The Hidden Ties Between Google and Amazon’s Project Nimbus and Israel’s Military
By Caroline Haskins, Jul 15, 2024 https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-google-project-nimbus-israel-idf/?utm_brand=wired&utm_source=twitter&utm_social-type=owned&mbid=social_twitter&utm_medium=social
A WIRED investigation found public statements from officials detail a much closer link between Project Nimbus and Israel Defense Forces than previously reported.
On April 16, police entered Google offices in New York and California to detain several employees protesting a $1.2 billion cloud contract with Israel’s government called Project Nimbus. The deal, shared with Amazon, has met pushback from some employees at both companies since 2021, but the protests have grown louder since Israel’s renewed conflict with Hamas after the attacks of October 7, 2023.
Current and former Google and Amazon workers protesting Project Nimbus say it makes the companies complicit in Israel’s armed conflicts and its government’s illegal and inhumane treatment of civilian Palestinians. Google has insisted that it is not aimed at military work and is not “relevant to weapons or intelligence services,” while Amazon, seemingly, has not publicly discussed the scope of the contract.
But a WIRED review of public documents and statements by Israeli officials and Google and Amazon employees shows that the Israel Defense Forces have been central to Project Nimbus since its inception, shaping the project’s design and serving as some of its most important users. Top Israeli officials appear to think the Google and Amazon contract provides important infrastructure for the country’s military.
In February, at a conference dedicated to Project Nimbus, the head of Israel’s National Cyber Directorate, Gaby Portnoy, was quoted by Israeli media as crediting the contract with helping the country’s military retaliation against Hamas.
“Phenomenal things are happening in battle because of the Nimbus public cloud, things that are impactful for victory,” Portnoy said, according to an article published in People & Computers, which coorganized the conference. “And I will not share details.” Portnoy and the Cyber Directorate did not respond for comment.
Portnoy’s statement contradicts Google’s statements to media, which have sought to downplay the military connections of Project Nimbus. “This work is not directed at highly sensitive, classified, or military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services,” Google spokesperson Anna Kowalczyk said in an emailed statement. “The Nimbus contract is for workloads running on our commercial cloud by Israeli government ministries, who agree to comply with our Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy.”
Google’s terms forbid customers from “high risk activities,” defined to include situations where “use or failure of the Services would reasonably be expected to lead to death, personal injury, or environmental or property damage (such as the creation or operation of nuclear facilities, air traffic control, life support systems, or weaponry).” It is unclear how supporting IDF combat operations would fit within those rules.
Portnoy’s claim and other documents and statements reviewed by WIRED add to recent reporting that appears to confirm the Nimbus contract’s long-established military connections. Time quoted an internal Google document that said the Israeli Ministry of Defense has its own “landing zone” into the company’s Project Nimbus infrastructure. The Intercept reported that two state-owned Israeli arms companies are required to use Google and Amazon cloud services through Project Nimbus.
In response to a detailed list of questions from WIRED, Google spokesperson Anna Kowalczyk repeated the company’s boilerplate statement.
Likewise, Amazon spokesperson Duncan Neasham repeated boilerplate language Amazon has used in the past to talk about Project Nimbus, which says the company provides its technology to customers “wherever they are located” and that employees have the “right to express themselves.”
“We are committed to ensuring our employees are safe, supporting our colleagues affected by these terrible events, and working with our humanitarian relief partners to help those impacted by the war,” Neasham added. (Sasha Trufanov, a Russian-Israeli Amazon employee, is currently being held hostage by Hamas in Gaza. He was last seen alive in a hostage video released on May 28.)
Making Project Nimbus
Project Nimbus began in 2019 as a major upgrade to Israeli government technology. The multi-year project, led by the Ministry of Finance, had no specific end-date and called for the government to pick preferred cloud providers that would build new data centers to store data securely inside Israel. Like other Cloud customers, the Israeli government could use Google for data storage, and use its built-in tools for machine learning, analyzing data, and developing apps.
An early trace alluding to the Israeli military’s involvement in Project Nimbus came in a June 2020 LinkedIn post from Shahar Bracha, former chief executive officer of Israel’s National Digital Agency, then called the ICT Authority. “I am happy to update that the Ministry of Defense (in the name of the IDF) decided to join with the Cloud Center and in doing so changed the center to be greater and more attractive,” he wrote, suggesting the military would be a major user of services under the project.
Over the three-year bidding process, many other documents and public statements were explicit about the IDF’s intimate involvement in Nimbus and its expected role as a user. “Project Nimbus is a project to supply public cloud services to the government, the defense department and the IDF,” a statement provided by Israel’s Ministry of Finance in 2022 to Israeli online news outlet Mako said. . It added that “the relevant security bodies were partners of this project from its first day, and are full partners still.”
The IDF’s involvement included having a say in which companies would win the Nimbus contract. An Israel State Comptroller audit report from 2021 that says the IDF joined “to enable the transfer of declassified systems to the public cloud” and notes that “the Ministry of Defense and the IDF are crucial parts of the team working on the tender, both in creating the requirements and in assessing the outcomes.”
Ultimately, Google and Amazon won the Project Nimbus contracts, beating out Microsoft and Oracle. A May 2021 press release in English that congratulated the companies and announced “The Israeli Government is Moving to the Cloud” said that Project Nimbus is intended to serve “the Government, the Security Services and other entities.”
The Times of Israel reported the same day that Google and Amazon could not pick and choose which agencies they worked with, quoting an attorney for the Israeli Finance Ministry saying that the contract bars the companies “from denying services to particular government entities.”
That appears to still include the IDF. WIRED identified several Israeli government statements and documents published since 2022 that confirm the IDF’s continued involvement with Project Nimbus, although they do not provide details of the tools and capabilities it uses.
For instance, a government document published on June 15, 2022, that outlines the scope of the project, says “The Ministry of Defense and the IDF” will get a dedicated “digital marketplace” of services they can access under Project Nimbus.
In July 2022, The Intercept also reported on training documents and videos provided to Nimbus users in the Israeli government that revealed some of the specific Google technologies the contract provided access to. They included AI capabilities such as face detection, object tracking, sentiment analysis, and other complex tasks.
Official government pages old and new, both in Hebrew and English, feature the same boilerplate description of Project Nimbus. It calls the contract “a multiyear and wide-ranging flagship project, led by the Government Procurement Administration in the Accountant General’s Division in the Ministry of Treasury together with the National Digital Unit, the Legal Bureau in the Ministry of Finance, the National Cyber Unit, the Budget Division, the Ministry of Defense and the IDF.” The statement appears on one of the main government pages about Project Nimbus, an undated news release, a 2022 cloud strategy document, and a press release from January 2023.
A version of the statement has also been posted in an Amazon guidance document about Nimbus from January 2023, and on the event page for the 2024 “Nimbus Summit,” a privately run event that brings together tech workers from Amazon, Google, and the dozens of other companies that have played some hand in modernizing Israel’s tech infrastructure in recent years.
Close Ties
Social media posts by Israeli officials, Amazon employees, and Google employees suggest the country’s military remains closely involved with Project Nimbus—and the two US cloud companies working on it.
In June 2023, Omri Nezer, the head of the technology infrastructure unit at the Israeli Government Procurement Administration, posted a recap of a cloud conference held by the Israeli government to LinkedIn. He wrote that it was meant to bring together people from “different government offices within ‘Project Nimbus.’”
Nezer’s post mentions a panel at the conference that featured “an IDF representative” and the head of engineering IT for Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, a defense company originally created as a research and development company for the Israeli military. The Intercept reported last month that Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries, both Israeli government-backed weapons manufacturers, are “obligatory customers” of Google and Amazon through Project Nimbus. Amazon spokesperson Duncan Neasham tells WIRED that Rafael is “not required to use AWS or Google only for cloud services” and can “also use other cloud providers’ services.”
National security agencies remain an important part of Project Nimbus. In a 2023 LinkedIn post tagged #nimbus, Omri Holzman, defense team lead at Amazon Web Services, summarized a recent event AWS put on for defense customers. “We had attendees from each security organization in Israel,” Holzman wrote, without specifying which agencies. “AWS puts a lot of focus on the National Security (NatSec) community which has its unique needs and requirements.”
Google has recently been pitching Israeli policing and national security officials on its Gemini AI model, the centerpiece of the search company’s attempts to compete with OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Shay Mor, director and head of public sector and defense for Google Cloud Israel, said in a March Linkedin post that he recently presented information about its “groundbreaking Nimbus projects” with agencies that include the Israeli Police, the Israel National Digital Agency, and the Israel National Cyber Directorate.
“It was an honor and a pleasure to present our Gemini technology and some of our groundbreaking Nimbus projects with the Israeli Police, Israel National Digital Agency, Ministry of Education, and the Israel National Cyber Directorate today at the Nimbus event,” Mor posted, referring to the same event where Portnoy the Cyber Directorate leader said Nimbus helped the battle with Hamas. Mor didn’t specify how the IDF or security agencies could use Google’s AI, but the company has said Gemini could help its cloud customers write code, analyze data, or identify security challenges.
In his own reported comments at the event, Portnoy suggested that the Nimbus project is set to deepen Amazon’s and Google’s ties with Israel’s national security apparatus. He said that the companies have been “working partners” on a new project creating “a framework for national defense” with cloud-based security tools. Portnoy likened it to Israel’s missile defense system, calling it the “Iron Dome of Cyber.”
Growing Outcry
The recent protests against Project Nimbus do not mark the first time that a cloud deal with military connections has prompted protests—in particular, protests inside Google. A former Google employee who was fired along with dozens of others after protesting Project Nimbus in April says years of trying to steer the company in a more ethical direction had left them exhausted. “I became convinced that basically, you cannot trust anything they say,” says the former employee. They protested in 2018 against Project Maven, a now-lapsed Pentagon contract that saw Google algorithms analyze drone surveillance imagery, Google’s work with US Customs and Border Protection in 2019, and Project Nimbus starting in 2021 with the group No Tech for Apartheid. “I have zero trust in these people.”
The first major action against Project Nimbus took place in October 2021, when a coalition of Google and Amazon employees published an open letter in The Guardian decrying the contract. No Tech for Apartheid also formed explicitly in response to Project Nimbus at around this time. Many of the same people who joined these early organizing efforts were also involved in No Tech for ICE, a tech worker-led movement formed in 2019 to oppose their companies working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Ariel Koren, at the time a project manager at Google who helped draft the open letter, says that her manager told her in early November 2021 that she had to agree to move to São Paulo, Brazil, within 17 business days “or lose her position,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Koren announced that she had resigned in March 2022. A few weeks later, a group of tech workers and activists led protests outside Google and Amazon offices in New York, Seattle, and Durham, North Carolina, to express solidarity with Koren and her demand to wind up Project Nimbus.
Protests have escalated from there. Emaan Haseem, a former engineer for Google Cloud, was fired in April alongside 48 others after she traveled from Seattle to San Francisco to participate in a group sit-in inside the office of Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian. She says that No Tech for Apartheid is part of a wider movement known as Boycott Divest Sanction, using economic pressure to encourage Israel to end occupation of Palestinian territories.
Opposition to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the West Bank, Haseem said, is a central pillar of No Tech for Apartheid. Poject Nimbus “is a contract that stands out the most for anyone who has their eyes on the genocide in Gaza currently.”
A DUBIOUS PROSPECT? Rolls-Royce looks to sell stake in small nuclear reactor business.
I will be following this U.K. story. Similar to here in Canada, the SMR proponents in Europe (in the U.K. the frontrunner is Rolls-Royce) are struggling to find private capital to develop their designs. The big nuclear industry extravaganza in Brussels in March (organized by the IAEA nuclear-boosters) was a flop, with investment bankers telling the SMR companies they lack a business case and need to look for government (taxpayer) dollars.
In Canada, the only SMR design to receive significant government funding is the BWRX-300 project at Darlington, which received $970 million in a “low-interest loan” from the Canada Investment Bank (CIB) shortly after the CIB had its operating scope changed which then allowed it to give money to nuclear companies. Politics. Scam. Anyway, the two designs planned for here in New Brunswick (ARC-100 and Moltex SSR + WATSS) last year said they will each need $500 million to develop their designs, and after six years of looking for it, they have come up with only a fraction of that. To be continued…
By: Guy Taylor, CITY AM, https://www.cityam.com/rolls-royce-looks-to-sell-stake-in-small-nuclear-reactor-business/ 5 Aug 24
Rolls-Royce is preparing to sell off a stake in its mini-nuclear power business as it looks to raise fresh funding.
Chief executive Tufan Erginbilgic said the firm was in discussion with possible investors, with cash set to run out by early next year, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
One source familiar with discussions told the paper that the FTSE 100 giant was looking to raise hundreds of millions pounds.
Some £280m has already been pumped into the operation by its current backers, which include the Qatar Investment Authority and BNF Resources. A further £210m government grant was also announced by the former Conservative government in November 2021.
The company is being advised by bankers at BNP Paribas and is understood to have received approaches from “across the board,” including infrastructure investors, clean energy funds, hedge funds and other nuclear power companies, the report said.
It comes as Rolls-Royce closes in on winning a government tender, led by Great British Nuclear (GBN), to develop so-called Small Modular Reactors, which are essentially scaled-down versions of nuclear power plants. GBN will pick two designs from a host of competitors including Rolls, GE Hitachi, Holtec Britain, Nuscale and Westinghouse.
Asked about the funding situation, Erginbilgic told The Sunday Telegraph he was “very comfortable”.
“I won’t go into specific deals. But obviously our SMR is an attractive proposition and it’s got a great future and some investors potentially recognise that,” he said.
A spokesman for Rolls-Royce SMR added: “Our first mover advantage, combined with the significant growth in demand for small modular reactors, puts Rolls-Royce SMR in a leading position to capitalise on this global decarbonisation opportunity.
“Naturally, this is attracting investor interest and we continue to consider a range of options to support our future growth.”
Alliance Takes Nuclear Waste Opposition Message to Communities Throughout Northwestern Ontario
We the Nuclear Free North, 5 August 24, Dryden
– A northern Ontario alliance opposed to plans to transport and bury nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario is taking its message to more than a dozen communities across northern Ontario this month, doing one-day stops with an information table, displays and children’s activities.
The all-volunteer effort organized by We the Nuclear Free North began an eight-day tour on August 1st, with visits in Fort Frances, Sioux Lookout, Kenora and Vermilion Bay. Locations were organized with the respective municipalities, and selected for high visibility and pedestrian traffic.
“The public response has been very positive”, commented Brennain Lloyd, project coordinator with Northwatch and tour organizer.
“People are approaching the table looking for a petition to sign and ideas about how they can express their opposition to this project. Many are commenting on how they can’t believe that it has gone this far, and they feel an urgency to see it brought to a stop”.
On July 10th the Township of Ignace delivered their “willingness decision” to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which locked the Township into an agreement signed on March 18th, committing the current and future Township councils to supporting the project.
“We’re spending time in communities that are downstream of the NWMO’s candidate site (between Ignace and Dryden) and along the transportation route”, explained Wendy O’Connor, a member of Nuclear Free Thunder Bay.
“Outside of Ignace, there is real frustration with the NWMO having positioned Ignace as their proxy decision-maker, while shutting out all of the other communities that will be impacted if this project were ever to go through.”
There is broad opposition to the NWMO project from individuals, community and citizens’ groups, municipalities, and First Nations. In addition to criticism of the project itself due to the negative impacts on the environment and human health during transportation and operation and after radioactive waste abandonment, the NWMO siting process and the Township of Ignace’s approach have also been soundly criticized for being secretive, undemocratic, and lacking scientific and technical rigour.
The tour is being supported by local volunteers in each of the stops, which continues today in Sioux Lookout, followed by stops in Dryden, Wabigoon and Atikokan. A second leg of the tour will take place in late August, with stops in Wawa, White River, Marathon, Schreiber, Nipigon and Longlac. https://wethenuclearfreenorth.ca/
Understanding China’s Approach to Nuclear Deterrence
China has also always adhered to a “no first use” (NFU) doctrine regarding its nuclear forces, precluding it from adopting an asymmetric escalation posture. That it is entirely reliant on its own strategic nuclear capabilities for deterrence also precludes it from adopting a catalytic posture, as it does not need to, nor can it rely on, a nuclear patron to intervene in crises on its behalf.
Alex Alfirraz Scheers, https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/understanding-chinas-approach-to-nuclear-deterrence/
It has never been more crucial to understand China’s approach to deterrence, in order to bring a much-needed sense of perspective to Sino-American nuclear dynamics
The case for U.S. nuclear superiority made by several high-profile nuclear policy experts in the United States has tacitly increased tensions between Washington and Beijing. Any decision to pursue the recommendations outlined in the U.S. Strategic Posture Review to respond to China’s alleged efforts to achieve nuclear parity with the United States will only create a more uncertain and dangerous international threat environment. Hence, it has never been more crucial to understand China’s approach to deterrence, in order to bring a much-needed sense of perspective to Sino-American nuclear dynamics. More importantly, cultivating a sense of understanding is critical to attaining and maintaining peace.
This article seeks to contextualize China’s nuclear journey, and to serve as a reminder to policymakers and the general public alike that while China’s nuclear journey has been far from straightforward, China’s nuclear intentions have historically been to prevent and not to provoke nuclear conflict.
China has been a nuclear power since 1964. Up until the 1990s, China only had roughly 20 strategic nuclear capable delivery systems. Its approach to deterrence in that period, according to Nicola Leveringhaus, was not strategic, but rather can be understood by analyzing technological constraints, domestic politics, and its leadership decision-making considerations on nuclear and national security issues.
During the Cold War, China’s main strategic threats were posed by the USSR and the United States. Then, nuclear weapons served as a deterrent against any acts of aggression by the superpowers. In the 21st century, China has undertaken massive nuclear modernization and expansion. Today, China’s nuclear forces are numbered at roughly 440 warheads, and according to Pentagon estimates will number 1,500 warheads by 2035.
With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR, and the emergence of regional nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan as well as a continued U.S. threat perception, China’s nuclear deterrent is positioned to prevent acts of aggression regionally and against the United States.
Indeed, according to Caitlin Talmadge and Joshua Rovner, “The specific nature of China’s improvements do seem oriented toward bolstering the country’s assured retaliation posture in response to growing threats from ever more capable U.S. counterforce and missile defense systems.”
Yet, throughout China’s nuclear history, it has consistently adopted a deterrence by punishment posture, and has stressed the importance of maintaining an effective second-strike retaliatory capability.
A deterrence by punishment posture enables China to threaten nuclear retaliation against a nuclear strike on its vital interest, and a secure second-strike capability refers to China’s ability to absorb a nuclear strike and to retaliate with a nuclear response. Both require highly survivable nuclear capabilities, and a resilient national security infrastructure, which China appears to have continually pursued.
Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, China has invested heavily in developing a triad of land, air and sea-based nuclear capabilities. While the proliferation of nuclear silos from which to launch its DF-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) constitutes the largest land-based nuclear build-up in China’s history, they bolster China’s strategic deterrence capability by signaling to the United States that it is investing in long-range delivery systems that can reach targets in the continental United States.
Nevertheless, as Vipin Narang observed, “The types of capabilities that China developed are consistent with a retaliatory posture aimed at deterring nuclear coercion and nuclear use.” China has also always adhered to a “no first use” (NFU) doctrine regarding its nuclear forces, precluding it from adopting an asymmetric escalation posture. That it is entirely reliant on its own strategic nuclear capabilities for deterrence also precludes it from adopting a catalytic posture, as it does not need to, nor can it rely on, a nuclear patron to intervene in crises on its behalf.
As Brandon Babin stated, “China has defined its active defense national military strategy as ‘striking only after the enemy has struck.’” Nevertheless, recent Chinese efforts to develop more nuclear options, such as theater nuclear weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles, indicate that China is potentially reviewing its deterrence posture.
Current estimates of their nuclear forces suggest that China appears to adopt a posture that includes countervalue targets, holding at risk their adversaries’ densely populated centers. The size of China’s nuclear forces logically orients it toward adopting countervalue targeting, as a counterforce posture would require a nuclear force size capable of successfully hitting an adversary’s nuclear forces.
A damage limitation approach, therefore, would simply not be feasible with their force size. As it stands, counterforce would prove ineffective for China if ever it is engaged in a nuclear conflagration with the United States. Again, Narang here is salient: “Chinese posture features…strong centralized controls, survivability through dispersed and concealed stewardship procedures and numerical ambiguity, and punitive retaliatory strikes against key countervalue targets.”
Adopting countervalue targeting enables China to effectively deter adversaries without requiring it to possess robust nuclear forces with sophisticated delivery systems. Changes in force size, however, will surely increase China’s nuclear options and will afford China with a breadth of maneuverability previously unattainable.
China’s targets also align with its deterrence by punishment posture. Its primary targets, as illustrated by its DF-1 to D-5 ICBMs, are strategic in character. These targets illustrate that China’s approach is also shaped by the fact that since the end of the Cold War, it does not face any direct existential security threats on its borders. Recent skirmishes with India have not escalated to levels of war-fighting sufficient to warrant genuine concern and are unlikely to result in the kind of direct military engagement seen in the 1969 conflict with the Soviet Union.
There is precedent – however obscure – for China to trade blows with a nuclear power: The Sino-Soviet border clashes in 1969 are the only time in history that a nuclear China clashed militarily with another nuclear power. However, given that the likelihood for a recurrence of such clashes remains low, never mind the likelihood of regional nuclear escalation involving China, policymakers in the United States should not seek to pursue superiority simply to fuel a sense of insecurity in China.
Having said that, China’s main strategic concern revolves around Taiwan, and its nuclear deterrence strategy is ultimately oriented toward preventing what it refers to as a “high-intensity war” with the United States. How the next president of the United States will affect China’s calculus remains to be seen, but recent reports regarding China’s decision not to pursue arms control talks with the United States surely do not bode well for Sino-American cooperation on nuclear matters.
Whether a President Trump or a President Harris can lead to a course reversal for the better remains to be seen. Nevertheless, China’s approach to nuclear deterrence looks likely to continue to be informed by its efforts to protect its vital interests and to deter conflict with the United States, through threatening a retaliatory nuclear strike and by preserving assured second-strike capabilities.
While concerns mount over the prospect of a future nuclear conflict between the United States and China, a concerted U.S. pursuit of nuclear superiority will do little to decrease tensions with China and preserve the peace, however fragile it may currently appear to be.
US Congressmen Say ‘No War With Iran!’
“Israel’s dramatic escalation is completely compatible with its past efforts to drag the U.S. into another war,” one expert said of the Israeli assassination of a Hamas leader in Iran.
Jessica Corbett, Aug 04, 2024
Amid mounting fears of a regional war in the Middle East, a pair of Democratic congressmen joined the growing chorus warning against the U.S. engaging in an armed conflict with Iran.
In response to U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introducing a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on social media Saturday that “the U.S. must not be dragged into a war with Iran.”
“The Iraq War was the biggest American blunder of the 21st century,” Khanna added. “Every candidate running this cycle must be clear on where they stand on this.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said early Sunday: “I agree with Ro Khanna. No war with Iran! Let’s all get on record with this.”
Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, urged Khanna to introduce a related war powers resolution, arguing that “we really could use a clear vehicle like this to increase the pressure for no U.S. military intervention in a disastrous war with Iran.”
“We’re a miscalculation or a miscue away from an event that could draw the U.S. and Iran into a direct military conflict.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-iran-war
This week: The other side of news on nuclear and related issues
Some bits of good news– Trees Reveal Climate Surprise: Bark Removes Methane from the Atmosphere
Global population predictions offer ‘hopeful sign’ for planet, UN says. UNICEF and UNWRA work together in Gaza.
TOP STORIES.
79 years since the unthinkable.
The Great Global Computer Outage Is a Warning We Ignore at Our Peril .
Eastern Europe’s purchase of US nuclear reactors is primarily about military ties, not climate change.
How Many Nuclear Bombs Has The US Air Force Lost?
Climate. Extreme ‘heat dome’ hitting Olympics ‘impossible’ without global heating. Largest wildfire in US grows to cover area bigger than Los Angeles
Noel’s notes. “People of a generally nervous disposition” worry about mishaps with nuclear bombs. Who will honestly face up to the problem of nuclear wastes? Rolling Stewardship as a practical option.
*******************************
AUSTRALIA. Nuclear is a toxic idea … here’s why. Australia should avoid small nuclear reactors until 2040s, engineers warn. AUKUS servility just one facet of poor governance. Israel lobby ramps up scare campaigns in fear of truth. America’s war machine: Unless Australia acquires nuclear weapons, why acquire AUKUS subs? Lots more Australian nuclear news at https://antinuclear.net/2024/08/01/australian-nuclear-news-headlines-29-july-5-august-2/
| ARTS and CULTURE. 2-3 August, and 6-8 August Hiroshima Seen: Survivors and Witnesses Picture the Nuclear Age. The pictures worth a thousand words. | CLIMATE. Atomic Fallacy: Why Nuclear Power Won’t Solve the Climate Crisis. Californians defy evacuation orders as wildfire threatens homes. As record heat risks bleaching 73% of the world’s coral reefs, scientists ask ‘what do we do now?’ |
ECONOMICS.
- Point Lepreau nuclear station – a heavy financial burden that keeps getting heavier-ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/07/30/3-b1-point-lepreau-nuclear-station-a-heavy-financial-burden-that-keeps-getting-heavier/
- NuScale Power plunges after report says it is under SEC investigation.
- U.S. company HOLTEC approaches South Yorkshire with £1.3bn offer to start Small Nuclear Reactor production.
- Rolls Royce – the “burning platform”? Rolls-Royce to sell stake in mini-nukes arm ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/08/05/1-b1-rolls-royce-to-sell-stake-in-mini-nukes-arm/
- Government partnership is needed if Dutch pension fund PME is to make “risky” nuclear investment.
- ‘Ultra-cheap energy for every household’: could a different kind of tariff change everything?.
| EDUCATION. Some UK higher education rejoices in the nuclear and military partnership. | ENERGY. UK Electricity System Operator (ESO)s Future Energy Scenarios for a green UK – nuclear power is uncertain. This. nuclear waste site could soon host a massive solar installation. California achieves 100% renewable energy for 100 days. How much electricity comes from the Sun on summer days in the UK? Renewables are crushing gas-fired power. |
| ENVIRONMENT. Oceans. Link between unexploded munitions in oceans and cancer-causing toxins determined. | ETHICS and RELIGION. Project 2025 – A New Pax Romana | LEGAL. Assange, CIA Surveillance and Spain’s Audencia Nacional. |
MEDIA. Mass Media Goons Are Still Reporting That Biden Is Getting Tough On Netanyahu.
The Hidden Ties Between Google and Amazon’s Project Nimbus and Israel’s Military.
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Japan, U.S. urged to work for nuclear abolition at symposium.
Blackwater Against New Nuclear Power Group (BANNG)campaigners say company’s claims over Bradwell B are false.
PERSONAL STORIES.
‘True horror’: Japan’s Hiroshima atomic bomb survivor campaigns for a nuclear-free world.
Canada and the Atom Bomb: Remembering As an Act of Resistance.
| POLITICS. US Congressmen Say ‘No War With Iran!’ Trump could win back the nuclear codes-Biden should put guardrails on the nuclear arsenal—now. Americans! How to make your vote count in November, and save the world in the process. Kamala: We need a ceasefire and arms embargo NOW! UK – the Ed Milliband Nuclear Nonsense Show. Generic Design Assessment Step 1 of the Holtec SMR: statement of findings. Bruce County Council nuclear endorsement undermines local democracy. | POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Putin warns the US of Cold War-style missile crisis. Nagasaki decides against inviting Israel to commemorate nuclear bombing of Japan amid war on Gaza. Understanding China’s Approach to Nuclear Deterrence. The Abrahamic Alliance: Reality or work of fiction? Behind a Nuclear Cooperation Agreement With Washington -Singapore not committed to nuclear power |
| SAFETY. Japan nuclear watchdog panel decides against restarting Tsuruga reactor. US nuclear plant unfit for quick resurrection, former lead engineer says. | SECRETS and LIES. Greasing Palms: The Thales Blueprint for Corruption. Britain’s nuclear submarine software built by Belarusian engineers. | TECHNOLOGY. Is the dream of nuclear fusion dead? Why the international experimental reactor is in ‘big trouble’ |
WASTES. Burying radioactive nuclear waste poses enormous risks.
Is Manitoba willing to accept nuclear waste risks?
Japan continues search for its first nuclear waste disposal site by screening tiny rural town.
WAR and CONFLICT.
- US Will ‘Certainly’ Defend Israel If Attacked By Iran In Wake Of Haniyeh Killing. US deploys 12 warships to Middle East as Israel escalates attacks in region.
- Iran vows revenge after Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh killed in Tehran. Major escalation’: Israel bombs densely populated area of Beirut, Hezbollah says commander survived the attack.
- Israeli Forces Have Killed 366 UN Workers and Family Members in Gaza: Leaked Report. “Unspeakable”: Doctors Back from Gaza Say Death Toll “Much Higher,” Push Harris, Biden for Ceasefire.
- Where Is the Biden Plan to End the War in Ukraine?
- Putin often cites Russia’s ‘nuclear doctrine’ governing the use of atomic weapons. But what is it?
- The US might lose a war with China, congressional commission says.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
First NATO F-16’s delivered to Ukraine (nuclear capable).
Replacing the UK’s nuclear deterrent: The Warhead Programme– without appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny.
‘Nuclear weapons money could tackle climate change‘- Martha Wardrop, Scottish Greens.
The Great Global Computer Outage Is a Warning We Ignore at Our Peril
Is there a limit in the natural order of things to the amount of technological complexity that’s sustainable?
by Tom Valovic, 2 August 24 https://www.counterpunch.org/author/tom-valovic/
July 18, 2024, will go down in history books as an event that shook up the world in a unique way. It gave the mass of humanity a pointed wake-up call about the inherent fragility of the technological systems we’ve created and the societal complexities they’ve engendered. Critical services at hospitals, airports, banks, and government facilities around the world were all suddenly unavailable. We can only imagine what it must have been like to be undergoing treatment in an emergency room at the time with a serious or life-threatening illness.
So, what are we to make of this event and how can we rationally get our collective arms around its meaning and significance? As a journalist who specializes in writing about the impacts of technology on politics and culture, I would like to share a few initial thoughts.
For some of us who have worked in the tech field for many years, such an event was entirely predictable. This is simply because of three factors: 1) the inherent fragility of computer code, 2) the always-present possibility of human error, and 3) the fact that when you build interconnected systems, a vulnerability in one part of the system can easily spread like a contagion to other parts. We see this kind of vulnerability in play daily in terms of a constant outpouring of news stories about hacking, identity theft, and security breaches involving all sorts of companies and institutions. However, none of these isolated events had sufficient scale to engender greater public awareness and alarm until The Great Global Computer Outage of July 18.
Inherent Fragility is Always Present
As impressive as our new digital technologies are, our technocrats and policymakers often seem to lose sight of an important reality. These now massively deployed systems are also quite fragile in the larger scheme of things. Computers and the communications systems that support them—so called virtual systems—can concentrate huge amounts of informational power and control by wielding it like an Archimedean lever to manage the physical world. A cynic could probably argue that we’re now building our civilizational infrastructures on a foundation of sand.
At the recently held Aspen Security Forum, Anne Neuberger—a senior White House cybersecurity expert—noted, “We need to really think about our digital resilience not just in the systems we run but in the globally connected security systems, the risks of consolidation, how we deal with that consolidation and how we ensure that if an incident does occur it can be contained and we can recover quickly.” With all due respect, Ms. Neuberger was simply stating the obvious and not digging deep enough.
The problem runs much deeper. Our government and that of other advanced Western nations is now running on two separate but equal tracks: technology and governance. The technology track is being overseen by Big Tech entities with little accountability or oversight concerning the normative functions of government. In other words, they’re more or less given a free hand to operate according to the dictates of the free market economy.
Further, consider this thought experiment: Given AI’s now critical role in shaping key aspects of our lives and given its very real and fully acknowledged downsides and risks, why was it not even being discussed in the presidential debate? The answer is simple: These issues are often being left to unelected technocrats or corporate power brokers to contend with. But here’s the catch: Most technocrats don’t have the policy expertise needed to guide critical decision-making at a societal level while, at the same time, our politicians (and yes, sadly, most of our presidential candidates) don’t have the necessary technology expertise.
Scope, Scale, and Wisdom
Shifting to a more holistic perspective, humanity’s ability to continue to build these kinds of systems runs into the limitations of our conceptual ability to embrace their vastness and complexity. So, the question becomes: Is there a limit in the natural order of things to the amount of technological complexity that’s sustainable? If so, it seems reasonable to assume that this limit is determined by the ability of human intelligence to encompass and manage that complexity.
To put it more simply: At what point in pushing the envelope of technology advancement do we get in over our heads and to what degree is a kind of Promethean hubris involved?
As someone who has written extensively about the dangers of AI, I would argue that we’re now at a tipping point whereby it’s worth asking if we can even control what we’ve created and whether the “harmful side effects” of seeming constant chaos is now militating against the quality of life. Further, we can only speculate as to whether we should consider if the CrowdStrike event was somehow associated with some sort of still poorly understood or recognized AI hacking or error. The bottom line is: If we cannot control the effects of our own technological invention then in what sense can those creations be said to serve human interests and needs in this already overly complex global environment?
Finally, the advent of under-the-radar hyper-technologies such as nanotechnology and genetic engineering also need to be considered in this context. These are also technologies that can only be understood in the conceptual realm and not in any concrete and more immediate way because (I would argue) their primary and secondary effects on society, culture, and politics can no longer be successfully envisioned. Decisively moving into these realms, therefore, is like ad hoc experimentation with nature itself. But as many environmentalists have pointed out, “Nature bats last.” Runaway technological advancement is now being fueled by corporate imperatives and a “growth at any cost” mentality that offers little time for reflection. New and seemingly exciting prospects for advanced hyper-technology may dazzle us, but if in the process they also blind us, how can we guide the progress of technology with wisdom?
Tom Valovic is a journalist and the author of Digital Mythologies (Rutgers University Press), a series of essays that explored emerging social and political issues raised by the advent of the Internet. He has served as a consultant to the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Tom has written about the effects of technology on society for a variety of publications including Columbia University’s Media Studies Journal, the Boston Globe, and the San Francisco Examiner, among others.
Arundhati Roy: India Must Stop Arming Israel or ‘Forever Be Linked to Genocide’
“It is our responsibility to show that as people of India, we refuse to be complicit in that, even if our government wishes to continue with what it does.”
Brett Wilkins, Aug 02, 2024, https://www.commondreams.org/news/arundhati-roy-israel
Acclaimed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy this week joined prominent jurists, diplomats, artists, and others in urging their government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which they called “abominable” and “a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our Constitution.”
Speaking Thursday at an event organized by the Press Club of India, Roy—winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for her debut novel The God of Small Things—said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support that murder in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”
Acclaimed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy this week joined prominent jurists, diplomats, artists, and others in urging their government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which they called “abominable” and “a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our Constitution.”
Speaking Thursday at an event organized by the Press Club of India, Roy—winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for her debut novel The God of Small Things—said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support that murder in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”
“What is happening in Gaza, it is not just the murder… of tens of thousands of women and children,” she continued. “It is the bombing of hospitals, the destruction of universities… the attempt to erase the very memory people have of that place. It is a genocide like no other because it’s taking place on live TV.”
“India used to be a country that supported the people of Palestine in their struggle for freedom,” Roy noted. “Everywhere, even in the United States… people are standing up against their government’s support for [Israel]. But we are not standing up… and that is such a shame.”
“We must stand up. We must refuse,” she asserted. “We will not support the export of weapons of any kind.”
Roy is one of more than two dozen former Indian Supreme Court justices and other judges, foreign service officers, academics, artists, activists, and others who on Wednesday sent a letter to Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh urging him to halt the licensing of arms sales to Israel, whose military forces have killed or wounded more than 140,000 Palestinians while obliterating and starving Gaza.
“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has clearly ruled that Israel is in violation of obligations under the Genocide Convention and further that Israel is in illegal occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory,” the letter states. “In light of these rulings, any supply of military material to Israel would amount to a violation of India’s obligations under international humanitarian law and the mandate of Article 21 read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India.”
Among the weapons India has sent to Israel are Hermes 900 unmanned aerial drones, which are co-manufactured with Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. The letter notes that the drones “have been extensively used in the Israeli Defense Forces’ military campaign in Gaza.”
“Several [United Nations] experts have warned that the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws, and risk state complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately,” the letter’s signer wrote.
“In short, the grant of licenses and approvals for export of military material to Israel, coupled with reports of such exports by Indian companies, constitutes a serious violation of India’s obligations under international law and our own Constitution,” the letter stresses.
“International law aside, we consider such exports to be morally objectionable, indeed abominable,” the signatories added. “We demand, therefore, that India should immediately suspend its collaboration in the delivery of military material to Israel. Further, India must immediately make every effort to ensure that weapons already delivered to Israel are not used to contribute to acts of genocide or violations of international humanitarian law.”
The letter came ahead of planned nationwide protests by Indian leftists on Saturday calling for an end to arms sales and “all forms of complicity with Israel’s illegal occupation and genocide.”
India—which in 1971 invaded Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in large part to end a U.S.-backed Pakistani genocide mostly targeting Bengalis—voted in favor of the December U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate Gaza cease-fire.
However, the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and many lawmakers from his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party have expressed steadfast support for Israel and its Gaza onslaught. Critics have noted that both Israel and India are occupying Muslims, the former in Palestine and the latter in Jammu and Kashmir.
In an interview with Middle East Eye published Friday, Roy—who faces prosecution in India over comments she allegedly made nearly 15 years ago regarding Kashmir—said that India could “forever be linked to genocide” if it does not change course.
“India needs to stop the export of weapons to Israel and ensure the return of Indian workers who have been sent to Israel to replace Palestinian workers,” she said.
“If it does not do so at once, it is in violation of the orders of the ICJ,” she added. “It will forever be complicit in aiding and abetting a genocide that is being telecast live for the world to watch.”
Is the dream of nuclear fusion dead? Why the international experimental reactor is in ‘big trouble’
The 35-nation Iter project has a groundbreaking aim to create clean and limitless energy but it is turning into the ‘most delayed and cost-inflated science project in history’
Guardian, Robin McKie Science Editor, 4 Aug 24
It was a project that promised the sun. Researchers would use the world’s most advanced technology to design a machine that could generate atomic fusion, the process that drives the stars – and so create a source of cheap, non-polluting power.
That was initially the aim of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) which 35 countries – including European states, China, Russia and the US – agreed to build at Saint-Paul-lez-Durance in southern France at a starting cost of $6bn. Work began in 2010, with a commitment that there would be energy-producing reactions by 2020.
Then reality set in. Cost overruns, Covid, corrosion of key parts, last-minute redesigns and confrontations with nuclear safety officials triggered delays that mean Iter is not going to be ready for another decade, it has just been announced. Worse, energy-producing fusion reactions will not be generated until 2039, while Iter’s budget – which has already soared to $20bn – will increase by a further $5bn.
Other estimates suggest the final price tag could rise well above this figure and make Iter “the most delayed and most cost-inflated science project in history”, the journal Scientific American has warned. For its part, the journal Science has stated simply that Iter is now in “big trouble”, while Nature has noted that the project has been “plagued by a string of hold-ups, cost overruns and management issues”.
Dozens of private companies now threaten to create fusion reactors on a shorter timescale, warn scientists. These include Tokamak Energy in Oxford and Commonwealth Fusion Systems in the US.
“The trouble is that Iter has been going on for such a long time, and suffered so many delays, that the rest of the world has moved on,” said fusion expert Robbie Scott of the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. “A host of new technologies have emerged since Iter was planned. That has left the project with real problems.”
A question mark now hangs over one of the world’s most ambitious technological projects in its global bid to harness the process that drives the stars. It involves the nuclei of two light atoms being forced to combine to form a single heavier nucleus, while releasing massive amounts of energy. This is nuclear fusion, and it only occurs at colossally high temperatures.
To create such heat, a doughnut-shaped reactor, called a tokamak, will use magnetic fields to contain a plasma of hydrogen nuclei that will then be bombarded by particle beams and microwaves. When temperatures reach millions of degrees Celsius, the mix of two hydrogen isotopes – deuterium and tritium – will fuse to form helium, neutrons and a great deal of excess energy.
Containing plasma at such high temperatures is exceptionally difficult. “It was originally planned to line the tokamak reactor with protective beryllium but that turned out to be very tricky. It is toxic and eventually it was decided to replace it with tungsten,” said David Armstrong, professor of materials science and engineering at Oxford University. “That was a major design change taken very late in the day.”
Then huge sections of tokamak made in Korea were found not to fit together properly, while threats that there could be leaks of radioactive materials led the French nuclear regulators to call a halt on the plant’s construction. More delays in construction were announced as problems piled up………………………………………………………….
For its part, Iter denies that it is “in big trouble” and rejects the idea that it is a record-breaking science project for cost overruns and delays. Just look at the International Space Station or for that matter the UK’s HS2 rail link, said a spokesman.
Others point out that fusion power’s limited carbon emissions would boost the battle against climate change. “However, fusion will arrive too late to help us cut carbon emissions in the short term,” said Aneeqa Khan, a research fellow in nuclear fusion at the University of Manchester. “Only if fusion power plants produce significant amounts of electricity later in the century will they help keep our carbon emissions down – and that will become crucial in the fight against climate change.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/03/is-the-dream-of-nuclear-fusion-dead-why-the-international-experimental-reactor-is-in-big-trouble
Where Is the Biden Plan to End the War in Ukraine?
On the face of it, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.
Biden team blows off deadline for Ukraine war strategy
Perhaps the administration can’t admit it doesn’t have one.
Anatol Lieven, Aug 02, 2024, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/biden-ukraine-strategy/
Almost 100 days have now passed since the Congress passed $61 billion in emergency funding for Ukraine, a measure that included a condition that required the Biden Administration to present to the legislative body a detailed strategy for continued U.S. support.
When the funding bill was passed with much fanfare on April 23, Section 504, page 32 included the following mandate:
“Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall submit to 18 the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on 20 Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a strategy regarding United States support for Ukraine against aggression by the Russian Federation: Provided, That such strategy shall be multi-year, establish specific and achievable objectives, define and prioritize United States national security interests…”
It is now August and There is still no sign on the part of the Biden Administration of any intention to submit such a strategy to Congress. This inevitably leads to the suspicion that no such strategy in fact exists. It also suggests that without a massive change of mindset within the administration, it is not even possible to hold — let alone make public —serious and honest internal discussions on the subject, as these would reveal the flawed and empty assumptions on which much of present policy is based.
This relates first of all to the requirement “to define and prioritize United States national security interests.” No U.S. official has ever seriously addressed the issue of why a Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine that was of no importance whatsoever to the U.S. 40 years ago (when Soviet tank armies stood in the center of Germany, 1,200 miles to the West) should now be such a threat that combating it necessitates $61 billion of U.S. military aid per year, a significant risk of conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia, and a colossal distraction from vital U.S. interests elsewhere.
Instead, the administration, and its European allies, have relied on two arguments. The first is that if Russia is not defeated in Ukraine, it will go on to attack NATO and that this will mean American soldiers going to fight and die in Europe.
In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of any such Russian intention. Russian threats of escalation and (possibly) minor acts of sabotage have been outgrowths of the war in Ukraine, and intended to deter NATO from intervening directly in that conflict — not actions intended to lay the basis for an invasion of NATO.
Moreover, given the acute difficulties that the Russian military has faced in Ukraine, and the Russian weaknesses revealed by that conflict, the idea of them planning to attack NATO seems utterly counter-intuitive. For Russia has been “stopped” in Ukraine. The heroic resistance of the Ukrainian army, backed with Western weapons and money, stopped the Russian army far short of President Putin’s goals when he launched the war. They have severely damaged Russian military prestige, inflicted enormous losses on the Russian military, and as of today, hold more than 80% of their country’s territory.
The Biden administration has issued partly contradictory statements about the purpose of U.S. aid to Ukraine: that it is intended to help Ukraine “win”, and that it is intended to help “strengthen Ukraine at the negotiating table.” They have not however fulfilled their legal obligation to define to Congress what “winning” means, nor why if the war will end in negotiations, these negotiations should not begin now — especially since there is very strong evidence that the Ukrainian military position, and therefore Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, are getting worse, not better.
As Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro have written in response to the latest US despatch of weapons to Ukraine:
“[A]daptation and adjustment do not constitute strategy, and reactive escalation absent a strategy is not sound policy. Escalating U.S. involvement in this conflict—or any conflict—should be guided by an idea about how to bring the war to an end.”
As with U.S. campaigns in Vietnam and elsewhere, the administration and its allies have tried to play the “credibility” card: the argument that it is necessary to defeat Russia in Ukraine because otherwise, China, Iran and other countries will be emboldened to attack the United States or its allies. But like the line about Russian ambitions beyond Ukraine, this is simply an assumption. There is no actual evidence for it at all.
It can, with equal or greater validity, be assumed that the governments of these countries will make up their minds according to calculations of their own interests and the military balance in their own regions.
The final administration line of argument is a moral one: that “Russian aggression must not be rewarded” and that “Ukrainian territorial integrity must be restored.” Since, however, any realistic negotiations towards a peace settlement will have to involve de facto recognition of Russian territorial gains (not de jure recognition, which the Russians do not expect and even the Chinese will not grant), this statement would seem to rule out even the idea of talks. On the face of it therefore, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.
If this is a mistaken picture of the administration’s position, then once again, it has a formal obligation under the bill passed by Congress in April to tell the American people and their elected representatives what their goals in Ukraine in fact are. Then everyone will be able to reach an informed judgment on whether they are attainable, and worth $61 billion a year in American money.
Unfortunately, it seems that the administration’s actual position is to kick this issue down the road until after the presidential election. Thereafter, either a Harris administration will have to draw up new plans, or a Trump administration will do so. But given the length of time it takes a new administration to settle in and develop new policies, this means that we could not expect a strategy on Ukraine to emerge for eight months at best.
If the Ukrainians can hold roughly their present lines, then this approach could be justifiable in U.S. domestic political terms (though not to the families of the Ukrainian soldiers who will die in the meantime). There is however a significant risk that given the military balance on the ground, and even with continued aid, Ukraine during this time will suffer a major defeat. Washington would then have to choose between a truly humiliating failure or direct intervention, which would expose the American people to truly hideous risks.
There is an alternative. Since President Biden will in any case step down next January, he could take a risk and try to bequeath to his successor not war, but peace. In terms of domestic politics, to open negotiations with Russia now would deprive Donald Trump and JD Vance of a campaigning position, and would spare a future Democrat administration (if elected) from a very difficult and internally divisive decision.
The first step in this direction is for the Biden administration clearly to formulate its goals in Ukraine, and — as required by law — to submit these goals to the American people.
‘Nuclear weapons money could tackle climate change’- Martha Wardrop, Scottish Greens
It is clear that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons
that have ever been developed. They cause severe environmental damage, as
well as undermine global security, and divert vast public resources away
from climate action.
It was seven years ago when history was made at the
United Nations when the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was
adopted by 122 nations. This was achieved after a global push to finally
and categorically ban nuclear weapons under international law.
Through being a Nuclear Free Local Authority, Glasgow can continue to work with
other local councils to gain support from the UK Government to minimise the
risk from nuclear hazards, increase public safety and support clean energy
projects. We can all send a strong message to the UK Government about the
need to sign up to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Glasgow Times 3rd Aug 2024
Rolls-Royce to sell stake in mini-nukes arm.
Engineering giant seeks fresh funds as backers’ £280m and government’s £210m due to run out.
Rolls-Royce is poised to sell a stake in its mini-nuclear power stations
venture as it races to become the first company to deploy the technology in
Britain. Tufan Erginbilgic, the chief executive of the FTSE 100 engineering
giant, said it was talking to potential investors about its small modular
reactor (SMR) business as it looks to raise fresh funding.
Around £280m has
been put into the venture by the current backers including Rolls, BNF
Resources, Constellation and the Qatar Investment Authority. On top of
this, the company has received £210m in grant funding from the Government.
But funds are due to run out by early next year, meaning Rolls and its
fellow backers must either put in more money, sell equity to outside
investors or potentially do a combination of both. One source familiar with
the discussions said Rolls-Royce SMR would look to raise hundreds of
millions of pounds, probably based on a valuation of at least $2bn (£1.6bn)
– the current market value of US rival NuScale.
Interest in the business
has grown since Rolls emerged as the unofficial frontrunner in the
Government’s SMR design competition, which is being run by Great British
Nuclear (GBN) and is expected to conclude in late autumn. The GBN
competition is expected to select two viable designs before awarding them
contracts next year to build the first demonstrator SMRs at as-yet-unnamed
sites. They would be expected to come online in the early 2030s. Along with
Rolls, the other contenders are GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Westinghouse,
Holtec Britain and NuScale. However, Rolls has also advanced further
towards regulatory approval than any other SMR developer so far.
Telegraph 3rd Aug 2024
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/03/rolls-royce-sell-stake-mini-nukes-arm/
Mass Media Goons Are Still Reporting That Biden Is Getting Tough On Netanyahu
Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 03, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/mass-media-goons-are-still-reporting?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=147305961&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Another day, another Axios article falsely asserting that President Biden is really getting tough on Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a write-up titled “Biden warns Netanyahu against escalation as risk of regional war grows,” Barak Ravid reports that while Biden has pledged to support Israel against any strikes from Iran in retaliation for its insanely escalatory assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, he also told Netanyahu that he “expects no more escalation from the Israeli side” from here on out.
“President Biden privately demanded in a ‘tough’ call Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stop escalating tensions in the region and move immediately toward a Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal,” writes Ravid, citing two US officials who as usual remain unnamed.
“At the end of the meeting with Netanyahu in the Oval office last Thursday, Biden became emotional, raised his voice and told Netanyahu he needs to reach a Gaza deal as soon as possible, three Israeli officials with knowledge of the meeting told Axios,” Ravid reports.
Ravid writes:
“One U.S. official said Biden complained to Netanyahu that the two had just spoken last week in the Oval Office about securing the hostage deal, but instead Netanyahu went ahead with the assassination in Tehran.
“Biden then told Netanyahu the U.S. will help Israel defeat an Iranian attack, but after that he expects no more escalation from the Israeli side and immediate movement toward a hostage deal, the U.S. official said.”
Sure, sure. This time Biden really means it when he draws a firm line with Israel, unlike all those other times when this administration has continued to back Israel’s psychopathic actions unconditionally since October 7.
Commentators on US foreign policy are less than impressed with this report.
“It’s the umpteenth installment of ‘Biden is secretly mad at Bibi’: he became emotional! He raised his voice!” tweeted The Economist’s Gregg Carlstrom. “Can’t imagine anyone takes these self-serving leaks seriously. Least of all Netanyahu, who has ignored Biden with impunity for ten months”
“Biden reportedly told Netanyahu he’ll help defeat an Iranian attack, but expects no more escalation from Israel, warning Netanyahu that he shouldn’t count on the US to bail him out again,” tweeted Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, adding, “Fine, but given Biden’s record, why should Netanyahu believe him?”
Barak Ravid has made an entire career out of writing up these anonymously sourced White House press releases about how badass and un-genocidal the president is and packaging them as real news stories. Here are some of the headlines from Ravid’s reporting since October:
Biden “running out” of patience with Bibi as Gaza war hits 100 days
Scoop: Biden in “frustrating” call told Bibi to solve Palestinian tax revenue issue
Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi: Change Gaza policy or we will
White House temperature is “very high” ahead of Biden-Bibi call
“We won’t support you”: Inside Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi
Israel and U.S. deeply divided in meeting on key Rafah operation issues
Biden and Bibi “red lines” for Rafah put them on a collision course
Biden-Bibi clash escalates as U.S. accused of undermining Israeli government
Biden and Netanyahu hold first call in a month amid public split
Biden breaks with Netanyahu but sticks with Israel
Biden on hot mic: Told Bibi we needed “come to Jesus” meeting on Gaza
Biden, in rare criticism, warns Netanyahu that Israel risks losing global support
Biden, in rare criticism of Bibi, says pause in Gaza fighting should have come sooner
Scoop: Blinken warns Israeli officials global pressure will grow longer war goes on
Israeli minister lambasted at White House about Gaza and war strategy
Scoop: Biden tells Bibi he’s not in it for a year of war in Gaza
Blinken unloads on Bibi: “You need a coherent plan” or face disaster in Gaza
Scoop: White House cancels meeting, scolds Netanyahu in protest over video
Netanyahu irked by “critical” Harris comments
This is just one guy, from just one outlet. These “Biden is very upset with Netanyahu and wants him to be different” reports have been coming out throughout the US media since the early weeks of this ongoing mass atrocity, all of which are flatly contradicted by the White House taking zero meaningful action this entire time to rein in Israel’s demented genocidal aggressions.
And to be clear, none of this is actually news. “Anonymous sources say X, Y and Z about how the president’s feelings are feeling” is not a news story. These reports serve no purpose other than to create distance in the eyes of the American public between the genocidal monster Benjamin Netanyahu and the president who is unconditionally supporting his genocidal atrocities in every way possible. They are PR spin and nothing more, which would be surprising to anyone who still believes the mainstream western press exist to report the news instead of promulgate propaganda for the advancement of the information interests of the western empire.
All they’re doing here is trying to wash this administration’s hands of the horrors that are being inflicted in the middle east with the direct facilitation of this administration. Don’t let them. All the monstrous actions being perpetrated by Israel today are just as much the fault of the US government as they are of Israel itself. This is who they are. Make them own it.
UK Electricity System Operator (ESO)s Future Energy Scenarios for a green UK – nuclear power is uncertain.
In its new Future Energy Scenarios report, National Grid’s Electricity
System Operator (ESO) maps three potential pathways to meet the UK’s 2050
net-zero target. Electric Engagement is weighted towards the
electrification of sectors such as heating, transport & heavy industry.
Hydrogen Evolution prioritises the use of hydrogen instead. Holistic
Transition is a mix. Renewables dominate across the board, with wind and
solar at 150-250 GW by 2050, depending on the scenario. Total energy supply
and demand is highest in the Hydrogen Evolution pathway. Electrifying
sectors is seen as inherently more efficient than producing hydrogen, since
doing so can be energy-intensive, using scarce green energy to make
expensive fuel, or carbon-intensive fossil gas.
Indeed, as Edie notes,
though natural gas supply in the Hydrogen Evolution pathway is two-thirds
lower in 2050 than at present, it is still over double the level in the
Electric Engagement/Holistic Transitions. But in Holistic Transition,
hydrogen is nevertheless used for hard-to-decarbonise sectors like heavy
industrial manufacturing, though light road transport and building heating
are mainly electric.
ESO says that it will be possible to get to zero net
power before 2035, if Biomass with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is
also used. They say all their new zero pathways ‘achieve a decarbonised
power sector by 2035 at the latest. Holistic Transition & Electric
Engagement achieve this in 2033 and 2034 respectively. This is driven by
high levels of wind & solar uptake, reduced use of unabated gas & initial
deployments of bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS).’ And ESO
insist that ‘negative emissions with power BECCS from 2030 onwards are
essential to achieving net zero power.’
However, the ESO doesn’t see nuclear expanding very much until around 2040 and even on the Electric Engagement scenario it only reaches 151 TWh from 22GW by 2050 (less than
the government’s target of 24GW), compared with 380 TWh for offshore wind.
But not everyone sees it that way. The growth-orientated Sci-Tech lobby
group UKDayOne is pushing for nuclear, and says ‘the Government should
aim to have built or begun constructing 8-10 additional gigawatt-scale
nuclear plants by 2040.’ It points to modelling by Carbon Free Europe (CFE)
which it says suggests that ‘the most cost-effective path to net zero for
the UK involves building 61GW of nuclear by 2050, due to reduced
requirements for grid balancing’.
That would certainly cut back on offshore
wind. Or as CFE puts it ‘failure to reach this level of [nuclear]
deployment will require building significantly more offshore wind &
increase transition costs,’ adding that ‘a breakthrough in nuclear costs
could unlock additional opportunities for nuclear applications’.
But will that happen? No sign yet with the £20bn Sizewell C plan still stalled and
novel SMRs at best some way off. The new government may not be willing to
also push ahead just now with a decision on Sizewell C. It is certainly
interesting that the claim made by the last government that nuclear was a
‘sustainable and environmentally friendly energy generation solution’ has
not yet been backed up by DESNZ research. It’s evidently still ‘work in
progress’. Given also its high cost, and the governments money shortage,
maybe it’s time for a U turn?
Renew Extra 3rd Aug 2024
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/08/in-its-new-future-energy-scenarios.html
Eastern Europe’s purchase of US nuclear reactors is primarily about military ties, not climate change
Military linkages. For countries like Romania and Poland, the rationale offered for supporting nuclear energy, namely climate mitigation, is just one face of the coin. A parallel set of military developments are also at play.
Poland also tied itself militarily to the United States by becoming part of US missile defense infrastructure.
It should be clear who would profit most at the expense of the Polish public.
By Maha Siddiqui, M.V. Ramana | August 2, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/eastern-europes-purchase-of-us-nuclear-reactors-is-primarily-about-military-ties-not-climate-change/
The nuclear industry hasn’t been so excited in a while. From the pledge to triple nuclear energy by 2050 made by around 20 countries during the 28th UN climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates to the recent report to the G20 by the International Atomic Energy Agency on speeding up investment into nuclear power to meet net zero goals, there is much talk about a new round of nuclear reactor construction.
Countries in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, are active participants in this effort to rebrand nuclear energy as clean and climate friendly. Poland’s inclusion in this list should be surprising: Its electricity primarily comes from fossil fuels, and the country has not committed to any net-zero target, making it “the lowest-placed EU nation” in its ability to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Nevertheless, in 2023, Poland’s government announced plans to import nuclear reactors.
Even though it promotes nuclear power as a way to meet climate goals, Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe seem to be using nuclear purchases for geopolitical leverage with the United States. That desire is evident in their parallel actions in the military front. Given the ongoing war in Ukraine and tensions in multiple parts of the world, the combination of geopolitics and nuclear technology may prove dangerous, even as it is ineffective at mitigating climate change.
Nuclear talk. In recent years, Poland has entered into a number of agreements to build nuclear reactors, including the in-vogue small modular reactors (SMRs) from the United States and large reactors from South Korea. Poland has attempted to build nuclear reactors in the past—in 2009, then-Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced plans to build two nuclear plants, with the first to begin operating in 2020. Those plans went nowhere.
Seen in that light, the rash of recent announcements have a desperate ring to them. Not surprisingly, Tusk has continued to advocate for building nuclear reactors, stating in November 2023 that Poland had to pursue nuclear energy “as quickly as possible.” But he has pushed back plans to start construction: The “first pour of concrete”—which is the traditional marker of project initiation—is now scheduled for 2028, two years after the earlier projected date of 2026.
Romania has taken a somewhat similar path. In 2021, on the sidelines of the 26th UN climate conference in Glasgow, Romanian officials signed a cooperation agreement on small modular reactors with NuScale Power. At that time, Romanian Energy Minister Virgil Popescu talked about developing SMRs “to meet [Romania’s] critical energy demand and green targets and to secure a quality future for the generations to come.” (Since then, NuScale’s first proposed SMR project in the United States has collapsed because of massive cost increases, and it is uncertain if the Romanian project will move forward.)
Military linkages. For countries like Romania and Poland, the rationale offered for supporting nuclear energy, namely climate mitigation, is just one face of the coin. A parallel set of military developments are also at play.
In April, Poland President Andrzej Duda publicly expressed a readiness to host NATO nuclear weapons. In an interview published in a Polish news outlet, he revealed that nuclear sharing had been discussed with the United States “for some time.” Although not widely noted at that time, the previous Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki had also indicated an “interest in hosting nuclear weapons under NATO’s nuclear-sharing policy.”
The interest in hosting nuclear weapons aligns with Poland’s efforts to position itself as close to the West ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among countries that were formerly part of the Warsaw Pact with the Soviet Union, Poland was among the first three countries to join NATO, together with Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Poland also tied itself militarily to the United States by becoming part of US missile defense infrastructure. The process started during the George W. Bush administration and continued through the successive US presidencies. Most recently, as part of the Biden administration’s 2024 budget for defense, the Missile Defense Agency requested funding to complete construction of a site in Poland to deploy the Aegis Ashore missile defense system and purchase missiles for this site.
Poland has emerged as one of Europe’s largest importers of military equipment, second only to Ukraine, buying military equipment worth billions of dollars from the United States. In the 2023 fiscal year alone, Poland purchased Apache Helicopters ($12 billion), High Mobility Artillery Rocket System ($10 billion), Integrated Air And Missile Defense Battle Command System ($4 billion), and M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks ($3.75 billion).
Such significant imports are a good indicator that the country is seeking to ally with the United States. While Poland still lags far behind traditional US allies and arms importers like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Australia, Poland is rapidly expanding such imports. The country’s military spending in 2023 was 75 percent higher than in 2022 and 181 percent higher than in 2014. Poland was also among the world’s 20 largest importers of weapons in the 2019-2023 period, with its share of imports jumping four-fold compared to the previous 2014-2018 period. Of these imports, nearly half came from the United States.
US officials see the purchase of military equipment as one of the many ways the United States can bring Poland closer in geopolitical terms. Another is to have them buy US nuclear reactors.
In its “Integrated Country Strategy” for Poland from June 2022, the US State Department’s top two mission goals were stated to involve military engagement and adoption of new energy technology, including nuclear power. The document praises the “potential partnership with the United States to develop large-scale nuclear power plants with US technology” because it “could result in over $18 billion dollars in US exports and strategically tie our two countries even more tightly together over the coming century.” It should be clear who would profit most at the expense of the Polish public.
The United States has historically tried to use nuclear development to expand its empire and influence. During the Cold War, US nuclear power companies “had a specific agenda to promote the advancement of nuclear technology in non-communist countries,” which was one reason they exported nuclear reactors to South Korea.
By all evidence, the focus on nuclear energy in Eastern Europe appears not to be driven mainly by climate change but by old-fashioned geopolitics in significant proportion. Were the urgency of climate change really driving investment in nuclear energy, Poland should have considered purchasing reactors also from Russia or China. In fact, over the past decade, Russia has dominated the export market for nuclear power plants and China has built more nuclear plants than any other country.
Why it matters. The geopolitical framing of imports of nuclear energy is a problem, especially in Eastern Europe where there is an active war in neighboring Ukraine. Building up military forces using US technology and expanding US military presence in the region, even possibly basing nuclear weapons in Poland, may increase the likelihood of a catastrophic war between Russia and NATO. Such a war would be compounded by the potential for radioactive contamination from deliberate or inadvertent attacks on nuclear reactors, as illustrated by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine, which Russia has occupied since March 2022 and used as a source of leverage.
Such geopolitical games also make dealing with climate change much more difficult. A geopolitical view, by its very nature, conceives of problems essentially as a zero-sum competition: Countries will avoid cooperating with each other. But as happened with the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of cooperation will undermine the chances of quickly reducing global emissions.
The analyst and disarmament activist Andrew Lichterman recently explained that anyone interested in a more fair, peaceful, and ecologically sustainable global society should avoid using “the conceptual frame of geopolitics” which “is limited to the imperatives of holding and deploying power in what is portrayed as an endless, inevitable struggle for dominance among the world’s most powerful states.”
Investments in nuclear power in Eastern Europe hide geopolitical and military motivations behind a smoke screen of fighting climate change. When these motivations result in the massive acquisition of military equipment, manufacturing and operating them will increase carbon dioxide emissions. Worse, military buildups will also increase the risk of conflict, potentially leading to a catastrophic war that could involve nuclear weapons.
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (211)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 