This is what nuclear war in 2024 would look like
ABC RN, Broadcast Thu 16 May 2024, https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/this-is-what-nuclear-war-in-2024-would-look-like/103840906
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev cautioned the world “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. Decades later, we’re closer to nuclear Armageddon than ever before, and investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen paints a devastating picture of exactly what that would look like.
Guest: Annie Jacobsen – investigative journalist and New York Times bestselling author. She also writes and produces TV, including Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan. Her latest book is Nuclear War: A Scenario.
Credits
The Arsenal of Genocide: the U.S. Weapons That Are Destroying Gaza
the Biden administration has given itself a green light to keep sending weapons and Israel a flashing one to keep committing war crimes with them.
During the Second World War, the United States proudly called itself the “Arsenal of Democracy,” as its munitions factories and shipyards produced an endless supply of weapons to fight the genocidal government of Germany. Today, the United States is instead, shamefully, the Arsenal of Genocide, providing 70% of the imported weapons Israel is using to obliterate Gaza and massacre its people.
By Medea Benjamin, Nicolas J.S. Davies May 14, 2024, https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/the-arsenal-of-genocide-the-u-s-weapons-that-are-destroying-gaza/—
On May 8, 2024, as Israel escalated its brutal assault on Rafah, President Biden announced that he had “paused” a delivery of 1,700 500-pound and 1,800 2,000-pound bombs, and threatened to withhold more shipments if Israel went ahead with its full-scale invasion of Rafah.
The move elicited an outcry from Israeli officials (National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir tweeted “Hamas loves Biden”), as well as Republicans, staunch anti-Palestinian Democrats and pro-Israel donors. Republicans immediately prepared a bill entitled the Israel Security Assistance Support Act to prohibit the administration from withholding military aid to Israel.
Many people have been asking the U.S. to halt weapons to Israel for seven months, and of course Biden’s move comes too late for 35,000 Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza, mainly by American weapons.
Lest one think the administration is truly changing its position, two days after announcing the pause, the State Department released a convoluted report saying that, although it is reasonable to “assess” that U.S. weapons have been used by Israeli forces in Gaza in ways that are “inconsistent” with international humanitarian law, and although Israel has indeed delayed or had a negative effect on the delivery of aid to Gaza (which is illegal under U.S. law), Israel’s assurances regarding humanitarian aid and compliance with international humanitarian law are “credible and reliable.”
By this absurd conclusion, the Biden administration has given itself a green light to keep sending weapons and Israel a flashing one to keep committing war crimes with them.
In any event, as Colonel Joe Bicino, a retired U.S. artillery officer, told the BBC, Israel can “level” Rafah with the weapons it already has. The paused shipment is “somewhat inconsequential,” Bicino said, “a little bit of a political play for people in the United States who are… concerned about this.” A U.S. official confirmed to the Washington Post that Israel has enough weapons already supplied by the U.S. and other allies to go ahead with the Rafah operation if it chooses to ignore U.S. qualms.
The paused shipment really has to be seen in the context of the arsenal with which the U.S. has equipped its Middle Eastern proxy over many decades.
A Deluge of American Bombs
During the Second World War, the United States proudly called itself the “Arsenal of Democracy,” as its munitions factories and shipyards produced an endless supply of weapons to fight the genocidal government of Germany. Today, the United States is instead, shamefully, the Arsenal of Genocide, providing 70% of the imported weapons Israel is using to obliterate Gaza and massacre its people.
As Israel assaults Rafah, home to 1.4 million displaced people, including at least 600,000 children, most of the warplanes dropping bombs on them are F-16s, originally designed and manufactured by General Dynamics, but now produced by Lockheed Martin in Greenville, South Carolina. Israel’s 224 F-16s have long been its weapon of choice for bombing militants and civilians in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.
Israel also has 86 Boeing F-15s, which can drop heavier bombs, and 39 of the latest, most wastefully expensive fighter-bombers ever, Lockheed Martin’s nuclear-capable F-35s, with another 36 on order. The F-35 is built in Fort Worth, Texas, but components are manufactured all over the U.S. and in allied countries, including Israel. Israel was the first country to attack other countries with F-35s, in violation of U.S. arms export control laws, reportedly using them to bomb Syria, Egypt and Sudan.
As these fleets of U.S.-made warplanes began bombing Gaza in October 2023, their fifth major assault since 2008, the U.S. began rushing in new weapons. By December 1, 2023, it had delivered 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells.
The U.S. supplies Israel with all sizes and types of bombs, including 285-pound GBU-39 small diameter glide bombs, 500-pound Mk 82s, 2,000-pound Mk 84s and BLU-109 “bunker busters,” and even massive 5,000-pound GBU-28 bunker-busters, which Israel reportedly used in Gaza in 2009.
General Dynamics is the largest U.S. bomb manufacturer, making all these models of bombs. Most of them can be used as “precision” guided bombs by attaching Raytheon and Lockheed Martin’s Paveway laser guidance system or Boeing’s JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) GPS-based targeting system.
Little more than half of the bombs Israel has dropped on Gaza have been “precision” ones, because, as targeting officers explained to +972 magazine, their Lavender AI system generates thousands of targets who are just suspected rank-and-file militants, not senior commanders. Israel does not consider it worth “wasting” expensive precision munitions to kill these people, so it uses only “dumb” bombs to kill them in their homes—obliterating their families and neighbors in the process.
In order to threaten and bomb its more distant neighbors, such as Iran, Israel depends on its seven Lockheed Martin KC-130H and seven Boeing 707 in-air refueling tankers, with four new, state-of-the-art Boeing KC46A tankers to be delivered in late 2025 for over $220 million each.
Ground force weapons
Another weapon of choice for killing Palestinians are Israel’s 48 Boeing Apache AH64 attack helicopters, armed with Lockheed Martin’s infamous Hellfire missiles, General Dynamics’ Hydra 70 rockets and Northrop Grumman’s 30 mm machine guns. Israel also used its Apaches to kill and incinerate a still unknown number of Israelis on October 7, 2023—a tragic day that Israel and the U.S. continue to exploit as a false pretext for their own violations of international humanitarian law and of the Genocide Convention.
Israel’s main artillery weapons are its 600 Paladin M109A5 155 mm self-propelled howitzers, which are manufactured by BAE Systems in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. To the layman, a self-propelled howitzer looks like a tank, but it has a bigger, 155 mm gun to fire at longer range.
Israel assembles its 155 mm artillery shells from U.S.-made components. One of the first two U.S. arms shipments that the administration notified Congress about after October 7 was to resupply Israel with artillery shell components valued at $147.5 million.
Israel also has 48 M270 multiple rocket launchers. They are a tracked version of the HIMARS rocket launchers the U.S. has sent to Ukraine, and they fire the same rockets, made by Lockheed Martin. U.S. Marines used the same rockets in coordination with U.S. airstrikes to devastate Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, in 2017. M270 launchers are no longer in production, but BEA Systems still has the facilities to produce them.
Israel makes its own Merkava tanks, which fire U.S.-made tank shells, and the State Department announced on December 9, 2023, that it had notified Congress of an “emergency” shipment of 14,000 120 mm tank shells worth $106 million to Israel.
U.S. shipments of artillery and tank shells, and dozens of smaller shipments that it did not report to Congress (because each shipment was carefully calibrated to fall below the statutory reporting limit of $100 million), were paid for out of the $3.8 billion in military aid that the United States gives Israel each year.
In April, Congress passed a new war-funding bill that includes about $14 billion for additional weapons. Israel could afford to pay for these weapons itself, but then it could shop around for them, which might erode the U.S. monopoly on supplying so much of its war machine. That lucrative monopoly for U.S. merchants of death is clearly more important to Members of Congress than fully funding Head Start or other domestic anti-poverty programs, which they routinely underfund to pay for weapons and wars.
The move elicited an outcry from Israeli officials (National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir tweeted “Hamas loves Biden”), as well as Republicans, staunch anti-Palestinian Democrats and pro-Israel donors. Republicans immediately prepared a bill entitled the Israel Security Assistance Support Act to prohibit the administration from withholding military aid to Israel.
Israel has 500 FMC-built M113 armored personnel carriers and over 2,000 Humvees, manufactured by AM General in Mishawaka, Indiana. Its ground forces are armed with several different types of U.S. grenade launchers, Browning machine-guns, AR-15 assault rifles, and SR-25 and M24 SWS sniper rifles, all made in the USA, as is the ammunition for them.
For many years, Israel’s three Sa’ar 5 corvettes were its largest warships, about the size of frigates. They were built in the 1990s by Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi, but Israel has recently taken delivery of four larger, more heavily-armed, German-built Sa’ar 6 corvettes, with 76 mm main guns and new surface-to-surface missiles.
Gaza Encampments Take On the Merchants of Death
The United States has a long and horrific record of providing weapons to repressive regimes that use them to kill their own people or attack their neighbors. Martin Luther King called the U.S. government “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world,” and that has not changed since he said it in 1967, a year to the day before his assassination.
Many of the huge U.S. factories that produce all these weapons are the largest employers in their regions or even their states. As President Eisenhower warned the public in his farewell address in 1960, “This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry” has led to “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
So, in addition to demanding a ceasefire, an end to U.S. military aid and weapons sales to Israel, and a restoration of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the students occupying college campuses across our country are right to call on their institutions to divest from these merchants of death, as well as from Israeli companies.
The corporate media has adopted the line that divestment would be too complicated and costly for the universities to do. But when students set up an encampment at Trinity College in Dublin, in Ireland, and called on it to divest from Israeli companies, the college quickly agreed to their demands. Problem solved, without police violence or trying to muzzle free speech. Students have also won commitments to consider divestment from U.S. institutions, including Brown, Northwestern, Evergreen State, Rutgers and the Universities of Minnesota and Wisconsin.
While decades of even deadlier U.S. war-making in the greater Middle East failed to provoke a sustained mass protest movement, the genocide in Gaza has opened the eyes of many thousands of young people to the need to rise up against the U.S. war machine.
The gradual expulsion and emigration of Palestinians from their homeland has created a huge diaspora of young Palestinians who have played a leading role in organizing solidarity campaigns on college campuses through groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Their close links with extended families in Palestine have given them a visceral grasp of the U.S. role in this genocide and an authentic voice that is persuasive and inspiring to other young Americans.
Now it is up to Americans of all ages to follow our young leaders and demand not just an end to the genocide in Palestine, but also a path out of our country’s military madness and the clutches of its deeply entrenched MICIMATT (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media- academia-think-tank) complex, which has inflicted so much death, pain and desolation on so many of our neighbors for so long, from Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan to Vietnam and Latin America.
Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books in November 2022.
Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
The plutonium connection: Why I no longer conduct my research at the University of New Brunswick
I had already learned enough about the power and influence of the nuclear industry to know that I would be fighting a losing battle if I kept my research at UNB
Once during my 13 years at the NRC I was asked to work on a military technology project, and I refused. I had a visceral negative reaction to doing research that could potentially be implicated in mass killing.
by Susan O’Donnell, May 17, 2024, https://nbmediacoop.org/2024/05/17/the-plutonium-connection-why-i-no-longer-conduct-my-research-at-the-university-of-new-brunswick/
On Thursday this week, two very different emails landed in my inbox minutes apart. The juxtaposition jolted me, and I thought: it’s time to share my story about my departure from the University of New Brunswick.
The first email, from the NB Media Co-op, informed me that my commentary written with Gordon Edwards was just published. Our article marked the 50th anniversary of an event that had shocked the world: India’s test nuclear explosion made with plutonium extracted from a ‘peaceful’ nuclear reactor, a gift from Canada. We questioned if Canada was making the same mistake by backing the Moltex project to extract plutonium from used nuclear fuel at the Point Lepreau site on the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick.
A UNB professor friend sent the second email. He wrote: ‘This will be aggravating to read, but I thought you’d want to see it. I’m attaching the announcement about Arthur Irving’s death coming from UNB’s President. Arthur Irving is celebrated for his commitment and dedication to the environment. Meanwhile, people who are actually committed to the environment (e.g., you) are blacklisted.’
The two emails had this connection: My research and writing about plutonium and Moltex is the main reason why in 2023 I moved my research program from the University of New Brunswick, the largest university in the province, over to St. Thomas University, a small liberal arts undergraduate institution that shares the campus with UNB in Fredericton.
My journey from UNB to STU began in 2020. At that point, I had been with the UNB Sociology department for almost 16 years as an adjunct professor, on faculty but not on staff and so not in the faculty union. During those years, I brought considerable federal research funding into UNB and hired and trained more than a dozen UNB graduate students. My research expertise includes technology adoption: analyzing the social, political, environmental and economic contexts in which people deploy technologies. I joined UNB in 2004 while employed at the National Research Council of Canada on the Fredericton UNB campus, as a senior researcher and vice-chair of the NRC’s research ethics board. Once during my 13 years at the NRC I was asked to work on a military technology project, and I refused. I had a visceral negative reaction to doing research that could potentially be implicated in mass killing.
At the start of 2020, I could not have imagined a connection between NB Power’s Point Lepreau nuclear reactor and weapons of mass destruction. That February, my UNB research project RAVEN was invited to partner with local groups to bring nuclear expert Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, to New Brunswick to give public talks in Saint John and Fredericton. I readily agreed. Several months previously, I had read Gordon’s article in the NB Media Co-op about ‘small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs)’ and wanted to learn more. I put up posters around the UNB campus promoting Gordon’s upcoming talk. I asked the UNB communications office to help me promote Gordon’s visit, but they never came through, and I assumed they were too busy to help.
Gordon Edward’s talk, moved online when the pandemic hit in March 2020, sparked my research interest in the adoption of nuclear technology. I began looking into the two small nuclear reactor projects planned for New Brunswick, Moltex and ARC. In July that year, I co-wrote my first commentary with Gordon that mentioned our concerns about the Moltex project and plutonium extraction from used nuclear fuel. The same day that our piece was published in The Hill Times, the newspaper on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the CEO of Moltex emailed, asking to meet with me. I agreed, and during a break in the pandemic that month, we met outside at Picaroons Roundhouse along with Janice Harvey, the coordinator of the Environment & Society program at St. Thomas University and a co-investigator on my RAVEN project. At the meeting, Janice and I disagreed with the Moltex CEO about the wisdom of his project to extract plutonium from the used nuclear fuel at Point Lepreau.
I continued my research into small nuclear reactors and plutonium extraction by reading research articles and consulting with Gordon and other experts across Canada and internationally. In May 2021, the federal government gave Moltex a $50.5 million grant to develop its technology that could be exported globally. Shortly after, nine U.S. non-proliferation experts wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Trudeau expressing concern about the Moltex project, writing that by ‘backing spent-fuel reprocessing and plutonium extraction, the Government of Canada will undermine the global nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime that Canada has done so much to strengthen.’ The Globe and Mail published an article about the nuclear weapons proliferation concerns with the Moltex project, and Gordon and I published commentaries in The Hill Times, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the NB Media Co-op.
During this time, I co-founded a public interest group with local activists, the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB), to advocate for a nuclear-free renewable energy future. Janice Harvey invited me to join her in the STU Environment & Society program as an adjunct research professor, and in June 2021 I was appointed to the STU faculty in addition to my UNB faculty appointment.
In August 2021, I received a phone call that augured the end of my research program at UNB. On the phone, a friend told me about overhearing the UNB president say: ‘Susan O’Donnell is spreading misinformation about nuclear energy.’ That shocked me for several reasons. First, I would never knowingly spread misinformation. Second, I’d never met the UNB president and didn’t know he knew I existed. Third, why the heck would he say such a thing? To find out, I filed a Right to Information request with UNB, asking for all communications received by the UNB President and the Vice-President Research that mentioned me or my research project RAVEN.
UNB released the information to me in November 2021. The release package, HERE, is dozens of pages, almost all of it redacted. Just enough information was left for me to know that the UNB senior administration’s concern about me began in February 2020, while I was putting up posters around UNB for Gordon Edwards’ talk about small nuclear reactors. Over the weeks leading up to Gordon’s event, a flurry of emails – involving the UNB president, his chief of staff, several vice-presidents, the UNB secretary, two UNB professors I’ve never met, numerous people in UNB communications, and the Atlantica Centre for Energy, a lobby group funded by the energy industry – fretted about the upcoming ‘anti-nuclear event,’ imagining that it was linked to the Green Party and would jeopardize funding for nuclear research at UNB. I finally realized why the UNB communications office had not responded to my request to help publicize Gordon’s talk.
Most interesting to me in the package was an email from the CEO of Moltex to the UNB vice-president research on July 6, 2020, the same day the CEO wrote to me requesting a meeting. To the VP research, the CEO wrote:
‘You may have seen the article recently written by Dr Susan O’Donnell and her group in NB media coop. It was today issued in the Hill Times which gives it significant exposure and credibility. I understand she is a lecturer at UNB. I have emailed her to request a meeting… I do have concerns that her group RAVEN is supported by SSHRC and yet it is being used as an advocacy group and she is using her Academic Freedom to express views without scientific credibility and in conjunction with political parties but I don’t plan on bringing that up with her. I greatly appreciate debate around nuclear and clean energy (I used to be anti nuclear) but it is hard to compete with misinformation backed by a university.’
There it was: the accusation that I was spreading ‘misinformation’ – the same accusation repeated later by the UNB president that my friend had overheard. Finally, I understood why the heck the president had said that: Moltex had stated it as a fact. I knew that Moltex was collaborating with UNB’s Centre for Nuclear Energy Research, and that in addition to the federal grant to Moltex of $50.5 million, UNB received more than $560,000. The Right to Information request showed me that half a million bucks buys a lot at UNB.
To learn more, I filed a complaint in December 2021 with the New Brunswick Ombuds office, asking UNB to release the redacted information. In April 2022, my complaint was dismissed, and I decided to drop it there.
I had already learned enough about the power and influence of the nuclear industry to know that I would be fighting a losing battle if I kept my research at UNB. I was due to write another application for federal research funding. My main concern was that the UNB VP research – who had written many emails about me (that had been redacted) and who would need to sign off on my future requests for federal research funding – was also on the advisory board of the UNB Centre for Nuclear Energy Research. An application for federal research funding takes months of work, and I was not willing to take the risk that after preparing the application, it could be vetoed at the final stage. I asked my UNB Sociology chair not to renew my faculty appointment when it expired in 2023, and I submitted my funding application via the research office at St. Thomas University.
When my UNB appointment ended, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada awarded me a five-year research grant at STU for the CEDAR project – Contesting Energy Discourses through Action Research. CEDAR has excellent co-investigators, collaborators and research assistants. We research the energy transition – focusing on nuclear energy – with the support of my new university administration.
As a bonus, my experience with the Right to Information system raised my awareness of how access to information requests could be useful for research. I’ve since filed more than two dozen requests with different federal and provincial government departments and agencies to learn what goes on behind the scenes between the nuclear industry and governments related to plutonium extraction from used nuclear fuel. As the release packages arrive, many heavily redacted, I’m making them available to other researchers, journalists, and anyone interested, via a page on the CEDAR project website, HERE. Using that information, The Globe and Mail published an article last September, and Gordon Edwards and I published another in March this year in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists about the collusion between the nuclear industry and the federal government to develop a policy on nuclear fuel reprocessing. My research continues.
Susan O’Donnell is the primary investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University.
Canada’s plutonium mishap in India was 50 years ago this week – is history repeating itself now?
the International Panel on Fissile Materials states: ‘the most important reason to be concerned about the practice of reprocessing is that plutonium can be used to make weapons.’
Canada’s support for the Moltex technology could be used by other countries to justify their own plutonium acquisition programs
by Susan O’Donnell and Gordon Edwards, May 16, 2024, https://nbmediacoop.org/2024/05/16/canadas-plutonium-mishap-in-india-was-50-years-ago-this-week-is-history-repeating-itself-now/
In the public imagination, nuclear power for electricity and nuclear weapons are entirely separate issues. Because Canada is not a nuclear weapons state, Canada’s nuclear power reactors are thought to be unrelated to weapons of mass destruction, and its nuclear technology exports are considered ‘peaceful.’
Yet this week marks the 50-year anniversary of one day in May when Canada’s ‘peaceful’ nuclear image was shattered. On May 18, 1974, India shocked the world by conducting a test A-Bomb explosion it called ‘Smiling Buddha.’ The nuclear explosive was plutonium, obtained from a ‘peaceful’ research reactor – a gift from the Canadian government in 1954.
Plutonium is not found in nature but nuclear reactors create it as a by-product. Plutonium was the explosive used in the A-Bomb that the U.S. military dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki in 1945, killing 70,000 civilians, half of them on the first day.
The story of India’s first A-Bomb shows that ‘intent’ is all that separates military from civilian use of nuclear technology. On that fateful day in 1974, it suddenly became clear that any country with a nuclear reactor can choose to extract plutonium from the fiercely radioactive used fuel and secretly make a nuclear bomb.
Plutonium extraction is a sensitive procedure called ‘reprocessing.’ Plutonium can also be used as a nuclear fuel. But this can only be done by first reprocessing used nuclear fuel, and this increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. As the International Panel on Fissile Materials states: ‘the most important reason to be concerned about the practice of reprocessing is that plutonium can be used to make weapons.’
India’s nuclear explosion deeply traumatized Ottawa and shocked the world. U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger publicly shamed Canada when he told the media that: ‘The Indian nuclear explosion occurred with material that was diverted not from an American reactor under American safeguards, but from a Canadian reactor that did not have appropriate safeguards.’ His statement conveniently ignored the fact that the U.S. encouraged India in its reprocessing technology.
India’s nuclear explosion led to a de-facto ban on commercial reprocessing in Canada by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau following an explicit ban on reprocessing by U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The de-facto ban in Canada remains today, despite industry efforts to overturn it.
In 2022, Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, delivered ‘Canada’s National Statement on Nuclear Energy’ in Washington, emphasizing just one word, ‘peaceful’: ‘Canada began a legacy of nuclear excellence as the second country ever to produce nuclear power. Since that time, we have been actively involved in promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy around the world.’
In 2023, Canada signed the G7 Leaders’ Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament, committing the country to ‘prioritizing efforts to reduce the production and accumulation of weapons-usable nuclear material for civil purposes around the world.’
India’s nuclear explosion led to a de-facto ban on commercial reprocessing in Canada by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau following an explicit ban on reprocessing by U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The de-facto ban in Canada remains today, despite industry efforts to overturn it.
In 2022, Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, delivered ‘Canada’s National Statement on Nuclear Energy’ in Washington, emphasizing just one word, ‘peaceful’: ‘Canada began a legacy of nuclear excellence as the second country ever to produce nuclear power. Since that time, we have been actively involved in promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy around the world.’
In 2023, Canada signed the G7 Leaders’ Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament, committing the country to ‘prioritizing efforts to reduce the production and accumulation of weapons-usable nuclear material for civil purposes around the world.’
The U.S. experts stated that Canada’s support for the Moltex technology could be used by other countries to justify their own plutonium acquisition programs and undo decades of efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of countries that might want to join the ranks of unofficial nuclear weapons states: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.
In subsequent letters, the experts expressed concern that the Canadian government has forgotten the lessons learned 50 years ago with the launch of India’s nuclear-weapon program. They reminded the Prime Minister that the experience led Prime Minister P.E. Trudeau and U.S. President Jimmy Carter to oppose the separation of plutonium from spent fuel.
After India’s nuclear explosion in 1974, Canada and the United States became founding members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group that helped to ensure there has been no export of reprocessing technology to non-nuclear weapons states since. The U.S. experts stated: “It is imperative to uphold this decades-long norm of not reprocessing, lest we find ourselves in a world of many states with latent nuclear-weapon capabilities.”
Canada’s support for reprocessing now is sending the wrong signal to the world and threatening the already fragile global non-proliferation regime. Will history repeat itself?
An earlier version of this story was published by The Hill Times.
Susan O’Donnell, PhD, is the lead investigator of the CEDAR project in the Environment & Society program at St. Thomas University. Gordon Edwards, PhD, is president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility in Montreal.
Top Labour donor joins campaign to stop Hinkley nuclear plant
Government wasting billions of taxpayers’ money on power station, warns Dale Vince
Jonathan Leake 16 May 2024
Millionaire Labour donor Dale Vince has joined a campaign to block
Britain’s biggest nuclear power station project. The entrepreneur, who
founded green energy company Ecotricity, has emerged as a patron to Stop
Hinkley after accusing the Government of wasting billions of pounds.
He said the decision to use taxpayer money to fund Hinkley Point C, which is
under construction in Somerset, was flawed because nuclear technology is
“hugely expensive and slow to develop”. His comments will be sure to
raise questions for Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow energy secretary, who
has vowed to invest in nuclear energy.
The Opposition has accepted around
£1.5m in donations over the past decade from Mr Vince, who severed ties
with Just Stop Oil last year as part of his commitment to Labour. A
spokesman for Stop Hinkley said: “At a time when nuclear power is rapidly
losing ground to the astonishing growth in renewables, it’s great to have
someone onboard who founded a company which allows ordinary members of the
public to actually vote on the nuclear question with their electricity
bill.”
Telegraph 16th May 2024
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/16/top-labour-donor-joins-campaign-stop-hinkley/
The Heroism of David McBride
By John Kiriakou https://consortiumnews.com/2024/05/16/john-kiriakou-the-heroism-of-david-mcbride/
By 2014 McBride had compiled a dossier into profound command failings that saw examples of potential war crimes in Afghanistan overlooked and other soldiers wrongly accused. On Tuesday he was sentenced to nearly six years in jail.
Sometimes a whistleblower does everything right. He or she makes a revelation that is clearly in the public interest. The revelation is clearly a violation of the law. And then he or she is even more clearly abused by the government. It would be great if these stories always had happy endings. Unfortunately, they don’t.
In this case, the whistleblower, the hero, Australian David McBride has been sentenced to five years and eight months in prison for telling the truth. He will not be eligible for parole for 27 months.
David McBride is former British Army officer and a lawyer with the Australian Special Forces who blew the whistle on war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, specifically the killing of 39 unarmed Afghan prisoners, farmers, and civilians in 2012.
After failing to raise a response through official channels, McBride shared the information with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), which published a series of major reports based on the material.
The ABC broadcasts in 2017 led to a major inquiry that upheld many of the allegations. Despite this, the ABC and its journalists themselves came under threat of prosecution for their work on the story.
The ABC offices in Sydney were raided by the national police, but in the end the government did not prosecute an ABC journalist because it was not in the public interest. McBride himself, however, was prosecuted for dissemination of official information.
Two Tours in Afghanistan
Let’s go back a few years. McBride at the time already was a seasoned attorney. After studying for a second law degree at Oxford University, he joined the British military and eventually moved back to Australia where he became a lawyer in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF). In that role he had two tours in Afghanistan in 2011 and 2013.
While on deployment, McBride became critical of the terms of engagement and other regulations that soldiers were working under, which he felt were endangering military personnel for the sake of political imperatives determined elsewhere.
By 2014 McBride had compiled a dossier into profound command failings that saw examples of potential war crimes in Afghanistan overlooked and other soldiers wrongly accused. His internal complaints were suppressed and ignored.
McBride’s reports also looked at other matters, including the military’s handling of sexual abuse allegations. After his use of internal channels had proven ineffective, McBride gave his report to the police. And eventually, he contacted journalists at ABC.
ABC’s Afghan Files documented several incidents of Australian soldiers killing unarmed civilians, including children, and questioned the prevalent “warrior culture” in the special forces. Subsequent to McBride’s disclosures, the behavior of other Coalition Special Forces in Afghanistan also came under sustained investigation.
In many ways, McBride’s reports went further than the issues identified by ABC. Amid prevalent rumors that Australian troops were responsible for war crimes, questionable deaths in Afghanistan had led to calls for investigations.
Report Vindicated McBride & ABC
In November 2020, the Brereton report (formally called the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force Afghan Inquiry report) was published, utterly vindicating McBride and the ABC. Judge Paul Brereton found evidence of multiple incidents involving Australian personnel that had led to 39 deaths. Among his recommendations were the investigation of these incidents for possible future criminal charges.
There would be almost no criminal charges, however. At least, there would be only one eventual criminal charge against one single soldier in the murder of Afghan civilians. There have been no charges against the officers who covered up the war crimes.
Instead, though, there would be serious charges against McBride for “theft of government property” (the information) and for “sharing with members of the press documents classified as secret.” He faced life in prison.
McBride’s sentence illustrates the challenges that Australian whistleblowers face when reporting evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety.
First, just like in the United States, there are no protections for national security whistleblowers. McBride took his career — indeed, his life — into his hands when he decided to go public with his revelations. But what else could he do?
Second, as in the United States, there is no affirmative defense. McBride, like Edward Snowden, Jeffrey Sterling, Daniel Hale and like me, was forbidden from standing up in court and saying, “Yes, I gave the information to the media because I witnessed a war crime or a crime against humanity. What I did was in the public interest.”
Those words are never permitted to be spoken in a court in the United States or Australia.
Recalling Nuremberg
Third, Australia is in dire need of some legal reforms. The judge in McBride’s case said at sentencing that McBride, “had no duty as an army officer beyond following orders.” That defense was attempted at Nuremberg and it failed. It’s time for the Australian judiciary to get into the 21st century.
There are a couple points of light in this whole fiasco. The Brereton Commission did indeed recommend that 19 members of the Australian Special Forces be prosecuted for war crimes. So far, one has been charged with a crime. He is accused of shooting and killing a civilian in a wheat field in Uruzgan Province in 2012.
Indeed, Andrew Wilkie, a former Australian government intelligence analyst-turned-whistleblower, and now member of Parliament, says that “the Australian government hates whistleblowers” and that it wanted to punish David McBride and to send a signal to other government insiders to remain silent, even in the face of witnessing horrible crimes. I would say exactly the same thing about the United States.
I’m proud to call David McBride a friend. I know exactly what he’s going through right now. But his sacrifice will not be in vain. History will smile on him. Yes, the next several years will be tough. He’ll be a prisoner. He’ll be separated from his family. And when he gets out of prison, well into his 60s, he’ll have to begin rebuilding his life. But he is right and his government is wrong. And future generations will understand and appreciate what he did for them.
John Kiriakou is a former C.I.A. counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act — a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.
And McBride will be allowed to appeal his conviction. Still any other light at the end of the tunnel is likely an oncoming train, rather than relief for the whistleblower.
But the bottom line is this. There is a war against whistleblowers in Australia just like there is in the United States.
Pension funds need ‘compelling’ returns from UK nuclear projects to invest
Ft. com 17 May 24
Potential investors tell Jeremy Hunt regulatory clarity also essential before backing new power plants.
Local authority pension funds managing hundreds of billions of pounds have told UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt that returns from new nuclear power plants need to be “compelling” to attract their cash. The chancellor is looking to pension funds to help finance the government’s ambition for nuclear power to meet a quarter of the UK’s electricity needs by 2050. Several town hall pension funds, managing more than £100bn in assets between them, were called to a meeting with Hunt this week, where the role of large retirement plans as potential investors in the Sizewell C nuclear project in Suffolk was discussed.
The head of the Sizewell C project spoke at the meeting, according to sources close to those who attended. London CIV, which manages £17bn of pension assets for local authorities in the capital and attended the meeting, outlined the criteria needed for it to invest. “Any infrastructure solution, including nuclear power, will need to provide regulatory clarity, a solid business model and a compelling inflation-linked return stream,” said London CIV. “This is ultimately about what our partner funds need. As they are our shareholders, we’ll collaborate with them to identify whether this area is worth exploring.”
Laura Chappell, chief executive of the Brunel Pension Partnership, which manages about £35bn in assets for eight local authority pension funds, attended the meeting and with other funds offered views to Hunt on the “problems, pitfalls and potential of investing in nuclear in the UK”. “Any infrastructure solution, including nuclear power, will need to provide regulatory clarity,” said Chappell in a statement to the FT. Chappell echoed that potential infrastructure projects would need to have a “solid business model, consistent policy, and a compelling investment proposition”. The pitch to pension funds comes against a backdrop of high-profile challenges for the nuclear sector in the UK.
France’s EDF said in January that the Hinkley Point C 3.2GW nuclear plant it is building in Somerset was on course to cost up to £46bn in today’s prices and would be delayed by two more years to 2029 — compared with an initial budget of £18bn and completion by 2025.
………………………………………………. Hunt’s meeting with pension leaders came more than a year after the government flagged its intention to consult on reforms that would make nuclear a more attractive investment for UK pension funds.
However, the government is yet to consult on these reforms, which would pave the way for nuclear power to be classified as “environmentally sustainable” under the UK’s upcoming “green taxonomy”
The Treasury declined to comment on the pension meeting, including who attended, but said: “We want to incentivise private investment in nuclear as a crucial source of reliable low-carbon energy and a driver of economic growth.
“We have already begun to engage with industry on the topic and will consult on a UK green taxonomy in due course.” The meeting was held in the same week ministers showed signs of losing patience with pension funds over low levels of investment in domestic listed and unlisted markets. In a speech this week, Bim Afolami, City minister, said “We have a challenge with pension funds.” He said if there was “no improvement” in levels of investment in the UK by pension funds then the government would “consider what further action can be taken”. https://www.ft.com/content/70cd278f-8ef5-4904-9535-305fe1095768
Nuclear Free Local Authorities welcome commitment to recruit new Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership Chair at less cost who is local
After a prolonged period of paid tenure, the Interim Chair of the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership is finally making way for a successor – and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities have welcomed the commitments made to appoint a local person to the post at a significantly lower cost to the taxpayer.
Jon Collins has acted as Chair since being appointed by Nuclear Waste Services at the inception of the Theddlethorpe GDF Working Party. Mr Collins is the former leader of Nottingham City Council without strong roots within the Theddlethorpe Search Area. The NFLAs have been especially critical of the renumeration package attached to the post, which initially comprised a payment of £1,000 a day for two days per week, since reduced to £750. This day rate is many times higher than the average salary received in the local community.
Now the Community Partnership is recruiting a candidate for the ‘challenging but rewarding role’ to manage the meetings and business of the partnership. Although the NFLAs reject the hyperbole that the GDF represents the ‘biggest environmental protection project of our lifetime’, creditably the advertisement states that members of the partnership ‘have expressed a preference to recruit a Chair who lives or works in the Search Area’ and that renumeration has now been reduced to a more modest annual honorarium of £10,000.
By contrast, in West Cumbria, both Community Partnership Chairs have always been local Councillors and worked solely for expenses rather than salary.
With the Theddlethorpe Community Partnership now moving to public meetings, the appointment of a new independent and impartial Chair at this time will be a welcome move, but it remains to be seen whether a local person is in fact appointed to the role or if the appointee will ‘act independently and not represent either themselves or any organisation of which they are a member’.
The advert also states that the Independent Chair must ensure ‘the work of the Partnership is fair, unbiased and reflects the needs of the community’. This must pose the appointee with a dilemma for clearly the local community does not share the belief of Nuclear Waste Services that the GDF represents the ‘biggest environmental protection project of our lifetime’.
By contrast, in West Cumbria, both Community Partnership Chairs have always been local Councillors and worked solely for expenses rather than salary.
With the Theddlethorpe Community Partnership now moving to public meetings, the appointment of a new independent and impartial Chair at this time will be a welcome move, but it remains to be seen whether a local person is in fact appointed to the role or if the appointee will ‘act independently and not represent either themselves or any organisation of which they are a member’.
The advert also states that the Independent Chair must ensure ‘the work of the Partnership is fair, unbiased and reflects the needs of the community’. This must pose the appointee with a dilemma for clearly the local community does not share the belief of Nuclear Waste Services that the GDF represents the ‘biggest environmental protection project of our lifetime’.
The last thing that Scotland needs is new nuclear power, small or otherwise
Pete Roche, Edinburgh,
The last thing that Scotland needs is new nuclear power, small or otherwise. (Scotsman Editorial 16th May 2024). It is perfectly feasible to supply 100 per cent of Scotland’s energy (not just electricity) from renewable sources. In fact, a recent study [1] by renowned energy modelling academics at the LUT University in Finland, showed that not only is a 100 per cent renewable energy mix feasible for the whole UK but it would save well over £100 billion in achieving net zero by 2050, compared to the UK Government’s current strategy.
It’s true that renewable energy output is variable, and there are times when wind and solar are producing almost nothing. But there are also times when they produce too much power, and we have to pay wind to turn off. The UK could waste more than £3.5bn per year by 2030 this way.[2] The answer is flexibility, not “always on” nuclear power stations which will just end up wasting more power when renewables are plentiful.
Firstly, we need to: reduce overall demand (helping tackle fuel poverty in the process); introduce more flexibility with new smart technologies (for instance making use of demand-response aggregators like Edinburgh-based company Flexitricity), and vehicle to grid technology; build more energy storage – not just batteries, but pumped hydro storage (with several schemes in Scotland awaiting approval), gravity storage (developed in Edinburgh), compressed air storage; and thermal storage (developed in East Lothian).
These are just some of the ways we can make better use of the renewable resources we already have. Nuclear power is too slow and too inflexible and too expensive to play a role in cutting carbon emissions.
Germany admits to expelling Ukrainian soldiers over Nazi symbols
https://www.sott.net/article/491499-Germany-admits-to-expelling-Ukrainian-soldiers-over-Nazi-symbols 17 May 24v
The German government revealed on Wednesday that it has expelled seven Ukrainian troops undergoing military training in the country for sporting Nazi symbols. Berlin, however, attempted to downplay the potential threat posed by Ukrainian far-right nationalists to any future peace process between Kiev and Moscow.
According to the German military’s estimates, “around 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers were trained by German and multinational units on German soil in 2023.” Under the European Union Military Assistance Mission Ukraine (EUMAM UA) established in November 2022, German instructors and those from several other member states have trained Ukrainian military personnel.
In a reply to an inquiry made by the right-wing Alternative for Germany Party (AFD), the German government wrote that “within the framework of training for the Ukrainian armed forces conducted by the Bundeswehr, seven cases have been established where soldiers were wearing far-right extremist symbols.”
The document further revealed that these troops had been removed from the course and sent home.
Incoming Ukrainian military personnel are warned against the use of Nazi insignias on arrival, the German government said.
The reply noted that Berlin “sees no threat to a possible peace process in Ukraine [posed] by Ukrainian extremist nationalists.”
“It is Russia’s imperialism that underlies the illegal Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, and that threatens security in Europe,” the document said.
Upon the launch of Russia’s military operation against the neighboring state in February 2022, President Vladimir Putin listed the “denazification” of Ukraine as one of Moscow’s main goals. Russian officials have for years expressed concern over the growing role of far-right elements within the Ukrainian government and military.
Moscow has also claimed that some units within Kiev’s army are made up almost exclusively of neo-Nazis.
Ukraine’s glorification of WWII-era nationalist partisans who collaborated with Nazi Germany, as well as Ukrainian SS units, has also been condemned not only by Russia, but also neighboring Poland.
Despite these criticisms, monuments to honor these figures continue to be erected across Ukraine, with streets renamed after them in some cases as well.
Comment: What with Germany’s unwavering support for the war on Russia, as well as Israel’s genocide in Gaza, one can imagine that Berlin must have been rather reluctant to do the above:
“Picking losers:” Choosing nuclear over renewables and efficiency will make climate crisis worse
Giles Parkinson, May 15, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/picking-losers-choosing-nuclear-over-renewables-and-efficiency-will-make-climate-crisis-worse/
One of the world’s leading energy experts, and the man dubbed the “Einstein of energy efficiency” has debunked the claims that nuclear energy is essential to meet climate goals, saying that choosing nuclear over renewables and energy efficiency will make the climate crisis worse.
“Carbon-free power is necessary but not sufficient; we also need cheap and fast,” says Lovins, the co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, now known as RMI, and who has been advising governments and companies on energy efficiency for half a century.
“We therefore need to count carbon and cost and speed. At actual market prices and deployment speeds, new nuclear plants would save manyfold less carbon per dollar and per year than cheaper, faster efficiency or modern renewables, thus making climate change worse
“The more urgent you think climate change is, the more vital it is to buy cheap, fast, proven solutions—not costly, slow, speculative ones.”
The comments by Lovins, made in a keynote presentation at the annual Energy Efficiency Summit in Sydney on Wednesday, are particularly relevant in Australia, where one side of politics is threatening to stop wind, solar and storage, and tear up Commonwealth contracts, and keep coal generators open until such time that nuclear can be built.
The federal Coalition, and its conservative boosters in the media and so called think tanks, argue that nuclear is the best way to get to net zero by 2050, ignoring the pleas and warnings from climate scientists who say that unless emissions cuts are accelerated, then the planet has little chance of keeping average global warming below 2.0° or even 2.5°c.
A common refrain from the Coalition, and conservative parties across the world for that matter, is that nuclear should be included as part of an “all of the above” strategy. To be fair, it is also used by Labor when justifying their infatuation with fossil gas and its proposed future beyond 2050.
“When someone says climate change is so urgent that we need “all of the above,” remember Peter Bradford’s reply: “We’re not picking and backing winners. They don’t need it. We’re picking and backing losers.”
“That makes climate change worse,” Lovins says,. No proposed changes in size, technology, or fuel cycle would change these conclusions: they’re intrinsic to all nuclear technologies.”
He noted that renewables add as much capacity every few days as global nuclear power adds in a whole year. “Nuclear is a climate non-solution (that) isn’t worth paying for, let alone extra.
“Nuclear power has no business case or operational need. It offers no benefits for grid reliability or resilience justifying special treatment. In fact, its inflexibility and ungraceful failures complicate modern grid operations, and it hogs grid and market space that cheaper renewables are barred from contesting.”
Lovins says that grids in Europe have shown that renewable dominated grids can be run with great reliability “like a conductor with a symphony orchestra” with comparatively little storage, and little is needed if politicians and grid operators embraced the full potential of energy efficient and demand site incentives.
Giles Parkinson Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for 40 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review.
NATO Spreads Nuclear Weapons, Energy, and Risk
By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, May 15, 2024, https://worldbeyondwar.org/nato-spreads-nuclear-weapons-energy-and-risk/
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty declares that NATO members will assist another member if attacked by “taking action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” But the UN Charter does not say anywhere that warmaking is authorized for whoever jumps in on the appropriate side.
The North Atlantic Treaty’s authors may have been aware that they were on dubious legal ground because they went on twice to claim otherwise, first adding the words “Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” But shouldn’t the United Nations be the one to decide when it has taken necessary measures and when it has not?
The North Atlantic Treaty adds a second bit of sham obsequiousness with the words “This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.” So the treaty that created NATO seeks to obscure the fact that it is, indeed, authorizing warmaking outside of the United Nations — as has now played out in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya.
While the UN Charter itself replaced the blanket ban on all warmaking that had existed in the Kellogg-Briand Pact with a porous ban plagued by loopholes imagined to apply far more than they actually do — in particular that of “defensive” war — it is NATO that creates, in violation of the UN Charter, the idea of numerous nations going to war together of their own initiative and by prior agreement to all join in any other member’s war. Because NATO has numerous members, as does also your typical street gang, there is a tendency to imagine NATO not as an illegal enterprise but rather as just the reverse, as a legitimizer and sanctioner of warmaking.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty forbids transferring nuclear weapons to other nations. It contains no NATO exception. Yet NATO proliferates nuclear weapons, and this is widely imagined as law enforcement or crime prevention. The prime minister of Sweden said this week that NATO ought to be able to put nuclear weapons in Sweden as long as somebody has determined it to be “war time.” The Nonproliferation Treaty says otherwise, and the people who plan the insanity of nuclear war say “What the heck for? We’ve got them on long-range missiles and stealth airplanes and submarines?” The people of Sweden seem, at least in large part, to also want to say No Nukes — but when were people ever asked to play a role in “defending democracy”? The purpose of bringing nukes into Sweden, for those in the Swedish government who favor it, may in fact be purely a show of subservience to U.S. empire, driven by fear of its obliging partner in the arms race, the militarists in Russia.
Poland’s president says his country would be happy to have “NATO” nuclear weapons there, “war time” or not, and this proposal is reported in U.S. corporate media with no mention of any legal concerns and with the claim that it comes as a response to the Russian placement of nuclear weapons in Belarus. Last year I asked the Russian ambassador to the United States why putting nuclear weapons into Belarus wasn’t a blatant violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, and he said, oh no, it was perfectly fine, because the United States does it all the time.
In fact, NATO itself owns and controls no nuclear weapons. Three NATO members own and control nuclear weapons. We cannot be certain how many weapons they have, since nuclear weapons are both justified with the dubious alchemy of “deterrence” and, contradictorily, cloaked in secrecy. The United States has an estimated 5,344 nuclear weapons, France an estimated 290, and Great Britain an estimated 240.
NATO calls itself a “nuclear alliance” and maintains a “Nuclear Planning Group” for all of its members — those with and those without nuclear weapons — to discuss the launching of the sort of war that puts all life on Earth at risk, and to coordinate rehearsals or “war games” practicing for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe. NATO partners Israel and Pakistan are estimated to possess 170 nuclear weapons each.
Five NATO members have U.S. nuclear weapons stored and controlled by the U.S. military within their borders: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. These are estimated at 35 nuclear weapons at Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, 20 at Incirlik in Turkey, and 15 each at Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Büchel Air Base in Germany. The United States is reportedly also moving its own nuclear weapons into RAF Lakenheath in the UK, where it has stored them in the past. The people of each of these countries routinely protest the presence of nuclear weapons and have never been asked to vote on the matter. The notion that the nuclear weapons in a European country are still U.S. nuclear weapons and thus haven’t been proliferated is an odd fit with the general understanding of international treaties, which are conceived and written as if there were no such thing as empire.
With so-called U.S. or NATO nuclear weapons in potentially eight nations in Europe — and perhaps South Korea as well, at least on U.S. submarines docked there to please certain war-crazed South Koreans — there could soon be more nations in the world with “U.S.” nuclear weapons than nations with anybody else’s.
In recent years, the United States has been replacing its nuclear bombs stored in European nations with a newer model (the B61-12), while NATO members have been buying new U.S.-made airplanes with which to drop them. Turkey has had U.S. nukes stored in it even while U.S.-backed and Turkish-backed troops have fought each other in Syria, and even during a non-U.S.-backed coup attempt at the very base where the nuclear weapons are stored.
Seven other NATO members are said to support “nuclear missions” using their non-nuclear militaries: The Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, and Romania.
Poland and Romania also host new U.S./NATO missile bases that could launch missiles into Russia from very short distances, leaving the Russian government mere moments to decide whether the weapons are nuclear, or to decide whether to launch missiles of its own. The U.S. and NATO claim the bases are purely defensive, and various supporters of the bases have even claimed they had nothing to do with Russia—that they were either focused on Iran (then-U.S. President Barack Obama) or purely functioned as jobs programs for U.S. workers (former U.S. Ambassador Jack Matlock).
Meanwhile, the U.S. has been manufacturing what many of its officials describe as “more usable” or “tactical” nuclear weapons (merely several times the destructive power of what was used on Hiroshima). At the same time, the U.S. military is aware that, in its war game scenarios, the use of a single so-called “tactical” nuclear weapon tends to lead to all-out nuclear war. Or, as then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee in 2018, “I don’t think there is any such thing as a ‘tactical nuclear weapon.’ Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game-changer.”
The U.S.-made, disaster-prone F-35 is the first “stealth” airplane designed to carry nuclear bombs, meaning that it can in theory drop a nuclear bomb on a city with no warning from radar at all. The U.S./NATO have managed to sell F-35s to the U.S., UK, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, with efforts under way to spread them to more nations, eventually perhaps creating a general need for them on the grounds of “interoperability.” The F-35 is currently being demonstrated on the people of Gaza.
The U.S. military has enough nuclear weapons in each of the following three forms to threaten all life on our planet: missiles on U.S. submarines in oceans around the world; bombs on U.S. airplanes circling the globe; and missiles in the ground in the United States. So why also keep nuclear bombs in European countries, where they would have to be loaded onto airplanes and flown (presumably to Russia) on missions either so “stealth” that they avoid all warning or so risky that they would have to be preceded by massive efforts to destroy air defenses?
If the decision to “go nuclear” were up to NATO, all members would have to reach a consensus on it. However, NATO has not always easily reached a consensus. For example, the U.S. attempted to bring NATO into its plans for a war on Iraq in 2003 but failed, in part because of huge public pressure against that war in NATO nations. Nuclear war is one of the least popular ideas ever, so the launch of a nuclear weapon might have to be “stealth” not only in relation to Russia but also in relation to the Western public. If the U.S. decides to use nuclear weapons, it almost certainly will not bother trying to use the ones it keeps stored in Europe. For that matter, were U.S. officials intent on reaching secret bunkers under hills some distance from Washington, D.C., they would need significant warning that a nuclear war had been secretly scheduled — a problematic concept for both the idea of deterrence and the idea of democracy.
The purpose of NATO in the North Atlantic Treaty is supposed to be defense against an attack on Europe, not deterrence. But in the event of responding to such an attack, whether the response were nuclear or not, the U.S. bombs stored in Europe would probably not be used. Threats in the name of deterrence have tended to fuel arms races and wars. But keeping U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe seems to fail even by the usual standards of deterrence theory, since their most likely use would be in an unlikely secret attack. Some U.S. officials believe those nuclear bombs serve no “military purpose” but only a “political” one, to reassure the host countries that the U.S. government cares about them.
The argument has also been made that, since Russia would like the nuclear bombs removed from Europe, the U.S. should either keep them there or demand something huge from Russia in exchange for removing them. Another argument is that this is part of making European nations share the burden, along the lines of making them spend more money on weapons. But if the burden serves no purpose, why should anyone share it? European government officials know the bombs are not useful as bombs. They know the bombs are provocative toward Russia. They know, in fact, that Russia is using the U.S. storage of nuclear bombs in European nations as an excuse to put Russian nuclear weapons into Belarus. So a more realistic understanding of the “political” purpose of U.S. nukes in Europe is probably a combination of the idea that the U.S. military will fight for any nation in which it has stored nukes, the perverse prestige that many imagine comes with possessing nukes (even if someone else actually possesses them on your land), and the general U.S. goals of keeping European governments intertwined with the U.S. military, supportive of U.S. military strategies, and willing to spend vast amounts on U.S.-made weapons.
Spreading along with nuclear weapons is nuclear energy — climate-disastrous, slow, expensive, super-dangerous nuclear energy, which creates permanent deadly waste, which poisons those around it, which no insurance company will insure, and the facilities for which constitute nuclear catastrophes waiting for accident or attack. Listen to Harvey Wasserman on what drugs you need to take in order to believe that nuclear energy is good for the climate. Not only are various nations pursuing nuclear energy in order to be closer to developing nuclear weapons, but nuclear NATO countries like the U.S. and UK are promoting this spread of nuclear technology at home and abroad because it is through nuclear energy that they maintain skills, training, and materials they want for nuclear weaponry.
There is a better way, and everyone who cares about avoiding nuclear apocalypse is invited to join in preparations for unwelcoming NATO to its 75th birthday party this July in Washington DC: https://nonatoyespeace.org.
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include his latest: NATO What You Need to Know with Medea Benjamin. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org. He hosts Talk World Radio. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and U.S. Peace Prize recipient.
Mycle Schneider: Nuclear power is not an option
“The idea that we could go from zero to 10 reactors in 10 or even 20 years is a completely distorted idea of the feasibility of nuclear programmes,” said Schneider. “I think that’s probably the worst part of the nuclear myths currently.”
Instead, he said, it is well established that a single nuclear project, from conceptual idea to grid connection, can take up to 25 years to finalise. It’s precisely this timeline that makes nuclear energy an unfeasible solution to the climate emergency—a crisis on which we cannot afford to wait.
https://rightlivelihood.org/news/mycle-schneider-nuclear-power-is-not-an-option/— 14 May 24
Independent energy policy and nuclear analyst Mycle Schneider, recipient of the 1997 Right Livelihood Award for educating the public on the unparalleled risks of nuclear materials, has released the World Nuclear Industry Status Report annually since 2007.
Recently, he visited Stockholm to engage with the Swedish press, academics and politicians on the findings of the 2023 Report. In an interview with Right Livelihood, Schneider busts the Swedish right wing’s assertion that nuclear energy is an indispensable tool for overcoming the climate crisis.
Since Sweden’s right-wing parliamentary faction took power in October 2022, a national debate on the role of nuclear energy in balancing the energy mix and combating the climate crisis has taken centre stage.
This debate came to a head late last year when the Swedish parliament passed a bill removing the country’s 10 nuclear reactor cap and announced its plan to build and start up two new reactors by 2035.
In response to whether nuclear energy has a place in balancing Sweden’s energy mix and combating the climate crisis, Schneider’s answer is resoundingly clear: absolutely not.
But, it’s not for the reasons you may think. Arguing that any debate on nuclear’s environmental or economic costs or benefits is useless, Schneider insists that expanding nuclear energy under the given time constraints is simply not possible.
“The idea that we could go from zero to 10 reactors in 10 or even 20 years is a completely distorted idea of the feasibility of nuclear programmes,” said Schneider. “I think that’s probably the worst part of the nuclear myths currently.”
Instead, he said, it is well established that a single nuclear project, from conceptual idea to grid connection, can take up to 25 years to finalise. It’s precisely this timeline that makes nuclear energy an unfeasible solution to the climate emergency—a crisis on which we cannot afford to wait.
Nuclear energy’s costliness is another barrier that prevents it from being a means of tackling the climate crisis.
“It’s the combination of money and time,” said Schneider. “In order to respond to this challenge, nuclear power is not an option. It’s not a bad or a good option. It’s not an option. It’s too expensive and, above all, it’s too slow to be eligible as an effective instrument to deal with the climate emergency.”
Only ‘two countries’ would survive nuclear war after ‘5 billion die in 72 hours’, says expert
Journalist Annie Jacobsen says ‘most of the world would be covered in sheets of ice’.
Anish Vij 15 May 2024, https://www.ladbible.com/news/politics/nuclear-war-countries-survive-annie-jacobsen-diary-ceo-302018-20240515
There is a chance that around five billion people will die in just 72 hours in the event of nuclear war.
Happy Wednesday, everyone.
Though I’m sure you read the headline beforehand and are well prepared for some depressing insight into the future of humanity.
In this case, we have Annie Jacobsen to thank, an investigative journalist, New York Times bestselling author, and a 2016 Pulitzer Prize finalist.
The 56-year-old from Connecticut, US, has spent years researching the possible effects of nuclear war and she claims that there are only two countries where you might, I repeat, might survive.
The reason being that nuclear attacks would cause a thick smoke from burning fires to spread across the three continents, ultimately causing a mini ice-age.
This would most likely kill five billion of the eight billion people on earth within 72 hours.
She explained on Steven Bartlett’s Diary Of A CEO podcast: “Most of the world, certainly the mid-latitudes would be covered in sheets of ice …places like Iowa and Ukraine would be just snow for 10 years.
“Agriculture would fail, and when agriculture fails people just die.
“On top of that you have the radiation poisoning because the ozone layer will be so damaged and destroyed that you couldn’t be outside in the sunlight – people will be forced to live underground.”
Jacobsen said that Professor Brian Toon, a leading expert on climate and atmospheric science, told her that only two countries could potentially survive a nuclear winter – New Zealand and Australia, who can ‘sustain agriculture’.
The expert also opened up about the story of former US Secretary of Defence Bill Perry and the idea of a nuclear war happening by accident.
“He was on the night watch during the Carter Administration … he was told by the National Military Command Centre, which is the bunker beneath the Pentagon, that there were ballistic missiles on the way from Soviet Russia,” she said.
“This was confirmed by the nuclear bunker beneath Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska the STRATCOM (Strategic Command) bunker.
“Not only were intercontinental ballistic missiles flying at the United States but there were sub-launched ballistic missiles coming at the United States. It was a massive motherlode of warheads.
“Within a matter of minutes he got word that it was a mistake – how does a mistake like that happen?
“What he told me was that there was a VHS tape of a simulated attack by the Soviet Union against the United States and the VHS tape had mistakenly been inserted into a machine in the nuclear bunker beneath the Pentagon and because it is linked to STRATCOM it was seen in both places.
Perry said to me it looked real because it was meant to look real.”
China and Russia Disagree on North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons
Beijing and Moscow have different perspectives on – and different appetites for – Pyongyang’s nuclear program.
The Diplomat, By Wooyeal Paik, May 15, 2024
China has been ambivalent about North Korea and its strategic behaviors for the last few decades, leading scholars in China to describe North Korea as both “strategic asset” and “strategic liability.” North Korea, China’s sole military ally with an official treaty, the Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, signed in 1961, has proved tough to handle, if not outright volatile, for its security and economic patron.
Nonetheless, North Korea’s geopolitical importance to China as a buffer state against the United States and its East Asian allies (South Korea and Japan) has not lessened. Even in the era of high-tech weapons such as missiles, military satellites, nuclear submarines, and fifth-generation fighter jets, all of which serve to reduce the strategic value of physical buffer zones, it is still effective and valuable for China not to confront the mighty hostile power, the United States, on its immediate land border. Ground forces are still the ultimate military presence, and sharing a border with a U.S. allied, unified Korea would also come at a psychological cost for China.
Beyond its role as a buffer state, North Korea’s value as leverage or a bargaining chip for China in Beijing’s relations with South Korea and the United States has been well recognized. In 2024, however, China may consider adding another layer to this leverage by supporting North Korea’s nuclear program, as Russia has done.
North Korea is a de facto nuclear state with a set of viable delivery mechanisms including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
This nuclear element of the Kim regime has been regarded as the quintessential reason for an ever-growing regional security instability in Northeast Asia and beyond.
For China, North Korea – and particularly its nuclear program – is a strategic liability. China prioritizes stability in its neighborhood, but North Korea purposefully pursues instability right next to China. This conflict of interests between the treaty allies exacerbates Chinese national security concerns, particularly regarding the United States and its hub-and-spoke system in the Indo-Pacific area.
In response to North Korea’s rapid nuclear and missile developments, the United States has significantly ramped up its military presence on and around the Korean Peninsula, in consultation with its ally, South Korea. That includes the regular deployment of strategic (i.e., nuclear-capable) U.S. assets to the region, something China is not comfortable with.
Russia, however, takes a different view. Over the past year, Moscow has shifted its strategic approach to the North Korea’s nuclear capability and provocations, from viewing them as a nuisance that disrupts the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime to a tactical countermeasure against the United States. From Russia’s perspective, distracting the U.S. – the primary military and economic presence as the NATO leader – is a goal unto itself, as Washington is a major obstacle to Russia’s desire to conquer Ukraine and influence the post-Soviet Central and Eastern Europe.
Russia has been importing North Korean weapons – 152 mm artillery ammunition,122 mm multiple rocket launcher ammunition, and other conventional weapons – for use against Ukraine. In return, it’s widely believed that North Korea receives Russia’s technical assistance for the research and development of advanced space and weapons technologies: nuclear-powered submarines, cruise and ballistic missiles, military reconnaissance satellites. North Korea also receives food and energy in addition to rare international support for its pariah regime.
Russia actively endorses North Korea as a nuclear state and supports its “legitimate” use of nuclear weapons for its self-defense and beyond. As Kim Jong Un embraces a lower nuclear threshold, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his ruling elites have also expressed their willingness to employ low-yield tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine and European NATO countries.
Thus, North Korea has evolved into a double-layered tool for Russia, acting as both a buffer state and a nuclear threat against the United States in Northeast Asia and Europe. This accelerates the convergence of security between Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions.
Despite Russia’s high-profile advances with North Korea, China is still thought to be the only nation with significant influence over Pyongyang. ……………………………………………………….. more https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/china-and-russia-disagree-on-north-koreas-nuclear-weapons/
-
Archives
- February 2026 (228)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
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
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- 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
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 