nuclear-news

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

Last Night’s “Blue Wave” Means Nothing If We Don’t Stop The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing, pay their CEOs a combined salary of almost $100 million a year. They are literally making a killing off the killing of others.

The Pentagon is requesting an unprecedented $58.5 billion this year for an artificial intelligence program.

a mechanism to funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of weapons manufacturers, who make the very weapons that murder men, women, and children and destroy the planet.

November 4, 2026, Melissa Garriga, https://scheerpost.com/2026/11/04/last-nights-blue-wave-means-nothing-if-we-dont-stop-the-ndaa/

As taxpayers, we are funding our own endgame, but we don’t have to.

Last night’s election results proved that a majority of people in this country do not want war and genocide. Polling overwhelmingly showed that the war on Iran was one of the biggest motivating factors in voting. So why are we about to give the very people voters rejected an unprecedented $1.5 trillion budget to continue their reign of death and destruction? Why are we going to allow Congress to hand over the largest war budget in human history to weapons manufacturers and AI tech billionaires who work at the behest of known war criminals?

In the next few weeks, Congress is set to pass what should be viewed as the deadliest piece of legislation of our time – the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – or the country’s defense budget, as it is more commonly known. Its potential passage is setting U.S. taxpayers up to be the funders of their own demise by giving carte blanche to a department of war criminals and their humanity-destroying tech-fascist friends with an obscene 1.5 trillion-dollar treasure chest to control, murder, oppress, and destroy the planet as we know it.

Sounds a bit hyperbolic? Not if you look at their past and what they are openly saying now, as a prologue.

To understand why this war budget is a catastrophic time bomb, you first have to understand what it actually funds. Under the guise of providing national “security” and protecting “democracy,” the annual Pentagon budget does little of both. Instead, the budget, which consistently fails its financial audits, is a mechanism to funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of weapons manufacturers, who make the very weapons that murder men, women, and children and destroy the planet. Well over half of the discretionary budget each year goes directly to private contractors.

Between 2020 and 2024, the Pentagon designated roughly $2.4 trillion out of $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending to private industry. But hey, at least those private companies are providing much-needed jobs for America’s workforce, right? Well, not so fast.

According to the Climate and Community Institute, employment at military contractors has plummeted over the past three decades: from an estimated 3.2 million workers during the Reagan military-spending peak in the mid-1980s to 1.1 million workers in 2020. The drop occurred even as Pentagon budgets rose 22 percent over the same period. Meanwhile, the industry’s top recipients of military contracts, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing, pay their CEOs a combined salary of almost $100 million a year. They are literally making a killing off the killing of others.

And now, not only are we draining our pocketbooks for weapon company CEOs, but we are also subsidizing tech-overlords whose recent main objective is to move jobs and agency away from the working class to robots, as well as use that very technology to mass-surveil those who oppose it. The Pentagon is requesting an unprecedented $58.5 billion this year for an artificial intelligence program. This program is already responsible for the February 28 Minab School massacre that murdered at least 156 schoolchildren and staff.

Even more frightening, the money for that deadly program is set to go to the most insane lineup of anti-worker villains, including Sam “bad things should happen to benefit AI” Altman; Peter “if you’re evil, you’re not bad” Thiel; and Elon “AI will make jobs irrelevant” Musk. They’re openly telling us they don’t need humans anymore. Meanwhile, they are building their bunkers so that when the United States military finally plunders away all the resources around the world, they can survive.

Why are we handing the military $1.5 trillion to do all this? As it stands, U.S. taxpayers are already paying $116.43 million every hour for war and terror. That’s more than $4,000 in weapons and war costs for the average taxpayer last year alone. Both figures will likely double, since the Trump administration’s request is Biden’s already bloated $1 trillion. Meanwhile, nearly 30% of people have to finance groceries, and 45,000 people will likely die because they lack health insurance or access to affordable healthcare.

If you were watching a summer Blockbuster and the main characters were handing over their hard-earned money and essentially their trust to the person you know is going to assassinate them in the final act, you would be screaming at the screen, “Don’t do it!”

But that is exactly what is happening right now, and in fact, many are screaming.

Polls consistently show that Americans are moving away from a war-centric approach to foreign affairs. Almost two-thirds of people in the United States disapprove of Trump’s war on Iran, and 60% disapprove of the U.S. supported genocide in Gaza. Similarly, 59% of voters believe the proposed $1.5 trillion Department of Defense budget is too high, and 3 in 5 voters (58%) prefer directing government funds toward domestic priorities like healthcare rather than military or war spending.

The voices are there, but most of those with the power to stop it aren’t listening or are too invested in the war-industrial complex to care. Which begs the question: How can we even call ourselves a democracy, much less its defender, when we, the people, seem to have no agency outside of voting and the majority’s demands are ignored?

This administration, as did previous ones, proudly ignores what the majority is begging for: an end to the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestine; an end to the war on Iran that was started for no reason and is currently sustained through the administration’s pompous arrogance; an end to ICE’s reign of terror across the United States; an end to the AI/data center boom that is chipping away at our humanity and livelihoods; and reinvestment into the things that will actually keep us safe, such as healthcare, housing, and climate justice.

Make no mistake, the 1.5 trillion dollars set to go to Pete Hegseth’s war department is not funding our security; it is funding our endgame and stealing from our lifelines. If passed, it will be nearly impossible to undo the damage that will come. We all must unite around this – healthcare workers, environmentalists, teachers, journalists, students, veterans- and make democracy actually work for the people before it’s too late. We have to let those we elected to work for us know that this is a red line that humanity cannot afford to cross.

History shows that public pressure can influence policies. Our collective voice can change this country’s trajectory – if we mobilize now. We don’t have to fund our endgame; we can say no. Join us in DC Nov. 10- 13 as we demand our country stop funding war and start funding life.

Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war.

November 7, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

The Iran war killed Trump’s Presidency: the Ukraine war will kill European mainstream governments

Europeans do not feel safer because of the war. They feel poorer.

Foreign policy starts and ends at home

Ian Proud

Donald Trump has just suffered a heavy defeat in the US midterms. Democrats have taken both houses. Some British media are calling it an earthquake. It was nothing of the sort. It was predictable from the moment the latest phase of the Iran war began in February.

Foreign policy starts and ends at home. Most citizens are completely uninterested in foreign policy until it directly hurts their interests. Trump has made Americans poorer and feel less safe. His foreign policy has come home to roost and it was always obvious that it would.

Trump faced a simple choice. Finish the Iran war early and look weak, or keep going and look incompetent. I’ve been saying it from the start. He chose the second option.

The Iranian state is still standing. Years of sanctions had already forced it to build a resistance economy. Its main response was to shut the Strait of Hormuz and, with the Houthis, disrupt the Bab al-Mandab and hit Saudi oil production. The result was a global economic shock that hit American gasoline prices and inflation across the board. Ordinary Americans could feel it in their wallets, and they saw no end in sight. Trump carried on talking about winning.

Most people barely think about foreign policy. They only notice it when it starts to hurt their prosperity or their sense of safety. This year, enough Americans made that connection to rout the Republican Party at the midterms. The Democrats campaigned mainly on the economy and that was enough.

Trump tried tariffs, sanctions, deals and threats. None of it fixed the basic problem created by the war. He is now a lame duck.

Foreign policy must serve a country’s core interests, or it fails. Those interests are always the same.

  • Is your border secure?
  • Are your people safe?
  • Is your country growing more prosperous?

Everything else is incidental. Values, feeling bad about Ukraine, in the final analysis, voters are uninterested.

Iran is thousands of miles from the United States. It does not threaten American territory. The idea that it poses an existential threat to ordinary Americans has never been credible. The war made Americans poorer. That is why it failed.

The same lesson applies in Europe. For nearly five years the mainstream parties have treated the war in Ukraine as a moral crusade that ordinary people must simply pay for. Most Europeans know little about Ukraine or Russia and care even less.

For a while governments managed consent with the daily carpet bombing of propaganda. That is now wearing thin.

Europeans do not feel safer because of the war. They feel poorer. Energy costs are high, industrial jobs are disappearing in Germany, debt is rising in Britain, and public services are strained in France.

When German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said she did not care what her voters thought and would put Ukrainians first, she epitomised where Europe has gone badly wrong; it lost sight of its core strategic interests.

Values and being kind to Ukraine aren’t core strategic interests.

The globalists got away for it for a few years but voters have now noticed.

Support across Western Europe is shifting toward parties that prioritise domestic priorities and interests. Germany has seen cost-of-living protests. France has protests over schools and services while money continues to flow to Ukraine. Britain has just sent another £10 billion to Ukraine while debt interest approaches £109 billion a year. Poland’s government is already nervous about the next elections and Tusk’s government tried to orchestrate a constitutional coup.

Ukraine is not a war of necessity for Britain, France, Germany or the rest of the EU. A war of necessity is one fought in self-defence when the country itself is attacked.

The Ukraine war is a war of choice.

The longer it continues without clear benefit to ordinary citizens, the harder it becomes to justify.

The European Commission, which faces no elections, makes the problem worse. National governments have handed key decisions to an unelected body in Brussels, then asked their own voters to pay the bill. That widens the democratic deficit.

Russia and China have handled their situations differently. Russians largely see the Ukraine war as a war of necessity. That makes political mobilisation easier, even though the human and economic costs are real.

Russia has also shielded its population from the worst economic effects better than Europe has. Unemployment is low, wages have risen, and the state has not faced the same fiscal strain. China has avoided major wars altogether. It has focused on long-term economic growth, industrial capacity and technological progress. It has not risked that progress to launch an invasion of Taiwan. China is playing the long game.

The difference is straightforward. Americans are getting poorer because of the Iran war. Europeans are getting poorer because of the Ukraine war (and the added pressure from the Iran war). Russians are not facing the same economic squeeze. Chinese leaders have so far refused to gamble their economic gains on war.

That is why the global centre of gravity continues to shift east.European mainstream parties now face a series of elections over the next three years. France, Poland, Germany and Britain are all on the calendar. Voters who link their falling living standards to foreign policy choices will punish the parties responsible just as American voters have punished Trump and the Republicans.

There is still time for mainstream parties in Europe to change course and put domestic conditions first. I see little sign that they will.

They are badly advised, reluctant to admit failure, and, in Europe’s case, structurally unable to coordinate a coherent strategy across 27 governments plus the Commission.

Wars are not won by committee (as I have pointed out countless times already).

Foreign policy always starts and ends at home. Trump has just learned that lesson the hard way. European leaders will learn the lesson next time their voters get to choose who they want in charge.

You can watch my monologue on this topic here:

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

NATO’s “Nordic model” brings Arctic confrontation closer to Russia’s nuclear bases

Western strategists envision a restructured NATO built around autonomous regional military clusters based on the “Nordic model”. From the Baltic Sea to the Arctic, the proposed model raises serious concerns about escalation control, nuclear deterrence, and European security.

Thursday, November 5, 2026, Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, https://infobrics.org/en/post/103458

As Washington shifts Europe’s conventional defense burden onto its allies, the Nordic countries are emerging as a blueprint for NATO’s future – raising questions about Arctic militarization, Russia’s nuclear deterrent, and regional escalation.

Last week, Finnish researcher Matti Pesu argued in Foreign Affairs that the Nordic countries offer a practical path forward for NATO. His proposal, typical as it is of many Western analyses, deserves some attention.

Finland and Sweden, the alliance’s newest members, have deepened defense coordination with Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. Joint air patrols, shared logistics, and intelligence sharing have reached unprecedented levels.

Pesu presents this “Nordic model” as a prototype for NATO 3.0: an alliance in which Europeans take primary responsibility for conventional defense while the United States retains nuclear deterrence and strategic leadership.

This is less about American “withdrawal” than burden-shifting: European states would supply more troops, equipment, infrastructure, and funding – while remaining under the American nuclear umbrella.

One could interpret this as the Europeanization of the costs and risks of “containing” Russia, without a corresponding Europeanization of strategic decision-making.

Pesu himself notes that Nordic military integration would advance the US National Security Strategy’s objective of maintaining favorable regional balances of power. The Nordic “cluster” thus serves wider American strategic goals.

The Arctic dimension carries particular weight: Pesu acknowledges that Finland allows American signals-intelligence aircraft to monitor the Kola Peninsula, where much of Russia’s sea-based nuclear deterrent is concentrated.

Finland’s accession has thus expanded the Alliance’s intelligence and operational access to areas central to Russia’s nuclear forces. From Moscow’s perspective, NATO surveillance and military infrastructure near the Kola Peninsula constitute a strategic threat.

I commented elsewhere on how the Gulf of Finland could become a flashpoint for new conflict between NATO and Moscow – following Finnish and Swedish accession. The same logic now extends into the High North.

Pesu further proposes that subregional “clusters” could act even if NATO itself is paralyzed: these groupings would offer a “hedge”, enabling frontline allies to respond together.

This raises questions about escalation control: if, say, Nordic, Baltic, or Black Sea clusters undertake coordinated operations independently, a confrontation might develop before the alliance as a whole has agreed on its political objectives. Larger members could then face pressure to support actions they never authorized.

Pesu outlines a strategy for organizing NATO’s entire frontier with Russia into interoperable military clusters: a Nordic-Arctic grouping in the northwest, a Baltic-Polish cluster in the center, and a Black Sea cluster in the southeast.


From a Russian strategic perspective, this could be perceived as the consolidation of a continuous NATO military frontier stretching from the Arctic to the Black Sea.

The danger is that it would institutionalize greater military integration along Russia’s western and northern periphery – while potentially allowing regional coalitions to act without NATO-wide political consensus.

Russia then would face not merely an enlarged NATO, but a network of interoperable clusters capable of coordinating airpower, missile systems, intelligence gathering, naval operations, and troop movements along multiple fronts.

A March 2026 SIPRI study explicitly warns that Nordic enlargement and new military capabilities could undermine crisis stability by bringing NATO’s precision-strike systems closer to Russian strategic assets.

Another SIPRI analysis identifies inadvertent escalation, including nuclear escalation, as a significant risk in Northern Europe. In a security dilemma, Moscow’s countermeasures could themselves provoke further NATO deployments, perpetuating an increasingly dangerous cycle.

The Greenland question exposes a deeper contradiction here: the September agreement between Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk basically expanded American military access – while (formally) recognizing Danish sovereignty.

Pesu treats this as an opportunity to restore cooperation. Yet Washington is simultaneously asking European allies to assume greater responsibility for their own security and asserting exceptional strategic interests in territories belonging to those allies.

The Nordic countries, it turns out, are being asked to strengthen their capacity to “deter Russia” while accommodating an American administration that has itself openly challenged the sovereignty of a NATO member.

In any case, the biggest omission in NATO 3.0 discussions such as this is any serious consideration of diplomacy. There is little attention to arms control, confidence-building measures, military-to-military communication, or negotiated regional security arrangements.

One may recall that Finland and Sweden were long associated with different forms of neutrality or military nonalignment. They are now being presented as models for a more deeply militarized NATO – and a more NATOized Europe, increasingly “encircling” Moscow.

The “Nordic model” is no longer simply “adapting” to NATO; NATO is actually being encouraged to adapt to the Nordic model.

This way, the Arctic itself is becoming integrated into the alliance’s broader confrontation framework. Moreover, conventional military operations in this region take place close to strategically important nuclear assets.

Consequently, the consequences of a miscalculation could be far greater than those of an ordinary regional conflict.

November 7, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, politics international | Leave a comment

Global stocks plunge as fears over US AI slowdown spread to Asia and Europe

BBC, Rachel Clun,, Osmond Chiaand, Nick Edser,Business reporters, 5 Nov 26

Global stock markets have tumbled after investors sold tech shares on fears that the US midterm elections would slow the development of artificial intelligence (AI).

The sell-off, which started in the US and then spread to Asia and Europe, has seen trillions of dollars wiped off the stock value of major tech firms.

In the US, the tech-heavy Nasdaq share index sank 5.5% on Thursday. Asian markets also saw hefty falls on Friday and European markets opened lower.

Investors are worried about tougher regulation of AI, after Democrat candidates opposed the data centres needed by the technology. The share falls also come on top of concerns about whether the huge amounts being spent on AI will pay off.

The sell-off in US stocks meant the so-called magnificent seven tech companies, including Apple, Nvidia and Tesla, shed a trillion dollars in value in a single trading day, with Nvidia shares sliding more than 9%.

Shares in Elon Musk’s companies SpaceX and Tesla also plunged, falling 8% and nearly 11% respectively and shaving more than $300bn off the firms’ market value.

Musk had spent nearly $450m backing Republican campaigns, including at least $45m in support of Ken Paxton for the Texas senate seat, but Texas turned blue in the Democratic tsunami on Tuesday.

The sharp fall in the Nasdaq meant it lost an estimated $2.5tn (£1.9tn) in market value. The index is now in what market watchers call correction territory, which is where an index or company value falls at least 10% below its recent high.

However, the huge gains seen by tech stocks in recent times – driven by the enthusiasm for AI – mean that even after Thursday’s fall, the Nasdaq is still higher than it was a year ago, and up about 4.6% from where it was at the start of this year.

The US sell-off spread into Asia on Friday. The Nikkei share index in Japan closed down 6% as shares in memory chip makers Kioxia and Tokyo Electron saw big falls.

In South Korea, the Kospi index plunged more than 8% at one point, triggering a so-called circuit breaker, a mechanism that temporarily halts trading to curb panic selling.

The Kospi eventually closed down 6%, with shares in chipmaker SK Hynix falling more than 10%.

European markets fell on Friday, although the declines were not as severe as the indexes contain fewer tech stocks. The UK’s FTSE 100 index fell nearly 2% while Germany’s Dax index was down 2.4%.

Dan Coatsworth, head of markets at AJ Bell, said investors were worried about the huge amounts of money being spent on AI with “no clear idea of when, or whether, there will be payback”.

“The midterm election result muddied the waters as the Democrats now have more influence and could slow down the pace of data centre roll-outs and look at new ways to regulate the sector,” he added.

“The AI story has all been about speed, and now there is a danger of it moving to a lower gear, and some of the wheels falling off.”

Pressure on data centres

Democrats in races across the US campaigned to slow the growth of data centres and AI, and there were dozens of measures on ballots around the country aimed at restricting the development of the hubs crucial for powering the technology.

They won both the US Senate and House of Representatives in the midterms, taking control of Congress for the rest of President Donald Trump’s presidency.

“Americans don’t want Big Tech oligarchs wrecking the environment, gutting jobs and threatening humanity’s future. NATIONAL DATA CENTER MORATORIUM NOW,” Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders said in a post on X on Thursday…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Some tech leaders have said they were caught off guard by the backlash against data centres in the midterms.

Some tech leaders have said they were caught off guard by the backlash against data centres in the midterms.

OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman said he believed everyone had been surprised by the reaction to data centres, and more work needed to be done to ensure communities were on board.

“A lot of our shift over the course of this year has really been to realise that from San Francisco trying to build infrastructure in Texas, Georgia, and other places, you can’t just tweet and say: ‘This is going to be good.’ You need to be in those communities,” Brockman said at the WSJ Tech conference in Napa, California.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmn04705rd8jo

November 7, 2026 Posted by | ASIA, business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Damaged Chernobyl nuclear site needs urgent funding, warns European development bank

Half a billion euros is required to fix the protective dome that was damaged by Russian attacks.

Politico, November 4, 2026 By Elena Giordano and Ben Makuch

BRUSSELS — The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development says it faces a €500 million shortfall for emergency repairs to the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine.

It warned that international funding is needed to avert a potential environmental disaster after damage from Russian attacks.

The EBRD is seeking the money to restore the giant steel structure built over the remains of Reactor 4, which exploded in 1986. Damaged by a Russian drone strike in February 2025, the structure — known as the New Safe Confinement — protects the reactor’s remains and allows radioactive material to be managed safely.

“It’s not a Ukrainian problem,” EBRD President Odile Renaud-Basso told POLITICO in an interview. “Everybody should feel concerned about nuclear safety globally.”

The EBRD is joint-owned by the European Union, the European Investment Bank and 77 other countries, including the U.S., China and Russia. It was originally set up to fund development in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and is a major funder of nuclear safety.

While there is no immediate danger from Chernobyl, Renaud-Basso said the damage needs to be fixed before 2030. Without repairs, moisture could cause corrosion to the infrastructure beneath the protective arch, eventually making it much more difficult and expensive to manage the radioactive material.

She argued the repairs should not be seen as competing with other urgent demands for support to Ukraine, which is already struggling to repair energy infrastructure damaged by Russia’s invasion. Instead, governments should see it as an investment in international nuclear safety, with consequences extending beyond Ukraine’s borders.

“It’s very much also a question of trust,” she said. “When you see so many countries investing also in nuclear, you need to have the trust that when things happen, if things happen, there is a capacity to deal with them.”

The argument comes as a growing number of European countries consider nuclear energy as part of their future energy mix. Renaud-Basso said the need to maintain strong safety standards and demonstrate that the international community can respond to nuclear accidents remains essential.

………………………………A conference in Paris on Nov. 9, co-chaired by France, Ukraine and the EBRD, is intended to build momentum for further pledges. But securing the remaining money will take time.

…………………………The bank wants to have the necessary funding in place to award contracts and begin the main restoration work in 2028, as it estimates that the work itself will take around two years.

………….Looking beyond the G7

The EBRD is now hoping to broaden the group of contributors. Renaud-Basso pointed to European countries that have supported previous Chernobyl projects and G7 members that have yet to make contributions, as well as countries in the Gulf and elsewhere.

During the previous international fundraising effort to build the New Safe Confinement, around 46 countries contributed, she said.

Renaud-Basso said the bank remained optimistic that the international community would eventually find the money, but stressed that the issue could not be left unresolved………………….. https://www.politico.eu/article/damage-chernobyl-nuclear-site-urgent-funding-european-development-bank/

November 7, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

UK’s nukes don’t seem to be serving as a deterrent

If all that war chat is true, that extravagant nuclear arsenal of ours doesn’t seem to be
doing its job. For decade upon decade, we have been assured the billions
being ploughed into it were to ensure it would never have to be used, that
it was the ultimate deterrent. Streeting’s pleas to buy a clockwork radio
appear to demonstrate the Defence Secretary doesn’t believe that himself.
Who knows? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent.

The National 4th Nov 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/26696492.uks-nukes-dont-seem-serving-deterrent/

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

Funding available for new nuclear industry teachers and trainers in Lancaster

By Debbie Butler, 4th Nov 2026

“………………..The Nuclear Teacher Training Bursary – worth a total of £75,000 in year one as part of the Nuclear Skills Plan – will fund up to 10 teacher trainees per year, providing up to £7,500 per person.

Applicants eligible for the bursary include existing nuclear sector employees considering their future career options as they approach retirement, entry-level candidates with nuclear or STEM qualifications, and qualified teachers/trainers upskilling to teach nuclear-related subjects.

The scheme is being delivered by employer-led charity Cogent Skills, on behalf of the Nuclear Skills Plan, and is focused on reducing the financial barrier to entering or developing nuclear teaching and training whilst enabling industry expertise to help develop the future nuclear workforce.
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/national/funding-available-for-new-nuclear-industry-teachers-and-trainers-in-lancaster-9329793

November 7, 2026 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

Opposition to Workington receiving nuclear wastewater from Japan.

3/11/26, Ollie Rawlinson, North East and Cumbria, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6y4x5z32p8no

Plans to clean up coolant from a Japanese nuclear reactor have been opposed by more than 900 people, a campaigning group has said.

Cavendish Nuclear and Amentum want to build a facility at the Port of Workington, Cumbria, to support the decommissioning of the Monju Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR), in Fukui Prefecture, Japan.

Marianne Birkby, of Radiation Free Lakeland, said the scheme was “dangerous” and its online petition, calling for the waste to stay in Japan, had been signed by hundreds of people.

Alkali Metal Processing (AMP), the company behind the project, said it wanted the work to take place in the county because of its specialist expertise.

Cumberland Council, which owns the port, said it would use £4.5m of Town Deal funding to prepare land at the port and neighbouring Oldside for wider development.

The plan involves bringing the coolant to Workington where it would be converted into sodium hydroxide, also known as caustic soda, which is used in cleaning products and manufacturing.

AMP, a joint venture between Cavendish Nuclear and Amentum said the work was being undertaken in the UK because of the “specialist technical expertise across our respective organisations”.

Birkby said: “Why bring this waste over here? It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and it’s very dangerous.”

Cavendish Nuclear had previously said the material presents no radiological hazards.

Japan’s Atomic Energy Agency said sodium from one of Monju’s cooling circuits became radioactive, although at very low levels, while sodium from another circuit did not.

Sodium metal is also highly reactive, particularly when it comes into contact with water.

AMP said transport arrangements and radiological safety were being developed in accordance with UK regulatory requirements, with appropriate controls and oversight in Japan.

It did not provide transport details or radiological test results.

AMP said construction of the facility was expected to be worth more than £25m, with about 20 people employed during its seven-year operation.

The council said the project would be subject to relevant planning and regulatory approvals.

Exports of sodium from Japan have been planned for between 2028 and 2031 but AMP said the facility’s operating start date had not been confirmed.

November 7, 2026 Posted by | Japan, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Belgian nuclear power plant negotiations extended

WNN 5 November 2026

The Belgian state, Engie and Electrabel have agreed to postpone to 12 December the target date for the conclusion of the heads of terms for the potential acquisition of Belgium’s seven nuclear power reactors by the state…….

The two sides had aimed to conclude the heads of terms by 1 October. However, they subsequently agreed to postpone to 4 November the target date “to allow the parties to finalise their ongoing analyses and discussions”.

……..significant differences remain, particularly regarding the valuation of the transaction, and the parties wish to take the necessary time to try to reconcile their positions……..
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/belgian-nuclear-power-plant-negotiations-extended

November 7, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Ontario awards 14 contracts to companies building Darlington small modular reactors

FREQUENCY News, Abdul Basit Karokhel –, Wesal TV, Whitby,,Ontario, November 6, 2026

Wesal TV (Scarborough, Ont.):  The Ontario government has awarded 14 contracts to companies across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area to supply equipment and materials for the construction of the first small modular reactor in the G7.

Ontario Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce announced the contracts at a news conference in Scarborough on Friday, saying the work will create jobs and support Ontario manufacturers.

The contracts are expected to add more than $110 million to Ontario’s gross domestic product and create good-paying jobs in the region, while supporting hundreds of additional jobs.

The companies will supply important parts for the project, including transformers, pumps and specialized steel.

“By being first in the G7 to build small modular reactors, Ontario is securing a first-mover advantage that translates into real contracts and good-paying jobs,” Lecce said………………………….

The Darlington new nuclear project is being built at the Darlington nuclear generating station in Clarington, in Durham Region.

The project includes plans for four small modular reactors. The first reactor is expected to cost about $7.7 billion, including shared infrastructure. The total cost of all four units is estimated at $20.9 billion.………………………………………….

The federal government has committed up to $2 billion towards the project, while Ontario has committed up to $1 billion. Seven First Nations covered by the Williams Treaties have also announced a $700-million investment. https://www.frequencynews.ca/news/ontario-awards-14-contracts-to-companies-building-darlington-small-modular-reactors/

November 7, 2026 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

AUKUS: “The worst, riskiest, most costly decision ever”

4 Nov 2026 Burning Archive. Weekly Audio Essays

“We concluded that AUKUS is the worst, riskiest and most costly defence decision ever made by an Australian government.” – Public Inquiry into AUKUS (4 November 2026) Initiated and then backed up by two Australian Prime Ministers,

AUKUS is a world-class dumb and dumber decision. Jeff Rich takes you through the Report of the Public Inquiry into AUKUS, “Surrendering Australia – The AUKUS Deception.” Chaired by Peter Garrett and including a former Australian Chief of Defence Forces this report is a wake-up call to all Australians and the the world – change your relationship with the USA, or you will be taken for a ride in a dud nuclear sub. The AUKUS Public Inquiry Commissioners were: Karina Lester, Carmen Lawrence, Peter Garrett, Leanne Minshull, Chris Barrie.

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

Former defence chief urges rethink of Australia’s relationship with China

Rob Harris November 4, 2026, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/too-risky-too-costly-aukus-should-be-scrapped-finds-peter-garrett-led-inquiry-20261104-p61bbt.html

Australia must rethink its relationship with China rather than blindly follow the United States into a disastrous military confrontation, former defence force chief Chris Barrie has warned as part of a review demanding the federal government overhaul its signature security strategy.

The retired admiral delivered the warning at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday as he joined former Labor minister Peter Garrett to launch a scathing report calling for the immediate cancellation of the $368 billion AUKUS nuclear submarine pact, arguing it threatens Australian sovereignty and risks dragging the nation into a war with China.

The inquiry calls for the nuclear submarine program to be scrapped, a royal commission into AUKUS, the suspension of US submarine operations near Perth and a fundamental overhaul of Australia’s defence strategy and relationships with Washington and Beijing.

“Whatever way you want to look at the future in this region, by 2050, China will be the world’s largest power, the world’s greatest power,” Barrie said. “I don’t see any evidence of global aspirations and global dominance aspirations that we’ve seen out of the United States. And that’s why I worry about the contest between the United States and China.”

Barrie, who led the Australian Defence Force from 1998 to 2002, said Australia needed to better its relationship with Beijing and invest far more heavily in diplomacy rather than allowing its strategic priorities to be dictated by Washington.

Barrie, who recalled travelling through China with the head of the People’s Liberation Army during his time as defence chief, said Australia needed a more sophisticated understanding of Beijing’s strategic ambitions.

The retired admiral said Australia’s tendency to lecture Beijing publicly had damaged relations, and warned against viewing China’s rise solely through the prism of American strategic competition.

“I think we need to recalibrate the way we deal with China,” he said, suggesting Australia’s embassy in Beijing should become its second-largest diplomatic mission, if not the largest.

His intervention came as a union and community-backed public inquiry accused successive Coalition and Labor governments of committing generations of taxpayers to an extraordinarily expensive defence program without adequately examining its costs, feasibility or consequences for Australia’s independence.

The report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception, concluded the submarine acquisition program was unlikely to deliver on its promises and could leave the Australian Navy without an effective submarine fleet. It labelled the program the “worst, riskiest and most costly” defence decision made by an Australian government.

The inquiry’s findings challenge the bipartisan consensus behind AUKUS, which the Albanese government maintains is essential to Australia’s long-term defence capability and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.

Garrett, the Midnight Oil frontman, lashed the absence of meaningful debate within his own party over AUKUS, saying the evidence presented to commissioners had reinforced his original concerns about the deal.

“My major objection to AUKUS in the first instance was that there was no debate,” Garrett said.

“Where was the vigorous debate in the caucus? Where was the vigorous debate in the cabinet? We don’t have any sense that there’s been a debate.”

Garrett said the enormous cost, the failure to account for the safe storage of radioactive waste and the terms of the agreement had convinced him the program was fundamentally flawed.

“Your conclusion after looking at it and hearing from expert advice is that it is a complete absolute crock.”

The report, which backs longstanding criticisms from former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, calls for a comprehensive national security strategy and accuses both major parties of surrendering critical defence decisions to foreign powers.

Among the 17 recommendations, the inquiry recommended urgently developing a cheaper alternative to replace the ageing Collins-class fleet, while reviewing the separate AUKUS agreement on advanced defence technologies. It also calls for an Australian National Audit Office investigation into its costs.

Work on the AUKUS submarine construction facilities at Adelaide’s Osborne naval precinct should halt, while Australian submariners should stop being seconded to American vessels, the report argues.

The report also warns that the US and Britain could walk away from the agreement without delivering the promised submarines while retaining billions of dollars for their shipbuilding industries.

It also questions whether the delivery timetable is achievable and warns that attempting to operate three different classes of submarines could place intolerable pressure on Defence personnel and resources. Australia is scheduled to receive its first US-built Virginia-class nuclear submarine in 2032, with a subsequent boat arriving every four years until the sovereign fleet is operational. The first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS vessel is slated to enter service in 2042.

The public inquiry, convened by the Australian Peace and Security Forum, received more than 1000 written submissions and heard evidence over 10 days across eight cities, with its organisers raising $220,000 to fund the exercise.

A government spokesperson brushed off the inquiry, noting AUKUS had already faced extensive parliamentary scrutiny and remained vital in tackling the nation’s toughest strategic challenges since World War II.

Defending the project’s multi-billion-dollar cost, the spokesperson said the partnership was designed to bolster the Australian Defence Force’s strike power.

“We need to support the development of an ADF with a much greater capacity to project so we can defend Australia and contribute to regional security and stability,” they said.

111111The government also said the pact would create roughly 20,000 direct jobs across industry, defence, and the public sector over the next three decades.

November 6, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

‘Deeply Alarming’: Hours Before Midterm Elections, Trump Bombs Iran’s Qeshm Island

“There is still a chance to prevent another catastrophe, but that window may be closing. We cannot afford to let this war escalate further.”

Jake Johnson, Nov 03, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-bombs-iran-before-midterms

The Trump administration launched a new bombing attack on Iranian territory Monday night, striking Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz on the eve of the US midterms amid mounting fears of a massive post-election assault.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report the strikes, which a US official characterized as a “defensive measure” in response to Iran’s use of surface-to-air missiles against American forces that have been waging an illegal war of aggression against Iran since February. The Journal noted that “in one instance on Monday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired a surface-to-air missile at a US jet fighter, which fired back in self-defense.”

The US military did not publicly announce the attack on Qeshm Island, which came hours before American voters were set to head to the polls to decide whether President Donald Trump’s party should remain in control of Congress. The Journal reported that the Trump administration has “purposefully” been keeping its recent campaign of smaller-scale strikes on Iran quiet “so as not to signal any intention of resuming major combat operations.”

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said Tuesday that “Iran is prepared for any scenario” and stressed that the country “retains its right to legitimate self-defense until the military aggression has been brought to a complete and permanent end.”

Last month, Trump vowed—falsely, given Monday’s strikes—that the US would “not be attacking Iran at any time prior” to the midterms and that the two sides were engaged in “productive discussions.”

Vice President JD Vance asserted Monday that he and Trump “both feel really good about the prospect of potentially coming to a negotiated settlement” to end the massively unpopular and destructive war with Iran.

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said late Monday that “after eight months of an illegal war, there was finally some hope that a diplomatic agreement might be within reach and this war could end through negotiations rather than spiral into the violent scenarios being threatened after the midterm elections.”

“But these deeply alarming revelations suggest we may be heading in precisely the opposite direction,” Abdi said of the Qeshm Island strikes and other recent attacks on Iran. “Every day that Congress fails to intervene is another day this administration is allowed to wage an unauthorized war, conceal its military operations, and gamble with millions of lives. Congress must immediately demand answers, oppose further military action, and use its power to cut off funding for this unauthorized war. Americans must raise their voices and demand that their representatives act now. There is still a chance to prevent another catastrophe, but that window may be closing. We cannot afford to let this war escalate further.”

The latest US strikes came days after Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) warned that the Trump administration was considering an “insane” plan to resume major attacks on Iran following Tuesday’s midterm elections.

If the plan is carried out, Murphy said, “it will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law.”

Murphy, whose remarks were based on information he and other lawmakers received during a classified briefing, did not specifically warn that Trump is considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. But concerns about such a grave escalation grew over the weekend after far-right commentator Tucker Carlson—who has vocally criticized the president’s decision to wage war against Iran—claimed that the Trump administration “may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran.”

“Whether these allegations reflect serious military planning or reckless posturing, the very possibility of a US nuclear attack on Iran is an unconscionable horror,” NIAC said in response.

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

‘UKRAINE’S DEFENCE IS OUR DEFENCE’ – NO, IT REALLY ISN’T

What is their evidence for saying that Russia threatens all democracies? Well, they don’t actually offer any, they simply take it is read, as a self-evident truth. But it isn’t..

any decision on an escalatory response would be ours.

Nato and/or the West, whichever you prefer, is supplying Ukrainians – geographically peripheral Europeans – with the wherewithal to fight and die for the cause of democracy in “our” Europe. This seems even to me, as a hard-bitten foreign policy realist, distasteful cynicism. How is that desirable. How is that morally right?

a devastated Ukraine will be at once a creature and a protectorate of the Europeans – at vast expense to European exchequers.

A contribution to the national and international debate we were promised, but haven’t had

Mary Dejevsky, Mary’s Substack, Oct 26, 202622

Mary’s Substack, Oct 26, 20262

If there is one line that riles me more than most in a war that has been replete with seductive soundbites, it is that “Ukraine’s defence is our defence”. Beloved by European and British politicians, this assertion rarely draws any public challenge, and my own dissent has so far been limited to a feeble ‘No it isn’t’ on social media. Recently, though, a trio of security luminaries has set out to explain why they think Ukraine’s defence is indeed our defence or, as put less pithily in their title, why they believe that “in helping Ukraine we are protecting ourselves”.

The three are Dr Greg Mills and Dr Karin von Hippel, both fellows at the London think-tank, the Royal United Services Institute, and Raimundo Robredo, described as a guest contributor. You can find their contribution – https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/helping-ukraine-we-protect-ourselves – on the RUSI website, where, in common with all outside contributions, it carries a disclaimer to the effect that its publication here does not imply RUSI’s endorsement.

Mills et al, as I will refer to them from now on, couch their argument as a two-part answer to what they concede is a fair question being asked by Western governments and people alike: why should they keep sending billions of dollars to Ukraine; .what’s in it for us? They also invite a debate. So here is my opportunity.

Mills et al make their case in two parts. In the first, they argue that Russia poses a threat “to all democracies” and “not just to its immediate neighbours”. Hence everyone should pile in to support Ukraine and pre-empt this threat. In the second, they argue that what is also in it for us is the example that Ukraine has set, both in the military advancements it has pioneered and the strength of Ukrainians’ resilience, but also in the way they have stood up for moral values. This moral resistance cannot be allowed to fail, or we are all doomed.

Let’s look at the first argument more closely. What is their evidence for saying that Russia threatens all democracies? Well, they don’t actually offer any, they simply take it is read, as a self-evident truth. But it isn’t.

If they had tried to support it, I submit that their arguments might have included first, that Russia invaded democratic Georgia in 2008 (it didn’t; as found by an EU commissioned investigation, led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi Tagliavini, which said Russia had responded to actions by the mercurial Georgian leader, Mikheil Saakashvili. And, second, that Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its 2022 invasion of Ukraine originated in the fear that the example of a thriving democracy next door might foment unrest in Russia. I don’t buy that argument either.

Russia lived peacefully alongside independent Ukraine through the 2004-5 Orange revolution and pursued normal relations with Ukraine after the election of a fiercely pro-Western President, Viktor Yushchenko. The difference between the Orange Revolution and Russia’s interventions in 2014 (the annexation of Crimea) and 2022 was not democracy, but Ukraine’s decision to abandon its constitutional neutrality and aim for membership of Nato. Insecurity, not democracy, was the trigger.

Then how about the specific charge that Russia threatens “all democracies”, not just its immediate neighbours…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

any decision on an escalatory response would be ours. And we could choose to stop baiting Russia, cease our own low-level, sub-kinetic, attacks, and keep out of – or withdraw from – what began in 2014 as a Ukrainian civil war, grew into a limited bilateral Ukraine-Russia conflict when Russia intervened in 2014 on behalf of the anti-Kyiv rebels, and threatened a wider war only when the US and Europeans weighed in on Ukraine’s side with ever more money, intelligence and powerful weapons.

It is not as though such an outcome was not envisaged. In 2014, then US President Barack Obama declined to supply lethal military aid to Ukraine for fear of just such an escalation. He understood that Ukraine was a “core national interest” for Russia, but not for the US, which should not go down a path that could lead to a US-Russia war.

The irony now is that, despite Ukraine not being a member of Nato, and despite its Nato aspirations having been placed on the back-burner at the 2008 Bucharest summit, thanks to the opposition of several allies, Ukraine is now the only country, ever, to be benefiting from military protection equivalent to Nato’s famed Article 5. This is a position, what is more, that Nato has meandered into without any of the consultation stipulated in the actual Article 5.

…………………………………………………………………………………….. What is happening is that, by giving Ukraine de facto Nato protection, we have not only assumed responsibility for Ukraine’s defence, but jeopardised our own by importing Ukraine’s insecurity. By supporting Ukraine militarily, we have eliminated what had been a buffer zone, and replaced it with a zone of potentially long-term instability on our eastern flank.

………………………………………In defending Ukraine, we are not protecting ourselves, far from it. We are exposing ourselves to a Russia threat that we have helped to bring into being by challenging what Obama understood was a core Russian interest.

If the first part of the case presented by Mills et al for Ukraine’s defence being our defence can at very least be contested, their second part, to me, makes even less sense, except in a world that does not, and has never, existed. Defending Ukraine is to defend ourselves because – to cut a long explanation short – Ukraine presents a superior form of warriors and war and one that we need to learn from.

At the practical level, Ukraine’s defence, they argue, is our defence, because we will benefit from the strides it has made in developing military equipment and tactics. These include its nimble approach to innovation, as well as its drones and all that.

Well, maybe. But, as a few sceptics are already noting – e.g. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-menace-of-misunderstanding-learning-the-wrong-lessons-from-ukraines-drone-saturated-battlefields/ – the applicability for Europeans of this Ukrainian model can be exaggerated. As in the past, our generals risk being seduced into fighting the last war. You might add that if European defence needs anything, it is less nimble entrepreneurialism than more cohesion and consolidation. Nor should it be neglected how quickly and effectively Russia has caught up both in drone technology and in satellite communications. Maybe the example we need to learn from is Russia’s?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Is it, to start close to home, really in the UK’s national interest to be spending so much on defending Ukraine? However much this and previous governments have tried to muddy the waters of spending on Ukraine, it cannot but eat into the resources that we might need to defend ourselves, or our actual allies, or even sustain living standards at home?

………….. the UK and the Europeans together simply do not possess either the moral or material clout that would be needed to recover Ukraine’s lost territory from Russia. In that respect, Ukraine’s defence cannot be our defence, because it is beyond our means, with or without taking account of the national interest.

Given this reality, our obligation should be to work with Ukraine to secure the best terms it can possibly get to end the war.

…………………………. Nato and/or the West, whichever you prefer, is supplying Ukrainians – geographically peripheral Europeans – with the wherewithal to fight and die for the cause of democracy in “our” Europe. This seems even to me, as a hard-bitten foreign policy realist, distasteful cynicism. How is that desirable. How is that morally right?

…………………………………………………………. a devastated Ukraine will be at once a creature and a protectorate of the Europeans – at vast expense to European exchequers.

……………………not a good return on all that we have invested in Ukraine’s defence so far, and seem intent on continuing “for as long as it takes”. https://marydejevsky.substack.com/p/ukraines-defence-is-our-defence-no2222222222222

November 6, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Inquiry urges Australian gov’t to terminate AUKUS pact.

Source: Xinhua, Editor: huaxia, 2026-11-04, https://english.news.cn/20261104/e47195ed31584f15a2214df618abf5c9/c.html

CANBERRA, Nov. 4 (Xinhua) — An independent inquiry has called for the Australian government to immediately terminate the AUKUS treaty, describing the pact as the riskiest defense decision in national history.

Former government minister Peter Garrett and former Australian Defense Force chief Chris Barrie, two of the five commissioners conducting the public inquiry into AUKUS, presented the final report at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra on Wednesday, concluding that the landmark security pact does not serve Australia well and should be scrapped.

After receiving more than 1,000 submissions and conducting 10 days of public hearings around the country, the final report said that the inquiry did not uncover any “convincing foundations” for AUKUS.

“We concluded that AUKUS is the worst, riskiest and most costly defense decision ever made by an Australian government,” the report said.

“AUKUS jeopardizes our sovereignty, further entangles us with U.S. war planning and actually endangers our security.”


The report made 16 recommendations, including that Australia immediately terminate pillar one of the AUKUS deal, under which Australia would acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines in the 2030s and 2040s, due to current delivery schedules “most likely” being unachievable.

Additionally, it said that plans for a U.S. naval base near Perth in Western Australia should be suspended until “critical questions” regarding nuclear security and health and environmental safety for the local population are fully examined.


The independent inquiry was established after successive federal governments ruled out holding a major public review of the pact.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters on Tuesday after meeting with British counterpart Andy Burnham in the Caribbean that work on AUKUS is progressing very well.■

November 6, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries