he acknowledged the new 10-point Iran proposal as a “big step,” he still said it’s “not good enough; will see what happens.” According to more:

  • War could end very quickly if they do the things they need to do.
  • People talking for Iran are more reasonable now.
  • War is about one thing, Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.
  • “If I had my choice, I would take Iran’s oil”.
  • If Iran does not yield, they will not have bridges or power plants.
  • UK has a long way to go.

There were interesting remarks also claiming that “As of this morning 45,000 protesters have been killed” in Iran – though it’s entirely unclear and dubious as to where he got such a figure. He said that Iranians need guns and that he had sent some but a “certain group” decided to keep them.

“The Iranian people wanna hear bombs because they want to be free,” he also claimed, while First Lady Melania added that the US is fighting for the “future” of children in Iran. Another interesting moment as some corners of MAGA grow increasingly skeptical and angry over the war:

The US president is speaking to reporters at the White House. Asked what he would tell Americans who are opposed to the war, Trump replied: “They’re foolish. Because the war is about one thing – Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Iran Issues 10-Point Rejection of ‘Simple Ceasefire’

Per PressTV:

“The ten-point plan rejects a simple ceasefire, stressing the need for a permanent resolution that safeguards Iran’s interests. Key demands include ending regional hostilities, ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, lifting sanctions, and rebuilding affected areas.”

It’s no secret that Iran is seeking a permanent end to the war on terms that would ensure it is never attacked again.

  • “According to IRNA’s foreign policy correspondent, in this response, which consists of ten paragraphs, Iran has emphasized the need for a permanent end to the war, taking into account Iran’s considerations, while rejecting a ceasefire.”
  • “This answer includes a set of demands from Iran, including the end of conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, reconstruction and lifting of sanctions.”

Per PressTV:

“The ten-point plan rejects a simple ceasefire, stressing the need for a permanent resolution that safeguards Iran’s interests. Key demands include ending regional hostilities, ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, lifting sanctions, and rebuilding affected areas.”

It’s no secret that Iran is seeking a permanent end to the war on terms that would ensure it is never attacked again.

  • “According to IRNA’s foreign policy correspondent, in this response, which consists of ten paragraphs, Iran has emphasized the need for a permanent end to the war, taking into account Iran’s considerations, while rejecting a ceasefire.”
  • “This answer includes a set of demands from Iran, including the end of conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, reconstruction and lifting of sanctions.”

It appears similar to the outline that Iran issued some two weeks ago. At every turn, Tehran has rejected that direct talks with Washington are even taking place. Tehran also keeps rejecting White House ceasefire overtures. And yet the same Monday little dance keeps repeating itself……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.sott.net/article/505586-Trump-says-Tuesday-deadline-for-Iran-to-accept-ceasefire-final-wont-change-Israel-takes-out-experienced-IRGC-intel-chief

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

They attack, we defend: how the media toe the line on Iran

Unlike Russia’s war on Ukraine, British journalists rarely highlight the illegality of the US-Israeli attack on Iran

DES FREEDMAN, 12 March 2026

The UK media’s take on the use of ‘hard power’ depends entirely on who’s exercising it.

The labelling of Russia’s war in Ukraine in February 2022 was clear from the start. According to the Nexis database, 12,700 stories across the UK media in the first week of the war were focused on what was unequivocally referred to as Russia’s “invasion of Ukraine”.

Clive Myrie, presenting an extended BBC News at Ten on the first night of the war spoke of a “huge Russian military offensive” next to a strapline of “Russia invades Ukraine” that remained on screen throughout the headlines.

Tom Bradby, presenting ITV’s News at Ten, spoke of “a day of infamy for the Russian government and terror for millions of Ukranians”. Echoing the statement by then foreign secretary Liz Truss that this was “an unprovoked, premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state”, he asserted that Putin had “invaded a democratic, sovereign neighbour in a war of imperial conquest.”

In the wall-to-wall coverage of the US-Israel pre-emptive attack on Iran on 28 February 2026, no broadcast journalists spoke of “imperial conquest” nor did they mention the issue of Iranian sovereignty.

And while coverage of the Russian invasion was consistently described as “unprovoked” – with 2336 stories in the first week – only 390 stories referred to claims that the US/Israel assault on Iran was “unprovoked” in the same period.

This is despite evidence that NATO expansion contributed to Putin’s decision to invade while ‘significant progress’ was claimed in talks between the US and Iran over the future of the latter’s nuclear programme before the bombing started.

Illegal wars?

As opposed to the single “invasion” strapline used to illustrate Russia’s aggression, the BBC’s main TV news bulletin used multiple straplines including “US-Israel attack Iran”, “Iran strikes back” and ‘Fears for Middle East war.”

In contrast to the outpouring of condemnation of Russia’s actions, there were only 1,785 stories in the first week that were specifically focused on the “attack on Iran”, just 14% of the number that spoke of a “Russian invasion” four years previously.

While 251 stories referred to Russia’s “illegal invasion” in its first week, there were just 82 stories in UK media that addressed Israel and America’s bombing of Iran as an “illegal attack” in the week after 28 February. Many of these simply reported comments made by Green and Liberal Democrat MPs in Parliament as opposed to asking their own questions about the legality of the attacks.

Laura Kuenssberg did press the Israeli president Isaac Herzog on this point in her Sunday morning BBC programme on 8 March (and was dismissed by Herzog as asking “unbelievable questions”).

The issue of legality was also addressed in a debate organised by Channel 4 News and in individual pieces by the Guardian, Reuters and Sky (though that was in an interview with the Russian ambassador).

These interventions no doubt expressed genuine tensions within Labour – anxious not to reopen the debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq – about whether the US/Israeli attacks could be justified under international law.

Yet, at the time of writing, only two out of the 152 stories on the BBC’s “Iran War” online pages (1.3%) and just one of the 257 stories (0.39%) on Sky News’ Iran pages – a clip of Keir Starmer insisting that he wouldn’t join a war without a “lawful basis” –come close to considering the crucial question of whether the attacks were legal or not. (For some reason, Sky’s interview with the Russian ambassador isn’t listed here).

‘Defensive’

Analyses of whether devastating pre-emptive strikes by Israel and the US comply with international law have been overshadowed by the spectacle of the attacks themselves and the notion that, as the Sun posed it on 2 March, Iran presents a ‘VERY real threat to normal Brits’.

As John Irvine, ITV’s senior political correspondent, put in on the Weekend News bulletin the evening before: “I think it’s pretty obvious by now that the greatest threat to this entire region comes from Iran’s missile arsenal”.

In particular, journalists have emphasised the “defensive” nature of the UK’s role with some 715 stories on “defensive strikes” in the first week of the coverage.

Mainstream journalists have, however, failed systematically to investigate the impact of Starmer’s agreement to facilitate ‘specific and limited defensive action against missile facilities in Iran’.

All too often, the tendency has been to take the claim that the UK is engaging in legitimate self-defence at face value.

On the first night of the bombing on 28 February, ITV News’ correspondent, Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe, simply repeated Keir Starmer’s claim that “British planes are in the sky today as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests and our allies.”

Over on the BBC’s main weekend bulletin, political correspondent Chris Mason parroted Starmer’s line word for word: “Yes, British planes have been in the sky in the region in a defensive capability and he emphasises within international law so protecting allies.”

No alternative explanation was offered in either case.

Diversion tactics

Instead, there has been extensive discussion of the hollowed state of the military and of the delays in sending HMS Dragon to the eastern Mediterranean to, as the BBC put it, “join the UK’s defensive operations in the region”.

There have been breathless accounts of UK jets shooting down Iranian drones and late-night discussions on the BBC News Channel with security analyst Mikey Kay assessing the technical capacities of UK military hardware.

What there has not been is detailed investigation by defence correspondents of the implications of providing ‘safe passage’ for US planes through UK bases and of the difficulties in assessing whether it’s possible to distinguish in reality between ‘offensive’ and ‘defensive’ bombing.

Meanwhile, Gaza – whose residents are still being attacked by Israeli forces – has slipped out of the headlines as journalists focus their attention elsewhere. This has allowed Israel to step up its settlement activity in the West Bank and to present its military activity in Lebanon, where its bombs have killed 570 people, as another example of defensive activity.

UK media have helped to normalise this by, more often than not, describing the movement of Israeli troops into southern Lebanon as an “incursion” rather than an actual ground invasion.

While there were 242 stories in the first week of the war to Israel’s “incursion” into Lebanon (including 21 on BBC World), only 41 stories referred to an “invasion of Lebanon”. This included six stories on BBC World of which only three were actually about the current situation.

The UK media’s compliant coverage and its failure to challenge the current foreign policy consensus is completely at odds with the UK public. 59% of those polled by YouGov oppose US military against Iran with only 25% in support.

50% are opposed to Starmer’s decision to allow the US to use UK airbases for military action against Iran with only 32% in support.

Rather than reflecting this constituency, mainstream news are acting as loyal lieutenants in an illegitimate and profoundly destabilising war.


Des Freedman is a Professor of Media & Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London and a founding member of the Media Reform Coalition.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

Trump and Greenland: Key war fighting base for Arctic control

April 04, 2026, By Dr. Dave Webb , https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/04/trump-and-greenland-key-war-fighting.html

At time of writing, the biennial NATO military exercise ‘Cold Response 26’ is taking place from March 9 to 19. It is being led from the Norwegian-US headquarters in Reitan, near Bodø, Norway. About 32,500 personnel are participating, including around 11,800 in Norway and 7,500 in Finland. The rest are at sea and in the air. Military from 14 countries are involved – Norway, the USA, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, Turkey, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Belgium. It is basically a NATO show of force against Russia and the High North is being used by an expanding NATO as a military practice ground in which to rehearse future war fighting strategies and to test and develop new military technologies. 

According to the official website of the Norwegian Armed Forces: “The main purpose of the exercises is to contribute to deterrence, strengthen defense, calm the population”. But how is the presence of the US military in Scandinavia expected to “calm” people, given Donald Trump’s flagrant disregard for international law and his wish to own Greenland? 

What is that about? Greenland, the world’s largest island, is home to more than 56,000 people. A former Danish colony and now an autonomous territory of Denmark. Its capital city Nuuk is closer to New York than it is to Copenhagen and the US already has an active military base there.

Pituffik Space base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, is on the northwest coast of Greenland, 1,126 kms north of the Arctic Circle. In the 1950s aircraft made surveillance flights from there, over the pole, to inspect Soviet defences. In 1957 four Nike Missile sites were constructed around the base and in 1961 a Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) radar was built to give the US warning of a missile attack from Russia.

On 21 January 1968 a US bomber from an Air Force Base in New York state carrying 4 nuclear weapons, crashed just outside the base. Luckily the failsafe mechanisms prevented a nuclear explosion but there was widespread radioactive contamination. In 2007 a BBC reporter claimed that one of the nuclear weapons was unaccounted for, but this was denied by the US and Denmark. Some details of the incident remain classified, however.

In June 1987, the BMEWS mechanically steered radar was upgraded to a two-sided, solid-state phased-array electronically steered radar system, similar to the one at Fylingdales in North Yorkshire. It then became a missile warning and tracking component of the US National Missile Defense System. After the US Space Force was established by Trump in 2019, the base was transferred to Space Delta 4, under the command of Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado. Thule Air Base was renamed Pituffik Space Base in April 2023 in recognition of the former Inuit settlement. Pituffik Space Base plays a key role in missile defence and satellite tracking and targeting. The recent retaliatory attacks by Iran on US missile defence radars is a dire warning to people who live on or near the base in Greenland and elsewhere (including Fylingdales!).

There is also a Pituffik Tracking Station, about 5.6 km southeast of the main base, which tracks and commands high-priority government satellites. It provides telemetry, tracking and command data for satellites that are used for surveillance, communication, navigation and weather. The Space Force says the base helps enable “space superiority.” 

The 1951 Defence of Greenland Treaty with Denmark grants the US broad military rights, including the establishment of bases, provided Denmark and Greenland are notified, and unrestricted movement for defence purposes. However, Danish sovereignty over the territory is also recognised as part of the treaty which remains in effect as long as NATO does.

Trump has said that Greenland is needed for the ‘Golden Dome’ missile defence project, but the Pituffik radar is there already and part of US national Missile Defense, so what else might be needed? Perhaps the siting of anti-ballistic missiles there?

But there’s more – in January, Trump claimed the Arctic was covered in Russian and Chinese warships to justify his push for control of Greenland. Russia does have a nuclear submarine base in the Arctic, on the Kola peninsula, the other side of Finland and Russia and China have increased joint naval and air patrols in the North Pacific and near Alaska but there has been no evidence of “swarms” of Russian or Chinese military ships near Greenland as Trump claims.

Greenland is however, at a very strategic location. The GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, and the UK) gap is a critical maritime choke point in the North Atlantic, separating the Norwegian/North Seas from the open Atlantic Ocean. It is an important strategic, monitoring, and anti-submarine corridor that NATO uses to track Russian naval activity. The position of Faslane, guarding the GIUK gap,  is also of great strategic importance to NATO.

There are also important commercial considerations. As global warming shrinks the arctic ice cap it allows more maritime traffic, mining and other commercial activity to take place in the high north. During the summer, shipping routes can operate for longer periods in the Arctic region. Shipping has risen by nearly 40% in the region over the last 12 years, according to the Arctic Council (a kind of common security organisation whose primary purpose is to advance sustainable development and environmental protection in the region, including of indigenous peoples).

These routes are particularly important for Russia and China. Russia has over 53% of the total Arctic coastline and controls most of the resources there, while China identifies as a ‘Near Arctic State’ with the opening-up of its ‘Polar Silk Road’ as a trade route, reducing travel time to Europe by 40%.  The expanding China footprint in the Arctic is seen as a security challenge by the US.

Then there are the resources becoming newly available. The US Geological Survey estimates that over 87% of the Arctic’s oil and natural gas resource (about 360 billion barrels oil equivalent) is in seven key Arctic basin provinces including two to the east and west of Greenland. There are also rare earth metals present which are in high demand for electric cars and the manufacture of military equipment. A 2023 survey showed that 25 of 34 minerals considered “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were to be found in Greenland. China currently dominates global rare earth production and Trump does not like that, so controlling Greenland and its resources could really be about keeping China out.

However, the extraction of oil and gas is banned in Greenland for environmental regions, and investment in mining faces challenges – perhaps a new arrangement with Denmark could allow the US to build without planning permission and expand into mineral-rich areas?

The full details of the “framework of the future deal with respect to Greenland” announced by Trump remain unavailable and Greenlanders are concerned that they are being left out of talks between the US and Denmark. Trump seems to insist on “owning” Greenland and although there is a constitutional ban on the sale of land, Trump’s recent actions show that he has no respect for law or any other state’s sovereignty.

~ Dr. Dave Webb is the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space Board of Directors convener and also chairs Yorkshire Region CND. He is a retired university professor and lives in Leeds, England.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Two Faces of Peace: How Trump’s “Peacemaker” Presidency Waged War Across the Globe

March 31, 2026 , ScheerPost Staff, https://scheerpost.com/2026/03/31/two-faces-of-peace-how-trumps-peacemaker-presidency-waged-war-across-the-globe/

When the world hears “peace,” it rarely imagines schools leveled, civilians at risk, and covert armies deployed across continents. Yet, reporting from The Intercept reveals that under President Donald Trump, the promise of a “peace presidency” has coexisted with a sprawling network of global conflicts. Nick Turse’s investigation exposes the U.S.’s secretive military footprint in more than 20 countries, while Natasha Lennard documents the deliberate targeting of Iranian universities by U.S.–Israeli airstrikes—attacks designed to cripple a nation’s capacity to rebuild. Together, these Intercept reports reveal two faces of the same strategy: the veneer of peace masking the machinery of war, from classrooms to battlefields, and from boardrooms to drone command centers.

Nick Turse’s investigative report for The Intercept exposes the stark contrast between President Donald Trump’s public image as a “peacemaker” and the reality of his administration’s military actions. While Trump campaigned on promises to avoid foreign entanglements and even founded a so-called Board of Peace, Turse details how the U.S. under Trump has been drawn into more than 20 military interventions, armed conflicts, and covert operations worldwide.

From drone strikes and proxy wars to full-scale interventions, Trump’s military footprint spans Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, and dozens of other countries. The report highlights the administration’s repeated bypassing of Congress, reliance on secretive programs like 127e, and the cloak of legal euphemisms—“advise, assist, and accompany” missions or “military actions”—to obscure combat operations.

Turse documents a disturbing pattern of clandestine operations, including regime-change efforts, attacks on civilian targets, and the deployment of thousands of Special Operations forces without clear oversight. As Sarah Harrison, former Pentagon counsel, notes, these actions not only flout constitutional and international law but also put Americans at greater risk while enriching the military-industrial apparatus.

“Under the U.S. Constitution, it’s Congress that has the authority to declare war, not the president,” pointed out Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “Congress has not authorized conflicts in this wide array of contexts, and indeed many lawmakers — to say nothing of members of the public — would be surprised to learn that hostilities have taken place in many of these countries. Congressional authorization isn’t just a box-checking exercise: it’s a means of ensuring that the solemn decision to go to war is made democratically and accountably, with a clear purpose and goal that the American people can support.”

“The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted after 9/11 and stretched by successive administrations, has been invoked to justify counterterrorism operations—including airstrikes, ground combat, and support for partner militaries—in at least 22 countries, according to a 2021 report by Brown University’s Costs of War Project. Under Trump, even this framework has been circumvented in favor of more secretive programs and broad interpretations of executive authority.”

While Trump projected an image of peace abroad, Natasha Lennard reports in The Intercept on the very real human consequences of his and Israel’s military campaigns in Iran. Over the weekend, U.S.–Israeli strikes targeted the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology in Tehran. These attacks, part of a broader campaign that has hit hospitals, power plants, desalination facilities, and schools, left Iranian students and staff unprotected and at risk.

The official justification—that the universities were connected to Iran’s weapons programs—is deeply cynical, Lennard notes. By this rationale, any advanced U.S. or Israeli institution involved in military research could be deemed a legitimate target, from MIT to Technion or Johns Hopkins. The reporting underscores the double standard of asymmetric warfare: aggressors rationalize strikes while shielding their own infrastructure.

Experts cited by Lennard emphasize that the bombings are systematic, aimed at undermining Iran’s capacity for indigenous development and sovereignty. Drawing parallels to Gaza, the attacks on universities are part of a long-term strategy to foreclose reconstruction and maintain strategic dominance

By combining Turse’s exposé of Trump’s global “peace presidency” turned conflict presidency with Lennard’s documentation of targeted strikes on educational institutions, the picture is clear: a veneer of peace masks a sprawling, violent network of operations designed to project power, suppress knowledge, and reshape global dynamics on U.S. and Israeli terms.

Both reports highlight the human cost and the hypocrisy of modern warfare, where civilian infrastructure, education, and research are treated as expendable under the guise of national security, and where the appearance of peace serves to hide the orchestration of conflict at a global scale.

Sources: Nick Turse, “Trump’s Secret Wars on the World Keep Expanding,” The Intercept, March 30, 2026; Natasha Lennard, “What Would We All Say If Iran Razed MIT Because of Military-Related Research?” The Intercept, March 30, 2026.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bypass the Strait of Hormuz with nuclear explosives? The US studied that in Panama and Colombia in the 1960s

The Conversation, Christine Keiner, Chair of the Department of Science, Technology, and Society, Rochester Institute of Technology, April 2, 2026

With the world struggling to get oil supplies moving from the Middle East, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raised eyebrows with a social media post highlighting a radical idea: Use nuclear bombs to cut a new channel along a route that would avoid Iranian threats in the Strait of Hormuz.

Gingrich’s March 15, 2026, post linked to an article that labeled itself as satire. Gingrich has not clarified whether his endorsement was serious. But he is old enough to remember when ideas like this were not only taken seriously but actually pursued by the U.S. and Soviet governments.

As I discuss in my book, “Deep Cut: Science, Power, and the Unbuilt Interoceanic Canal,” the U.S. version of this project ended in 1977. At the time, Gingrich was launching his political career after working as a history and environmental studies professor.

Improving global trade and geopolitical influence

The idea for a new canal to move oil from the Middle East had emerged two decades earlier, in the context of another Middle East conflict, the Suez crisis. In 1956, Egypt seized the Suez Canal from British and French control. The canal’s prolonged closure caused the price of oil, tea and other commodities to spike for European consumers, who depended on the shipping shortcut for goods from Asia.

But what if nuclear energy could be harnessed to cut an alternative canal through “friendly territory”? That was the question asked by Edward Teller, the principal architect of the hydrogen bomb, and his fellow physicists at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory in Livermore, California.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration had already begun promoting atomic energy to generate electricity and to power submarines. After the Suez crisis, the U.S. government expanded plans to harness “atoms for peace.”

Project Plowshare advocates, led by Teller, sought to use what they called “peaceful nuclear explosions” to reduce the costs of large-scale earthmoving projects and to promote national security. They envisioned a world in which nuclear explosives could help extract natural gas from underground reservoirs and build new canals, harbors and mountainside roads, with minimal radioactive effects.

To kick-start the program, Teller wanted to create an instant harbor by burying, and then detonating, five thermonuclear bombs in an Indigenous village in coastal northwestern Alaska. The plan, known as Project Chariot, generated intense debate, as well as a pioneering environmental study of Arctic food webs……………………………………………………………………….

Nuclear explosions appeared to make a new sea-level canal financially feasible. The greatest impetus for the so-called Panatomic Canal occurred in January 1964, when violent anti-U.S. protests erupted in Panama. President Lyndon B. Johnson responded to the crisis by agreeing to negotiate new political agreements with Panama.

Johnson appointed the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission to determine the best site to use nuclear explosions to blast a seaway between the two oceans. Funded by a $17.5 million congressional appropriation – the equivalent of around $185 million today – the five civilian commissioners focused on two routes: one in eastern Panama and the other in western Colombia………………………………………………………………..

To avoid the radioactivity and ground shocks, planners estimated that approximately 30,000 people, half of them Indigenous, would have to be evacuated and resettled. The canal commission considered this a formidable but not impossible obstacle, writing in its final report, “The problems of public acceptance of nuclear canal excavation probably could be solved through diplomacy, public education, and compensating payments.”

A not-so-hot idea, in retrospect

As explored in my book, marine and evolutionary biologists of the late 1960s sought to study the project’s less obvious environmental effects. Among other potential catastrophes, scientists warned that a sea-level canal could unleash “mutual invasions of Atlantic and Pacific organisms” by joining the oceans on either side of the isthmus for the first time in 3 million years.

Plans for the nuclear waterway ended by the early 1970s, not over concerns about marine invasive species but rather due to other complex issues. These included the difficulties of testing nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes without violating the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and the huge budget deficits caused by the Vietnam War……………………………………………………….

Today, given widespread awareness of the severe environmental and health effects of radioactive fallout, it is hard to envision a time when using nuclear bombs to build canals seemed reasonable. Even before Gingrich’s post sparked ridicule, press accounts described Project Plowshare using words like “wacky,” “insane” and “crazy.”

However, as societies struggle with disruptive new technologies such as generative AI and cryptocurrency, it is worth remembering that many ideas that ended up discredited once seemed not only sensible but inevitable.

As historians of science and technology point out, technological and scientific developments cannot be separated from their cultural contexts. Moreover, the technologies that become part of people’s daily lives often do so not because they are inherently superior, but because powerful interests champion them.

It makes me wonder: Which of the high-tech trends being promoted by influencers today will amuse, shock and horrify our descendants? https://theconversation.com/bypass-the-strait-of-hormuz-with-nuclear-explosives-the-us-studied-that-in-panama-and-colombia-in-the-1960s-278851

April 7, 2026 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, technology | Leave a comment

The US has declared ‘space superiority’ over Iran. What does that mean?

Iran’s nascent space program was destroyed. It’s still using other nations’ space intel.

April 2, 2026, Thomas Novelly, https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2026/04/us-has-declared-space-superiority-over-iran-what-does-mean/412605/?oref=defense_one_breaking_nl&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Defense%20One%20Breaking%20News:%20April%202%2C%202026:%20%26quot%3BNew%20from…%26quot%3B&utm_content=Final&utm_term=newsletter_d1_alert

The U.S. military declared space superiority over Iran this week, but defense experts question what that means given the country’s inchoate military space program and heavy reliance on space-based intelligence from other nations.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of U.S. Central Command, said Tuesday that the U.S. had established control of the space domain during Operation Epic Fury. It was nearly a month after CENTCOM had announced “Iran’s equivalent of Space Command” was destroyed, which harmed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ ability to coordinate retaliatory strikes.

“Our Space Force has given us the ultimate high ground, delivering space superiority, which has been a critical enabler to this fight,” Cooper said in a Tuesday video.


It’s not clear if the country is still actively jamming or spoofing U.S. assets, and it’s highly unlikely that the U.S. Space Force has physically destroyed the country’s handful of satellites. Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, a CENTCOM spokesperson, said he could not discuss details about space operations “due to classification.” Given Iran’s rudimentary space capabilities, defense experts question what has changed to prompt the military to declare space superiority.

“It isn’t stopping them from using space assets,” Victoria Samson, the Secure World Foundation’s chief director of space security and stability, said of the U.S. declaring space superiority.  “There’s just a lot of question marks … In regards to how they use space as a national security enabler, I don’t know that they’ve really stopped it, because they weren’t using it other than for imagery analysis.” 

Iran is reportedly relying on China and Russia’s intelligence and commercial space-based imagery to target U.S. assets throughout the region. A U.S. official told Defense One that Iran’s use of another country’s space-based data doesn’t mean the service lacks control of the space domain.

“Just because the Iranians are receiving space-based intelligence doesn’t negate that we have space superiority,” the official said.

Since 2005, the country has launched a total of 26 satellites, only 13 of which were still operational, according to the American Enterprise Institute’s space data navigator tool. Three of those are registered to the IRGC. The U.S., by comparison, has upwards of 500 operational military and intelligence satellites. 

Gen. Chance Saltzman, the Space Force’s top uniformed officer, acknowledged “it wasn’t really a fair fight,” but said destroying Iran’s space capabilities gave the military an upper hand in communications and air operations within CENTCOM. 

“You have space superiority if you can use space the way you want, and the adversary cannot use space the way they want, and I think those are the conditions that we’ve met in this particular instance,” Saltzman said during a Mitchell Institute event Wednesday.

The term “space superiority” was first publicized in a 1980s Air Force manual. A 2004 service document likened the idea to air superiority and said the two are “crucial first steps in any military operation.” Last year, the Space Force published a warfighting doctrine that said the service’s “formative purpose” is to achieve space superiority.  

“Space superiority is the degree of control that allows forces to operate at a time and place of their choosing without prohibitive interference from space or counterspace threats, while also denying the same to an adversary,” the Space Force’s doctrine reads.

Some defense experts see the recent declaration of space superiority as a way for the service to highlight its warfighting rebrand in recent years. 

“It’s a weird thing to say. I think it’s more a matter of floating the ‘Space Force as a warfighting’ thing,” Samson said.

Kari Bingen, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and director of the Aerospace Security Project, said it’s not surprising to see the Space Force becoming more integrated into operations, given adversaries’ desire to target command, control, communications, and intelligence capabilities.

“Between Venezuela and Operation Epic Fury, these have been opportunities for the Space Force to better integrate space effects into a joint military campaign,” Bingen said. “We’ve long treated space as this special and different capability set. The physics are different, but to make it truly useful to the joint force, it needs to be fully integrated into planning and operations.” 

Saltzman said guardians had been forward deployed to support Operation Epic Fury and continue to launch space effects in combat zones “despite being under attack from an adversary.” He also said some guardians are supporting the operation stateside out of Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina and CENTCOM headquarters in Florida.

“I won’t go into a lot of the operational details, as you might imagine, but you don’t have to think too hard to understand what it is the Guardians are bringing to the fight,” Saltzman said. “All of the missions that we always do—missile warning, satellite communications. The links are vital. Over-the-horizon communications is as important now as it ever has been. We create disruption for an adversary.”

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Iran, space travel, USA | Leave a comment

‘This Arrogant Enemy’: Israel’s Colonial Reversion to the Noose

 April 1, 2026 SCHEERPOST,  Zarefah Baroud for Thinking Palestine

“Israel is also confronted by something older than Israel itself: namely, the willingness and ability of the Palestinian people to mobilize and resist in the face of state-sanctioned death.”

The authorities cuffed the nationalist detainees, leading them to their death at the gallows, scaffolding and rope that had borne witness to the final moments of dozens of nationalists like them. As they approached the noose with grace and a sacred conviction, they declared their final tribute to the beloved homeland: “Filasteen ‘Arabiyya!” (“Palestine is Arab”), and issued a final, unflinching indictment of her oppressors.

The families and communities of the martyrs gather outside Sijn Akka, dressed in white and adorned with henna as if they were attending a wedding, receiving the martyr’s body among eruptions of ululations and celebratory songs.

This is not a romantic tale, but rather the tradition adopted by Palestinians throughout the British Mandate for Palestine, a colonial regime that saw to the systematic annihilation of an entire generation of Palestinian nationalists.

The Spectacle of the Noose

While this scene played out on many occasions throughout the British Mandate for Palestine, it could conceivably happen tomorrow, if proposals put forward by Itamar Ben Gvir, Israel’s Minister of National Security, are approved by the Israeli Knesset. If this comes to pass, the “death penalty bill” — an amendment to the current Israeli penal code – will result in the execution of those who have allegedly killed Israelis for nationalist purposes (or, more reductively and disingenuously, for “anti-Semitic” reasons).

Further, recent reports have confirmed that the Knesset’s proposed legislation draft will no longer perform the death penalty via lethal injection but rather transform the execution of Palestinian detainees into a colonial spectacle. In other words, the original mode of colonial execution would be restored as the chosen method of capital punishment par excellence.

If approved, hanging will once more become a colonial spectacle, which is enacted, in the sterile and removed wording of the National Security Committee, with the aim of “cut[ting] off terrorism at its root and creat[ing] a heavy deterrent.”

It is critical that, as we discuss this pending policy, which Abdel Nasser Farawna characterizes as improbable (though not impossible), we recognize that the extrajudicial execution of prisoners has always been Israel Prison Service (IPS) policy.

Ben-Gvir has put forward his proposal at a time (the period since October 7, 2023) when the Israeli authorities have murdered detainees at an unprecedented rate. In April 2023, the Palestinian Commission for Detainees and Ex-Detainees estimated 236 Palestinians had been killed in Israeli custody after 1967, a period of 56 years. In the post-October 7 period, in contrast, almost one hundred Palestinians have died in custody, a killing rate around 10 times the historical average.

A November 2025 report produced by Physicians for Human Rights Israel suggests that this may actually be a substantial under-estimate, by virtue of the (at least) 14,000 Gazans who are still missing, presumed to be dead or abducted at the time of writing…………………………………………………………………. https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/01/this-arrogant-enemy-israels-colonial-reversion-to-the-noose/

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Israel | Leave a comment

NuScale’s ENTRA1 “Veterans” Had Zero Nuclear Projects — Investors Lost 70%: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Promise vs. Reality: The NuScale Power ENTRA1 Partnership Performance Gap

March 30, 2026 Source: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

NEW YORK, March 30, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — “Companies that make specific promises to investors about future performance have an obligation to disclose known risks to those projections. The contrast between what NuScale told the market about ENTRA1 and what analysts independently confirmed raises substantial questions about the accuracy of those representations,” stated Joseph E. Levi, Esq., managing partner of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

A securities class action has been filed on behalf of purchasers of NuScale Power Corporation (NYSE: SMR) stock between May 13, 2025 and November 6, 2025. …..

NuScale shares fell from a Class Period high above $57 to just $17, a decline exceeding 70%, after the gap between defendants’ representations and reality came to light. The lead plaintiff deadline is April 20, 2026.

The Promise

Throughout the Class Period, the Company portrayed ENTRA1 Energy LLC as a formidable commercialization engine for its small modular reactor technology. Official press materials and SEC filings described ENTRA1 as:

  • An “independent global energy production platform”
  • A “one-stop-shop” and “single hub” for financing, development, execution, and management of nuclear power plants
  • An entity “led by an executive team of energy, infrastructure, and finance sector veterans”
  • A partner with “experience in delivering large-scale power infrastructure”
  • A “developer” of power plants that would “own and operate” energy facilities
  • An entity whose experience was “exactly what is required” to commercialize NuScale’s reactors

The Reality

After NuScale disclosed a $495 million payment to ENTRA1 and analysts pressed for details on the November 6, 2025 earnings call, a starkly different picture emerged, the lawsuit contends:

  • ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant project during its entire operating history
  • Independent analyst research identified just 3 employees and 1 investor at ENTRA1
  • The “experience” defendants referenced belonged to principals of a separate entity, not ENTRA1 itself
  • ENTRA1 would not actually build power plants but instead “coordinate projects” and “bring in partners”
  • Guggenheim Securities described ENTRA1 as “a 3-year old company that has never built, financed or operated anything”
  • ENTRA1 appeared to be organized primarily to support a single individual

The Numbers: Promised vs. Actual

What Was Promised | What Was Revealed

  • “Independent global energy production platform” | Entity with 3 employees, no completed projects
  • “Experience in delivering large-scale power infrastructure” | Experience belonged to principals of a different entity
  • ENTRA1 “develops, finances, owns and operates” plants | ENTRA1 would “coordinate projects” and “bring in partners”

  • A “differentiator” justifying exclusive global rights | Analysts found “no information regarding the company’s history, management team, size or capitalization”
  • $35M-$55M per NPM contribution payments to a proven partner | $495 million paid to an untested entity, with potential obligations exceeding $3 billion

What the Lawsuit Alleges About the Gap

The action asserts that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their representations about ENTRA1 were materially false and misleading. By attributing the experience of a separate entity’s principals to ENTRA1 itself, and by describing ENTRA1 as a developer and operator when it lacked any track record, defendants allegedly created an artificial perception of commercialization readiness that inflated NuScale’s stock price……………………………………………………………….. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/03/30/3264986/0/en/NuScale-s-ENTRA1-Veterans-Had-Zero-Nuclear-Projects-Investors-Lost-70-Levi-Korsinsky-LLP.html

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

What Happens When a Nuclear Site Is Hit?

2 April 26, https://www.wired.com/story/heres-what-can-happen-when-the-us-bombs-irans-nuclear-sites/

As US and Israeli strikes continue on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the real danger isn’t the explosion, but what happens if critical safety systems fail—and how that risk could spread across the Gulf.

Into the second month of the US-Iran war, the conflict in the Gulf continues to escalate—airstrikes widening, oil markets reacting, and pressure mounting around the Strait of Hormuz. But beyond the immediate security and economic concerns, another question is quietly taking shape: What actually happens if a nuclear site is hit?

That is the problem with Nuclear Power. It’s a target. There are no do overs if it goes wrong. The IAEA spends a lot of time trying to mitigate atomic problems but they can’t stop those who want to do bad things. When I think about how Chernobyl was handled by the Russians, I think would our government do what they did?
Deny and hide the truth from the public? I’m not sure I’m not willing to place a bet on nuclear but I know many are.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Back to Pentagon on Good Friday

Friday, April 03, 2026,  Bruce K. Gagnon, https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/04/back-to-pentagon-on-good-friday.html

Sixteen activists got up early this morning and took the subway to the Pentagon where we held a 90 minute vigil as military and civilian employees walked, drove, biked and rode buses by our Good Friday peace vigil.

Yesterday Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, removing the Army’s top officer in the latest shake-up of military leadership amid the war in Iran. This was most likely done because Gen. George dared to question the US Iran war strategy on some level. George is the 24th general or admiral Hegseth has removed indicating that all is not well inside the ‘war department’.

I made a point this morning of asking any Army personnel who passed me by why their ‘boss had been fired’. One officer stopped and said to me, “I don’t why why he was fired. I only met him once and he was a good man”.

During our time on the street, now kept at a distance from the Pentagon in comparison to where we were arrested last Friday when 27 of us got deep into the bowels of the war-making institution, we got lots of ‘good mornings’, kind nods, and some words of encouragement as folks passed us by. Even a four-star general gave me a nice nod.

My sense is that there is much quiet unsettlement inside the Trump war machine these days. It felt good to be outside offering support to those on the inside who might have a good heart and good sense of which there must be many amongst the 30,000 who work at the Pentagon.

In related news Stars & Stripes military publication is reporting this morning that “A search and rescue effort was underway on Friday afternoon to locate two crew members of a U.S. fighter jet [F-15] that was shot down in Iran”. 

NBC News: Two U.S. military helicopters participating in search and rescue operations were hit by Iranian fire but appear to have made it back to base. We also learned that a Pentagon A-10 Warthog plane “crashed” today in the Persian Gulf region — according to The New York Times. The plane was likely hit by Iranian air defenses, but US is concealing it to save face with saying it “crashed” — crashed how? 

Trump has just requested $1.5 trillion from Congress for ‘defense’ in the 2027 fiscal year – the largest sum in the country’s recent history. Trump explains the sharp increase in spending by the ongoing war with Iran and the need to replenish depleted weapons stocks.

Trump and Hegseth are burning taxpayer dollars like they are nothing.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

US scientists are escaping to Norway because of Trump’s anti-climate agenda, minister says.

.At least 23 research scientists have left the US for
Norway in the wake of Trump returning to office, including to six
pioneering climate programmes. In the first year of Trump’s second term,
the US government cut thousands of jobs at federal science agencies,
slashed grant money for universities and effectively ended
government-backed research into the climate crisis, notably with the
announcement last December that the Colorado-based National Center for
Atmospheric Research would close.

More than 10,000 doctorate-level experts
in science and other fields have now left federal government employment,
according to one analysis, leading to fears of a scientific brain drain
from the US. Research minister Sigrun Gjerløw Aasland told The Independent
that several American scientists had joined research institutes in her
country over the past year, many of which are prioritising pioneering
climate research in the Arctic.

Last summer, the centre-left Norwegian
government announced a 100m kroner (£7.8m) programme to attract
international researchers. So far, 27 scientists have come to Norway under
the programme, including 23 from the US.

 Independent 1st April 2026, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/trump-climate-arctic-norway-scientists-b2938958.html

April 7, 2026 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

A ‘small’ nuclear war would still be global catastrophe

There is no such thing as a small nuclear war. Even a limited exchange of tactical weapons could kill 90 million people – far more than died in WWII – in the first few hours,

April 2, 2026, Julian Cribb, https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/04/a-small-nuclear-war-would-still-be-global-catastrophe/

There is no such thing as a “small” nuclear war. Even limited use would trigger mass death, famine and global collapse.

As West Asia stumbles towards a ‘small nuclear war’, it is time to evaluate the consequences for the entirety of humanity and the Planet.

A small nuclear war, by definition, is one involving the use of so-called tactical or battlefield nukes, low yield weapons (1000-50,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent) designed chiefly for a military objective, delivered as aerial bombs, shells, small missiles, torpedoes, mines etc. It does not involve the use of ICBMs, MIRVs, “city busters” and large-scale strategic weapons.

For comparison, the weapons that levelled Hiroshima and Nagasaki had yields of 15,000 and 21,000 tonnes respectively, which today would probably rate them as tactical weapons.

However, with practically all of the world’s nuclear treaties and restraints crumbling, it is now almost inevitable that one regime or another will experiment with the smaller nukes and seek to regularise their use, primarily as a means of terrorising their opponents. Only 74 of 197 nations have signed the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons. None of the nuclear-armed states or their close allies have signed.

Informed commentators on the Israel-USA-Iran conflict consider the use of nukes, probably by Israel in the first instance, to be increasingly likely as the war goes against them and both Trump and Netanyahu fight to stay out of jail. Israeli Ministers have previously uttered threats to employ nuclear force, though they were later silenced by Netanyahu.

US official documents indicate the America has been preparing for a limited nuclear war for over seven years. Trump has refused to rule out use of nukes, and military observers suspect the US already has them in the West Asian theatre. He has also declared his intent to restart nuclear testing. Authoritative commentators are asking whether Trump is mentally ill – and the world’s most potent nuclear arsenal in the hands of a madman.

Compounding the danger is the frequent use of nuclear threats by Russian leader Vladimir Putin along with Russia’s recent warning that the West Asia conflict could go nuclear.

Observers also consider that the Israeli nuclear threat and its assassination of the chief Iranian opponent to nuclear weapons, Ayatollah Khamenei, makes it far more likely that the new Iranian regime will accelerate plans to build atomic bombs, in the hope of deterring an attack. So one outcome of the war will be a nuclear-armed Iran – the opposite of its professed intention. This will, in turn, spark new regional arms races, with at least seven countries, and probably more, seeking to acquire the civilisation-ending weaponry.

Thus, whether or not the Israel-USA-Iran conflict goes nuclear, it may still prove to be the pebble that starts the landslide to global nuclear holocaust.

A ‘small’ war

There is no such thing as a small nuclear war. Even a limited exchange of tactical weapons could kill 90 million people – far more than died in WWII – in the first few hours, according to modelling by Princeton University. The study refers to the European context, but its message has far wider application.

In the context of dozens of nuclear armed nations – many controlled by men of questionable sanity – the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, which has kept the nuclear peace for 80 years, lapses into irrelevance. Little now prevents nations from committing suicide in their crazed desire to eliminate those they deem as foes.

Furthermore, any ‘small nuclear war’ can rapidly escalate into a far larger, global affair quite quickly and unpredictably. Unable to penetrate or understand their opponent’s motives, nations may choose to strike first and hardest, regardless of the ultimate cost to their own citizens. Indeed, this already appears a significant factor in the escalation of the West Asia conflict.

A current threat analysis made during the conflict finds that the threat of nuclear war to be higher than most periods of the Cold War, but not quite as high as its 1962 Cuban crisis and 1983 ‘Able Archer’ peaks, making it the third deadliest moment in human history since nukes were invented.

It is being stoked by the failure of arms control agreements, the increasingly pugnacious rhetoric of national leaders, and technical advances that could easily go wrong. Misinterpretation, miscalculation, political impulsiveness and an AI glitch have become primary triggers for an atomic war.

A nuclear explosion produces three instant killing mechanisms: a shockwave, a pulse of extreme heat, and a burst of deadly radiation. A very small 10kt weapon, detonated at ground level, causes severe shockwave damage up to 1km from the blast. The thermal pulse inflicts fatal burns and a firestorm up to 2kms. Flying debris kills or injures people several kms distant.

The radiation burst will kill unprotected people up to 1km away, and drifting fallout will create a potential death zone up to 10kms downwind. Larger weapons inflict proportionately greater death and destruction.

Those exposed to moderate doses of radiation develop acute radiation syndrome, which develops in stages: bone marrow is the first to fail, leading to uncontrolled infections and bleeding. Around half of those exposed to a moderate dose die within 60 days. At higher doses, the patient experiences severe vomiting, diarrhoea and internal haemorrhage. Death occurs within two agonising weeks, and no treatment can reverse it. At extreme doses, the heart and central nervous system collapse, and death occurs within three days. In a nuclear war, most radiation victims will receive little or no medical care.

Fallout from a nuclear strike contains particles with a half-life lasting from days to 30 years, so can go on killing for decades, without the need for new strikes. Gamma rays can travel long distances and penetrate most buildings unless they are sheathed in lead, thick concrete or rock. Long term effects include an epidemic of cancers, thyroid and immune system failure.

Globally, even a ‘small nuclear war’ could affect every country and every person, no matter how far away from the seat of the conflict, by means of the “nuclear winter”.

In a scientific paper published in 1983, Professor Brian Toon, Carl Sagan and colleagues calculated that the dust and smoke from a larger (5000 megaton) nuclear war would cut light to the Earth and reduce land temperatures to minus 15-25 degrees Celsius, destroying the entire world food harvest and causing universal starvation. It was this that persuaded Reagan and Gorbachev to pull back from the brink of catastrophe.

However, even a ‘small nuclear war’ of fifty or so tactical blasts would cover the Earth in a smoke cloud 30-100 kms deep within two weeks causing subzero temperatures for several years. The smoke would linger for years, possibly decades, ruining harvests everywhere. Between one and two billion people would die of starvation around the world. Everybody would go hungry. The world economy would collapse.

Iran’s deterrent

Three days before the US bombed the nuclear enrichment site at Fordow in 2025, a line of empty trucks was spotted by satellites at the facility. Intelligence assessment decided these were tasked to carry 408 kilos of highly enriched (60 per cent purity) uranium, part of a larger cache of 8.4 tonnes of uranium, to a place of greater safety.

If so, this leaves Iran with the capability to manufacture up to 14 atomic bombs or 300+ dirty bombs to deter a nuclear attack by Israel. It also has the ballistic and hypersonic missiles to deliver them, while Israel’s air defences are weakened. The radiation from a dirty bomb made from 60 per cent enriched uranium has a half-life of 740,000,000 years. While not deadly in the short term this could still render areas uninhabitable for the rest of history.

Whether this would deter a US or Israeli attack, given the unhinged state of their leadership and the moral cowardice of their governments, is not certain.

A wise course would be not to force Iran into such an escalation. But where is there wisdom in any of this?

April 6, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | 1 Comment

US negotiator in 2015 Iran nuclear deal says Donald Trump ‘delusional’ on nuclear and regime change.

By Paul Johnson, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-03/us-negotiator-in-iran-nuclear-deal-says-trump-delusional/106527524

In short:

Donald Trump’s claims about regime change and Iran’s nuclear threat have been called into question.

Former US special envoy to Iran Robert Malley described Mr Trump’s address to the nation this week as “delusional”.

He raised concerns the US would be committing war crimes if it followed through on Mr Trump’s threats.

US President Donald Trump is “delusional” and “seeking to deceive his audience” when it comes to what he claims is the success of the Iran war.

Those are the words of Robert Malley, who in 2015, under the Obama administration, was one of the lead negotiators on the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan.

When Mr Trump addressed the United States on Thursday with a speech full of bluster and bravado, he made claims of dismantling a regime, destroying Iran’s alleged nuclear capabilities and ruining the Islamic Republic’s navy and air force.

Mr Trump also blamed the previous Biden administration for leaving the United States “dead and crippled”.

Mr Malley, who served under Mr Biden as special envoy for Iran, spoke to 7.30 in the wake of Mr Trump’s comments on the war — a war that, despite being successful in killing previous supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several regime leaders, has caused global economic pain.

That pain has been caused by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) choking the shipping, particularly of oil, through the Strait of Hormuz.

The war was started under the premise of what Mr Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said was an imminent nuclear threat posed by Iran.

Where are ceasefire talks up to?

On Thursday, the US president said the deal that Mr Malley worked on under Barack Obama was a “disaster”.

Mr Malley told 7.30 the remarks made by the president about the Iranian nuclear threat were not true, especially in light of Mr Trump’s 2025 declaration that the US had decimated Iran’s nuclear capabilities through a series of strikes in June that year.

“There is simply no truth to that,” Mr Malley told 7.30.

“It’s extraordinary how he’s now saying that after he claimed that he’d obliterated Iran’s nuclear program less than a year ago.

“He’s now saying that they still were at the doorstep of acquiring a nuclear weapon, which he claims they would’ve used immediately.

“There’s not a single fragment of that claim that is accurate.”

Malley questions regime change

He also rubbished Mr Trump’s repeated claims that the war in Iran had resulted in regime change, something Australia’s own prime minister, Anthony Albanese, would not do on 7.30 on Monday night.

The regime change Mr Trump is claiming to have enacted is replacing former supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with his son, Mojtaba Khamenei.

The change may also lead to an increased role for the IRGC.

Mr Malley said, if anything, this might now be a more hardline Iranian regime that has a renewed reason for prejudice against the US.

“Nobody sees any truth in that,” Mr Malley said when asked about Mr Trump’s assertions about regime change in Tehran.

“Much of the prior Iranian leadership has been killed, but the people who are now in power are, if anything, more radical, more hardline, more determined to confront the United States.”

“The notion that this is a more … rational, more pragmatic regime … this is just him projecting to try to justify the fact that his war was a success and, whenever it ends, to be able to say that he achieved sort of, as a side benefit, a regime change that he claims he was never seeking.

“Every word in that statement of his is just delusional and seeking to deceive his audience.”

Concerns about war crimes

Among the major parts of Mr Trump’s speech were further threats against Iran.

In particular, Mr Trump said the US assault would step up over the next few weeks.

“We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks,” Mr Trump said.

“We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”

Mr Malley, a seasoned diplomat, said that rhetoric was very concerning and should not be normalised.

“Just listening to him, [it is disturbing] how normalised it’s become to have a president threaten to commit war crimes, which is what bringing Iran back to the Stone Age would be, on behalf of an unlawful war,” he told 7.30.

“He seems to be driven by this notion that if the US has the capability to do something militarily, it can do it and it will do it if he thinks that Iran is not capitulating or is not responding to his every demand.

“I think we should pause a bit and think the most powerful man on Earth has just threatened to destroy not a government, not military sites, but a country on behalf of a war that he still is not able to justify.”

Mr Trump has also been struggling to justify the economic cost.

The US has unleashed billions of dollars’ worth of weaponry in what some have said is a war for oil but it has not been able to free up the Strait of Hormuz.

Mr Malley says for Iran, despite its major losses, that will be a key takeaway.

“The one thing that the gift, if you will, that this war has offered Iran, which is they’ve discovered that if they want, they have this mastery of the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

“They always had it implicitly in a latent form. Now they have it physically, practically, and you don’t need that much to be able to discourage ships or discourage insurance companies from insuring anyone who wants to go through the strait without Iranian consent.”

April 6, 2026 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

What to Know About the ‘Massive’ Military Bunker Beneath Trump’s Ballroom

President Trump has been talking about the emergency facility beneath what was once the East Wing, details of which are usually kept secret, as he tries to justify his renovation.

By Luke Broadwater, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/02/us/politics/trump-ballroom-military-bunker.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20260403&instance_id=173568&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=60047519&segment_id=217713&user_id=432fc0d0ad6543e820e2dfcd39f76c35April 2, 2026

While most public attention has focused on the aboveground portion of President Trump’s planned $400 million ballroom, what is underneath could prove to be the more complex and expensive portion of the project.

Work crews have been digging in the earth for weeks, ripping out the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, or PEOC, to build something bigger, better and deeper underground.

The PEOC, which was built during World War II to protect the president and other top officials in the event of an emergency, was where Vice President Dick Cheney was hustled after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, later to be joined by President George W. Bush and his national security teams. Mr. Trump was rushed there, too, during protests over the death of George Floyd in 2020.

The bunker is beneath what was once the East Wing, which Mr. Trump tore down last year to make way for his ballroom.

Details of the underground facility are usually shrouded in secrecy. But as Mr. Trump’s ballroom faces legal challenges, he has been talking more openly about the bunker. He argues that the two are linked, which makes building the ballroom a matter of security.

Here is what we know about the PEOC.

A ‘Massive’ Military Complex

Speaking on Sunday to reporters on Air Force One, Mr. Trump said that he envisioned his 90,000-square-foot ballroom as a “shed” for the underground project.

“The military is building a massive complex under the ballroom, and that’s under construction, and we’re doing very well,” Mr. Trump said.


In Mr. Trump’s telling, the bunker will have bomb shelters and “very major medical facilities,” including a hospital. It will have the latest secure communication methods and defenses against bioweapons.

He said the ballroom would protect the underground facility from drones, bullets and other attacks. “It’s high-grade bulletproof glass. So all of the windows are bulletproof,” Mr. Trump said.

Last week, speaking about the ballroom project during a cabinet meeting, the president said that “the military wanted it more than anybody.”

Mr. Trump has said the security features make his project even more important — a point he made again this week after a judge halted the project, saying it required congressional approval.

“Unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!” wrote Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington, a George W. Bush appointee.

Mr. Trump ordered an appeal, but he pointed to a section of Judge Leon’s order that allowed “construction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House” to continue

“We have biodefense all over,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office this week. “We have secure telecommunications and communications all over. We have bomb shelters that we’re building. We have a hospital and very major medical facilities that we’re building. We have all of these things. So that’s called: I’m allowed to continue building.”

The Secret Service

The Secret Service has twice filed documents in court attesting to the necessity of finishing the ballroom project.

Matthew C. Quinn, deputy director of the Secret Service, wrote in December and again in January that any halt in the project could put lives in danger.

Mr. Quinn said that the agency was working with a contractor on security upgrades but that the underground work was not finished.

“Accordingly, any pause in construction, even temporarily, would leave the contractor’s obligation unfulfilled in this regard and consequently hamper the Secret Service’s ability to meet its statutory obligations and protective mission,” Mr. Quinn wrote.

He offered to brief the judge privately about the security upgrades underway. The Trump administration also filed some documents about the project under seal in federal court.

Judge Leon appeared to mostly reject those arguments.

“While I take seriously the government’s concerns regarding the safety and security of the White House grounds and the president himself, the existence of a ‘large hole’ beside the White House is, of course, a problem of the president’s own making!” he wrote.

Joshua Fisher, director for management and administration in the White House, told the National Capital Planning Commission in January that he could not share all the administration’s plans for the project.

“There are some things regarding this project that are, frankly, of top-secret nature that we are currently working on,” he said.

There are still many unanswered questions about the project, including which branch or branches of the military are involved, the costs of construction and maintenance, and many other details.

Asked about the underground portion of the project on Monday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokeswoman, was equally closemouthed.

“The military is making some upgrades to their facilities here at the White House, and I’m not privy to provide any more details on that,” she said.

Luke Broadwater covers the White House for The Times.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Chernobyl at 40: The World’s Worst Nuclear Power Accident and Where It Stands Now

Alice Marchuk, Jack Goras, and Aaron Larson, Wednesday, April 1, 2026

 At 1:23 a.m. local time on April 26, 1986, a sudden and
uncontrollable power surge destroyed Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power
Plant, located about 130 kilometers (km, 81 miles) north of Kyiv and just
20 km (12.5 miles) south of the Belarusian border. The explosion—followed
by fires that burned for 10 days—released up to 5% of the radioactive
reactor core into the atmosphere, scattering contamination across Belarus,
Ukraine, Russia, and much of Europe

. It remains the only accident in the
history of commercial nuclear power reactors where radiation-related
fatalities occurred, and its consequences—human, environmental,
political, and technical—continue to reverberate four decades later.

The 40th anniversary arrives at a moment when the Chernobyl site is anything
but a static memorial. Decommissioning of the plant’s three undamaged
reactors is underway. A massive dry spent fuel storage facility—the
largest of its kind in the world—is in the midst of a multi-year fuel
transfer campaign. And the New Safe Confinement (NSC, Figure 1), the
enormous arch-shaped structure that took more than a decade to design and
build, sustained significant damage from a drone strike in February 2025,
raising urgent questions about the long-term security of the site in a
country still at war.

 Power Magazine 1st April 2026, https://www.powermag.com/chernobyl-at-40-the-worlds-worst-nuclear-power-accident-and-where-it-stands-now/

April 6, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries