The real value of the nuclear ban treaty
The real value of the nuclear ban treaty https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/the-real-value-of-the-nuclear-ban-treaty/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter02082021&utm_content=NuclearRisk_ValueTPNW_02042021
By Carl Robichaud, Karim Kamel | February 4, 2021
Last month, 75 years after nuclear weapons were first used, a treaty came into force that bans them. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), also known as the ban treaty, is the culmination of a decade of work by civil society leaders and diplomats who, frustrated by stagnation in traditional venues, focused the lens of international humanitarian law on nuclear weapons. This approach, dismissed at first, resonated with many states that understood nuclear weapons to be inherently indiscriminatory and inhumane.
The new treaty outlaws the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, prohibits their development and possession, bans their transfer or receipt, and prohibits stationing, deploying, or assisting with nuclear arms.
But does any of this matter? The treaty lacks verification and enforcement mechanisms. No state with nuclear weapons will join anytime soon. The nine nuclear-armed states and their allies boycotted the negotiations and pressured other states to abandon the treaty. Each has nuclear modernization programs that will stretch for decades.
Skeptics of the treaty claim it is worse than irrelevant; it will accentuate tensions, undermine collective action on urgent proliferation challenges, diminish alliance cohesion or strategic stability, and potentially establish an alternative to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). We should not, they argue, take any steps that might undermine this bedrock agreement that for 50 years has helped limit the spread of nuclear arms.
These objections are overstated. Collective action against proliferation has been, and will remain, a challenge with or without the ban treaty. Moreover, the treaty was carefully drafted not to conflict with existing nonproliferation obligations, including the NPT.
These objections are overstated. Collective action against proliferation has been, and will remain, a challenge with or without the ban treaty. Moreover, the treaty was carefully drafted not to conflict with existing nonproliferation obligations, including the NPT.
But the broader point holds: The treaty does little to reduce short-term nuclear risks. That is not its point. What the treaty does is establish, in clear and certain terms, that nuclear weapons are unacceptable. Over 122 countries supported the adoption of the treaty, 51 states have ratified it, and these numbers will continue to grow. Even within states that oppose the treaty, many citizens agree with its premise. Various polls suggest more than half of Americans believe the United States should work to eliminate all nuclear weapons, and support for this view is even higher in Japan and among NATO countries. In the words of former US Defense Secretary William Perry, the ban treaty “rightly establishes abolition as the standard that all nations should be actively working to achieve, rather than an indeterminate future goal.”
The status quo, with its 16,000 nuclear weapons, is far from stable. Everyone alive today lives in the shadow of a potential nuclear war. Climate modeling suggests that even a limited nuclear war, such as one between India and Pakistan, could result in a billion deaths as the ash from burning cities “could blot out the sun, starving much of the human race.”
At least from a humanitarian point of view, the question has been settled: Nuclear weapons are unacceptable. That alone will not make them disappear. But, in the meantime, the ban treaty need not distract from bilateral arms-control and threat-reduction efforts. The recent agreement to extend New START should be commended, and we must establish new mechanisms to build confidence and reduce tensions. The existence of a treaty banning nuclear weapons does not contradict these efforts; on the contrary, it should help build support for more sensible nuclear postures and for prohibitions on nuclear explosive testing and the production of weapons-usable materials.
The nuclear age is in its eighth decade, a mere dot on the timeline of human history. In this brief span there have been dozens of known close calls and near misses. So long as these weapons exist, ready to use at a moment’s notice, we court disaster. The nuclear powers find themselves, as Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis, in a tightening knot. Untying this knot will require a multi-generation project that brings together verification science with extraordinary foresight, diplomatic skill, and political leadership. But first it requires a change in our collective beliefs about nuclear weapons. This is the contribution of the ban treaty, and it should not be underestimated.
No nukes in Asia…or anywhere — Beyond Nuclear International
Sign petition to demand all governments abandon nuclear power, 8 Feb 1,
No nukes in Asia…or anywhere — Beyond Nuclear International
Groups call for a nuclear power ban and no radioactive water dump at FukushimaBy No Nukes Asia Forum Japan • Citizens’Nuclear Information Center • Friends of the Earth Japan
On the 10th Anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, groups in Japan have initiated an international signature campaign against the discharge of contaminated water and calling for the discontinuation of nuclear power plants now! Please join this campaign by signing the petition.
The Japanese government is planning to release Fukushima’s radioactive contaminated water into the ocean. Japanese citizens, from Fukushima Prefecture and beyond, are strongly opposed to this plan.
The Fukushima Prefecture Fishermen’s Association, with the backing of the Fishermen’s Association from all over Japan, have submitted an opinion of opposition to the government. The Fukushima Prefecture Agricultural Cooperatives and Forestry Associations along with 43 local governments in Fukushima Prefecture also participated in this campaign, and 450,000 citizens from across Japan have signed a petition against the government plan.
The threat of the release of contaminated water has triggered much concern and opposition among citizenry overseas as well, including those from neighboring countries.Contaminated water from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant has already exceeded 1.24 million tons. We are deeply concerned about the adverse effects the water will have on the human body by way of consuming fish and shellfish, which are staples in the region’s diet.
We demand the Japanese government keep the contaminated water stored in the tanks until the water’s levels of radioactivity are significantly reduced. The government could also adopt mortar-induced radioactive waste solidification technology.
Meanwhile, in neighboring South Korea, the government has advocated for denuclearization with its energy plan on paper but has not ceased to build new nuclear power plants (NPPs). Serious safety breaches have been reported repeatedly, including (but not limited to) the recent tritium leak at Wolsong NPP in Gyeongju and the disclosure of an air gap in the containment building at Yeonggwang Hanbit NPP.
In Taiwan, the government is ostensibly advancing forward to become the first nuclear-free country in Asia under the slogan of “Zero nuclear power generation in 2025.” However, the Taiwanese government plans to hold a referendum on resuming the construction of the 4th NPP in August 2021.
The construction of NPPs continues in Turkey and India while other countries, including the Philippines, seek new opportunities to build NPPs.
Debates over safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste that will affect future generations for hundreds of thousands of years continue in Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Australia.
Ten years have passed since the Fukushima nuclear disaster yet attempts to maintain nuclear power linger on in Asia and other regions of the world. However, at a time the world is turning to renewable energy, we are becoming increasingly aware the time of nuclear power has expired.
We demand that:
·The Japanese government stop its plan to discharge Fukushima NPP’s contaminated water into the ocean;
·The Korean government disclose information on the actual state of radioactive leakage at Wolseong NPP;
·All governments abandon plans to build new NPPs and instead focus on expanding renewable energy;
·All governments discontinue the operation of hazardous NPPs and drop plans to extend their life spans; and
·Stop building nuclear waste facilities without explicit consent of residents.
The petition was initiated by24 countries (255 organizations)…………..https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/02/08/no-nukes-in-asia/
America’s new $100Billion missiles are intended both for attack, and as a target.
Housed in permanent silos spread across America’s high plains, they are intended to draw fire to the region in the event of a nuclear war, forcing Russia to use up a lot of atomic ammunition on a sparsely populated area.
how little some nuclear weapons programs have to do with national defense.!
Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?, https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/why-is-america-getting-a-new-100-billion-nuclear-weapon/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter022021&utm_content=NuclearRisk_NewWeapon_02082021 By Elisabeth Eaves, February 8, 2021 merica is building a new weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane. It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead more than 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It will be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single shot.
The US Air Force plans to order more than 600 of them.
On September 8, the Air Force gave the defense company Northrop Grumman an initial contract of $13.3 billion to begin engineering and manufacturing the missile, but that will be just a fraction of the total bill. Based on a Pentagon report cited by the Arms Control Association Association and Bloomberg News, the government will spend roughly $100 billion to build the weapon, which will be ready to use around 2029.
To put that price tag in perspective, $100 billion could pay 1.24 million elementary school teacher salaries for a year, provide 2.84 million four-year university scholarships, or cover 3.3 million hospital stays for covid-19 patients. It’s enough to build a massive mechanical wall to protect New York City from sea level rise. It’s enough to get to Mars.
One day soon, the Air Force will christen this new war machine with its “popular” name, likely some word that projects goodness and strength, in keeping with past nuclear missiles like the Atlas, Titan, and Peacekeeper. For now, though, the missile goes by the inglorious acronym GBSD, for “ground-based strategic deterrent.” The GBSD is designed to replace the existing fleet of Minuteman III missiles; both are intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. Like its predecessors, the GBSD fleet will be lodged in underground silos, widely scattered in three groups known as “wings” across five states. The official purpose of American ICBMs goes beyond responding to nuclear assault. They are also intended to deter such attacks, and serve as targets in case there is one.
Under the theory of deterrence, America’s nuclear arsenal—currently made up of 3,800 warheads—sends a message to other nuclear-armed countries. It relays to the enemy that US retaliation would be so awful, it had better not attack in the first place. Many consider American deterrence a success, pointing to the fact that no country has ever attacked the United States with nuclear weapons. This argument relies on the same faulty logic Ernie used when he told Bert he had a banana in his ear to keep the alligators away: The absence of alligators doesn’t prove the banana worked. Likewise, the absence of a nuclear attack on the United States doesn’t prove that 3,800 warheads are essential to deterrence. And for practical purposes, after the first few, they quickly grow redundant. “Once you’ve dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on a city, if you drop a couple more, all you do is make the rubble shake,” said Air Force Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Robert Latiff, a Bulletin Science and Security Board member who, early in his career, commanded a unit of short-range nuclear weapons in West Germany.
|
Deterrence is the main argument for having a nuclear arsenal at all. But America’s land-based missiles have another strategic purpose all their own. Housed in permanent silos spread across America’s high plains, they are intended to draw fire to the region in the event of a nuclear war, forcing Russia to use up a lot of atomic ammunition on a sparsely populated area. If that happened, and all three wings were destroyed, the attack would still kill more than 10 million people and turn the area into a charred wasteland, unfarmable and uninhabitable for centuries to come. The GBSD’s detractors include long-time peace activists, as you’d expect. But many of the missile’s critics are former military leaders, and their criticism has to do with those immovable silos. Relative to nuclear missiles on submarines, which can slink around undetected, and nuclear bombs on airplanes—the two other legs of the nuclear triad, in defense jargon—America’s land-based nuclear missiles are easy marks. Because they are so exposed, they pose another risk: To avoid being destroyed and rendered useless—their silos provide no real protection against a direct Russian nuclear strike—they would be “launched on warning,” that is, as soon as the Pentagon got wind of an incoming nuclear attack. But the computer systems that warn of such incoming fire may be vulnerable to hacking and false alarms. During the Cold War, military computer glitches in both the United States and Russia caused numerous close calls, and since then, cyberthreats have become an increasing concern. An investigation ordered by the Obama administration in 2010 found that the Minutemen missiles were vulnerable to a potentially crippling cyberattack. Because an error could have disastrous consequences, James Mattis, the former Marine Corps general who would go on to become the 26th US secretary of defense, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2015 that getting rid of America’s land-based nuclear missiles “would reduce the false alarm danger.” Whereas a bomber can be turned around even on approach to its target, a nuclear missile launched by mistake can’t be recalled. William J. Perry, secretary of defense during the Clinton administration (and the chair of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors), argued in 2016 that “[w]e simply do not need to rebuild all of the weapons we had during the Cold War” and singled out the GBSD as unnecessary. Replacing America’s land-based nuclear missiles, he wrote, “will crowd out the funding needed to sustain the competitive edge of our conventional forces, and to build the capabilities needed to deal with terrorism and cyber attacks.” Russia has about 4,300 nuclear warheads, the only arsenal on par with America’s, and is also trading up for new weapons. Yet as Perry pointed out, “If Russia decides to build more than it needs, it is their economy that will be destroyed, just as it was during the Cold War.” China—a bigger long-term threat to the United States than Russia, in the eyes of many national security analyses—seems to understand that excessive spending on nuclear weapons would be self-sabotage. Even if, as the Pentagon expects, Beijing doubles the number of nuclear warheads in its arsenal—now estimated at less than 300—it will still have far fewer than either the United States or Russia. For many and perhaps most Americans, nuclear weapons are out of sight and mind. That $100 billion to replace machines that would, if ever used, kill civilians on a mass scale and possibly end human civilization is just another forgotten subscription on auto-renew. But those who do think about the GBSD mostly don’t want it. In a survey of registered voters conducted in October 2020 by the Federation of American Scientists, 60 percent said they would prefer other alternatives to the new missile, ranging from refurbishing the Minutemen to scrapping nuclear weapons altogether. Those results echo a 2019 voter survey, conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, that asked if the government should phase out its fleet of land-based nuclear missiles. Sixty-one percent of respondents—53 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Democrats—said yes. Which all leads to one question: Given the expense, doubtful strategic purpose, and lack of popularity, why is Washington spending so much to replace the Minuteman III? The answers stretch from the Utah desert to Montana wheat fields to the halls of Congress. They span presidential administrations and political parties. They come from airmen and farmers and senators and CEOs. The reasons for the GBSD are historical, political, and to a significant extent economic. In a country where safety net programs are limited and health insurance is a patchwork, and where unemployment remains at nearly double the pre-pandemic rate, many people in the states where the new missile will be built and based see it as a lifeline. Their elected officials take campaign donations from defense companies, to be sure, but are also trying to deliver jobs in a political environment that has been hostile to government spending on anything but defense. Defense is the safety net where other options are few. A lot of people, even some of those whose livelihoods depend on them, would like to see the number of nuclear weapons gradually reduced until they’re gone. The United States stands no chance of making them disappear, though, until more people understand why they happen—and how little some nuclear weapons programs have to do with national defense. |
Ukraine’s complicated plan to deal with its excess nuclear energy generation
|
Ukraine plans nuclear-powered block reward mining facility. coingeek, Ed Drake The government of Ukraine is contemplating investing in a new block reward mining facility, to take advantage of an excess of nuclear power being generated in the country……. Vladimirov said the proposals would allow the country to make better use of excess nuclear capacity, as well as boosting tax take. “The idea of creating a data center based on a nuclear power plant, of course, deserves attention because the Ukrainian UES [unified energy system] has unused base capacity.”……. According to Hotmine, the proposals will help Ukraine build on its reputation as an emerging center for block reward mining, with the firm suggesting the country’s low cost nuclear power could help it become a world leader in nuclear-powered block reward mining. ,,………. https://coingeek.com/ukraine-plans-nuclear-powered-block-reward-mining-facility/ |
8 Feb 21, Republican lawmaker reintroduces Bill to repeal Ohio’s corrupt nuclear bailout law
 Ohio Lawmaker Reintroduces Bill To Repeal Nuclear Bailout  Law https://radio.wosu.org/post/ohio-lawmaker-reintroduces-bill-repeal-nuclear-bailout-law#stream/0
By ASSOCIATED PRESS 8 Feb 21, • A bill to repeal a bailout of two aging nuclear power plants at the heart of a federal $60 million bribery probe has been re-introduced in the Ohio House by its Republican sponsor.
State Rep. Laura Lanese (R-Grove City) introduced a repeal bill last week similar to the one she introduced last year. That died after some fellow Republicans in the GOP-controlled House disagreed on whether a repeal was necessary. “A full repeal of House Bill 6 would protect consumers from predatory pricing, restore our renewable energy policy, and instill public confidence in the legislative process,” Lanese said in a statement. The legislation known as HB6 was signed into law by GOP Gov. Mike DeWine in 2019. The Justice Department accused five individuals, including former Republican House Speaker Larry Householder, of shepherding $60 million in energy company money for personal and political use in exchange for passing the law and then derailing an attempt to place a rejection of the bailout on the ballot. Two of those five have pleaded guilty, and a plea deal has also been reached with a nonprofit that authorities believe was used to funnel payments from the scheme. Householder, who pleaded not guilty to the rackteering charges, was removed as Speaker over the summer but won re-election to his House seat in November. |
|
Israel’s military threat to Iran. Iran calls on U.N. to respond.
|
Iran calls for UN response over Israeli military action threat
An Israel general said its military is preparing ‘operational plans’ in reaction to Iran boosting its nuclear programme. Aljazeera Maziar Motamedi, 7 Feb 2021 Tehran, Iran – Iran’s representative to the United Nations has protested recent Israeli military action threats against the country, calling on the intergovernmental organisation to interfere.
In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Majid Takht-Ravanchi said Israel has not only increased “provocative and warmongering rhetoric” against Iran, but is also actively making plans to act on its threats. The latest example, he said, came in late January when top Israeli general Aviv Kochavi said Israel’s military is preparing “a number of operational plans, in addition to those already in place” in reaction to Iran boosting its nuclear programme in recent months. Iran’s UN representative said the threat violates article two of the UN charter and requires a “proportionate response by the global community” due to Israel’s history of attacking other nations in the region……. Takht-Ravanchi said Israel must take responsibility for its hostile actions and the UN must counter the country’s “destabilising and warmongering policies” as the entity in charge of securing international peace. The representative also called for his letter to be registered as a formal document in the UN Security Council…….https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/7/iran-calls-for-un-response-over-israeli-military-action-threat |
|
How the United States can chart a new path that avoids war with China
How the United States can chart a new path that avoids war with China https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/how-the-united-states-can-chart-a-new-path-that-avoids-war-with-china/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter02042021&utm_content=NuclearRisk_NewPath_02032021
By Henry Bienen, Jeremiah Ostriker | February 3, 2021 The Biden administration has said that it will conduct a full review of trade and economic relations with China. It needs, actually, to conduct a review of all aspects of Sino-American relations: trade; technology; cultural, student, and scientific exchanges; and above all, security. There is room for vast improvement in all these realms, but the most pressing (and potentially dangerous) area involves security.
Relations between China and the United States have degenerated so far that some foreign policy experts now believe that war between the countries is possible. While this is a minority view, it is a dangerous one.
In the past, a US-China war was often considered unlikely for reasons of mutual economic interdependence and nuclear deterrence, not to mention the huge costs of war. Moreover, it has been said, ideological conflict and regional and international striving for advantage are not reasons enough for war. But now more pessimistic voices are also being heard. Citing pre-World War I analogies, in which it was (quite inaccurately) said that economic interdependence among European powers made war impossible, and noting what Harvard University’s Graham Allison has called the “Thucydides Trap,” in which there is a drift towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing leading power, some believe war between China and the United States is becoming more conceivable and even probable.
We are concerned with the current direction of US-China’s policies, but we believe that the pessimists both overstate the possibility of a US-China war and understate the consequences of possible armed conflict. The production of so-called “small” nuclear weapons is given as a reason for the possibility of war without massive destruction. Nuclear war among nuclear powers has not occurred since the spread of nuclear weapons precisely because destruction would be huge and ghastly. But even lower-yield nuclear weapons nonetheless are quite deadly; each has the destructive potential of thousands of WWII airplane bombs. We cannot tell how limited the use of such weapons would be in advance of armed conflict, and, since Chinese missiles can reach our shores, we do not know if such a conflict could be contained.
There are other reasons for thinking war between China and the United States not only should be but will be avoided. We have past experience to warn us. The United States and China fought in the Korean War when US forces pushed to the Yalu River on China’s border. We know how that turned out. We also note that the United States did not send a land army to North Vietnam after China warned that the first US troops in North Vietnam would be met by Chinese “volunteers.” Lesson learned.
What points of conflict does the United States have with China that could actually lead to war? We can find only one, and it has nothing to do with trade, economic competition, ideology, human rights violations by China, or struggle for relative power in Asia or elsewhere. Taiwan is the critical point of conflict. China asserts its historical right to Taiwan as an integral part of China. The United States is committed to the principle that Taiwan’s relationship with China cannot be changed by force. Thus, how much military assistance to give to Taiwan, if China uses blockades or applies military force, is a critical issue for US policy. How and in what way to defend Taiwan loom as large questions. To do nothing in the face of Chinese military threats would not only call into question US commitments everywhere but might well lead to nuclear proliferation in Asia. What lessons would Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, perhaps Vietnam and Indonesia take? Taiwan itself has the capacity to build nuclear weapons and could do so, if the United States made clear that it would not respond to threats against Taiwan.
We do not minimize the difficulty of the Taiwan issue. There needs to be both clarity and ambiguity in how the United States deals with Taiwan. The United States needs to make clear that if China uses force against Taiwan there will be severe consequences. But we cannot in advance specify the consequences. We do not think war with China is probable over Taiwan. But we admit to the difficulties of finding the right policies in this area. We propose the following: As Joseph Nye noted recently in the Wall Street Journal, in consultation with China, the Biden administration should review policies for accident avoidance, crisis management, and high-level communications. Military-to-military relations already exist, and we do not know the details of them. But we suspect that the Trump administration let lapse, or weakened, constant communications and accident-avoidance protocols. These must be maintained and strengthened.
Arms sales to Taiwan are sensitive. Our aim is to avoid an invasion of Taiwan, and thus sales of missiles and technologies for defensive purposes seem right. We must make clear that we would work to circumvent a blockade of Taiwan. But obviously, Taiwan is not Berlin during the Cold War, and airlifts would have limited utility. Thus, it is the avoidance of a blockade that must be worked toward. And here, we need allies and friends in Asia and beyond to support the position that such a blockade would be disastrous for China’s economy and trade worldwide.
We can find no other issues where war could plausibly arise between China and the United States. And we reassert that any armed conflict could lead to a global catastrophe. In a more positive vein, the United States should be finding new paths to both cooperate and compete with China. The demonization of China—as per Donald Trump’s “China virus” and Secretary of State Pompeo’s bellicose language—are misguided and counterproductive. The two countries need to cooperate on climate and environmental issues and on the pandemic and other health matters.
Decoupling the economies of the United States and China would be very difficult, very expensive, and very foolish, as the Trump administration found out. It continued to want to export agricultural goods to China, and where it imposed tariffs, they raised costs to US consumers and manufacturers. We need to challenge China over its trade policies, but the best way to do that is to strengthen the US domestic economy and invest in education and technology innovation and research. So much of our vaunted technological progress has come from government investment. We should renew our government support for advanced research and technology, rather than faulting the Chinese for imitating our past actions. For but one example, consider how the internet was developed in the 1970s.
The United States has benefitted from an infusion of Chinese undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty. Undergraduates pay tuition; graduate students and post-grad medical and science researchers have strengthened the quality of universities and research centers. Most universities do not host classified research on their main campuses. Of course, there are dual-use technologies that can be copied or stolen. But the United States has gained from having Chinese scholars and students and researchers come to our shores. Many stay as productive and important citizens. As was the case with students and researchers from other countries in the past, many who return home see themselves as friends of the United States and hope for a more positive turn in Sino-American relations.
We now should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And we should form alliances and cooperative endeavors with China’s neighbors on trade, climate, health and regional conflict issues. And here we include Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, as well as India, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Korea. China’s push into Asia and Africa via its Road and Belt Initiative has not been a huge success. But here too the US could be more active and constructive with its own health and development policies abroad. The most useful thing that we could do to combat climate change would be to help the underdeveloped world move from coal and oil to renewable energy.
Above all, a strong and confident United States can compete and cooperate with China without conjuring up new enemies, or creating a new Cold War.
Crimea to demolish dangerous, (and never operational), nuclear power station
Decommissioned Crimea nuclear plant to be demolished: government , S and P Global, Vladislav Vorotnikov , EditorSteven Dolley 8 Feb 21, Moscow — The government of Crimea has decided to fully demolish the Crimean Atomic Energy station near Shcholkine, construction of which was halted after the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the government said in a statement on its website Feb. 5.
Construction of the plant and its one 1,000-MW VVER-1000 started in 1976, and by 1986 was nearly complete. However, a Soviet government inspection after the Chernobyl accident found the plant to be located on a geologically volatile site and construction was canceled in 1989.
By the end of 2021, the authorities plan to demolish two diesel generator stations, the turbine hall, machine block foundation, pumping station, and the nuclear power plant’s reactor compartment, the government said Feb. 5.
“These objects are unsuitable for operation,” Daniil Pidaev, spokesperson for the Crimean Architecture and Building Ministry, told to the Russia Gazette, the Russian government’s in-house publication. “They have lost their properties, are in a dilapidated state, and there is a threat of collapse,” posing a threat to those who visit the facilities, Pidaev said………… https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/020821-decommissioned-crimea-nuclear-plant-to-be-demolished-government
Fukushima to Triple Wind Power Generation
|
Fukushima to Triple Wind Power Generation https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2021020801101/ Feb 8, 2021 Tokyo, (Jiji Press)–Japan’s industry ministry announced a plan on Monday to triple wind power generation in Fukushima Prefecture to 360 megawatts in fiscal 2024 from four years before.The plan highlighted the use of renewable energy as a pillar of efforts to accelerate the recovery of the northeastern prefecture from the March 2011 nuclear accident.
Under the plan, the Fukushima and national governments aim to construct an industrial complex running solely on renewable energy sourced within the prefecture, by fiscal 2030. The national government will provide financing to build some 30 kilometers out of the over 80 kilometers of a grid that will supply electricity in the prefecture from renewable sources. All 10 nuclear reactors in the prefecture are set to be decommissioned, following the triple meltdown at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.’s <9501> disaster-hit Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. |
|
UK universities partnering with Chinese technology companies may be breaching national security rules
affairs committee, to alert Manchester University to the fact that a
Chinese company with which it was collaborating was implicated in
Beijing’s persecution of the Uighurs.
its partner’s role in providing surveillance technology used to spy on
China’s Muslim minority.
universities cut off links with CETC in 2019 after similar warnings. But
what is more troubling is that Manchester appears to be far from alone in
partnering with Chinese companies with defence links on cutting-edge
scientific research. Indeed the Foreign Office is investigating more than a
dozen universities for possible breaches of national security rules.
Drone swarms: coming (sometime) to a war near you. Just not today
Drone swarms: coming (sometime) to a war near you. Just not today. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Maaike Verbruggen | February 3, 2021 The world got a sneak peek at the future of war last fall when two former Soviet republics in the Caucasus Mountains launched a high-tech barrage of loitering munitions as well as Turkish-, Israeli-, and locally-made drones at each other during a six-week fight over a region disputed by Azerbaijan and Armenia. Media and think-tank writers covering the battle frequently conveyed an eye-popping assessment: Warring factions had used futuristic swarms of drones in the skies over Nagorno-Karabakh. But does this apparent technological leap in warfare mean that such swarms will be a mainstay in conflict?
To spoil the surprise: No, don’t expect a swarm buzzing over your head any time soon.
While militaries are developing the technology, we shouldn’t call the drone formations on the contemporary battlefield swarms. Unlike true swarms, which use artificial intelligence (AI) to operate autonomously, today’s swarms are pre-programmed or remotely controlled. The individual drones neither communicate within the swarm nor do they adapt to their environment. However, at a time of fast-paced drone proliferation, militaries around the world are actively pursuing research and development in swarms.
Even though no one has developed true, autonomous drone swarms yet, we should still be concerned about their humanitarian implications. Just as militaries are preparing for the future of war by developing counter-swarm technologies, the arms control community should start thinking about where to draw the boundaries around their use.
The swarm is coming. In 2017, the US Department of Defense launched a swarm of micro-drones over California where more than 100 vehicles made decisions without human help. The year before, a Chinese academic and corporate partnership reportedly pulled off a similar feat with 67 drones. There is no doubt that the people behind the US Strategic Capabilities Office’s swarm of Perdix drones or the Chinese partnership’s aerial drones do hope to develop fully-fledged swarms—but they are not there yet. We can say the same about the United Kingdom’s drone swarm squadron, Russia’s Flock 93, Chinese naval swarms, and a Turkish “swarm concept,” as well.
According to the swarm robotics literature, swarms are a group of systems that operate as a collective. In a swarm, the individual units interact with each other and have common goals. They execute them as a collective while responding to their environment. “They are going to do their own thing,” a US Air Force official who oversaw the Perdix program told reporters, according to Air Force Magazine. …………….
Swarms and arms control. Swarms pose several potential humanitarian problems. First there is the issue of whether people will have meaningful control over the multiple units in a swarm. Commanding a swarm will be cognitively complex for the operator……….
|
Swarms don’t exist yet, despite frequent claims in the media. But militaries are clearly making advances. It’s time for the arms control community to deal with the potential problems that swarms might pose. Most arms control treaties aim at controlling individual weapons, but the harm of swarms does not stem from the units themselves, but rather from their indirect and collective nature. Arms controllers will need a new conceptual toolkit to think about and deal with the risks. Militaries have long moved away from valuing only military assets that are individual, physical, and weaponized and toward a network-based frame. Maybe the arms control community should follow suit. |
|
|
1.This Month
-
Archives
- April 2021 (96)
- March 2021 (283)
- February 2021 (271)
- January 2021 (278)
- December 2020 (230)
- November 2020 (297)
- October 2020 (392)
- September 2020 (349)
- August 2020 (351)
- July 2020 (280)
- June 2020 (293)
- May 2020 (251)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
