The global nuclear lobby’s current favourite lie is the one about climate change. (they rotate their lies – the next big push will probably be about how “low dose ionising radiation is good for you”
The last thing that we need is to direct money and energy to the nuclear industry, and away from renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Hillary Clinton ‘Inclined To’ Cancel Nuclear Cruise Missile, Aviation Week Sep 30, 2016 by Lara Seligman in Ares As the Pentagon moves ahead with a trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton seems to be breaking with the Obama administration’s posture, signaling she might cancel a planned replacement of the legacy nuclear-tipped cruise missile.
This has drawn attention to South Africa’s status as a global model for renewable energy, and raises new question about why the country is pursuing nuclear when renewables look so promising.
South Africa has the fastest growing green economy in the world, according to credit rating agency Moody’s.
“South Africa was the continent’s largest renewables market in 2015 in terms of asset finance for utility-scale projects and it saw the highest year-on-year growth globally,” said Christopher Bredholt, a Moody’s vice president, in a Sept. 16 report. Asset finance is usually used by businesses to lease equipment without having to buy it outright, according to Finance & Leasing Association.
South Africa had the highest growth globally for asset finance in 2015 at 300 percent, representing $4.5 billion, according to Moody’s.
South Africa: Nuclear Plan On Ice As Eskom May Take Ownership AllAfrica.com 30 Sept 16 Early indications are that Eskom may ultimately be responsible for the management and implementation of South Africa’s nuclear plan and not the Department of Energy as had originally been planned.
At the same time the much anticipated request for proposal for the nuclear plan won’t be issued on Friday as mooted by Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson earlier this month.
Jeff Radebe, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning and Monitoring, reiterated at a cabinet briefing on Thursday that more consultations need to take place before a request for proposal (RFP) can be issued on 30 September 2016.
Joemat-Pettersson issued a statement a few hours after Radebe’s briefing, confirming this………..
At the time of the previous cabinet meeting on the issue of nuclear in December 2015, nuclear was going to be led by Energy,” Radebe said during question time on Thursday.
“But recently there are references made to Eskom. That’s why I’m talking about issues of consultation. Those types of consultations must unfold before the RFP is issued. The instituting authority must be clearly defined.”
State-owned nuclear firm Necsa could also play a bigger role in the process. “Necsa has had discussions with government officials and Eskom – and there are clear indications that Necsa will play a major role as the primary nuclear centre of the country,” Necsa chair Kelvin Kemm told Fin24 on Thursday.
Asked during question time if he meant that Eskom instead of the DoE would be driving South Africa’s nuclear build programme, Radebe responded, saying when cabinet previously deliberated on the nuclear process in December 2015, the decision was that the Department of Energy would be driving the process. “If there is a change it will have to come back to cabinet for deliberation,” he said.
Radebe also repeated that the RFP would not be issued on Friday, despite previous assertions by Joemat-
Pettersson that the RFP was due for Friday. “There was no contradiction,” Radebe said with reference to Pandor’s statement on Tuesday.
“My understanding is that what minister Pandor was saying, due to the processes of consultation [and the fact that] processes had not completed, the RFP will only be issued after all those issues of consultation have been concluded and being brought back to cabinet. So I do not envisage that tomorrow on the 30 of September the RFP will be issued by the Department of Energy,” Radebe said.Source: Fin24 http://allafrica.com/stories/201609300935.html
It’s time to cut America’s nuclear arsenal http://thebulletin.org/it%E2%80%99s-time-cut-america%E2%80%99s-nuclear-arsenal9942 Daryl G. KimballKingston Reif, 30 Sep 16, As he enters his final months in office, President Obama is still evaluating options to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in US strategy. His final decisions are expected before the end of October.
In a recent article in the Bulletin, we argued that the president should declare that the United States would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. In addition, he should direct a reduction in the size of the US nuclear arsenal. Not only could America make significant cuts to its nuclear forces without harming its security, but doing so would get the president closer to a major unmet goal while simultaneously freeing up federal money that could be much better used on other military priorities.
The United States could cut the size of its strategic nuclear forces on the basis of its own defense requirements alone. In 2013, a Pentagon reviewdetermined that America’s deployed strategic nuclear force is one-third larger than necessary to deter a nuclear attack. The president could direct the Pentagon to reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads from roughly 1,500 today to 1,000 within five years. He could also—and should—order the retirement and dismantling of a significant portion of our non-deployed “hedge” arsenal, estimated to be about 2,600 warheads. A thousand deployed warheads would still provide more than enough nuclear firepower to deter any current or potential nuclear adversary. Just one of our nuclear-armed submarines could devastate an entire country and kill millions. And if an enemy isn’t deterred by 1,000 deployed nuclear weapons, what logic presumes 1,500 would make a difference?
By cutting America’s excessive nuclear firepower, the president would also advance one of his key nuclear policy objectives. In his 2010 “Nuclear Posture Review Report,” Obama pledged that his administration would reduce the number, role, and salience of nuclear weapons in US defense strategy. He also called for maintaining and modernizing America’s remaining nuclear forces on a smaller triad of delivery systems.
Things have not gone as planned. In fact, not only has the reduction process stalled but the cost of sustaining our nuclear forces has skyrocketed.
The president’s posture review set the stage for the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which established modestly lower limits for US and Russian deployed strategic arsenals (1,550 deployed strategic warheads each) and mandated a far-reaching verification regime. A follow-on study conducted by the US government in 2013 determined that future deterrence requirements could be met with one-third fewer deployed strategic nuclear forces.
Yet Obama did not immediately reduce the size of America’s nuclear force, despite the follow-on study’s conclusion that deterrence could be achieved by even a unilateral reduction. Instead, in a June 2013 speech in Berlin, he invited Russia to negotiate a further one-third reduction of each country’s strategic nuclear arms.
Russian leaders have rebuffed the offer for more than three years now, saying that they want to address other issues as well, such as the nuclear forces of other nations, America’s increasingly accurate conventional weapons, and missile defenses deployed in Europe, which Moscow believes could undercut its own nuclear retaliatory potential and disrupt strategic stability between itself and its old Cold War adversary.
As a result, US and Russian forces still far exceed deterrence requirements and many weapons deployed by both sides remain in “launch-under-attack” mode—ready to be fired within minutes of an order to do so. If used even in a “limited” way, the result would be a global humanitarian catastrophe.
Leading from ahead. Obama should not give Russian President Putin a veto over cuts of unnecessary and expensive US strategic nuclear weapons. Nor should he give Putin an easy excuse to maintain a similarly bloated arsenal of deployed strategic warheads aimed at the United States.
Now is the time to announce that the United States will reduce its strategic nuclear force to 1,000 (or fewer) strategic deployed warheads, invite Russia to do the same, and propose that the two sides agree to resume formal talks to regulate all types of strategic offensive and defensive weapons systems (nuclear and nonnuclear) that could affect strategic stability. Such a strategy could prompt Russia to rethink its expensive nuclear weapons modernization projects and possibly build-down its strategic nuclear arsenal.
In addition, more-rapid reductions of US and Russian nuclear forces, which comprise 95 percent of global stockpiles, would increase pressure on China and other nuclear-armed states to join the nuclear disarmament enterprise, an objective that leaders in Russia and the United States say they support.
Even if Russia is reluctant to immediately join the United States in reducing to 1,000 warheads, an American reduction would put Russia on the defensive and force Moscow to explain to a critical international community why it needs to maintain a larger deployed nuclear arsenal than the United States.
Such a move would not be unprecedented. Twenty-five years ago this week, George H.W. Bush announced a bold “Presidential Nuclear Initiative” as the Soviet Union began to break apart. It would unilaterally eliminate the US arsenal of land-based tactical nuclear weapons, withdraw tactical nukes from ships and submarines, and terminate certain nuclear weapons programs, including the development of the mobile Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile.
A decade later, George W. Bush decided to unilaterally slash the size of the total US nuclear warhead stockpile (including those already deployed) in order to align American nuclear posture with changing national security needs. The cuts to the deployed force were later codified in a short bilateral treaty with Moscow known as the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. But as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeldtold the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2002: “We would have made these cuts regardless of what Russia did with its arsenal.”
Indeed, reductions to the US nuclear arsenal—which since the end of the Cold War has declined from about 22,000 warheads to roughly 4,600 as of September 30, 2015—have largely been the result of independent presidential discretion. While there isrough parity in the total size of each country’s total nuclear stockpile, the United States currently possesses hundreds more strategic nuclear delivery systems and warheads than does Russia, while Moscow maintains hundreds more non-strategic (or tactical) nuclear warheads than Washington.
Value for money. It is certainly true that Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine and irresponsible saber-rattling pose a challenge to European security. But every dollar Washington spends to maintain a bloated nuclear arsenal is a dollar that can’t be spent on military capabilities more relevant to countering Russia and assuring allies. It is not in the American interest to engage in a tit-for-tat race with the Russians to rebuild an excessively large nuclear force, especially if it comes at the expense of needed conventional improvements, such as programs to maintain America’s military technological edge.
By scaling back its nuclear force to 1,000 deployed strategic warheads and making associated reductions to the hedge stockpile, the United States could remove a big obstacle to trimming tens of billions of dollars from the Defense Department’s costly and excessive plan for new strategic submarines, missiles, and bombers over the next decade, which is premised on maintaining New START force levels in perpetuity.
The Pentagon estimates that the cost to replace nuclear delivery systems and their associated supporting infrastructure alone could cost half-a-trillion dollars over the next 20 years, a spending level that both the White House and Defense Department warn may not be sustainable and could force difficult trade-offs with other programs. This amounts to a multi-decade nuclear spending binge that promises to perpetuate excessive force levels and Cold War–era fighting capabilities for generations to come.
A more realistic, affordable, and sustainable course could include:
- reshaping or canceling the plan to spend at least $85 billion or more on roughly 650 new land-based missiles to support a deployed force of 400 missiles;
- halting the plan for roughly 1,000 new air-launched, nuclear-capable cruise missiles at a cost of some $20 billion to $25 billion;
- trimming back the plan for 12 new nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, which are estimated to cost $140 billion to develop.
Obama has it within his power to trim excess nuclear weapons and avoid spending tens of billions of defense dollars on redundant and unnecessary nuclear weapons systems. By doing so, he would open the way for further reductions in the role and size of not only America’s nuclear forces but Russia’s as well—and help build a future that’s a little more safe and secure.
Pakistan is running full speed to develop tactical nukes in their continuing hostility with India’
U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has expressed concern over the possibility of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of jihadists, which she said was “a threatening scenario,” according to a media report.
“Pakistan is running full speed to develop tactical nukes in their continuing hostility with India,” the former Secretary of State told a close door fundraiser in Virginia in February, The New York Times reported, citing 50-minute audio audio hacked from the Democratic Party’s computers.
“But we live in fear that they’re going to have a coup, that jihadists are going to take over the government, they’re going to get access to nuclear weapons, and you’ll have suicide nuclear bombers. So, this could not be a more threatening scenario,” the daily quoted Ms. Clinton as saying in the audio that appeared on The Washington Free Beacon website.
During the fund raiser, responding to a question on modernisation of nuclear weapons, the daily said, Ms. Clinton went beyond the question to warn of an emerging nuclear arms race, naming Russia and China as well as Pakistan and India.
“This is one of the most dangerous developments imaginable.”
Nuclear threat not acceptable, US tells Pakistan, http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/nuclear-threat-not-acceptable-us-tells-pakistan/article9170042.ece VARGHESE K. GEORGE, 1 Oct 16 The United States has conveyed to Pakistan that nuclear threats are not acceptable, a senior State Department official who did not want to be named, said. The message was conveyed to Pakistan after its defence minister said twice in the span of a week that his country could use tactical nuclear weapons against India.
“We made that clear to them. Repeatedly,” the official said when asked whether the U.S has conveyed to Pakistan that no nuclear capable country is expected to threaten anyone with the use of nukes. “We haven’t kept the devices that we have just as showpieces. But if our safety is threatened, we will annihilate them (India),” the defence minister of Pakistan had said.
“It is very concerning, it is a serious thing,” the U.S official said, adding that the U.S has been urging both countries to “pull back and deescalate.” “At the same time we have made it very clear that what happened in the Indian arm base (Uri) is an act of cross border terrorism,” the official added.
The U.S is concerned about the safety of Pakistani nuclear weapons otherwise also, the official said. “The safety of these weapons is always a concern for us. So we are always monitoring it, regardless of what they said on this particular occasion,” he said.
Nuclear War: Pakistan, China, Russia Vs India, America Nuclear Warheads USA Morning News 1 Oct 16 “……… Nuclear Warhead Assessment
So if it comes down to an all-out nuclear war between the US-India on one side and China-Russia-Pakistan on the other, here is an assessment of which side is likely to have an upper hand in the war:
- It has been estimated that China, India, and Pakistan all possess ballistic missile, cruise missile, and sea-based nuclear weapons.
- Even though China, Russia, and the U.S. possess nuclear weaponry, according to the NPT, they have been banned from building and maintaining such weapons in perpetuity.
- China has 260 approximate warheads, Russia has roughly 7300 and Pakistan has 120.
- The USA is lagging slightly behind Russia with 7100 warheads and India currently has 110.
Hence, with Russia currently ahead than all the rest in the nuclear race, both India and Pakistan are looking to Russia to build an alliance with. http://www.morningnewsusa.com/nuclear-war-pakistan-china-russia-vs-india-america-nuclear-warheads-23109179.html
NO DEALS SIGNED YET ON SA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME – RADEBE http://ewn.co.za/2016/09/30/No-deals-signed-yet-on-SA-nuclear-programme Minister Jeff Radebe says the request for proposals will clarify if the country can afford nuclear power.Clement Manyathela | JOHANNESBURG – Minister in the Presidency Jeff Radebe says no deals have been signed for the nuclear build programme and says the request for proposals will clarify if the country can afford it or not.
Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Petterssen was meant to issue a request for proposals for the nuclear build programme as part of the procurement process today but this has now been postponed to allow more time for further consultation.
Radebe says the request for proposal will be issued after consultations.
“The Minister of Energy issued a statement confirming that the request for proposals is not going to be issued until such time that we’ve concluded those consultation processes.”
He says it will also advise government on whether or not it can afford nuclear power.
“That’s precisely the reason why the proposal is going to be issued in order to understand whether, as the country, we’re going to be affording it in terms of testing the market.”
Abe, Modi look to ink civil nuclear pact at November meeting, Japan Times, KYODO, 30 Sept 16 A meeting between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi is set to be held in Tokyo in mid-November, with a civil nuclear cooperation pact likely to be signed, a source said Friday.
The pact would pave the way for Japan to export nuclear power plant technology to the fast-growing Asian economy. It would be Japan’s first signing of a civil nuclear cooperation pact with a country which has not joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty…….
Earlier, other diplomatic sources said that under a provision in the pact, Japan will permit Indian power producers to reprocess spent fuel at designated facilities on the condition the country accepts comprehensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency…….
Following the signing of the treaty, the Japanese government will seek swift approval from the Diet in a bid to promote Japanese companies’ participation in construction of such power plants in India……http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/09/30/national/japan-india-look-ink-civil-nuclear-pact-november-meeting/#.V-7jmIh97Gg
Climate change is increasing the risk of war in Africa , Quartz, 30 Sept 16
United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon once described the war in Darfur, Sudan as the world’s first climate change conflict
, caused in part by the fighting over scarce water resources. Now, researchers believe climate change may be raising the risk of war across the continent.
In a study
published in Science
this week, researchers Tamma Carleton and Solomon Hsiang, both from the University of Berkeley, say that rising temperatures in sub-Saharan Africa since 1980 have raised the risk of conflict by 11%.
“Although climate is clearly not the only factor that affects social and economic outcomes, new quantitative measurements reveal that it is a major factor, often with first order consequences,” they wrote
in their study, which reviewed more than 100 other studies on the social and economic impacts of climate change.
JAPAN SIGNALS END FOR $10BN NUCLEAR PROTOTYPE, Eyewitness News, 30 Sept 16 Tokyo believes it would be difficult to gain public support to spend several hundreds of billion yen. Reuters |
TOKYO – Japan signalled on Wednesday it would scrap a costly prototype nuclear reactor that has operated for less than a year in more than two decades at a cost of 1 trillion yen (£7.6 billion).
Tokyo believes it would be difficult to gain public support to spend several hundreds of billion yen to upgrade the Monju facility, which has been plagued by accidents, missteps and falsification of documents.
There is also a strong anti-nuclear sentiment in Japan in reaction to the 2011 Fukushima atomic disaster and calls to decommission Monju have been growing in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, with scant results from using around 20 billion yen of public money a year for maintenance alone.
Monju was designed to burn plutonium from spent fuel at conventional reactors to create more fuel than it consumes…….A formal decision to decommission Monju is likely to be made by the end of the year, government officials said. http://ewn.co.za/2016/09/30/Japan-signals-end-for-10-billion-nuclear-prototype