nuclear-news

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

Help Stop Radioactive Waste Dump and Thousands of Dangerous Shipments Across the US

 https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/05/help-stop-radioactive-waste-dump-and-thousands-of-dangerous-shipments-across-the-us/  by JOHN LAFORGE OCTOBER 5, 2018
The private company Waste Control Specialists (WCS) or “Interim Storage Partners” wants to place a high-level radioactive waste dump site (called a “centralized interim storage facility”) in West Texas.

If approved, opening this high-level waste dump would launch nation-wide transports of a total of 40,000 tons of irradiated reactor fuel (misleadingly known as “spent” fuel), to Texas from all over the country. The shipments are to be by rail, highway, and floating barge (even on Lake Michigan!). The planned-for thousands of such transports create risks for nearly everyone in the United States, because the ferociously radioactive material would pass near schools, hospitals, businesses, and farms, would travel on and over lakes, rivers, and waterways, and go through areas where our food is grown and where families live, play and work. Amazingly, no public meetings on the subject are planned in Texas or elsewhere.

Act now to stop this dangerous nuclear waste dump

Environmental and community right-to-know groups are demanding: 1) public meetings in Texas and along transportation routes across the country; 2) a halt to these transport and dumping plans; and 3) uniform publication of application and related materials in Spanish.  You can add your voice to these urgent demands by writing to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the license application by WCS until Oct. 19th .

Tell NRC: Listen to the people! No mass radioactive waste shipments to Texas. Under WCS’s license application, the 40,000 tons of high-level waste from commercial power reactors could move on railroads, highways and even on waterways using barges for decades. Then, because the Texas site is supposedly “temporary,” after being shipped there the waste would have to be packed-up and transported again, to a “permanent” waste dump site — if one is ever approved. This means that new transportation and repackaging dangers will continue for additional decades.

For this reason, experts like D’Arrigo at NIRS and elsewhere recommend against any “interim” storage sites, and instead suggest storage on or near the reactors, until a permanent waste dump is opened.

The Texas region where WCS wants to store the waste (above-ground, and in the open) is prone to earthquakes, intense storms, extreme temperatures, and flooding. West Texas is not the place to store the most hazardous waste in the world.

Under the guise of “managing” this deadly waste from nuclear power reactors, the centralized temporary storage plan would make the problem worse, changing the country forever by ushering in an era of intensely deadly reactor waste transports everywhere, moving regularly through our major cities and rural communities.

Yet, the United States NRC does not want to fully consider the impacts of repeatedly transporting radioactive waste to or from the supposedly “temporary” site. Please tell the NRC to hold public meetings, to extend the comment and intervention deadlines, and to fully consider all the dangers from high-level waste storage and transport in the WCS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

You can email: WCS_CISF_EIS@nrc.gov.

A sample letter you could submit is available here.

October 8, 2018 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

USA came near to using nuclear bombs in Vietnam war

U.S. General Considered Nuclear Response in Vietnam War, Cables Show, By David E. Sanger, NYT, Oct. 6, 2018 WASHINGTON — In one of the darkest moments of the Vietnam War, the top American military commander in Saigon activated a plan in 1968 to move nuclear weapons to South Vietnam until he was overruled by President Lyndon B. Johnson, according to recently declassified documents cited in a new history of wartime presidential decisions.

The documents reveal a long-secret set of preparations by the commander, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, to have nuclear weapons at hand should American forces find themselves on the brink of defeat at Khe Sanh, one of the fiercest battles of the war.

With the approval of the American commander in the Pacific, General Westmoreland had put together a secret operation, code-named Fracture Jaw, that included moving nuclear weapons into South Vietnam so that they could be used on short notice against North Vietnamese troops.

Johnson’s national security adviser, Walt W. Rostow, alerted the president in a memorandum on White House stationery.

The president rejected the plan, and ordered a turnaround, according to Tom Johnson, then a young special assistant to the president and note-taker at the meetings on the issue, which were held in the family dining room on the second floor of the White House………..

Had the weapons been used, it would have added to the horrors of one of the most tumultuous and violent years in modern American history. Johnson announced weeks later that he would not run for re-election. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated shortly thereafter.

The story of how close the United States came to reaching for nuclear weapons in Vietnam, 23 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced Japan to surrender, is contained in “Presidents of War,” a coming book by Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian.

……….The incident has echoes for modern times. It was only 14 months ago that President Trump was threatening the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea — which, unlike North Vietnam at the time, possesses its own small nuclear arsenal.

………And before he was dismissed in 1951 by President Harry S. Truman, Gen. Douglas MacArthur explored with his superiors the use of nuclear weapons in the Korean War. Truman had feared that MacArthur’s aggressive strategy would set off a larger war with China, but at one point did move atomic warheads to bases in the Pacific, though not to Korea itself…….

Mr. Beschloss’s book, which will be published on Tuesday by Crown, examines challenges facing presidents from Thomas Jefferson to George W. Bush. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/asia/vietnam-war-nuclear-weapons.html

October 8, 2018 Posted by | history, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK agonising over its nuclear industry future, leaving the Euratom Treaty, because of Brexit

What does the UK’s nuclear future look like?, By Chris MasonPolitical correspondent, BBC News, 5 October 2018

Six months out from Brexit, how are those involved with the UK’s nuclear sector viewing the prospect?

The area around the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria is the heartland of the UK’s nuclear industry…….. The word that sums up what everyone told us is “uncertainty”, but a particular kind of uncertainty, grounded in the history of this industry.

Months after Calder Hall opened, the Euratom Treaty established the European Atomic Energy Community. The UK did not formally join straight away but did have a relationship with it.

Euratom oversees nuclear research, sets the rules on where nuclear material is and how it is moved around. It knows, for instance, exactly how much spent uranium is in a storage pond at Sellafield.

But the government has decided leaving the European Union means leaving Euratom, and that is likely to mean potentially huge changes to the way nuclear businesses operate.

Mr Coughlan fears losing out on nuclear decommissioning orders from elsewhere in Europe, especially from Germany and Sweden.

“Once we are out, and no longer part of Euratom, it means we will not be able to participate in those markets,” he says. “The negotiations have been pretty disastrous for the UK,” says Sue Ferns, deputy general secretary of the Prospect trade union, who adds that current “uncertainty” over Brexit negotiations is damaging.

It’s that word again.

So, given such concern, why is the UK leaving Euratom?

After all, former government adviser Dominic Cummings, a leading advocate of Brexit, has described ministers as “morons” for advocating withdrawal from the organisation.

The House of Lords also tried to force the government to keep the UK in Euratom.

The crux of the government’s opposition is the way Euratom itself is overseen by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The prime minister insists this cannot happen – the UK cannot be subject to the decisions of a foreign court.

The government argues a central driving motivation for Leave voters was the desire to, as the slogan put it, “take back control”, meaning there can be no role for the ECJ.

Instead, ministers say, they will reach alternative arrangements with the EU, and have speeded up arriving at nuclear co-operation agreements with other countries worldwide.

But what do those who work for Euratom have to say about this big change?

Dame Sue Ion, who chairs Euratom’s Science and Technology Committee, says the UK has a lot of world-class expertise and creating new post-Brexit arrangements has meant a huge extra burden of unnecessary work.

She feels that ministers must “keep their foot on the gas pedal” to ensure international nuclear co-operation agreements after Brexit are as broad-based as possible.

The government has set out its plans for the nuclear sector in the event of no deal with the EU. A law has already been passed so that the Office for Nuclear Regulation in the UK, which already exists, could oversee “domestic safeguards” instead of Euratom. New agreements have also been signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency to replace the existing agreements between it, Euratom and the UK.

We also know that in the event of no deal, Euratom would no longer own special fissile material in the UK, with ownership transferring to the operators……….https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-45707290

October 8, 2018 Posted by | politics, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Georgia’s utility customers – worms who may be turning against paying for the Vogtle nuclear boondoggle

We understand bringing jobs to the state has been the governor’s chief priority and achievement, and it is one economic benefit of the project. But utility customers should only have to pay for their electric power, not a jobs program without end or limits on how much is spent.

Nuclear power play keeps Vogtle project alive https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/opinion/editorial-nuclear-power-play-keeps-vogtle-project-alive/  Plan moves ahead with changes, but customers’ patience is wearing thin  The Times Editorial Board letters@gainesvilletimes.com  Oct. 6, 2018,  For years, Georgia Power customers, nuclear power opponents and some politicians have been arguing that construction of the two new reactors at the Plant Vogtle nuclear power plant near Waynesboro is the state’s all-time white elephant.

The project, the nation’s only nuclear plant construction still ongoing, is already a year overdue, nowhere near finished and $1 billion overbudget. final cost is expected to reach near $27 billion, more than twice the original $13 billion price tag. Last year’s bankruptcy filing of the project’s lead contractor, Westinghouse, set the deadline back even further.

Yet late last year, the Georgia Public Service Commission fended off pressure from ratepayers and anti-nuclear advocates and voted to back Georgia Power’s request to continue the work.

But now, after years of seemingly exhaustive support for an enterprise with no limits, some are finally fed up enough to say no.

The most recent and crucial rebellion came recently from one of the project’s partner utilities. Oglethorpe Power threatened to pull out of the reactor construction if some effort wasn’t made to ease its financial commitment. Oglethorpe is one of three smaller electric membership corporations that serve as junior partners in the project along with Georgia Power and its parent, the Southern Company.

But though Georgia Power is a for-profit with shareholders to help shoulder the costs, smaller EMCs don’t have that flexibility and must make their customers bear the funding burden.

Oglethorpe balked at reaffirming its partnership and argued its case to lawmakers for relief. They seemed to find sympathetic ears, with 20 legislators, including Hall County Sen. Butch Miller and other influential leaders, urging the partners to consider a cap on the project’s costs before more losses are passed on to consumers.

The new deal doesn’t exactly do that, but it does to ensure that further cost overruns will be shared more equitably among Georgia Power and the owners of the project — Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities. Specifically Georgia Power must take on a greater portion of future deficits.

Yet even with a somewhat more reasonable deal for the owners, it could still leave ratepayers on the hook for the extra costs as the project wobbles toward the finish line.

“We’re very concerned about today’s announcement because it’s clear the Plant Vogtle nuclear project is in serious trouble if this much arm twisting is necessary to keep all four partners at the table,” Stephen Smith, executive director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said in an emailed statement.

Liz Coyle, executive director of consumer advocate Georgia Watch, said it “appears the owners have decided to plow ahead with a project that holds continued uncertainty and certainly clear risk of major cost increases and very little, if any true protections for Georgia’s electric customers.”

It’s worth noting that in addition to those who see the reactor construction as an endless money pit, others object over the viability and safety of nuclear power as a long-term solution to ease off carbon-based fuels.

Defenders of the Vogtle reactors argue that the jobs it creates in that part of the state justify its support. Among them is Gov. Nathan Deal, who urged Oglethorpe to stay with construction plans “before walking away from 7,000 Georgia jobs.”

We understand bringing jobs to the state has been the governor’s chief priority and achievement, and it is one economic benefit of the project. But utility customers should only have to pay for their electric power, not a jobs program without end or limits on how much is spent.

Oglethorpe’s resistance to continuing without some guarantees was timely and needed, but it’s only the first step. The only way to ensure customers won’t have to keep paying more is if legislators insist on the cost caps they suggested. Perhaps that would accomplish what the Public Service Commission has thus far been unwilling or unable to do to rein in cost overruns.

Remember, that five-member board voted unanimously last year to allow the utilities to keep charging customers for its boondoggle. It fits the profile of a state agency that over the years has seldom met a rate hike it wouldn’t rubber-stamp for utilities, many of which provide campaign donations to its members.

Yet Georgians do get a say in how this plays out. There’s a statewide election in less than a month and two PSC seats are on the ballot. Perhaps if commissioners got a message from voters making it clear they’re tired of footing the bill, the board wouldn’t be as eager to keep signing off on this and other costly ventures.

Customers of Georgia Power and its partner EMCs already have paid more than their fair share to get the reactors on line. Even if the plant is finished and begins turning out electrical power, it will take years to recoup what has been invested. It’s time to unplug ratepayers from the burden and let the big corporation’s shareholders take that responsibility.

Even the strongest advocates for nuclear power as a replacement for carbon-based energy have to understand there isn’t an endless supply of construction money in the pockets of Georgia utility consumers.

October 8, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

A satirical look at America’s EPA and its new policies on ionising radiation

DANA MILBANK: Radiation? Chemicals? No big deal, says Trump administration https://siouxcityjournal.com/opinion/columnists/dana-milbank-radiation-chemicals-no-big-deal-says-trump-administration/article_9ad1c6e9-1ecc-596c-b4b4-bdbce85cca5b.htmlDana Milbank  WASHINGTON — This news makes me feel warm all over. Indeed, I am positively glowing.

New regulations floated by the Environmental Protection Agency are set to increase Americans’ exposure to radiation — because, according to scientific theory now in favor with the Trump administration, radiation is not bad for us. It may even be healthy!

The Associated Press reports this: “The EPA is pursuing rule changes that experts say would weaken the way radiation exposure is regulated, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.”

In addition to the proposed rule, the AP reports, the EPA edited its online guidelines, which had cited “some cancer risk from any exposure to radiation,” to say radiation exposures up to the equivalent of 25 chest X-rays “usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.”

The administration, in a news release and in testimony, is relying on University of Massachusetts at Amherst toxicologist Edward Calabrese and others who “argue that smaller exposures of cell-damaging radiation and other carcinogens can serve as stressors that activate the body’s repair mechanisms and can make people healthier. They compare it to physical exercise or sunlight.”

This radiates reassurance!

Soon, people will be measuring their health regimens not with step counters but with Geiger counters. I’m going to get a whole-body CT scan just to boost my millisieverts. Instead of exercising each day, I’ll sleep with a running microwave on my nightstand.

Even better, the same rules will apparently apply to chemicals. We can skip the organic produce and, instead, consume the low-dose pesticides our bodies need to heal themselves. For added longevity, I suggest Raid salad dressing.

As I understand it — and it is possible my brain is impaired by having too few X-rays — the idea being elevated by the Trump administration is that the current model (the LNT, or “linear no-threshold” model) is wrong when it says any radiation exposure is bad. The new approach — let’s call it the NBD, or “No Big Deal” model — assumes that stuff that kills us at high doses might be good for us at low doses.

The Trump administration appears to be deploying the NBD model to resolve other problems, such as climate change.

The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney reported that the administration has decided it is really no problem to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards, though this would increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Why? Because, the administration reasons, the planet’s temperature is already set to rise by 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century — so a little bit more warming will hardly matter.

The administration allows that “sea-level rise is higher under the proposed action,” but “this leads to very small differences in these effects.” And if Manhattan is already going to be underwater, let’s not quibble over “small differences.”

The NBD model, properly applied, could resolve many thorny issues

The NBD model, properly applied, could resolve many thorny issues:

For example, the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh have divided the country. But under the NBD model, there is no problem here: Even accepting as true the allegations of all three of Kavanaugh’s accusers, this means Kavanaugh mistreated only 0.000002 percent of all women in America — and there’s only a “small difference” between that and zero.

Likewise, there are 2.3 million people incarcerated in the United States. Even if special counsel Robert S. Mueller III were to secure prison sentences for everybody who worked on the Trump campaign, it would make such a “small difference” in the prison system that there is no point in having this witch hunt at all.

Similarly, the failing New York Times reports that President Trump received $413 million in current dollars from his father, not the $1 million loan he claimed, and he got much of that fortune because of tax dodges. But using the NBD model, we see that even if Trump paid the entire amount, it would make only a “small difference” in retiring the U.S. debt of $21.6 trillion.

In a broader sense, it makes but a small difference if Trump blows up alliances and falls in love with the North Korean dictator. With that 7-degree increase, we’re all going to be underwater soon, anyway.

And if he nukes someone, so much the better. We could all use the radiation.

October 8, 2018 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

President Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin launch the construction of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant

Akkuyu nuclear plant construction site holds Open Doors Day  MERSİN, 7 Oct 18 The Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, whose construction was launched in April in a groundbreaking ceremony, opened its doors on Oct. 6 for the first time.
…..President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin launched the construction of the Akkuyu plant at a ceremony in Ankara in early April.
…….“In 2023, we will put the first unit into operation and Turkey will thereby join those countries that use nuclear energy … On the anniversary of our republic, we will crown this work with success,”  Erdoğan   said.

October 8, 2018 Posted by | politics, Turkey | Leave a comment

Towns face the end of the nuclear era, and the problems of radioactive trash

When the nuclear era ends: Struggling Zion, Ill., a lesson for Lacey Township, Press of Atlantic city, MICHELLE BRUNETTI POST Staff Writer , 7 Oct 18 

More than 20 years after its nuclear plant closed, Zion, Illinois, is still dealing with the financial and community repercussions of its loss, says its mayor.

Almost all of the $19 million in annual property taxes the dual-reactor plant paid while in operation — about half the town’s tax base — disappeared.

“In five years it went down to $750,000 a year,” Zion Mayor Al Hill said of tax payments from the plant. “We are still trying to figure out how to dig out from under financial troubles created by the closing 20 years later.”

Lacey Township, where the Oyster Creek nuclear plant just closed, is similar in size to Zion — both have populations of about 25,000. Both nuclear plants were owned and operated by Exelon Generation.

But differences in how reliant the towns are on property taxes from their plants may save Lacey from a similar fate……….

Hill said the town knew when the plant was proposed it would have to live with an eyesore of a nuclear power plant. But the plant brought in tax dollars and a lot of jobs, he said, so people decided to go along with the tradeoff.

“But now we have spent fuel storage,”  Zion Mayor Al Hill    said, which  wasn’t part of the agreement………

The spent fuel at Zion is guarded by armed guards with automatic weapons 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

“It’s behind a bunkered building,” Hill said, with the dry casks stored above ground. “You don’t need to do that if nothing can go wrong.”

Exelon officials said at a recent press conference that most of the 700 acre site in Lacey can be redeveloped after decommissioning, even with 753 metric tons of spent fuel stored there. Only the area right around the fuel would be off limits, they said.

But Hill said it won’t be a high value development, such as condos or a resort. That would require a developer to risk too much money, should an accident or attack happen.

Hill, like Lacey Township’s Juliano, is trying to get his U.S. Senators to back a bill to pay towns that host nuclear plants for acting as interim storage facilities for spent fuel rods. The rods are leftover from plant operation and must be carefully stored for hundreds of years or more.

The bill, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, is co-sponsored by New Jersey’s Republican Congressman Tom MacArthur. The House of Representatives passed it in May, said MacArthur. But it has not come up for a vote in the Senate, and Juliano said he has not been able to get either of New Jersey’s senators to pay attention to the bill.

But the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019 — H.R. 5895 — has passed and requires the Department of Energy to report on funding for municipalities hosting closed nuclear power plants. It awaits President Donald Trump’s signature.

Exelon transferred its license for the Zion plant to EnergySolutions of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the decommissioning. But Exelon will take the property back and be responsible for longterm storage of spent fuel after the cleanup of the site.

EnergySolutions got control of a $680 million decommissioning fund paid for by ratepayers.

“It’s gone, and they are not done yet,” said Hill, who said the company must come up with the funds to finish. “They are going to finish. They want to do more (cleanups).”

Exelon wants to sell the Oyster Creek plant outright to Holtec International of Camden, which would take over its $900 million decommissioning fund, keep the land and be responsible for handling the spent fuel rods until the federal government finds a storage solution for them.

The NRC said it started reviewing the potential sale this week and usually takes about a year to make a decision. But it will try to finish its review in eight months, at the request of Holtec and Exelon.

Hill cautions Lacey officials and residents not to rely on Exelon for help.

“Be careful. They are not going to do anything for you,” said Hill. “They have a responsibility to their shareholders. Your responsibility is to your constituents.”

Contact: 609-272-7219

mpost@pressofac.com

Twitter @MichelleBPost

Facebook.com/EnvironmentSouthJersey     https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/when-the-nuclear-era-ends-struggling-zion-ill-a-lesson/article_373d825c-4ae6-5c00-b75b-90f3bd50149c.html

October 8, 2018 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Carlingford Lough dredging proposal could bring “nuclear material” into bay,

Campaigners claim Carlingford Lough dredging proposal could bring “nuclear material” into bay, The Irish News,  John Monaghan, 07 October, 2018 CAMPAIGNERS on both sides of the border are objecting to plans to deposit dredged material within Carlingford Lough, claiming it would bring nuclear substances into the bay.

Warrenpoint Port is proposing moving the placing of material collected during its regular dredging – carried out in order to maintain clear access for vessels – from 16 miles out at sea to within the lough.

The port has earmarked a site between Greencastle and Cranfield for the plans.

The Carlingford Ferry crosses close to the proposed zone, from Greencastle in Co Down to Greenore in Co Louth.

Christine Gibson, from Greencastle Keep It Green, said: “We have major concerns about the nuclear and radioactive substances in the lough and how this is going to be dredged and dumped at Greencastle – which is a designated site for its wildlife and natural assets.”

“We are concerned about coastal erosion and how it will affect our air and water quality,” she told the BBC………

Biologist Breffni Martin believes the plan is linked to Brexit.

“The thinking could be that, after Brexit, the European designations could disappear.

“It is hard to understand given the protections that are there, why Warrenpoint would go ahead with this, because in a European framework it seems unlikely that it would be approved,” he added. https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/10/07/news/campaigners-claim-carlingford-lough-dredging-proposal-could-bring-nuclear-material-into-bay-1452231/

October 8, 2018 Posted by | Ireland, wastes | Leave a comment

USA and Russia argue, threat to Abandon a Key Nuclear Treaty

U.S., Russia: The Rivals Threaten to Abandon a Key Nuclear Treaty https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/us-russia-rivals-threaten-abandon-key-nuclear-treaty

What Happened

In a speech on Oct. 2 in Brussels, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison demanded that Russia return to complying with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty or else the United States would be forced to develop its own non-INF-compliant weapons to match Russian capabilities. In response, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that “It seems that people who make such statements do not realize the level of their responsibility and the danger of aggressive rhetoric.”

Some Background on the INF

The INF Treaty is a key arms control pact between the United States and Russia that halted a destabilizing buildup of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe during the 1980s. The pact served as a cornerstone in efforts to end the Cold War. Recently, however, the United States has accused Russia of developing, testing and deploying a type of cruise missile that violates the limits set by the INF, and Moscow in turn has accused Washington of deploying drones and missile launchers that violate the terms of the treaty.

Over the past year, the United States has tried various tactics to get Russia to comply with the treaty. Washington has sanctioned Russian officials and tried to pressure Moscow by deploying tactical nuclear weapons aboard its submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The U.S. Congress has also passed legislation that would pave the way for the development of a missile that, if fielded, would violate the INF treaty. None of these measures appear to have worked yet; the United States and its NATO allies insist that the Russians are still in violation of the treaty.

Why It Matters

Hutchinson’s statements show that the White House is clearly determined to follow Congress’ lead in considering the deployment of U.S. missiles that violate the INF. The first open INF violations from both the United States and Russia will likely lead to many more violations that could kill the already fragile treaty. The demise of the INF would further catalyze a budding and potentially highly destabilizing arms race between the United States and peer competitors Russia and China. It would also be deeply alarming to Washington’s European allies, who would once again sit between Russian and U.S. intermediate range nuclear missile arsenals, just as they did during the Cold War.

An additional concern is that an ugly fight over the status of the INF could spill over into negotiations for the renewal of the other big global nuclear arms control treaty: the New START treaty, which limits the number of U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear weapons and launchers. Unlike the INF, New START is nominally on much surer ground, as Russia and the United States both already have so many strategic nuclear weapons that there are few major incentives to violate it. However, mistrust from the demise of the INF could potentially erode New START anyway. This outcome, although unlikely for now, would lead to a far more serious arms race than is currently taking place.

October 8, 2018 Posted by | politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

France’s government to postpone the phaseout of nuclear power – to the detriment of the renewable energy industry

Le Monde 6th Oct 2018 The postponement of the decline in nuclear energy worries the renewable
energy sector. The French government would push back to 2035 the goal of
reducing the atomic share from 75% to 50% in the national electricity
production.
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2018/10/06/le-report-de-la-baisse-du-nucleaire-inquiete-le-secteur-des-energies-renouvelables_5365549_3234.html

October 8, 2018 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »