nuclear-news

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

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

Caitlin Johnstone – Western News Media Propagandists Describe US Bombing Iran As “Defensive”

Caitlin Johnstone, 3 Nov 26, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/western-news-media-propagandists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=223315184&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The propagandists of the American press have been uncritically describing recent US airstrikes on Iran as “defensive” despite the US being the clear aggressor in this ongoing conflict, and despite the United States existing on the other side of the planet from Iran.

CBS News was the most egregious offender with its headline, “U.S. launches defensive strikes at Iranian targets near Strait of Hormuz.”

The title frames it as an objective fact that the attack was defensive in nature, without quotation marks around the word “defensive” and without even bothering to uncritically cite US officials as the source of this claim.

As a reminder, CBS News was recently acquired by David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, who is one of the wealthiest people on the planet with a net worth of some $160 billion and who is also the largest single donor to the Israeli military. The Ellisons have responded to Israel’s genocide-induced PR crisis by frenetically buying up control over major platforms like CBS, CNN, HBO Max, Warner Bros and TikTok in order to drum up support for US-Israeli military agendas.

CBS News was the most egregious offender with its headline, “U.S. launches defensive strikes at Iranian targets near Strait of Hormuz.”

The title frames it as an objective fact that the attack was defensive in nature, without quotation marks around the word “defensive” and without even bothering to uncritically cite US officials as the source of this claim.

Other mass media outlets weren’t much better, uncritically regurgitating assertions from the US government which present the attacks as “defensive”.

The Associated Press headline on the story reads, “US has conducted defensive strikes on Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, US official says.”

From The Washington Post, “U.S. forces launch new ‘defensive’ strikes in Iran on eve of election.”

From CNN, “US military conducts strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island in defensive operation, officials say.”

From Fox News, “US launches ‘defensive’ strikes on Iranian island as Tehran talks hang in balance.”

From Reuters, “US carries out ‘defensive’ strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island, officials say.”

From ABC News, “US carries out defensive airstrikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island: Officials.”

From Politico, “US has conducted defensive strikes on Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, US official says.”

The first paragraph of the Newsweek write-up on the story reads, “The U.S. carried out defensive strikes against Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. official told the Associated Press (AP) on Monday.”

November 6, 2026 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

With Rumors of Nuclear War, the New Congress must end the Iran conflict to avoid a U.S. Catastrophe

Juan Cole 11/03/2026, https://www.juancole.com/2026/11/congress-conflict-catastrophe.html

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – However the midterms turn out, the 120th Congress must cut off money to Trump for his ongoing Iran War. As an unresolved geopolitical issue, it threatens the future of the United States like no other issue.

In mid-September, Senate Republicans voted to allow Trump to continue his war on Iran, after several GOP House members had joined the Democrats in invoking the War Powers Act.

If Michiganders want a reason to vote against Mike Rogers for Senate, they just have to consider that Rogers would give Trump anything he wanted on the Iran War front. Rogers called the Iran War a “win-win-win” for the US. So much winning. He has flip-flopped now that high gasoline and diesel prices, caused by Trump’s attack on Iran, have made the GOP about as welcome in the voting booth as a skunk at an office party. He says he wants to see the war “wound down.” But would he vote to deny Trump the money to continue to prosecute the war? I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

Since February 28, when Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump murdered dozens of high Iranian officials from the air, including the clerical leader Ali Khamenei, and initiated 13,000 strikes against Iranian targets with no provocation, the world has been on a knife edge.

We only avoided a global recession because China deeply cut its petroleum imports, from 11.5 million barrels a day to under 9 million barrels a day, releasing instead massive amounts of oil from both private and government strategic petroleum reserves. The US and Europe also released petroleum from reserves. These maintained enough oil on the market to keep prices of Brent crude around an average of $96 a barrel, which is a drag on the economy but not an existential crisis. The price averaged $69 a barrel in 2025, though, so the Iran War has had an inflationary impact that many ordinary families in the US and around the world are feeling.

But the war isn’t over. On Monday, the US military staged several strikes on Iran’s Qeshm island. Iran continues to report that tankers in the Persian Gulf have struck mines as they attempted to transit the Strait of Hormuz, though many observers believe the ships are more likely to have been hit by drones than to have struck mines. There may not be any Iranian mines remaining.

Then the prominent conservative commentator Tucker Carlson warned that outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been urging Trump to drop nuclear bombs on Iran. One doesn’t know what to make of this allegation, which Netanyahu’s office has denied. On the one hand, Carlson is well connected in Washington among people close to Trump, since he used to be in that camp himself. On the other hand, pundits make their living on the internet by seeking clicks and eyeballs, which sometimes drives them to sensationalism.

But this kind of report is as serious as a heart attack. And, let’s face it. Is there really any doubt that Netanyahu is capable of trying to get the US to nuke Iran? No, no there is not. And is there really any doubt that Trump is stupid enough to fall for this attempt to manipulate him? No, no there is not. So what Carlson is saying has to be taken seriously. Very seriously.

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

Chris Hedges: Israel Cannot Be Allowed to Erase Gaza’s Stories

SCHEERPOST, November 3, 2026, Joshua Scheer

Genocide seeks to destroy not only a people but the memory of their lives. Speaking on his Requiem for Gaza book tour, Hedges describes how he and illustrator Joe Sacco interviewed 29 Palestinian families who had escaped to Egypt, documenting the destruction through the people forced to endure it. He recounts testimony about doctors and journalists being targeted and argues that the assault extends beyond killing and demolished buildings to the destruction of a people’s history, culture and memory.

A child’s exam paper. A wedding album pulled from the rubble. A teddy bear left behind when a family flees its home. These are the fragments of Palestinian life Chris Hedges brings before his audience—evidence of people whose hopes, routines and relationships disappear behind the bloodless language of military briefings. In this talk, the distance between that language and the lives it conceals becomes unbearable.

Then he reads the story of a family briefly returning home during a ceasefire. Children carefully put away their toys, as though good behavior might allow them to stay. A mother confronts the birthday-party list still on her kitchen whiteboard and mourns a sister killed with her husband and their four children. Elsewhere, relatives search the rubble for bodies, buy fuel to keep an excavator running and bury their loved ones in curtains because there are no shrouds.

These lives demand more than the ritual expressions of concern that allow governments to acknowledge suffering while evading responsibility. Drawing on decades of war reporting, Hedges insists on the obligation to preserve the evidence and the names: so the dead cannot be reduced to disputed statistics, and those responsible cannot later claim that nobody knew.

The transcript of Chris Hedges’ remarks appears below ON ORIGINAL – https://scheerpost.com/2026/11/03/chris-hedges-israel-cannot-be-allowed-to-erase-gazas-stories/

November 6, 2026 Posted by | Gaza, Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Hackers send fake nuclear threat alert to Ukraine emergency app

Unknown hackers have targeted Ukraine’s nationwide emergency alert mobile
app, sending residents in Kyiv a warning that they were at risk of an
imminent nuclear strike. The app reported a high possibility of nuclear
radiation late on Sunday. It also wrongly warned of a chemical threat to
the Ukrainian capital and street-to-street fighting. The messages were
written in English with spelling mistakes, as well as in Ukrainian.

Guardian 2nd Nov 2026, ttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/nov/02/hackers-fake-nuclear-chemical-threat-alert-kyiv-ukraine-emergency-app

November 6, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

UK Urged to Keep Two Astute-Class Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarines on Continuous Patrol.

Britain could strengthen its North
Atlantic defences by keeping two Astute-class nuclear-powered attack
submarines continuously operational, according to a proposal published by
the 878 Institute in October 2026. The plan would maintain one submarine on
patrol in strategic waters, including the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap
and North Sea, while a second would help protect Britain’s nuclear
deterrent submarines, strengthening the Royal Navy’s ability to counter
Russian underwater threats, safeguard critical maritime routes, and
reinforce NATO’s security across the North Atlantic.

Army Recognition 2nd Nov 2026,
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2026/uk-urged-to-keep-two-astute-class-nuclear-powered-attack-submarines-on-continuous-patrol-amid-russian-threats

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

Why are US, Russia and China racing to put nuclear reactors on the moon?

The risk is bigger if a running reactor falls back onto Earth, analysts say.

Who is responsible if something goes wrong?

Lunar reactors could revolutionise moon exploration, providing energy for bases and mining, but risks of contamination remain.

By Mariem Bah, 31 Oct 26, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/10/31/why-are-us-russia-and-china-racing-to-put-nuclear-reactors-on-the-moon

The United States, Russia and China are racing to build nuclear reactors on the moon, as scientists warn about the possible risk of a radioactive mishap.

In January, NASA, the US space agency, announced plans to develop a nuclear reactor on the moon by the end of 2030. Russia, working with China, aims to do the same by 2036 as they strive to advance space exploration.

The reactors will be needed to power mining of frozen water trapped deep in the moon’s craters, which scientists believe could supply drinking water, air, and rocket fuel for future bases. The reactors would also provide power for lunar bases.

Here is what we know.

Which countries want to put nuclear reactors on the moon?

The US said NASA’s Lunar Reactor 1 would produce 20 kilowatts of electricity, creating enough power to run on its own for five years without maintenance.

NASA’s reactor is designed to be compact, weighing under 6,000kg (13,200 lbs) and will fit inside a rocket compartment measuring 3.7 metres (12 feet) long by 5.5 metres (18 ft) wide.

Russia is also building a nuclear reactor, which is expected to produce 10 kilowatts. The reactor, called Selena, will be able to run for a decade without maintenance. It will be ready to power a Chinese-led moon base by about 2036.

The Selena reactor is expected to be even lighter than NASA’s, weighing about 1,100 to 1,300kg (2,400 to 2,800 lbs) for an easier and softer landing on the lunar surface.

This would not be the first time nuclear reactors have been placed in outer space.

The Soviet Union launched more than 30 nuclear fission reactors into Earth’s orbit between the late 1960s and the 1980s to power spy satellites during the Cold War.

The small, 1,000kg (2,200 lbs) reactors powered radar-tracking spy satellites using heat from splitting uranium atoms into 3 to 5 kilowatts of electricity. They are no longer operational, and no other country has sent nuclear reactors into space.

The US has spent $20bn on advanced space nuclear programmes over the past 70 years, but has never successfully launched a nuclear reactor into space since an experiment in 1965.

That experiment was carried out to see if nuclear energy could power a satellite. It worked at first but accidentally shut down after just 43 days because a non-nuclear electrical part of the satellite broke down. It is still floating up in space today.

Previous attempts by the US to develop nuclear projects have stalled due to shifting budget priorities.

How do you put nuclear reactors on the moon?

First, scientists will have to build a reactor on Earth, which will then be transported to the moon using a robotic spacecraft that fires rocket engines for a slow and gentle touchdown.

Both the US and Russia say they would keep their reactors switched off until they reach the moon, to keep radioactive risk at a minimum until the last step.

Once set up on the moon, the reactors would be designed to run without maintenance for years, supplying power to bases engaged in mining on the lunar surface.

Why does the moon need a nuclear reactor?

The US, China and Russia want to build bases near the moon’s south pole, close to the known sources of water ice. The ice sits in the permanently shadowed craters, where sunlight has not reached for millions of years.

As well as powering the moon bases, the reactors would also supply enough power for mining. So far, the US, Russia and China want to mine for frozen water which, once released, could be used to support life on the moon at bases where people could live and conduct research.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has also said he wants to extract minerals such as aluminium, titanium, and silicon, required for manufacturing satellites.

Solar power for such endeavours would be limited as the sun shines on any one spot on the moon only half the time, so solar panels would go dark for about two weeks every month.

Simon Middleburgh, director of Bangor University’s Nuclear Futures Institute (NFI), told Al Jazeera that solar power is too limited to provide the steady flow of energy a moon base would need, while batteries and diesel are too costly, because everything has to be launched from Earth.

Nuclear energy is the “obvious choice”, Middleburgh said, adding that it must be used “responsibly”.

It is likely that three or four reactors working together would be required to provide sufficient energy for mining lunar ice as well as supporting a moon base, he added.

Why the rush?It comes down to geopolitics.

In a December 2025 executive order, US President Donald Trump ordered NASA to build a lunar reactor ready to launch by 2030. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin have revealed similar plans.

In August this year, Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, said the US is in a “race to the moon, in a race with China”.

Middleburgh said the 2030 deadline is likely for building the reactor itself, but the harder part will be landing on the moon and safely setting up the system.

“The biggest challenge isn’t really the nuclear technology at all; it is the regulation for launch, the availability of a launch platform itself, and the landing and setting up the system on the lunar surface ready for it to be operated sustainably and safely,” he said.

The race to the moon also comes amid growing military competition beyond Earth. In September, the US announced it had deployed weapons into orbit, which officials said would be used to defend US forces.

While the US did not provide details about these “weapons”, experts say they are likely to be space-based communications jammers, rather than kinetic ones that launch strikes.

The announcement raised concerns about the concept of “space weapons” or the use of space for military purposes, including the potential targeting of satellites that provide GPS, communications and intelligence.

What could go wrong?

Middleburgh told Al Jazeera that an accident during the launch of the reactors would be less frightening than it sounds because uranium alone, before it is used in a reactor, is not very radioactive. However, that changes once the reactor is switched on.

The risk is bigger if a running reactor falls back onto Earth, analysts say.

In 1978, a Soviet satellite carrying a reactor, Kosmos 954, scattered radioactive material across nearly 124,300 square km (48,000sq miles) of northern Canada.

The accident forced an expensive military cleanup of the highly radioactive fragments and microscopic particles.

On the moon, Middleburgh says, any contaminated area would be “extremely localised” if there were to be a similar accident.

Who has sovereignty over the moon?

Legally, no one. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans countries from “claiming” the moon or any part of it, though they have ownership of the equipment they send there. The treaty does not ban nuclear power in space.

Antonino Salmeri, director of the Lunar Policy Platform, a nonprofit, told Al Jazeera that a reactor can be lawful if it follows the treaty’s principles, including peaceful use and avoiding harmful contamination.

Norbert Schorghofer, a senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Arizona, US, told Al Jazeera all signatories “have the right to mine the lunar surface as long as it is for peaceful purposes”.

Whichever country’s reactor gets to the “best” water ice first could claim a “safety zone”, which would not be a land claim but could operate like one. Salmeri said declaring one creates no territorial rights, but a reactor shuts others out anyway, because nobody wants to enter a radioactive area.

A Lunar Policy Platform report released last month points to another problem: Who is responsible if something goes wrong? The report says existing liability rules have not been designed to regulate the use of long-term hazardous equipment on another celestial body.

November 5, 2026 Posted by | China, Russia, space travel, USA | Leave a comment

AI data centres could undermine UK’s emissions goals

Ofgem, the energy market regulator, says data centre developers are seeking connections totalling 72 gigawatts. The peak electricity demand across the whole country last year was 45 gigawatts.

Hayley Mortimer and Adrian Goldberg, BBC, 2 Nov 260

The UK government’s ambition of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 could be undermined by its new deal on AI data centres, according to BBC research.

During Wednesday’s Budget speech, Chancellor John Healey said data centres would be allowed to build onsite power generation while they wait for a grid connection.

BBC File on 4 Investigates has discovered that four planned “hyperscale” data centres – including three in the south of England – are already considering using gas-fired power to meet their electricity needs, creating more CO2 than the cities of Manchester, Liverpool and Southampton combined.

Labour MP Toby Perkins, who chairs the Environmental Audit Select Committee, said a substantial increase in the use of natural gas “can’t be the future”.

“Government absolutely shouldn’t be in the business of just saying anyone who wants to bring it here, can do whatever you like to power it, because that is not acceptable,” he said.

The government said data centres were “essential to Britain’s economy” and that its new Data Centre Covenant set clear expectations for developers to pay a fair share of the costs they impose on the energy system and deliver benefits for local communities.

Data centres are warehouses full of powerful computer servers used to run a vast range of digital services, including streaming, banking and public services and have been part of the British landscape for more than two decades.

But a new generation of data centres due to come on stream in the next few years will operate on a much larger scale to cope with the growing computing demand needed for increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence technology.

They will consume considerably more energy than their predecessors at a time when the National Grid is already struggling to meet demand.

Ofgem, the energy market regulator, says data centre developers are seeking connections totalling 72 gigawatts. The peak electricity demand across the whole country last year was 45 gigawatts.

Such is the demand for access to the already under-strain national electricity grid, some data centre developers have been told they could be waiting up to 10 years for the system to be upgraded to provide them with a connection.

Nathan MacWhinnie, head of market intelligence and oversight at Ofgem, said: “In a lot of places, the grid is at capacity. I think sometimes it’s easy to forget the scale of the demand of these connections. These projects are sometimes the size of cities.”

In last week’s Budget, the chancellor announced a British Data Centre Covenant, requiring operators to invest in local communities, create jobs and protect water supplies in return for priority grid connections.

But he also said that where grid connections were unavailable, developers would be permitted to generate their own power on-site………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqvgrvx6ekl2o

November 5, 2026 Posted by | climate change, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry -Australia should quit alliance with the UK and US – Dr Gideon Maxwell Polya.

No.258

“……………………My submission is in 3 parts and summarizes several detailed articles that set out why
Australia should quit alliance with the UK and US.

(A). As a UK lackey, US lackey or major climate criminal country Australia has
violated all circa 80 Indo-Pacific countries.

In 2021 Australia formed the anti-China AUKUS (Australia, UK and US) Alliance and
thence the Quad (Australia, India, US and Japan) Alliance to contain a supposedly
aggressive China. In reality as a nuclear terrorist, climate criminal, serial invader
and subversive entity Australia has violated all Indo-Pacific countries (see Gideon
Polya, “AUKUS & Quad In Context: Australia Violates All Indo-Pacific countries”,
Countercurrents, 9 December 2021: https://countercurrents.org/2021/12/aukus-qu
ad-in-context-australia-violates-all-indo-pacific-countries/ and for an exhaustively
referenced version see Gideon Polya, “Australia violates all Indo-Pacific countries”,
Stop state terrorism, 9 December 2021: https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterr
orism/2021-12-09-australia-violates-all-indo-pacific-countries ).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………As a UK and thence US lackey, Australia in the last 80 years (i.e. WW2 onwards)
has had armed forces in many countries of the Indo-Pacific region, and has joined
the US in massive invasions and occupations. Australia has participated in all
post-1950 US Asian Wars (atrocities in which 40 million Asians have died from
violence and war-imposed deprivation). Anti-Arab anti-Semitic Australia has been
an enthusiastic participant in the US War on Terror (over 30 million Muslims have
died from violence and imposed deprivation in 20 countries invaded by the US
Alliance since the US Government-exploited 9/11 atrocity that killed 3,000 people).
The joint US-Australian telecommunications spying base at Pine Gap in Central
Australia targets war criminal US drone strikes on 7 Muslim countries.

As US lackeys Australians have been involved with the US in covert subversion of
many Indo-Pacific countries, and were successful in achieving regime change in 8
instances, namely Laos (1960), Indonesia (1965), Cambodia (1970), Chile (1973),
Australia (1975), Fiji (1987), Fiji (2000), and Australia (2010) (the latter 3 also
involving Apartheid Israel). Australia is second only to the US as a fervent
supporter of nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist, grossly human rights-abusing and
globally subversive Apartheid Israel, and hence of the utterly vile and intolerable
crime of Apartheid…………………………………………………………………………………………………

(B). Why Australia should quit military links with serial war criminal, genocidally
racist and egregiously mendacious America.

For a detailed and exhaustively referenced analysis see Gideon Polya, “Why
Australia Should Quit Military Links With Serial War Criminal America”,
Countercurrents, 28 January 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/01/why-austr
alia-should-quit-military-links-with-serial-war-criminal-america/ . Summarized
below are cogent arguments why Australia should quit its AUKUS alliance with
nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist and serial war criminal America and the UK.

(1). War typically violates International law, and is the penultimate in repugnant
racism, with genocide being the ultimate in racism…………………………………………..

(2). The US is a horrendous serial invader of other countries. Apart from inevitable
border spats, most countries in the world have not invaded other countries…………………………………………………

(3). War criminal active and passive mass murder by nuclear terrorist America and
the US Alliance. Iraq and Afghanistan were not the only countries murderously
violated by the US in the 21st century. It was estimated in 2015 that 32 million
Muslims had died from violence (5 million) and imposed deprivation (27 million) in
20 countries invaded by the US Alliance after the US Government-exploited 9/11
atrocity that killed 3,000 people, mostly innocent Americans…………………………………………………

(4) American lying ………………………… As cogently analysed by
Professors Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in “Manufacturing Consent”,
mendacious US Mainstream media serve the interests of the US Establishment and
US governments.

(5). America violates, subverts, dirties and acutely threatens Australia.
(i). Australia was involved in all post-1950 US Asian wars.
(ii). AUKUS and Australian violation of all Indo-Pacific countries.
(iii). Australian involvement in 8 US-effected coups.
(iv). US lackey Australia’s deadly covert operations in neighbouring Indonesia.
(v). The US Murdoch media empire dominates Australia.
(vi). America spies on, subverts, deceives and betrays Australia.
(vii). UK- , US-, and Zionist-backed coups and other subversive interventions in
Australia.
(viii). Craven submission to American militarism makes Australia complicit in
nuclear terrorism and makes Australia a prime nuclear target.
(ix). Zionist subversion of IHRA member Australia is a product of blind Australian
fealty to Zionist-subverted America and soils Australia.

(x). Locked-in support for US militarism and militarist fiscal perversion inescapably
contributes to 100,000 preventable Australian deaths annually.

(xi). Australia is complicit in horrendous UK and US war crimes, notably in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
(xii). Blind support for the US has created a contemptible, reality-ignoring,
“look-the-other-way” Australian national culture.
(xiii). US lies and terror hysteria impacting Australian civil liberties.
(xiv). Genocidal US, US Alliance and Australia need de-Nazification.
(C). The AUKUS Alliance betrays, robs, soils, threatens and kills Australians.

………………………………… (i). AUKUS betrays Australians. The AUKUS deal supposedly protects Australian
sovereignty but the opposite is true. The nuclear submarines (if delivered) would
become Australia-crewed adjuncts to the naval strategy of a serial war-making US.
The deal locks an impotent Australia into US war-making strategy against our
biggest trading partner, China. Conversely, military strategy expert Albert Palazzo
(“The Big Fix”) argues that middle-power Australia should revert from a US-led
“strategic offensive” position to an efficient, effective and Australia-first “strategic
defensive” position. Our AUKUS partner, Zionist-perverted America, gets Australia
to hugely subsidize US war industry, makes Australia a prime nuclear target, and
substitutes hugely expensive, submarine hunting , White Elephant “sitting ducks”
for an intelligent, multi-faceted and high technology defence system.

(ii). AUKUS robs Australians. The Australia Institute estimates that the cost could
be $500 billion for a few second-hand, US-controlled, US-assisting, single-purpose
submarines that may already be detectable and vulnerable to the latest
AI-assisted anti-submarine technology. The US war industry gets A$500 billion and
in return Australia becomes a prime nuclear target, and gets locked into an absurd
“strategic offensive” position for the benefit of the US instead of an expert-advised
“strategic defensive” position for the defence of Australia.

(iii). AUKUS soils Australia. Racism is vile because to whom we are born and by
whom we are raised is out of our control. War is the penultimate in racism and
genocide the ultimate. The UK has invaded 193 countries or nearly every country.
Only 3 countries have not had a US military presence. Before WW2 the British
committed genocide on all inhabited continents whereas the US (African slavery
and Pacific islands aside) largely confined itself to the American Indian genocide
and domination of Latin America. After WW2 the UK replaced colonialism with
deadly neo-colonialism but also participated in the (deaths from violence and
deprivation in brackets) Palestinian (3 million), Korean (5 million), Iraqi (5 million), Libyan (0.2 million) and Afghan (7 million) Genocides. The US invaded a swathe of
countries around the world after WW2…………………………………………………………………….

(iv). AUKUS threatens Australians. The Australia-US joint spying base at Pine Gap,
Central Australia, plays a key role US nuclear terrorism and in targeting US and
Israeli bombing. Australia is constructing a huge base for nuclear-armed US
submarines in Western Australia, is expanding the Tindal air base in the Northern
Territory to host potentially nuclear-armed B-52 bombers, and hosts a
3,000-personnel US Marine base near Darwin. AUKUS makes Australia a prime
nuclear target – in any escalating nuclear war key bases in Australia and Australian
cities would be bombed before bombing any US cities………………………………………………….

(v). AUKUS will kill Australians. AUKUS will remove $500 billion from Australia’s
capacity to keep Australians alive and healthy via its prosperous economy-based
world-leading universal health care system, the National Disability Insurance
Scheme (NDIS), the education system, and preventive medicine…………………………………………………………. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s1_Y3ywvk8ywqTLFvhOt3RfBFZfYH25g/view


November 5, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

600 MW floating nuclear power barge targets US in world-first offshore advanced SMR bid

Rather than building a conventional inland plant from scratch, Saltfoss will divide production between two allied industrial hubs.

ByAman Tripathi, Interesting EngineeringNov 04, 2026

A Danish nuclear developer wants to bring floating atomic power to American shores. Saltfoss has sent a letter of intent to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The firm wants to start early regulatory talks for its offshore power barge and seaMSR-100 reactor.

If approved, the project will mark the world’s first licensed maritime advanced small modular reactor (SMR). The timing is interesting. In March 2026, the NRC introduced 10 CFR Part 53. This modern regulatory rulebook has been designed specifically for advanced reactors. Saltfoss aims to become the first developer to secure a license under this new framework.

Instead of building a conventional plant inland from the ground up, Saltfoss plans to split production between two allied industrial hubs.

Samsung Heavy Industries will build the standardized steel barges in South Korea, using the country’s high-volume shipbuilding yards. Once the hulls are complete, teams in the United States will handle reactor assembly, fuel loading, and final integration.

“As part of its US expansion, Saltfoss will significantly increase its activities in the United States, including reactor assembly, fuel loading and final power plant integration at US facilities,” said the company in a press release.

International regulatory alignment

The company is also coordinating reviews across the Pacific. Saltfoss is working with South Korea’s Nuclear Safety and Security Commission under the nation’s SMR Special Act. South Korea is expected to host some of the earliest commercial deployments.

Meanwhile, maritime safety evaluations are already under way. The American Bureau of Shipping is qualifying the barge design through its formal new technology review………………………..

Each standardized seaMSR-100 unit yields 100 megawatts of electricity (MWe). Multiple modules can sit aboard a single barge to deliver up to 600 MWe of constant electricity and high-temperature industrial heat. This capacity can power remote coastal industries, municipal grids, or power-hungry hyperscale data centers………………………………………

Saltfoss finalized its conceptual design in 2025 alongside the Idaho National Laboratory and Danish researchers. The company plans to submit its formal Regulatory Engagement Plan to Washington in early 2027. https://interestingengineering.com/energy/600-mw-floating-nuclear-power-barge

November 5, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Aukus is ‘worst, riskiest and most costly’ Australian defence decision ever, public inquiry into submarine deal says

Report led by Peter Garrett and former defence chief Adm Chris Barrie says agreement should be suspended and calls for royal commission


Tom McIlroy, 4 November 26, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/nov/04/aukus-worst-australian-defence-decision-ever-public-inquiry

A public inquiry into the $368bn Aukus nuclear submarine agreement has called the plan “the worst, riskiest and most costly defence decision ever made by an Australian government”, urging its immediate termination.

Former Labor MP and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett, alongside former chief of defence Adm Chris Barrie, led the inquiry dominated by critics of the deal with the UK and US, recommending the suspension of plans for new bases and for a royal commission to be held into the agreement signed by the former Morrison government.

Its report, titled Surrendering Australia: the Aukus Deception, says Australia risks being dragged into military conflict with China because of the presence of powerful nuclear submarines. Aukus badly undermines Australia’s sovereignty and undercuts longstanding commitments to nuclear non-proliferation, it says.

The inquiry report, released on Wednesday, was downloaded nearly 15,000 times within an hour of being published online.

The report calls for a rework of the second pillar of the agreement, which covers technology and defence capability sharing, and for a fundamental recalibration of Australia’s relationship with Beijing.

After hearings around the country and more than 1,000 public submissions, the inquiry highlighted a lack of scrutiny and oversight over the five years since Aukus was announced and called for the auditor general and federal parliament to launch independent reviews.

“Since coming to power, Labor has failed to conduct a thorough review of this most significant of defence agreements,” Garrett told the National Press Club in Canberra.

“Conceived in secret, Aukus has spurned established defence and parliamentary oversight practices.”

He said the Stirling defence precinct in Perth risked becoming a “de facto US base” hosting as many as 2,000 serving American personnel, and that nearby communities including Rockingham and Fremantle would become targets for attack.

“The Aukus submarine plan is not tenable,” Barrie, who served as chief of defence between 1998 and 2002, said.

“It’s time for our government to take the lead on this matter. Scrap the Aukus submarine plan now, and rebuild national security decision-making processes.”

Labor agreed to support the deal for Australia to acquire nuclear submarines, which was negotiated under Morrison, then US president Joe Biden and UK prime minister Boris Johnson. As part of the agreement, Australia is funding upgrades to the US defence industrial base and is due to start receiving secondhand Virginia class nuclear submarines around 2032.

But delays and cost blowouts for production of submarines for the US navy have led to scepticism that Australia will receive the in-service boats.

The UK parliament held a year-long review and, after an inquiry by the Pentagon in 2025, Donald Trump agreed to support Aukus.

But former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, former foreign affairs ministers Gareth Evans and Bob Carr, environmental and security campaigners, and some within Labor believe Aukus is not in Australia’s national interest.

Frustrated by the lack of scrutiny – in part due to bipartisan support for Aukus in federal parliament – unions, not-for-profits and former officeholders launched their own inquiry backed by public donations totalling $220,000.

Labor argues Aukus was considered as part of the government’s defence strategic review.

Government ministers have dismissed the public inquiry as a stitch-up by critics of the agreement. A spokesperson for the defence minister, Richard Marles, said on Wednesday that Aukus is a core pillar of the Albanese government’s national security policy.

“As the national defence strategy 2026 re-confirms, we confront the most challenging strategic circumstances since the second world war, and we do so at a time where Australia’s economic connection with the world has never been greater,” they said.

“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.”

Garrett warned any certainty the US president would eventually agree to send submarines to Australia could not be guaranteed.

“There are no refunds, no enforceable obligations on partner countries, and no recourse if things go wrong,” he said.

The inquiry estimates an additional $180bn will be needed to deal with nuclear waste generated by Aukus, based on evidence to the inquiry. No official cost estimates for waste have been published.

Australia has not identified a permanent storage site for the waste, including the high-level radioactive waste from the reactor core and spent fuel, which will remain toxic for thousands of years.

The government’s preferred measure of the total cost of the deal is 0.15% of GDP over its lifetime.

The first Virginia-class nuclear sub from the US is due to arrive in Australia in 2032, with another arriving every four years, before the Australian-built model is ready for operations. The bespoke SSN Aukus model is due to come online in 2042.

Campaign group Labor Against War welcomed the report.

“With rising cost of living and unemployment, spiralling inflation and interest rates, it is beyond comprehension why the Australian government is throwing billions into the war chests of the US military at a time when the Australian people are crying out for solutions at home,” the group’s patron and a former senator, Doug Cameron, said.

November 4, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries