nuclear-news

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

More Palestinians killed by Israeli military and settlers across occupied West Bank in last 3 years since Gaza hostilities than previous 17 combined – Oxfam

11 June 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/more-palestinians-killed-by-israeli-military-and-settlers-across-occupied-west-bank-in-last-3-years-since-gaza-hostilities-than-previous-17-combined-oxfam/

More than one in five killed over last 20 years were children.

More Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military and settlers across the occupied West Bank in the last three years than in the previous 17 years combined, analysis from Oxfam has found. The number of children killed over the last three years was also higher.

An analysis of United Nations data found that 1,036 Palestinians – including 225 children – had been killed by Israeli forces or settlers between 2006 and the end of 2022. However, in the last three years, from 2023 to the end of last year by comparison, 1,244 Palestinians – including 268 children – have been killed.

Over the 20 years, 22 per cent – more than one in five of those killed – have been children.

For the same periods analysed, in the 17 years between 2006 until the end of 2022, 86 Israeli settlers, including 12 children, were killed by Palestinians. In the last three years – from 2023 to the end of 2025 – 43 Israeli settlers have been killed, including ten children.

The West Bank continues to be subjected to Israeli policies and practices of fast-tracked annexation, amid record mass forced displacement, movement restrictions, killings by army and settler militias, and ongoing military operations. Checkpoints and closures are fragmenting the territory and limiting access to essential services and livelihoods, while repeated state-backed settler violence is driving mass displacement.

Bushra Khalidi, Oxfam International Humanitarian Policy Lead said: “The mounting killing of civilians in the West Bank is tragic and horrifying. While the eyes of the world have been on Gaza, attacks in the West Bank have been accelerating. Since the atrocities committed by Hamas and other armed groups in 2023, Israel has committed genocide in Gaza while also enabling an unprecedented surge of violence across the West Bank.

“Oxfam works with Palestinian families whose lives have been destroyed. It is devastating that scores of children are being killed. This is the human cost of impunity, Israeli violence and cruelty in full view, while world leaders look the other way”.

A record number of Palestinians in the West Bank – nearly 46,000 – have been forcibly displaced over the last three years, compared to just over 13,000 for the previous 14 years combined by Israeli military operations, settler violence, demolitions and access restrictions. Many families are having to live in unstable and insecure conditions, often with host communities or in informal shelter arrangements, with limited access to essential services.

Saed* is 50 years old and was forced out of his home in the Ein Samya community. He said: “We used to deal with settlers all the time, but over the past three years, settler violence has increased massively. Eventually we had to leave and now a settler is staying in my home. I saw him. He took over the community too. It breaks my heart to talk about the past.

“We went to another community in Jericho, but it did not stop there. Settlers closed the roads, carried weapons, harassed and terrified our children on their way to school, and grazed their livestock inside our community, next to our houses. In the worst cases they would steal our livestock under the protection of the army and police.”

Communities across the West Bank have experienced repeated demolitions and destruction not just of their homes but water pipelines, animal shelters and trees. Last year, the World Health Organisation documented over 230 attacks on healthcare facilities, including obstructed access, the vandalization of ambulances and harassment of medical staff.

There is now a record 925 obstacles that permanently or intermittently restrict the movement of over 3 million Palestinians across the West Bank including East Jerusalem. This is 43 per cent more than the annual average of 647 movement obstacles in the preceding 20 years.

In the first three months of this year alone there have been more than 540 settler attacks, 33 Palestinian people killed and more than 2,200 people displaced. More than 60 water and sanitation structures have been vandalized, including pipelines, irrigation systems and water tanks, which have undermined access to water in 32 Palestinian communities.

Despite Israel’s ongoing process of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, Oxfam and its partners continue to support vulnerable communities across the West Bank with humanitarian assistance, including clean water, food, the rehabilitation of agricultural water cisterns and livestock shelters.

Oxfam is calling for an end to Israel’s unlawful occupation and further annexation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and to the foreign complicity in the illegal occupation and settlement enterprise. A just and sustainable peace must be anchored in international law and the right to self-determination.

June 14, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Israel | Leave a comment

Is America ready for a nuclear explosion in space? 

by Peter A. Garretson and Richard M. Harrison,   – 06/09/26, https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5915315-space-based-nuclear-weapons/

Gen. Stephen Whiting, the commander of U.S. Space Command, recently made waves when he publicly discussed a major threat that America’s newest military branch recently war-gamed — that of an adversary detonating a nuclear weapon in space.  

At first blush, the scenario seems far-fetched. In truth, though, it is a real possibility. 

More than a year ago, in February 2024, House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) was already raising the alarm that Russia could place a space-based nuclear device into orbit. That possibility was later confirmed by the Pentagon.


The White House grasps the danger. A December 2025 Executive Order on Space Superiority directs the country’s relevant agencies to create “a space security strategy that accounts for United States interests in, from, and to space” and “a technology plan for detecting, characterizing, and countering potential adversary placement of nuclear weapons in space.” That strategy, moreover, is expected as soon as June 16.

This public call to action is notable. It marks the first time an unclassified document has publicly directed a response to a nuclear weapon in space. It also reflects the gravity of what is an increasingly plausible threat. After spending several months conducting a deep dive into this subject, we at the American Foreign Policy Council have come to the same ominous conclusions. Space-based nuclear weapons are a serious matter, and one that deserves the very highest level of national attention. 


Talk of a nuclear detonation generally triggers visions of cities being destroyed and mushroom clouds. The effects differ when a detonation occurs at a high altitude. While explosions near space, or in space, may not have immediate destructive effects here on Earth, they can prove equally devastating. Even a relatively small nuclear device, detonated at the right place in low Earth orbit, would have a catastrophic impact on U.S. and allied interests.  

That is because, while space itself is enormous, the vast majority of modern spacecraft (nearly 90 percent) are in low Earth orbit, most of them satellites. Both the American and the global economy rely on these systems for everything from the functioning of the Internet to aircraft navigation and ship tracking, at a cost of billions of dollars daily, and trillions annually.

Moreover, our intelligence agencies and the U.S. military rely extensively on satellites to detect the movement of adversary ships, aircraft and tanks; to track ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles; and to communicate with our overseas forces. And in the near future, advanced capabilities will allow the U.S. Space Force to globally track everything that moves in the skies or on the ground in real time, in addition to all weather across the entire globe.

A space-based nuclear explosion anywhere could be damaging, but one in low Earth orbit would be crippling. If a nuclear weapon were detonated above this range, in a medium, higher Earth or geostationary orbit, the blast effects would basically only destroy satellites within a few kilometers.

But a nuclear weapon detonated in low Earth orbit would be far more devastating, because it would interact with the Earth’s magnetic field. The resulting radiation would be so strong, it would basically destroy everything in low Earth orbit in under a week’s time — leaving more than 10,000 derelict satellites on intersecting orbits with no way to avoid each other. The resulting destruction would be massive. A nuclear detonation there would truly be a weapon of mass destruction. 

Worse still, repopulating those space assets after a detonation would be extremely complicated. We lack a stockpile of military (or civilian) satellites that are radiation-hardened, that could serve as replacements for the dead ones in orbit. Nor do we have proven technology available for deployment in space to reduce the harsh radiation. Finally, we have not yet invested in the technologies that would allow us to build build the satellites needed to replenish low Earth orbit quickly and efficiently.

By next week, the Department of Defense and intelligence community should have an actionable plan to deal with this gargantuan problem — or at least the start of one. Congress needs to stand ready to resource it. Moreover, as we have recommended, it should catalyze investments in space traffic management models, commercial “what if” agreements, radiation remediation technology, radiation-hardened replenishment, and long-term investments in an in-space industrial base above the threat.  

Putting such a plan in place is a necessary start. But it will necessitate political will and resolute action on the part of the U.S. government. Otherwise, we risk being left in the dark.  

Peter A. Garretson is a senior fellow in defense studies at the American Foreign Policy Council, where Richard M. Harrison is vice president of operations. They are the authors of a new report on Space Nuclear Weapons.

June 14, 2026 Posted by | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Sizewell C to move work offsite ‘as much as possible’ amid skills crisis

The National Audit Office (NAO) last month questioned whether investors in the Sizewell C nuclear power station were sufficiently incentivised to keep construction costs under control.

The public spending watchdog said it was “not clear” whether the project’s funding structure would motivate backers to keep costs down below the project’s “higher regulatory threshold” of £47.7bn.

09 Jun 2026 By Greg Pitcher, https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/civils/sizewell-c-to-move-work-offsite-as-much-as-possible-amid-skills-crisis-09-06-2026/

Sizewell C chief executive Nigel Cann has outlined plans to maximise offsite working on the £38bn nuclear project amid a looming construction skills shortage.

He told MPs on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) this week that productivity was a key risk to the programme and budget of the Suffolk scheme.

Sizewell C, which is backed by Hinkley Point C developer EDF as well as the UK Government and other investors, reached financial close last year.

Asked by PAC chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown whether he was confident the Suffolk nuclear plant would be delivered on time and at its lower ‘regulatory cost’ of £40.5bn, Cann replied: “Absolutely.”

But he admitted there was work to do to achieve this.

“You need to manage your risk as a long project; it’s over 10 years,” Cann told the committee. “So we absolutely need to focus.”

He said his first challenge was to get as much equipment as possible built and stored in the company’s 92,900 square metre warehouse ready for the start of main construction. Enabling works including excavation and infrastructure tasks had to be carried out efficiently as well, he added.

“All that [risk] will be retired by 2029 and then we look forward,” said Cann. “It’s [then] about really managing productivity. The UK currently has got a challenge around making sure productivity rates are high.

“It’s about working with all the bodies concerned, including trade unions, including the workforce, making sure we’ve got enough trained people to do the work, and really optimising that productivity.

“Our big challenge between now and [the start of main construction] to make that happen is to modulise as much as possible. So we want to take as much welding off site, we want to take as much stuff into factories as we can, so that when we get to the construction on site, it’s absolutely optimised.”

The first-ever Annual Skills Report 2026 from Skills England this month predicted a sharp increase in labour demand alongside an exodus of existing workers from the construction industry, warning that a million more people were needed over the next decade to meet UK infrastructure commitments.

Cann said all big infrastructure projects contained uncertainty.

But he added: “If I go back to what are the cornerstones that make a project successful, [they are] stable design at the beginning; a very good bill of quantities; a supply chain [that] has done it before, in contract – we plan to have all our equipment contracts signed up by the end of next year. All that gives you confidence that you can deliver a project on time, on budget.”


The National Audit Office (NAO) last month questioned whether investors in the Sizewell C nuclear power station were sufficiently incentivised to keep construction costs under control.

The public spending watchdog said it was “not clear” whether the project’s funding structure would motivate backers to keep costs down below the project’s “higher regulatory threshold” of £47.7bn.

Jonathan Brearley, permanent secretary at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, told the PAC this week: “If we’d gone for a contract for difference, and purely private finance, we think this wouldn’t deliver either the best value for customers or indeed be affordable for customers.

“And we’ve learned lessons from High Speed 2 (HS2). We are not replicating HS2. We are not putting in a fixed price because of the cost that’s involved. We have created a regulatory system that balances those risks.

“I’m not sitting here saying there is no risk… but I think we’ve put a structure in place that best allows us to manage those risks.”

June 14, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

UK to Extend Life of Sizewell B Nuclear Plant by 20 Years !

 Electricite de France SA and Centrica Plc are poised to agree on a draft
deal with the UK government to extend the life of the Sizewell B nuclear
power station by two decades, according to people familiar with the matter.
The companies are on the verge of agreeing a heads of terms agreement with
the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and will announce the deal
within weeks, two of the people said. The final deal is expected to be
agreed later this year.

 Bloomberg 10th June 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-10/uk-poised-to-extend-life-of-sizewell-b-nuclear-plant-by-20-years

June 14, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Nuclear plant could be delayed again by demands to protect fish

Britain’s first new nuclear power station in more than three decades is
facing years of further delays after an environmental quango said it still
posed a danger to fish.

Hinkley Point C has already spent more than £700
million to offset concerns about its impact on wildlife, including paying
for acoustic deterrents to stop fish from the Severn Estuary being sucked
into the plant’s cooling pipes. But now Natural England has told the
company behind the project that its plans are not good enough and it will
have to pay to create salt marshes in the estuary to boost the fish
population before it can begin generating power.

The demand has led to
warnings that Hinkley’s already delayed 2030 opening date will have to be
put back still further, alongside millions of pounds in additional costs,
which will ultimately be paid for through energy bills.

Any delay would
also in effect kill off Ed Miliband’s signature pledge to decarbonise
electricity supplies by 2030 because it is due to supply between 7 and 10
per cent of the UK’s total power needs. In a letter to local residents
EDF said Natural England had told the company it would not be allowed to
start energy generation unless it did more to protect fish.

The pro-growth
campaign Britain Remade said the case highlighted a system where regulators
and arms-length bodies could demand “endless bespoke surveys, mitigations
and design changes, with little regard for the national interest, energy
security or the cost to billpayers”. “Britain desperately needs more
clean, reliable power, but the system we have built is making it harder and
more expensive to get it,” said Sam Richards, the group’s chief
executive.

Natural England said that under its original development consent
EDF was required to show that its impact on protected species was “fully
mitigated” and said it was applying “the same legal tests that apply to
every major infrastructure project in the UK.“Our advice is grounded in
statutory duties under the habitats regulations, the best available
scientific evidence and the government’s established policy framework,”
it said.

Dave Slater, regional director for Natural England added:
“Development and nature are not competing interests. Building the UK’s
largest nuclear power station is a major undertaking which brings
significant environmental challenges and we are playing our part in finding
solutions to enable this vital infrastructure development to go ahead while
improving environmental outcomes.”

 Times 10th June 2026,
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-delays-environmental-demands-l33cp90n2

June 14, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

How The CIA Conjured Ukrainian Nationalism

Fast forward to now, and in response to Ukraine’s state-level glorification of the ultranationalist UPA and its lead genocidaire Andriy Melnyk, Polish President Karol Nawrocki has announced he will seek to strip Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Warsaw’s highest honour, bestowed in 2023.

Kit Klarenberg, Jun 10, 2026, https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/how-the-cia-conjured-ukrainian-nationalism


A bitter row has erupted between Kiev and Warsaw, after Volodymyr Zelensky renamed a Ukrainian military unit the “Heroes of the UPA”. The UPA – Ukrainian Insurgent Army – was an ultranationalist faction heavily implicated in the Holocaust, which slaughtered up to 100,000 Polish civilians during World War II. In addition to commemorating the mass-murdering militant group, the corpse of Andriy Melnyk, leader of UPA parent the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B), was reburied in Kiev. At a grand accompanying ceremony, Zelensky declared:

“Today we all see that the Ukrainian idea can overcome what once seemed absolutely insurmountable. Now, when we are on Ukrainian soil, under our Ukrainian flag, to the sound of the Ukrainian national anthem, paying due tribute to our Ukrainian heroes, we feel in our hearts everything Ukrainians were forced to go through, everything our people had to endure.”

The unspeakable horrors inflicted upon Poles – and Communists, Jews, Romani and other “undesirables” – by Melynk and his fellow Nazi collaborators were of course unmentioned. So too that the genocidal nationalism practiced and preached by Melynk was covertly promoted and sponsored for decades by Anglo-American intelligence, within and without Ukraine. The ongoing proxy conflict is a direct product of this little-known spectral meddling, which was specifically concerned with promoting cultural and ethnic difference, and enmity, between Russians and Ukrainians globally.

As this journalist has previously revealed, in August 1957 the CIA secretly drew up elaborate plans for a US special forces invasion of Ukraine. Intended to collapse the wider Soviet Union, the Agency’s conspiracy depended heavily on recruiting local fascists as footsoldiers. A significant stumbling block to the Agency’s plot, however, was much of Ukraine’s population actually harbouring “few grievances” against Russians or Communism. “Points of conflict” between Russians and Ukrainians, which could be exploited by the CIA to foment a mass uprising, were scant.

The Agency lamented how “the long history of union between Russia and Ukraine, which stretches in an almost unbroken line from 1654 to the present day,” had resulted in “many Ukrainians” having “adopted the Russian way of life.” Moreover, the similarity of their “languages, customs, and backgrounds,” and the “great influence” of Russian culture in Ukraine, meant the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians felt “little national antagonism.” Yet, the CIA believed “important grievances exist,” and “under favorable conditions” Ukrainians would assist US invaders.

Unmentioned in the invasion planning documents, the CIA had since 1949 been covertly striving to create those “favorable conditions.” A key Agency asset used for the purpose was OUN-B chief Mykola Lebed. In 1943, he proposed to “cleanse the entire revolutionary territory” – today’s western Ukraine – of its Polish population, to prevent any future Polish state from claiming the region. A post-war US Army counterintelligence report branded Lebed a “well-known sadist,” and Nazi collaborator.

The nucleus of Lebed’s international fascist agitation was Prolog, a New York-based publishing firm. A 1966 CIA memo noted this “cover organization” for the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (ZP/UHVR) was established to conduct “clandestine activity.” It approvingly added that Prolog’s work “contributes to Ukrainian nationalist ferment and to intellectual resistance to Soviet repression by exploiting existing and encouraging new deviationist tendencies” in Ukraine. Elsewhere, the Agency declared it was “important to continue to encourage divisive manifestation” of this sort. The explicitly stated objective was triggering “nationalist flareups” in the USSR:

“[ZP/UHVR] were sent from the Ukraine in 1945 by the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council to make contact with Western intelligence representatives and to act in behalf of the homeland…[ZP/UHVR] organized a net of collaborators throughout Western Europe and the United States…the feeling of nationalism is very much alive. ZP/UHVR has proved realistic in its approach to operational matters and its propaganda activity.”

‘Existing Suspicions’

A late 1953 Agency memo documents how the CIA for years broadcast “black radio transmissions” in Ukrainian from a secret CIA installation in Athens, Greece. “Soviet officialdom, Soviet military forces stationed in the Ukraine, the indigenous civilian population…the underground movement and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)” were an intended target audience of 40 million people, upon whom the Agency wished to have a “significant propaganda impact.” Produced by ultranationalist emigres who’d fled Ukraine after World War II, the project sought to foment insurrectionary anti-Communist violence:

“Furnish evidence of outside sympathy and understanding for the Ukrainian peoples; intensify anti-regime disaffection by encouraging resentment, bitterness, and distrust of the Soviet regime and its personalities; maintain national consciousness among the Ukrainians and urge them to maintain pride in the individuality and heritage of their culture; create dissatisfaction among Ukrainian military personnel within the Soviet armed forces stationed in the Ukraine; create and intensify dissatisfaction among the Ukrainian civil authorities to the Soviet regime.”

Publicly, the station’s US-made broadcasts – which included Ukrainian folk songs – were “attributed to a notional group of Ukrainian Anti-Communists.” There was no connection “actual or implied, with any established Ukrainian emigre group.” It was of the utmost importance too the CIA’s hand in creating and running the station was concealed – “every effort will be made to keep this risk at a minimum.” However, the operation’s ruinous spoils were considered well-worth the hazards.

“It will provide a wedge which can be driven deeper between the Soviets and the Ukrainians and would exacerbate existing suspicions and antagonisms between the two ethnic factions,” the CIA declared. The Agency also sought to create a wider “psychological climate” among Ukrainian audiences which would be “more favorable” to other anti-Soviet operations it was simultaneously conducting. Moreover, it was forecast “Soviet reaction to the broadcasts may indicate certain areas of vulnerability or sensitivity not heretofore recognized,” which could be further exploited.

‘Imperial Policy’

The CIA’s efforts to encourage Ukrainian nationalism and separatism endured throughout the Cold War. Via avowed CIA front the National Endowment for Democracy, overt US assistance was provided to Rukh (The People’s Movement of Ukraine). One of Soviet Ukraine’s first opposition parties, Rukh is widely considered to have played a key role in securing Ukraine’s ‘independence’ in December 1991. Four months earlier, US President George H W Bush had visited Kiev and given an infamous speech in which he cautioned Ukrainians against embracing “suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”

His comments enraged Ukrainian nationalists, and Stateside anti-Soviet hawks. Yet, Bush’s fears were well-founded. By this point, Yugoslavia was rapidly disintegrating, engulfed by ever-violent fratricidal tensions. His administration was thus formally committed at this time to preserving the Soviet Union in some form, and undertook ill-fated measures in service of this goal. Too little, too late, that mission’s failure set Ukraine hurtling towards all-out conflict with Russia. As long-desired by the CIA, “antagonisms between the two ethnic factions” now run deep.

In a bitter twist, it was precisely because the NED-orchestrated February 2014 Maidan coup was led by rabidly anti-Russian nationalist elements that a majority of Ukrainians did not support the Maidan movement. As a contemporary Washington Post analysis noted, Viktor Yanukovych remained “the most popular political figure in the country,” and no poll conducted to date had ever indicated mass support for the uprising. Surveys conversely showed “large majorities” of Ukrainians opposed the violent storming of regional governments by Maidan insurrectionists.

This hostility was spurred by “anti-Russian rhetoric and the iconography of western Ukrainian nationalism…not [playing] well among the Ukrainian majority.” Washington Post noted how Neo-Nazi party Svoboda was at Maidan’s forefront. Its leader Oleh Tyahnybok had infamously praised the UPA for fighting “against the Moskali [Russians], Germans, Zhydy [Jews] and other scum.” His words were not well-received by the 50% of Ukraine’s population residing in regions that had “strongly identified with Russia” for over two centuries. “Nearly all are alienated by anti-Russian rhetoric and symbols”:

“Anti-Russian forms of Ukrainian nationalism expressed on the Maidan are certainly not representative of the general view of Ukrainians. Electoral support for these views and for the political parties who espouse them has always been limited. Their presence and influence in the protest movement far outstrip their role in Ukrainian politics and their support barely extends geographically beyond a few Western provinces.”

Fast forward to now, and in response to Ukraine’s state-level glorification of the ultranationalist UPA and its lead genocidaire Andriy Melnyk, Polish President Karol Nawrocki has announced he will seek to strip Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Warsaw’s highest honour, bestowed in 2023. Meanwhile, premier Donald Tusk has cursed the Ukrainian leader’s actions as “[wounding] our historical sensitivity,” and “worrying from the point of view of our relations.”

Authorities in Kiev appear entirely unconcerned their close neighbour and proxy war ally has been so egregiously insulted. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson claimed Zelensky had not wished to cause any offence. “Our history confirms only Moscow benefits from disputes between Ukrainians and Poles,” they said. Besides, for Ukrainian soldiers, “the struggle of the UPA symbolises strictly the opposition to Moscow’s imperial policy.” As the CIA always intended, two antithetical versions of history are now effectively at war in Donbass. A more devastating modern day example of divide and conquer in action one would be hard-pressed to identify.

June 14, 2026 Posted by | history, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Rolls-Royce strikes nuclear deal with Japan, likely to be tax-payer funded

potential support that could eventually include
taxpayer-backed loans, debt financing or direct investments from the
National Wealth Fund.

Sir Keir Starmer and Sanae Takaichi set to sign agreement to develop advanced modular reactors

Matt Oliver, Industry Editor

 Britain will join forces with Japan to build mini nuclear reactors capable
of powering factories, data centres and military bases. Sanae Takaichi,
Japan’s prime minister, and Sir Keir Starmer will sign an agreement at a
ceremony in Downing Street on Sunday, as part of a push to strengthen
energy cooperation between Tokyo and London.

The tie-up will lead to
British engineering giant Rolls-Royce working with the National Nuclear
Laboratory and its Japanese counterpart to develop advanced modular
reactors (AMRs) and the fuel needed to power them, The Telegraph can
disclose.

Japan has been testing a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor for
decades, but the technology remains unproven commercially. Under the
partnership, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency will share its extensive safety
data with Rolls-Royce to help the company build a demonstrator AMR in the
UK by the mid-2030s.

Rolls is understood to have held discussions with the
Government about potential support that could eventually include
taxpayer-backed loans, debt financing or direct investments from the
National Wealth Fund.

Under the agreement, Rolls-Royce, the UK and Japanese
national laboratories have also agreed to explore options for supplying the
novel kind of fuel the AMRs will use. Known as tri-structural isotropic
particle fuel (TRISO), it is seen by scientists as inherently safer than
more conventional nuclear fuel because it can be left to cool on its own.
TRISO fuel is made by taking poppy seed-sized pieces of uranium and
wrapping them in layers of ceramic material that are almost as tough as
diamond. These pellets are then compacted into hexagonal blocks or billiard
ball-sized “pebbles”, which can be loaded into a nuclear reactor. The
Government has already announced a £300m programme with Urenco, a nuclear
fuel company, to build a UK enrichment facility capable of providing the
uranium needed to make TRISO pellets.

 Telegraph 14th June 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/14/rolls-royce-strikes-nuclear-deal-with-japan/

June 14, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Japan, UK | Leave a comment

  International People’s Tribunal (IPT) invites representatives of the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea to participate in Proceedings on Korean Victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings

10 June 2026, https://abombtribunal.campaignus.me/34/?q=YToxOntzOjEyOiJrZXl3b3JkX3R5cGUiO3M6MzoiYWxsIjt9&bmode=view&idx=171742128&t=board

The International Organizing Committee of the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) today formally invited representatives of the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea to participate in this Peoples’ Tribunal, which is being convened to highlight the experiences and claims of Korean victims of the 1945 atomic bombings. This group of atomic bomb survivors has too often been overlooked and now seeks recognition, acknowledgment, and redress through international legal accountability. 

Letters of invitation were respectfully provided to these two governments in the hope that they will send representatives to the Tribunal, which will be held at the Graduate School of Theology, Hanshin University, in Seoul, South Korea, on November 13–15, 2026. 

The formal invitations are attached to this release. The invitations were jointly signed by the three Co-Chairs of the International Organizing Committee: Bishop Emeritus Kang U-il of Jeju, Archbishop John Charles Wester of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, and Takashi Hiraoka, former Mayor of Hiroshima City. 

The Tribunal is organized with the participation of lawyers, scholars, activists, and relevant experts from Korea and abroad. Korean atomic bomb victims will participate as claimants in the proceedings, which will address issues of international legal responsibility arising from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, as well as the future use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. 

The IPT is being organized in recognition of the fact that the experiences of Korean atomic bomb victims—who were victims both of Japanese imperial aggression and colonial rule, and of the atomic bombings carried out by the  United States—have not been sufficiently brought to light before the international community.

The IPT also seeks to contribute to international legal discussions concerning the restoration of victims’ human rights, including official apologies, compensation, guarantees of non-repetition, and the prohibition of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as to broader efforts toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the realization of a world free of nuclear weapons.

CONTACT: 

Brad Wolf
U.S. Organizing Committee Contact
Email: bradwolf1310@gmail.com 

Kihoon Lee
SPARK (Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea)
Email: abombtribunal@gmail.com 

June 14, 2026 Posted by | politics international, South Korea | Leave a comment

Beyond the Propaganda: The French Uniqueness and the New Nuclear Dead End.

green report.it By Luigi Moccia, June 11, 2026  

Nuclear is better than renewables: have you seen how low emissions are in France compared to those in Germany?”

How many times have you heard this biased and misleading statement, accompanied by a graph comparing emissions per kilowatt-hour produced in those two countries?

In its simplicity, this comparison seems solid, but it masks several misunderstandings that require much more than a single indicator chart to unravel.

Proponents of this argument imply that France and Germany represent polar opposites in decarbonization: nuclear-focused France versus renewables-focused Germany. This framework is flawed because, first, Germany has contributed to decisive progress in renewables, but it is not a monolith and has demonstrated contradictory aspects, as we will see below.

Secondly, a partial relativization also applies to France, which, although it has a nuclear energy policy, has also invested in renewables, thus improving the emissions profile of its electricity production.

It’s true that, yes, in Europe, if you’re looking for a natural experiment in pro-nuclear policy, France is the benchmark, and so it makes sense to include it in a debate on energy policies. But if you want a pro-renewables benchmark in Europe, you need to look not at Germany, but at other countries, such as Denmark.

Are France and Denmark countries of different sizes and therefore not comparable? Indeed, in this case, some context is needed, but, if anything, the differences in size work against the small country, Denmark, as we will see below.

This debate is unknown to the public because pro-nuclear clichés are relentlessly directed against Germany, guilty of recognizing that nuclear power is a non-competitive technology on the market, too risky to invest in, and that decarbonization must be achieved with other means. This has led to a proliferation of distortions about German energy policies, which not only invade  social media but also end up in the columns of newspapers deemed authoritative, thus distorting the debate. In this  excursus  on the energy policies of France and Denmark, I will also develop some considerations regarding Germany, as a contribution to countering misinformation. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

But how much does French nuclear power really cost?

No one knows for sure. In France, the civil nuclear program was developed under a state monopoly, in conjunction with the military program. The two accounts were not separate and were secret. Only in 2000, once the program was completed, was an attempt made to evaluate the costs of the civil program. A special parliamentary commission of inquiry was established by the Jospin government (the Charpin–Dessus–Pellat Commission , named after the three designated commissioners). An analysis of the data made available by this commission is presented in a 2010 scientific article by Arnulf Grubler ( link ). Contrary to expectations, according to which costs should decrease with the increase in installations, French reactors followed the opposite trajectory: costs increased over time.

The trend of rising costs continued even after the early 2000s, when, according to some, a new “Nuclear Renaissance” should have begun.

Are you having  déjà vu ? Didn’t you know there was already a period in which a new beginning for the atom was hypothesized? Well, truth be told, the current “Renaissance” isn’t even the second, because even before the one in the early 2000s, there were those, from a very authoritative position, who had predicted another imminent one, in 1985 (see the  article by Alvin Weinberg and co-authors ). So today we are at the third announcement of a “Nuclear Renaissance,” after the first two failed. As you can see, these announcements follow a twenty-year cycle, ebb and flow.

Is nuclear overregulated?

According to some, the rising cost of nuclear energy is caused by excessive regulation: this technology is supposedly subject to safety standards that are too stringent compared to the actual risk. This would therefore be a case of overregulation driven by irrational fears. To support this claim, a graph is usually presented comparing various sources based on the mortality rate per unit of electricity produced. In such a comparison, nuclear power appears to be very low. Is this enough to conclude that nuclear power is a safe source? For influencers  and  Sunday   debunkers, evidently yes, because they spend their time on  social media  posting this single graph. For the rest of the world, who are familiar with risk analysis, however, the answer is no…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

What other energy technology presents a risk on a single site of this size? None. That’s why it’s hyperbole to label a technology “safe” when its risks are manageable, but the costs are enormous……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So what is the cost of the new French nuclear power?

New nuclear power plant projects using French technology that have been started in the last quarter of a century can be counted on one hand and are four in total: Olkiluoto in Finland, Taishan in China, Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point in the United Kingdom.

Quickly, because you could write a book about it: four projects, one worse than the other.

Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 reactor not only went 14 years over schedule and three-odd miles over budget, but it also caused the  bankruptcy of AREVA , which was bailed out at Paris’ expense. Thus, the Finns, who had the savvy to sign a turnkey contract, saw their exposure to budget overruns reduced (but not eliminated). Keep this in mind when you hear people boast about the low prices on the Finnish electricity market thanks to the new Olkiluoto reactor: French taxpayers largely paid for it!

The two reactors built in China at Taishan, in addition to overruns in construction time (a five-year delay) and budget (more than 60%, see the report by the French Court of Auditors ), have recorded very mediocre performances in these first years of operation: cumulative capacity factors equal to 55% and 76% (source: IAEA PRIS ), following anomalies detected on the first reactor in 2021 and 2022. Note the difference compared to what nuclear proponents usually boast before the start of each project: according to them, it should always be equal to the capacity factor of the best reactors, equal to around 90%.

China has no plans to build further reactors with this French technology. As China is the only country with a significant nuclear program, at least given the declining status of this source, this  debacle  undermines France’s hopes of playing a leading role as an exporter of this technology. It is no coincidence that India, which has expressed interest in this technology in its diplomatic relations with France for decades, has yet to finalize any contracts, despite periodic announcements, always reiterated with great fanfare, which are then forgotten.

The domestically built Flamanville reactor continues to astound the world with its incredible series of unfortunate events. After twelve years of construction overruns and a budget more than three times the originally planned, the Flamanville-3 reactor powered up on September 3, 2024. The day was celebrated with great fanfare by nuclear proponents, evidently to forget the previous tribulations, because what’s done is done.

It’s a shame that nuclear power is a bit more complex than any other technology. As of June 2026, 21 months after commissioning, the reactor is not yet fully operational (source: IAEA PRIS ). If it is fully operational in the coming months, 2026 will be a short operational phase: further extraordinary maintenance is planned to replace a major component, as well as other repairs. This shutdown phase will begin in September 2026 and last almost a year. Therefore, the actual performance of this reactor will only be determined in 2028, assuming all goes well.

The costs? The French Court of Auditors had estimated the investment cost, including interest, at €23.7 billion, based on 2023 figures ( 
link ). But in the meantime, there have been further delays, and then the extraordinary maintenance phase will arrive. Each year of inactivity for such a large reactor entails liabilities exceeding €1 billion. A new assessment will be drawn up in a few years, but it’s already safe to say that, in a nation that has never abandoned nuclear power, a new reactor built on a site already equipped with adequate infrastructure (because it already hosts other reactors) will produce at well over €160/MWh (see Fig. 7, page 24 of  
this technical report  by Australian researchers, considering that the analysis does not include the aforementioned post-construction delays). That’s roughly triple what some dreamers believe possible with nuclear power here in Italy. Of course, they’d be the “rational” ones!

Last but not least , England: here, the nuclear revival was supposed to take place, as decided by Tony Blair’s governments. In the British political system, which is predominantly two-party, nuclear power enjoys almost complete support in both government and opposition. But despite the absence of significant parliamentary opposition, nuclear power has never been revived in the past quarter-century. Delays and budget overruns at the Hinkley Point power plant under construction have significantly dampened expectations. Compensation for the two new reactors at this plant is expected to be based on a guaranteed price for 35 years, fully indexed to inflation. This price, at current values, is equal to €151/MWh (but be careful, it must be updated annually for inflation, and entry into service is scheduled for the early 2030s). It is unlikely that this remuneration, however generous, will be sufficient to guarantee the profitability of the French company EDF. The Court of Auditors of that country has already expressed criticism of the matter; see page 56 of  this report . On this project alone, EDF had to absorb losses of 12.9 billion euros in 2024 ( link ), to which further losses of 2.5 billion euros were added in 2026 ( link ).

In short, electricity is expensive for British customers, without even generating value for the French taxpayer. Not exactly a model that, not surprisingly, won’t be replicated in England itself. If the other British nuclear project, the Sizewell C power plant, is built, the remuneration mechanism will be different, not based solely on electricity produced. As we’ve seen, even a generous purchase guarantee isn’t enough to make nuclear power bankable. Starting in December 2025, UK customers will already be paying a contribution to the plant’s construction on their bills, even though it hasn’t even begun! Independent estimates estimate that this electricity will cost €334/MWh ( link ). A bargain, but not for British customers, as explained below.

This brief overview of new French nuclear projects—six reactors out of four power plants—is exhaustive; there are no others. This isn’t a  carefully selected subset ; this is the total number of projects underway in what is considered the West’s leading nuclear power plant.

Furthermore, I also commented on the possible two new reactors of the Sizewell project, if they are ever built. But even that figure doesn’t improve the picture; if anything, it worsens it, because, although the cost estimate is the most recent, it is also the highest, confirming that, with nuclear, the most plausible estimate is always the highest and that state involvement in nuclear must be preponderant, users must start paying for at least a decade before receiving their first kilowatt-hour, and, even under these conditions, those who agree to invest demand and receive returns in the form of Argentine bonds (according to the Financial Times ( link ), private investors in Sizewell C will receive a rate of return on capital between 10.8 and 13%).

Based on this evidence, the new French nuclear power is out of the market.

It’s no coincidence that the remaining fortunes of that country’s nuclear industry now depend on a new reactor project, the EPR2. This project, still on paper, has already seen a 58% increase in its budget forecast in just six years. Note that the 58% increase in the budget is adjusted for inflation .

If all goes well, an EPR2 will enter into operation in 2038. Given the track record, who would dare sign a purchase contract for such a reactor before seeing at least one in operation for a reasonable number of years? Whether this project is successful will only be known in the 2040s, not before. Therefore, any hypothesis of decarbonization, which for the electricity sector must occur before that date, cannot reasonably rely on new European nuclear technology, since, in this western part of the continent, French nuclear power is the only active sector.

Active but stranded, even without wanting to add to the picture the difficulties of extraordinary maintenance to extend the useful life of the old reactors, the dismantling and waste management (further budget overruns have already been announced, including for the geological repository,  
a budget that has already more than doubled , and, as they say in French,  
ce n’est qu’un début ), as well as the geopolitical difficulties of both natural uranium supply ( 
the upheavals in the former colonial area of ​​Africa ) and the enrichment phase (dependence on Russia, which controls 46% of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity,  
Szulecki and Overland, 2023 ). Furthermore, regarding the dependence of the French nuclear industry on Russia, it should be remembered that in 2022 approximately half of the turnover of Arabelle turbines (ex-Alstom) depended on orders from Rosatom (source: 
WNISR 2024 ). These facts are the reason for Europe’s resistance to sanctioning that important sector of Russia’s military economy, despite the invasion of Ukraine……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://www.greenreport.it/editoriale/62161-oltre-la-propaganda-lunicum-francese-e-il-vicolo-cieco-del-nuovo-nucleare

June 14, 2026 Posted by | France, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Experts Warn Against Handing Impact Assessment of Nuclear Projects Over to Captured Regulator.

Academics, environmental lawyers and civil society organizations are raising the alarm about proposals in the federal discussion paper, “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada.” An initial 30 day comment period ending June 7th was recently extended to July 22 after the government received “feedback from thousands of stakeholders, Indigenous groups, and members of the public”.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association says the proposals in the discussion paper are “unjustified, regressive, and contrary to the public interest,” would reduce “public participation, transparency, and accountability,” and “would constitute the most significant rollback of federal environmental laws in recent decades.”

Particularly problematic is the proposal to hand assessment of nuclear projects over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).  Experts say nuclear projects require meaningful public participation and careful evaluation, based on evidence tested rigorously by independent experts.

The CNSC is led by industry insiders, has never turned down a license application, reports to a Minister who promotes nuclear power, and withholds information. Academic studies observe that the CNSC has features of a “captured regulator”. Public trust in the CNSC has declined over many years.  Assessing-Nuclear-Risk.ca.

June 14, 2026 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

Is the Ceasefire Dead? (w/ Alastair Crooke) | The Chris Hedges Report

The US-Israeli war has heated up again as Iran launched “Operation Victory” in response to Israel’s continued attacks on Southern Lebanon and attacks on Iranian infrastructure, and the United States bombing islands in the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend. In this episode, Chris Hedges speaks with former British Diplomat Alastair Crooke of the Conflicts Forum Substack, who explains that given the failure of diplomatic negotiations, Iran has entered a new phase of the war utilizing the methodology of ‘escalatory deterrence’ in which every attack on Iran will be met with an increasingly greater response.

A change in Israel’s military strategy has occurred following the events of the 7th of October 2023. Crookes describe this as a shift away from primarily using military force to expand settlements to a focus on ‘permanent security’ — aimed at eliminating any potential threats in the region. Israel is on a mission to establish a Greater Israel by force, but this is taking a toll on the Israeli military, which is at a “point of implosion.”

Both Netanyahu and Trump have boxed themselves in with the wars on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, generating heavy losses and little possibility of victory but no clear politically acceptable path to a resolution. Both face declining support in the polls and are likely to fare poorly in the next elections. The Likud party is fragmenting, and Crooke explains that “it’s quite possible that the machine that [Netanyahu’s] put into place over 20 and more years could implode.”

For President Trump, the outcome will be decided by what happens to the global economy as shortages of critical resources — fuel, fertilizer and industrial inputs — cause a growing crisis. “Pain is a great transformer,” states Crooke, which may lead Western allies to accept greater concessions to Iran. In the big picture, Hedges and Crooke concur that the West, with its failing institutions, is in a process of catharsis, a period of decline, which is necessary, they say, for there to be any possibility of its renewal and restoration. “This is the process we’ve got to start slowly addressing.”

Transcript………………………………………………..https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/10/is-the-ceasefire-dead-w-alastair-crooke-the-chris-hedges-report/

June 14, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Planned strikes suspended at nuclear site

 Planned strike action at a nuclear site has been suspended, union
officials have confirmed. About 2,000 construction workers employed by
contractors to work at Sellafield, in Cumbria, were set to down tools
between 15 and 21 June because of a dispute over pay. The workers argued
they should receive “a site-specific allowance due to the specialist skills
needed to work at a nuclear site and the hazardous nature of that site”.
Ryan Armstrong, regional officer at the union Unite, said industrial action
had been suspended as an “act of goodwill” to allow “meaningful talks” to
take place between the union and employers.

 BBC 11th June 2026
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70y88lzel7o

June 14, 2026 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

IAEA board passes resolution demanding Iran report uranium stocks

By Francois Murphy, June 11, 2026, Reuters

 The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors passed a
U.S.-backed resolution on Wednesday telling Iran to declare its remaining
enriched uranium ‌stocks and let inspectors verify them, which could
complicate Washington’s talks with Tehran……. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/iaea-board-passes-resolution-demanding-iran-report-uranium-stocks-diplomats-say-2026-06-10/

 

June 14, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

‘Burn for us’: The real message of US-EU ‘nuclear sharing’

Guarded by American troops – whose real mission is, of course, to keep the compliant clients from laying their grubby hands on them – these nukes sit ready for American orders to be used…….. in reality, “there’s only one key” and  – only one man will decide: the US president.

Washington has made Brussels another offer the Europeans are too slavish to refuse – even if it paints a giant target on their backs

these fresh nukes for Europe are supposed to make up for Washington withdrawing its conventional forces from the old continent.

What is truly baffling is why anyone in Europe would agree. The catastrophic disadvantages are just too obvious. Painting more targets on Europe’s back, distributing nuclear weapons further east when NATO’s eastward expansion is precisely what caused the Ukraine War,

8 Jun, 2026 , By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

There’s an old treaty that, if you have signed up to it, says that you can’t spread nuclear weapons. So, if you don’t have any nukes and you sign the treaty, you can’t get any. Simple as that. You’d think.

But leave it to the West, with all its ‘values’ and ‘rules-based order’ to, you know, not really break the rules. Just bend them a little. Bend them so much, in fact, that just breaking them would be more honest and less embarrassing.

The agreement we are talking about is, of course, the 1968  Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), according to the International Atomic Energy Agency “the centerpiece” – no less – of much that is good, beautiful, and eminently reasonable. Namely “global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.” Germany, for instance, is a long-standing signatory.

And yet, Germany and five other NPT signatories who belong to America’s NATO client system have nuclear gravity bombs on their (formally, at least) sovereign territory, and their air forces stand ready to carry them to targets which would be – surprise, surprise – in Russia. The little piece of shyster-level legal sophistry used to cover for this obvious breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is called – wait for it – “Nuclear Sharing.” Sweet, isn’t it? The world – or, perhaps, just Europe – may end in a man-made big bang of fire and fallout, but, as they say in kindergarten ‘sharing is caring.’

By the way, it is obvious – and would have been to men such as Clausewitz, York (both with some serious delay, admittedly), or Bismarck – that, for instance, German officers worth their salt would have to prepare secret emergency plans for rapidly seizing those nuclear weapons on German territory from our American ‘allies.’ Without bloodshed, if possible; or with, if necessary.

And yet, Germany and five other NPT signatories who belong to America’s NATO client system have nuclear gravity bombs on their (formally, at least) sovereign territory, and their air forces stand ready to carry them to targets which would be – surprise, surprise – in Russia. The little piece of shyster-level legal sophistry used to cover for this obvious breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is called – wait for it – “Nuclear Sharing.” Sweet, isn’t it? The world – or, perhaps, just Europe – may end in a man-made big bang of fire and fallout, but, as they say in kindergarten ‘sharing is caring.’

By the way, it is obvious – and would have been to men such as Clausewitz, York (both with some serious delay, admittedly), or Bismarck – that, for instance, German officers worth their salt would have to prepare secret emergency plans for rapidly seizing those nuclear weapons on German territory from our American ‘allies.’ Without bloodshed, if possible; or with, if necessary.

Guarded by American troops – whose real mission is, of course, to keep the compliant clients from laying their grubby hands on them – these nukes sit ready for American orders to be used. Yes, formally, there’s some mumbo-jumbo about a ‘dual key,’ but everyone not badly dropped on their head when in their nappies knows that’s BS. As a French officer has just confirmed to Le Figaro, France’s conservative paper of record, in reality, “there’s only one key” and – as in every decent organized-crime outfit – only one man will decide: the US president.

Then, in case the American capo di tutti capi gives his end-of-days order, you, country X, will have the privilege to take these American nukes to Russia. Once your – not American – planes drop American nukes on Russian troop concentrations and bases or, say, Kaliningrad or St. Petersburg, just sit tight and wait for the response. It would come, even if it were the last thing they ever did. Because that’s the way the world works. Also, they have told us so.

There are variations to the ‘nuclear sharing’ shtick: Greece for instance, has a nifty little deal which means it doesn’t host US nuclear bombs but maintains a unit for helping deliver such bombs to Russia. Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, “and two unknown countries” are riding nuclear shotgun, as it were, by participating in the SNOWCAT (Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics) program. So sneaky!

With things set up so neatly to cheat the NPT, you would think that everybody is hunky-dory, as that old mafiosi Tony Soprano would have said. Yet far from it. In reality, the US is loudly considering expanding the “nuclear sharing” scheme, and several European states – including some for whom mere SNOWCAT-ing clearly is just not good enough – seem eager to get their own local pile of US nukes.

At the same time, as everyone acknowledges frankly, these fresh nukes for Europe are supposed to make up for Washington withdrawing its conventional forces from the old continent. What a message: “Dear Euro vassals, we won’t stay around to fight and die with you, but we are happy to make more of you bases and delivery boys for our nukes. Hope you feel safer now. (Oh, and also, we’d love to sell you more of our overpriced F-35s, US kill switches included, that you’ll need for your bombing runs against Russia when we whistle. Deal?)”

In a normal world – or to be precise, a normal Europe – the answer to such American generosity would have to be a resounding ‘f*ck off’ (in plain American English). But Europe’s elites are not sane and so Europe is very far from normal. There seems to be a real eagerness to keep doing what America wants, European interests be damned.

That’s why the so-called ‘NATO 3.0’ project associated in particular with ‘brain-of-the-Pentagon’ Elbridge Colby is likely to proceed just fine. Its essence is simple: Fewer US troops, key capacities, and conventional arms for Europe, so that Washington can shift its weight against China. Apart from the grandly strategic, there’s the personal: That Colby’s father, while working for the CIA, helped lose the Vietnam War may play a role in shaping his son’s priorities.

Russia, if things ever went that far, is extremely unlikely to play along with this NATO 3.0 strategy, obviously. On the contrary, once US nukes land on its troops, bases, and cities, whether launched from and through European vassals or the American mainland, Moscow is likely to hit back at both.

Yet the real mystery here is not how Washington has arrived at adopting such a transparently fragile strategy. Looked at from the big, group-think blob on the Potomac, it may appear worth a try. What is truly baffling is why anyone in Europe would agree. The catastrophic disadvantages are just too obvious. Painting more targets on Europe’s back, distributing nuclear weapons further east when NATO’s eastward expansion is precisely what caused the Ukraine War, sending yet another antagonizing signal to China that Europe is straining to do what it can just to help the US pressure Beijing, and, last but not least, setting Europe up for a large-scale re-run of what the West has just done to Ukraine: a devastating proxy war.

Europe does not need even more “nuclear sharing” with the unreliable, irrational, and aggressive US. It needs decoupling from its abusive and exploitative masters in Washington. If its leaders wish to share, how about doing some hard thinking about the economic and security interests their countries clearly share with both Russia and China? But then, Europe’s leaders don’t think. And when they do, then not on behalf of their own peoples. What a shared misery.

June 13, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons spending surges to record high of $119bn, report says

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons says states spent an extra $16.8bn on their nuclear arsenals in 2025.

By John Power 9 Jun 20269 , https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/6/9/nuclear-weapons-spending-surges-to-record-high-of-119bn-report-says

Global spending on nuclear weapons last year rose to an all-time high of $119bn, according to a report by nonproliferation advocates.

The world’s nine nuclear-armed countries spent an additional $16.8bn on their arsenals in 2025 compared with the previous year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) said in its latest report released on Tuesday.

The United States spent an estimated $69.2bn, a rise of $12.6bn, and more than all other nuclear powers combined, ICAN said.

China was the second-biggest spender, with an estimated $13.5bn, followed by the United Kingdom with $12.6bn, Russia with $9.5bn and France with $7.7bn, according to ICAN.

India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea spent sums ranging from $656m (by Pyongyang) to $2.8bn (by New Delhi).

ICAN said nuclear-armed states spent a combined $471bn over the past five years, with all of them planning to retain their arsenals for decades more.

“This exorbitant spending comes at a time when countries are significantly scaling back their investments in the global commons,” ICAN said in a summary accompanying the report.

“Whether reneging from climate change adaptation agreements or failing to pay their fair share to prevent the scourge of war through multilateral diplomacy, this overwhelming spending on nuclear weapons shows a willingness to research, develop, finance and build tools to exterminate humanity instead of save it.”

The report comes just a day after the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute warned that nuclear states were “sidelining” and “walking away from” nuclear disarmament commitments in favour of modernising and enhancing their arsenals.

The nine nuclear-armed states are estimated to possess more than 12,000 warheads between them, with the vast majority held by the US and Russia.

In 2017, the United Nations adopted the first legally-binding global treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.

Ninety-nine countries have signed, ratified or acceded to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which bars states from developing, testing, or acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

No country with nuclear weapons has signed the treaty.

Beginning in the early 1990s, the US and Russia signed a series of treaties to limit the size of their arsenals, but the last of these, New START, expired in February without any succeeding agreement.

June 13, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries