nuclear-news

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

Donald Trump’s quick trip to absolute dictatorship

November 27, 2024: The AIM Network. Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.com/donald-trumps-quick-trip-to-absolute-dictatorship/

Comparisons are odious, particularly between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. I must be plain from the start, that these individuals have had completely different aims and ideology.

The comparisons I’m making here are just about methods of gaining absolute power. And here, I think, there are parallels. And we can learn, from Hitler, how Trump could well go about attaining dictatorship status – way faster than people realise.

Trump and Hitler do have this in common – a reckless ruthlessness about destroying institutions and crossing boundaries. And both had earlier associations with street violence – Hitler with his Brown Shirts, and the Beer Hall Putsch, and Trump, less obviously, with the Proud Boys and the Capitol attack on January 6th 2021.

Hitler became dictator by very quickly using legitimate political mechanisms, and Trump will be able to do the same.

Hitler, moving towards purging his movement of the Brown Shirts, gained much public support, and business interests saw him as a force to stop street violence, and a protector and support of property and business. Meanwhile, largely thanks to the genius of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda machine flourished, exploiting the latest technology, – radio, and aircraft – “Hitler over Germany”. By 1933 the German economy was recovering, and Hitler’s success in elections did in fact drop, but his National Socialist Party still held a third of the seats in the Reichstag.

Here’s where it got interesting, and it all took just 7 and a half weeks.

30 January 1933 – Hitler was appointed Chancellor. The role of the Chancellor, while being symbolically like the role of the British Prime Minister, was in fact, quite limited. The real power was in the President. President von Hindenburg, bowing to pressure, was persuaded that Hitler could indeed be controlled, by giving him the status of Chancellor.

-Advertisement-

27 February 1933 – the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down. Without going into the discussion on who caused the fire – it was the trigger for Hitler to persuade von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree – Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People, on 28 February, declaring a state of emergency, and abolishing most civil liberties, including the rights to speak, assemble, protest, and due process.

23 March 1933, Hitler proposed the Enabling Law to the Reichstag. This new law, passed on 24 March, gave Chancellor Hitler the power to rule by decree rather than passing laws through the Reichstag and the President. He was now effectively the dictator.

We could go on from there – listing Hitler’s dictatorial actions – National Socialists the only party permitted, trade unions disbanded. Any autonomous states lost those powers – officials appointed as state governors – and much, much more.

July 1934 – Hitler becomes “Fuehrer” – the finishing touch. With the death of President von Hindenburg, Hitler abolishes the now powerless position of “President”.

What has all this got to do with Trump?

Admittedly, the burning down of the Reichstag was a key factor, and we’re not expecting Capitol Hill to burn down. But the thing is that Hitler was at least a super-opportunist, even if the Nazis did not purposely cause this event. If it hadn’t been this event, probably something else could be triggered for a “state of emergency”. So, it would also be very beneficial to Trump- and save a lot of time, if some suitable “event” were to justify Trump, (also a super-opportunist) to declare emergency powers.

In the meantime, Trump is already working on removing the powers of the Department of Justice, and has various avenues open for him to take quick executive action. The President can issue executive orders. There are checks and balances, but these rely on the Supreme Court, and the Congress. So, Trump, with a majority in Congress has freedom – ‘I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president’.

Trump’s plan for a radical reorganization of the executive branch starts with ending “the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.”

Trump will be very careful about which officials he appoints – due to constitutional “checks and balances”. He’d need to pick a compliant Acting Attorney General. The obstacles to be eliminated include an independent Justice Department, independent leadership in administrative agencies and an independent civil service. Trump’s plan would substitute loyalty to him for loyalty to the Constitution.” In 2020 Trump called for the “termination of … the Constitution.”

In the USA, theoretically, there are constraints on the President’s power. But, as in Germany in the 1930s, the leader has already arranged for the administration and every government department to be run by his sycophants.

Also, as in Hitler’s Germany, Trump has extraordinary influence over media, especially social media. Hitler had the brilliance of Goebbels to swamp the public with his lies and spin. Trump is almost one better – he does it all himself.

So – there are similarities between Hitler and Trump in the way to gain absolute power. There’s the opportunism, the clique of dedicated sycophants, the inspired exploitation of new technology, of new media, the reckless crossing of normal boundaries, and the background of violence, (with the potential for violence again).

The differences between them are striking. Hitler had a coherent almost mystical theory – involving war – to gain world domination for the master “Aryan” race, and to eliminate the Jews and other “Untermenschen”. To a large extent, Hitler’s close associates shared that dream, even if jostling for power between each other– Goebbels, Hess, Himmler, Goering, Speer, von Ribbentrop, Heydrich, Bormann. They more or less held to Hitler’s philosophy, and feared Hitler if they stepped out of line. Quite a few, though not all, stayed with Hitler until the very bitter end.

I can’t see Trump’s associates having that kind of dedication. From his previous presidency, there is a long list of former allies who turned against him.

Donald Trump seems to have no coherent theory or aim – other than to be super-powerful and rich, and take revenge on his opponents. He admires dictators, hates China, doesn’t like war, and fears nuclear bombs. If Trump has any philosophy at all, apart from him being at the top, it would be for a world economy dominated by American business. War is not Trump’s chosen method to win, but building up weaponry, and the threat of war – a sort of global bullying is his favoured method.

Trump’s top associates are currently dedicated to him – but are closely connected to billionaires, and not necessarily sharing philosophies. There’s Elon Musk, obsessed with the control of space, and the colonisation of Mars, John Bauer who devised the case for presidential absolute immunity from prosecution, Stephen Miller determinedly anti-immigrant, Fox News employee Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sceptic of public health, Dave Weldon, anti-abortion doctor. What they do seem to have in common is big egos, and rather questionable qualifications for the jobs that they’ll be getting.

So, unlike Hitler, Trump doesn’t seem to have a team dedicated to a single-minded cause. In the short run, things might look good for the new Republican administration, and even for the American public. Dictatorships can do that, for a bit – as the workers found, in the early years of the Hitler administration, and of the Mussolini one in Italy. But it’s anybody’s guess how the new Trump dictatorship will finally work out.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | politics, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

What Project 2025 Would Do to the Environment – and How We Will Respond

The policy playbook from the Heritage Foundation would strip away our rights to clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet.

By Earthjustice November 12, 2024,  https://earthjustice.org/article/what-project-2025-would-do-to-the-environment-and-how-we-will-respond

When Donald Trump takes office for the second time in January, we expect his administration to dramatically dismantle environmental protections. We see the shape of what’s coming not just from battling his first administration, but because of the blueprint laid out in Project 2025.

Project 2025 is 900 pages, and 150 of them are about how to destroy the environment. This deregulatory agenda, written by former Trump government officials and Heritage Foundation staff, would strip away our rights to clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet.

Earthjustice is built for moments like this. We’re the legal arm of the environmental movement, with more than 200 attorneys wielding the power of the law to defend the planet and its people. We filed more lawsuits on behalf of clients against the last Trump administration to protect the environment than any other organization – and we won 85% of our cases.

We’ve shown that we can take on the Trump administration’s worst ideas and win.

We’ve studied the proposed tactics in Project 2025, including undermining government staff who are charged with safeguarding health and environmental protections. We are prepared to defend the environment and communities from what comes next, no matter how long it takes. Here are some of the Project 2025 recommendations we’re most concerned about:

Taking a hatchet to bedrock environmental laws

What Project 2025 says:

  • Gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Project 2025 would rewrite the most successful legal tool we have for protecting wildlife in ways that would harm imperiled species. It specifically calls for removing protections from gray wolves and Yellowstone grizzlies.
  • No need for national monuments: Another proposal would repeal the Antiquities Act, which would strip the president of the ability to protect priceless public lands and waters as national monuments.
  • Weaken the Clean Air Act: Project 2025 would nix the part of the law that requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set health-based air quality standards.
  • Less say for communities in environmental decisions: The plan would undermine key portions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which ensures you have a voice in major projects built near you.

Why we’re prepared:

  • Defending endangered species: The Trump administration went after both Yellowstone grizzlies and the Endangered Species Act itself. Both times, Earthjustice went straight to court. One of our cases spared the grizzlies from planned trophy hunts, and the Biden administration subsequently reversed some damaging changes to the ESA.
  • Defending national monuments: When the Trump administration gutted Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah, Earthjustice immediately sued. Protections for the monuments have now been restored. We also helped defend the monuments from a later legal challenge by the state of Utah that attacked the Antiquities Act itself.
  • Defending NEPA: This summer, when 21 state attorneys-general sued to block important updates to NEPA, we intervened to fight back. The updates will ensure that critical infrastructure needed for the clean energy transition is built quickly and equitably and is resilient to climate change.

More mining and fossil fuel development on public lands

What Project 2025 says:

  • Prioritize oil and gas: Project 2025 tells the agencies that manage federal lands and waters to maximize corporate oil and gas extraction. It calls for approving more pipelines like Keystone XL and Dakota Access.
  • Willow? Make it bigger: The agenda explicitly aims to expand the Willow Project, which is already the largest proposed oil and gas undertaking on U.S. public lands.
  • Target iconic landscapes: The project also calls for drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and mining in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness, among other irreplaceable natural treasure

Why we’re prepared:

  • Fighting on all fronts: Under the Trump administration, Earthjustice challenged an aggressive extractive agenda at every turn. Our victories included winning protections for 128 million acres of ocean and hundreds of thousands of acres of sage-grouse habitat threatened by oil and gas development.
  • We’ve defended many of the places Project 2025 targets:
  • Undermining science and the regulation of toxic chemicals
  • What Project 2025 says:
  • Trust the chemical companies: Project 2025 tells the EPA to be more open to industry science and to stop funding major research into toxic chemical exposure.
  • Make it harder to regulate chemicals: The plan calls for the EPA to meet an absurdly high standard of proof that a chemical is hazardous before deciding to regulate it. This would give chemical companies greater freedom to put toxic substances into our air, water, and products.
  • Forever chemicals are fine: Project 2025 would walk back the determination that PFAS — the “forever chemicals” linked to reproductive harms, developmental delays, and increased risk of cancer — are a hazardous substance.

Why we’re prepared:

Ending government efforts to address the climate crisis

What Project 2025 says:

  • The plan’s authors are climate skeptics: The document refers pointedly to “the perceived threat of climate change.”
  • Climate solutions? Don’t need ‘em: Project 2025 calls for undoing many of the clean energy investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate solutions bill in history. It also supports Congressional efforts to repeal the law entirely.
  • Shut down climate research: The plan would get rid of more than a dozen government offices and agencies that study climate change.

Why we’re prepared:

  • Confronting government with climate reality: We have fought every administration in recent decades to include climate change impacts in various decisions. Earlier this century, we joined in a suit that became a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that carbon emissions are air pollutants and consequently the EPA must set limits on such pollution. We will defend the necessity to combat climate change — but further delays will hurt us all. An analysis from Energy Innovation found that enacting Project 2025 would increase carbon emissions by 2.7 billion tons by 2030 — equivalent to the annual emissions of India. These policies would cost households $32 billion in higher energy costs, result in 1.7 million lost jobs, and decrease the U.S. GDP $320 billion per year by 2030.
  • Fighting for science: Earthjustice has previously defended the critical role of scientific experts within the government. In 2020, we won a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s illegal decision to remove independent science advisors from the EPA.

Eliminating environmental justice programs

What Project 2025 says:

  • Environmental justice is not the government’s problem: Project 2025 questions whether the government should address the ways that communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to dangerous pollution.
  • Get rid of staff who work on these issues: The plan calls for disbanding offices with the Department of Justice and the EPA that focus on environmental justice.

Why we’re prepared:

  • An environmental justice first: In 2021, after years of pushing by Earthjustice and our partners, the Justice Department opened its first-ever environmental justice investigation, looking into whether an Alabama county was managing sewage in a way that disproportionately harmed Black communities.
  • Raising our voice: We helped advocate for billions of dollars of funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to go to the communities that need it most.

What You Can Do

November 29, 2024 Posted by | environment, legal, USA | Leave a comment

From Genocide Joe to Omnicide Joe

Instead of fulfilling his 2020 campaign promise to adopt a U.S. policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, two years ago Biden signed off on the Nuclear Posture Review policy document that explicitly declares the opposite. Last year, under the euphemism of “modernization,” the U.S. government spent $51 billion — more than every other nuclear-armed country combined — updating and sustaining its nuclear arsenal, gaining profligate momentum in a process that’s set to continue for decades to come.

the Biden administration has said it did not want to cross its own red lines—and then has repeatedly proceeded to do so.

Biden’s recent green light for Ukraine to launch longer-range missiles into Russia is another jump toward nuclear warfare.

Norman Solomon 25 Nov 24,  https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/genocide-joe

Whether heralded or reviled, Biden’s supposed restraint during the Ukraine war has steadily faded, with more and more dangerous escalation in its place.

President Biden has never wavered from approving huge arms shipments to Israel during more than 13 months of mass murder and deliberate starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Biden’s crucial role earned him the name “Genocide Joe.”

That nickname might seem shrill, but it’s valid. Although Biden will not be brought to justice for serving as a key accomplice to the horrific crimes against humanity that continue in Gaza, the label sticks—and candid historians will condemn him as a direct enabler of genocide.

Biden could also qualify for another nickname, which according to Google was never published before this article: “Omnicide Joe.”

In contrast to the Genocide Joe sobriquet, which events have already proven apt, Omnicide Joe is a bit anticipatory. That’s inevitable, because if the cascading effects of his foreign policy end up as key factors in nuclear annihilation, historians will not be around to assess his culpability for omnicide—defined as “the destruction of all life or all human life.”

That definition scarcely overstates what scientists tell us would result from an exchange of nuclear weapons. Researchers have discovered that “nuclear winter” would quickly set in across the globe, blotting out sunlight and wiping out agriculture, with a human survival rate of perhaps 1 or 2 percent.

With everything—literally everything—at stake, you might think that averting thermonuclear war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, Russia and the United States, would be high on a president’s to-do list. But that hardly has been the case with Joe Biden since he first pulled up a chair at the Oval Office desk.

In fact, Biden has done a lot during the first years of this decade to inflame the realistic fears of nuclear war. His immediate predecessor Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of two vital treaties — Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and Open Skies — and Biden did nothing to reinstate them. Likewise, Trump killed the Iran nuclear deal negotiated during the Obama administration, and Biden let it stay dead.

Instead of fulfilling his 2020 campaign promise to adopt a U.S. policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, two years ago Biden signed off on the Nuclear Posture Review policy document that explicitly declares the opposite. Last year, under the euphemism of “modernization,” the U.S. government spent $51 billion — more than every other nuclear-armed country combined — updating and sustaining its nuclear arsenal, gaining profligate momentum in a process that’s set to continue for decades to come.

Before and after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022, Biden showed a distinct lack of interest in actual diplomacy to prevent the war or to end it. Three days before the invasion, writing in the Financial Times, Jeffrey Sachs pointed out: “Biden has said repeatedly that the U.S. is open to diplomacy with Russia, but on the issue that Moscow has most emphasized—NATO enlargement—there has been no American diplomacy at all. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. forswear NATO’s enlargement into Ukraine, while Biden has repeatedly asserted that membership of the alliance is Ukraine’s choice.”

While Russia’s invasion and horrible war in Ukraine should be condemned, Biden has compounded Putin’s crimes by giving much higher priority to Washington’s cold-war mania than to negotiation for peace—or to mitigation of escalating risks of nuclear war.

From the outset, Biden scarcely acknowledged that the survival of humanity was put at higher risk by the Ukraine war. In his first State of the Union speech, a week after the invasion, Biden devoted much of his oratory to the Ukraine conflict without saying a word about the heightened danger that it might trigger the use of nuclear weapons.

During the next three months, the White House posted more than 60 presidential statements, documents and communiques about the war in Ukraine. They all shared with his State of the Union address a stunning characteristic — the complete absence of any mention of nuclear weapons or nuclear war dangers—even though many experts gauged those dangers as being the worst they’d been since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

With occasional muted references to not wanting a U.S. military clash with nuclear-armed Russia, during the last 33 months the Biden administration has said it did not want to cross its own red lines—and then has repeatedly proceeded to do so.

A week ago superhawk John Bolton, a former national security advisor to President Trump, summarized the process on CNN while bemoaning that Biden’s reckless escalation hasn’t been even more reckless: “It’s been one long public debate after another, going back to ‘Shall we supply ATACMS [ballistic missiles] to the Ukrainians at all?’ First it’s no, then there’s a debate, then there’s yes. ‘Should we supply the Ukrainians Abrams tanks?’ First it’s no, then there’s a long debate, then it’s yes. ‘Should we supply the Ukrainians with F-16s?’ First it’s no, then there’s a long debate, and it’s yes. Now, ‘Can we allow the Ukrainians to use ATACMS inside Russia?’ After a long debate, now it’s yes.”

Whether heralded or reviled, Biden’s supposed restraint during the Ukraine war has steadily faded, with more and more dangerous escalation in its place.

Biden’s recent green light for Ukraine to launch longer-range missiles into Russia is another jump toward nuclear warfare. As a Quincy Institute analyst wrote, “the stakes, and escalatory risks, have steadily crept up.” In an ominous direction, “this needlessly escalatory step has put Russia and NATO one step closer to a direct confrontation—the window to avert catastrophic miscalculation is now that much narrower.”

Like Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken as well as the Democratic and Republican phalanx of Ukraine war cheerleaders on Capitol Hill, Bolton doesn’t mention that recent polling shows strong support among Ukrainian people for negotiations to put a stop to the war. “An average of 52 percent of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible,” Gallup reported last week, compared to only 38 percent who say “their country should keep fighting until victory.”

Biden and other war boosters have continued to scorn, as capitulation and accommodation to aggression, what so much of the Ukrainian population now says it wants—a negotiated settlement. Instead, top administration officials and laptop-warrior pundits in the press corps are eager to tout their own mettle by insisting that Ukrainians and Russians must keep killing and dying.

Elites in Washington continue to posture as courageous defenders of freedom with military escalation in Ukraine, where hundreds of thousands have already died. Meanwhile, dangers of nuclear war increase.

Last week, Putin “lowered the threshold for a nuclear strike in response to a broader range of conventional attacks,” Reuters reported, “and Moscow said Ukraine had struck deep inside Russia with U.S.-made ATACMS missiles…. Russia had been warning the West for months that if Washington allowed Ukraine to fire U.S., British and French missiles deep into Russia, Moscow would consider those NATO members to be directly involved in the war in Ukraine.”

For President Biden, the verdict of Genocide Joe is already in. But if, despite pleas for sanity, he turns out to fully deserve the name Omnicide Joe, none of us will be around to read about it.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

As America barrels toward war with Russia….Where’s Biden?

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 27 Nov 24.

Ukraine is now firing US ATACMS long range missiles into Russia. They’re also firing long range UK Storm Shadow missiles into Russia. Ukrainians push the bottoms but US and UK military do the programming and technical support, without which no buttons can be pushed.

That puts Russia at de facto war with the US and UK, NATO as well for that matter.

Russia made that point by unleashing a new hypersonic nuclear capable long range missile, Oreshnik, which obliterated a strategic Ukrainian military target. The point was that the Oreshnik, which can destroy any target with unstoppable speed, can pulverize high value NATO targets thruout Europe. Compared to Oreshnik, US ATACMAS and UK Strom Shadows are like bottle rockets. Their sole military use appears to be provoking all out war.

In spite of the Russian warning, France’s Foreign Minister Jean –Noel Barrot just announced France will allow its SCALPS version to the UK Strom Shadows bottle rocket to be fired by Ukraine into Russia.

This is beginning to resemble the colossal, senseless escalations of European powers that stumbled the world into WWI. That war ignited due to incredible denial and lack of serious thought by leaders of all initial belligerents. There was virtually no diplomacy to turn back the rush to senseless world war that killed over 16 million.

The same senseless escalations with no prospect to prevent all out war are being conducted by a mentally diminished President Biden in his last 60 days. He’s virtually disappeared from public view. Biden never once engaged his Russian counterpart since he provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine 34 months ago. Nor are any in his war cabinet.

The absence of communication and diplomacy, alongside attacking Russian targets using Ukraine proxies, poses a perilous descent into nuclear war.

Sixty-two years ago Cold Warrior John Kennedy learned a tough lesson from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lack of communication and understanding of the Soviet Union’s security needs was a prescription for nuclear war. JFK understood that Russian missiles in Cuba were response in part to US missiles near Russia in Turkey. He wisely removed them in the negotiated settlement to withdraw from the brink. He established a Hotline to prevent future misunderstandings that could blow up peoplekind.

Joe Biden ether never learned that lesson in his youth, or worse, has forgotten it from diminished capacity.

In 55 days, Biden, if he hasn’t blown up the world, will turn over the war to his successor nearly as old and quite likely mentally diminished as well. At the rate a befuddled Biden desperately seeking to avoid a well-earned defeat in Ukraine is escalating, we’re going to need more luck than a wise, clearheaded JFK had in 62’ to survive this 21st century version of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

War Crimes in Lebanon: Human Rights Watch Says Israel Used U.S. Arms to Kill 3 Journalists

November 26, 2024

Since October 2023, Israel has killed over 3,700 people in Lebanon, with most of the deaths occurring over the past 10 weeks. The attacks have forced more than 1 million people to flee their homes in Lebanon, where Israel has also repeatedly targeted journalists. In a new report, Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of committing an apparent war crime by killing three journalists and injuring four others last month, when it bombed the Hasbaya Village Resort in southern Lebanon, where more than a dozen journalists had been staying. The attack killed Ghassan Najjar and Mohammad Reda, both from Al Mayadeen TV, and Wissam Kassem, a cameraman from Al-Manar TV. Human Rights Watch has revealed Israel used an airdropped bomb equipped with a U.S.-produced Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kit. “Journalists are civilians, and deliberately targeting journalists is a war crime,” says Human Rights Watch researcher Ramzi Kaiss.

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Lebanon, where Israel has killed at least 31 people over the past 24 hours, ahead of a possible ceasefire. Israel’s security cabinet is expected to vote today on a ceasefire proposal. ………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/26/israel_lebanon

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Israel, media, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ironic Dependency: Russian Uranium and the US Energy Market

November 27, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/ironic-dependency-russian-uranium-and-the-us-energy-market/

Be careful who you condemn and ostracise. They just might be supplying you with a special need. While the United States security establishment deems Russia the devil incarnate helped along by aspiring, mischief–making China, that devil continues supplying the US energy market with enriched uranium.

This dependency has irked the self-sufficiency patriots in Washington, especially those keen to break Russia’s firm hold in this field. That, more than any bleeding-heart sentimentality for Ukrainian suffering at the hands of the Russian Army, has taken precedence. For that reason, US lawmakers sought a ban on Russian uranium that would come into effect by January 1, 2028, by which time domestic uranium enrichment and conversion is meant to have reached sustainable levels.

The May 2024 Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, signed by President Joe Biden as law H.R.1042, specifically bans unirradiated low-enriched uranium produced in Russia or by any Russian entity from being imported into the US. It also bars the importation of unirradiated low-enriched uranium that has been swapped for the banned uranium or otherwise obtained in circumstances designed to bypass the restrictions.

At the time, Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm struck a note of hollering triumphalism. “Our nation’s clean energy future will not rely on Russian imports,” she declared. “We are making investments to build out a secure nuclear fuel supply chain here in the United States. That means American jobs supporting the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to a clean, safe, and secure energy economy.”

This does not get away from current circumstances, which see Russia’s provision of some 27% of enrichment service purchases for US utilities. The Russian state-owned company Rosatom is alone responsible for arranging imports of low-enriched uranium into the US market at some 3 million SWU (Separative Work Units) annually. Alexander Uranov, who heads the Russian analytical service Atominfo Center, puts this figure into perspective: that amount would be the equivalent of the annual uranium consumption rate of 20 large reactors.

Given this reliance, some legroom has been given to those in the industry by means of import waivers. H.R.1042 grants the Department of Energy the power to waive the ban in cases where there is no alternative viable source of low-enriched uranium available to enable the continued operation of a nuclear reactor or US nuclear energy company and in cases where importing the uranium would be in the national interest.

The utility Constellation, which is the largest operator of US nuclear reactors, along with the US enrichment trader, Centrus, have received waivers. The latter also has on its book of supply, the Russian state-owned company Tenex, its largest provider of low-enriched uranium as part of a 2011 contract.

No doubt knowing such a state of play, Moscow announced this month that it would temporarily ban the export of low-enriched uranium to the US as an amendment to Government Decree No 313 (March 9, 2022). The decree covers imports “to the United States or under foreign trade contracts concluded with persons registered in the jurisdiction of the United States.”

According to the Russian government, such a decision was made “on the instructions of the President in response to the restriction imposed by the United States for 2024-2027, and from 2028 – a ban on the import of Russian uranium products.” Vladimir Putin had accordingly given instructions in September “to analyse the possibility of restricting supplies to foreign markets of strategic raw materials.” The Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom confirmed that the ban was a “tit-for-tat response to actions of the US authorities” and would not affect the delivery of Russian uranium to other countries.

In a Russian government post on Telegram, the ban is qualified. To make matters less severe, there will be, for instance, one-time licenses issued by the Russian Federal Service for Technical and Export Control. This is of cold comfort to the likes of Centrus, given that most of its revenue is derived from importing the enriched uranium before then reselling it. On being notified by Tenex that its general license to export the uranium to the US had been rescinded, the scramble was on to seek a specific export license for remaining shipments in 2024 and those scheduled to take place in 2025.

In a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Centrus warned that any failure by Tenex “to secure export licences for our pending or future orders […] would affect our ability to meet our delivery obligations to our customers and would have a material adverse effect on our business, results in operations, and competitive position.” While Tenex had contacted Centrus of its plans to secure the required export licenses in a timely manner, a sense of pessimism was hard to dispel as “there is no certainty whether such licenses will be issued by the Russian authorities and if issued, whether they will be issued in a timely manner.” The sheer, sweet irony of it all.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Russia Prepares to Respond to the Armageddon Wanted by the Biden Administration

by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 26 November 2024

Russia has deployed thousands of North Korean soldiers to defend its Kursk region, attacked in August by Ukrainian integral nationalists.

Washington considers this fact as a development of the war it has been waging since 1950, despite a ceasefire, against the Korean and Chinese communists, even more than as a development of the one it has been waging through Ukrainian proxy against Russia since 2022. It therefore responded on November 19 by guiding six ATACMS (Army TACtical Missile System) missiles that it had given to kyiv against Russia [1]. They were directed not only against the Kursk Oblast, but also against the Bryansk Oblast, where they failed to hit an ammunition depot. London, for its part, decided on November 21 to guide the Storm Shadow missiles it gave to kyiv in the same way. All of the allied missiles were destroyed in flight by Russian anti-aircraft defense.

On the contrary, Moscow considers the Kursk attack as a continuation of the CIA’s secret war in Ukraine and as the one organized in the 1950s against the USSR, both with the support of Stepan Bandera’s Ukrainian integral nationalists.

The West does not understand these events because it has forgotten Beijing’s support for Pyongyang, wrongly thinks that Kursk and Bryansk are in Ukraine and ignores the secret war during which the Anglo-Saxons allied themselves with the last Nazis (which means that it also did not understand the objective of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine).

ATACMS missiles can be fired from HIMARS mobile launchers. The latest models have a range of 300 kilometers and fly at an altitude of 50,000 meters. The latest versions of the Storm Shadow missiles, on the other hand, have a range of about 400 kilometers. None can therefore reach deep into Russia.

Russia has a wide range of responses to allied attacks……………………………… On November 19, it modified its nuclear doctrine, leaving open the option of a nuclear response. Finally, it can make use of its military dominance. Ukraine announced that, on November 20, Moscow had fired a long-range ballistic missile (i.e. capable of reaching the United States from Russia), RS-26 Rubezh. We now know that it was something else.

Unbeknownst to us, the battlefields of Ukraine and the Middle East have already come together, as the US neoconservatives (the Straussians), the Israeli “revisionist Zionists” [3]; and the Ukrainian “integral nationalists” [4] have allied themselves once again, as in the Second World War. These three groups, historically linked to the Tripatite Axis, are in favor of a final confrontation. The only ones missing are the Japanese militarists of the new Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba.

Immediately after the launch of the US ATACMS missiles and even before that of the British Storm Shadows, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree promulgating his country’s new nuclear doctrine that he had announced on September 24 [5]. It authorizes the use of nuclear weapons in five new cases:
1) if reliable information is received about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting the territory of Russia or its allies.

2) if nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction strike the territory of Russia or its allies, or are used to strike Russian military units or installations abroad.
3) if the impact of an enemy on the Russian government or military installations is of critical importance that could undermine the capability of a retaliatory nuclear strike.
4) if aggression against Russia or Belarus with conventional weapons poses a serious threat to their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
5) if reliable information is received about the takeoff or launch of strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic vehicles or other flying vehicles and their crossing of the Russian border……………………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.voltairenet.org/article221540.html

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment