nuclear-news

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

Priming us up for war – “it’s not so bad, after all” – Britain’s Labour government leads the way

The Unseen March video from 9 years ago – but now it’s getting worse. https://theaimn.net/priming-us-up-for-war-its-not-so-bad-after-all-britains-labour-government-leads-the-way/

On the outskirts of Berlin, you can visit what’s left of Sachsenhausen , one of the first Nazi concentration camps, set up in 1936, as a model for the more than 44,000 such camps they ran between 1933 and 1945.

I was impressed by the efficiency shown by the way that the Nazis carried out mass murder in this camp – which became a model for how to run this operation as quickly and with as little fuss as possible.

In the early days of the camp, the inmates were used as forced labour. Systematic extermination was carried out. Many thousands died  by hunger, disease, overwork, medical experiments and mistreatment. But by 1941, tens of thousands of Jews and Soviet prisoners were being directly murdered.

I saw where this happened. Originally, the prisoners were forced down a brick path, and shot. You can still see stains on this path. But here’s the interesting bit. It turned out that the German soldiers who did the shooting became badly affected by it. Sometimes they would miss, or have to make several shots to actually kill a man. It made the soldiers unwell, having to rather messily murder their victims – it’s not like being in combat, not at all fair. It was making those soldiers mentally ill.

Here’s where the practical genius of the Nazis came in. They devised a special unit, (which was still there, when I visited a few years ago). In this unit, the shooter could be sure of doing one direct lethal hit, but the victim was placed in such a way that the shooter was unable to see him. This system solved the psychological problem of upsetting the man doing the shooting. No more mental illness, and the mass killing could proceed in an orderly way.

In a sort of sequel to this discovery, the Americans in recent years developed the efficiency of drones. targeting and killing  suspected terrorists and militants in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan. Once again, – such a beneficial effect on the operator’s mental health. From thousands of miles away – press a button, no sight of any mess. and a beneficial effect on the the public too – all this killing being done so neatly, and so far away – so much better than an old-fashioned war battle.

So it is that the thought of war becomes much less unpleasant. With drones, and missiles, it has become a sort of distant, sort of “clean”, precision operation.

This new palatability of war comes to add to the already existing beneficial aspects of war. Getting ready for war shows that our great leaders are strong and decisive. It’s patriotic. It defends our democratic values. There are those other – nebulous, but still real, concepts of courage, heroism, and past glorious victories. The new “war-readiness” shows that we are aware, and awake-up to the threats of other countries, who undoubtedly want to attack us. And on top of all that – getting ready for war provides jobs jobs jobs!

Now Sir Keir Starmer’s UK Labour government is not so sure that the British public is convinced of all this. So they’re accentuating the already existing British trend to promote militarism. The Daily Mail announces the new education programme:

Children taught value of the military

Defence chiefs will work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools, by means of a two-year series of public outreach events across the UK, explaining current threats and future trends.

Schools and community-based cadet forces will also be expanded, with an ambition of a 30 per cent rise by 2030 with a view to the UK having 250,000 cadets, many of whom will then go on to join the armed forces.

Those radical terrorists, The Quakers, have provided an alternative view – The military in education & youth activities. But I’m not sure that their view is widely known.

It looks as if mass education on the necessity of war is now well underway. The general public in the West is being brainwashed with the doctrine that authoritarian Russia and China are about to invade our peace-loving democracies. Sir Keir Starmer takes the initiative, showing how Labour there is in concert with the Tories. We must be ready to fight back, or perhaps better, to pre-empt such attacks. No doubt the Russian and Chinese populations are being taught a similar message, the other way around.

What now makes it easier is that we can buy ever more of those glorious distance methods, so much neater than sending our boys out for messy personal danger. The efficient Nazis got the ball rolling on this. In education Sir Keir Starmer now takes the initiative. Labour in the UK is enthusiastically backing their own and and the USA’s arms manufacturers. Weapons-making is the big thing in business now – in Europe too, and of course in the USA.

War School – The Battle for Britain’s Children – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl5Zc71KV_g

June 5, 2025 Posted by | Christina's notes, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

This Is Israel

Caitlin Johnstone, Jun 04, 2025

This is Israel. This is what the Zionist project looks like. The dead kids. The blown-out hospitals. The desperate, starving civilians. This is it.

There is no alternate version of Israel where these things are not happening. The liberal Zionist vision of a two-state solution and a just and peaceful Israel exists solely in the imaginations of the people who envision it. Nothing like it has ever existed. Everything about the modern state of Israel is unyieldingly hostile to that vision.

You either support the existence of the Israel you see before you, or you support the end of the apartheid Zionist entity. There is no hidden third option. There are no other positions on the menu. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy land.

You either want to burn children alive, or you don’t. You either want to deliberately starve civilians, or you don’t. You either want to bomb hospitals, or you don’t. You either want to deliberately assassinate Palestinian journalists while forbidding foreign journalists entry into Gaza, or you don’t. You either want to deliberately massacre civilians and systematically destroy civilian infrastructure in order to force the removal of Palestinians from a Palestinian territory, or you don’t. And if you don’t, you must oppose the state of Israel.

That’s Israel, the state. Not just Netanyahu. Not just extremist settlers. Not just “far right elements within the Israeli government”. Israel itself. Because everything we are seeing Israel do is the result of everything Israel is as a state.

Everything Israel is doing is the result of everything it has always been. As soon as the west decided to drop a settler-colonialist state on top of a pre-existing civilization wherein the new immigrants would receive preferential treatment over the indigenous inhabitants who were already living there, it became inevitable that Israel would wind up in the condition it’s in today.

Because there was no way to uphold that status quo without mass displacement and nonstop tyranny, violence and abuse. There was no way to set up a tiered society where one tier is placed above the other without indoctrinating the public to accept that apartheid system by systematically dehumanizing the members of the disempowered group.

Set up a status quo of dehumanizing a group of people and manufacturing consent for violence and abuse against them, and you will inevitably wind up with a far right apartheid state which is committing genocide, as surely as dropping a stone off a building will result in a stone falling to the ground.

What we are seeing in Gaza today was baked into the state of Israel ever since its inception.

All those dead kids on your social media feed are the fruit of a tree whose seed was planted after the second world war. That tree has been bearing more and more fruit, and it will continue to for as long as it remains standing. Because that’s just the kind of tree it is. The only kind of tree it ever could have been.

Saying “I support Israel but I don’t support the actions of Netanyahu in Gaza” is like saying “I like this apple tree but only when it sprouts coconuts instead of apples.” That is not the kind of tree it is. The apple tree will only produce apples, and the genocide tree will only produce genocide.

Israel’s supporters avoid confronting obvious truths like these. Support for Israel depends on mass-scale psychological compartmentalization. Everything about it revolves around avoiding unpleasant truths instead of deeply and viscerally reckoning with them.

Averting the eyes from the video footage of Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. Averting the eyes from the contradictions between the values they purport to hold and everything Israel is as a state. Averting the eyes from the mountains upon mountains of evidence staring us all in the face. That’s the only way support for Israel is able to continue.

In order to become a truth-driven species, we need to stop hiding from uncomfortable truths. And one of our favorite hiding places for uncomfortable truths at this point in history is the modern state of Israel, and the western empire’s support for it.

June 5, 2025 Posted by | Israel, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

Sellafield’s race against time: nuclear waste clean-up not going quickly enough, Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warns

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The intolerable risks presented by Sellafield’s ageing infrastructure are truly world-class. When visiting the site, it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that one can be standing in what is surely one of the most hazardous places in the world.

“Our report contains too many signs that this is a race that Sellafield risks losing.”

4 June 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/207132/sellafields-race-against-time-nuclear-waste-cleanup-not-going-quickly-enough-pac-warns/

Report highlights latest picture on delays and cost rises in c.£136bn 100-year nuclear decommissioning project.

The retrieval of waste from ageing buildings at the most hazardous nuclear site in the UK is not happening quickly enough. In its report on decommissioning Sellafield, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warns that the estimated £136bn cost of the project would rise even more if work is further delayed, while expressing scepticism as to whether or not recent signs of improvement in performance could represent another false dawn.

The PAC found in 2018 that government needed a firmer grip on Sellafield’s nuclear challenges, and now warns that not enough progress has been made in addressing its most significant hazards. One building, the Magnox Swarf Storage Silo (MSSS), has been leaking radioactive water into the ground since 2018 – the PAC calculates, at current rates, enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool roughly every three years. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) accepts this leak is its “single biggest environmental issue”, but that the radioactive particles are “contained” in the soil and do not pose a risk to the public.

The PAC’s report finds that Sellafield Ltd has missed most of its annual targets for retrieving waste from several buildings on the site, including the MSSS. The PAC’s inquiry heard that the MSSS is the most hazardous building in the UK, and as a result of Sellafield Ltd’s underperformance will likely remain extremely hazardous for longer. The report seeks answers from Government on how it will hold the NDA and Sellafield Ltd to account in ameliorating the site’s greatest hazards.

As well as safety concerns, the PAC further warns of the impact that delays in the programme have on costs. In the long-term, waste will need to be stored in an underground Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) capable of storing it for thousands of years. The PAC finds that the date for the GDF has slipped from 2040 to the late 2050s, with every decade of delay meaning Sellafield could need to construct another storage building, each costing £500m-£760m. The GDF project is still at an early stage, with sites considered in Cumbria and Lincolnshire – though the PAC understands that Lincolnshire County Council has recently announced it is likely to withdraw.

The report highlights some recent signs of improvement in Sellafield’s delivery, with more emphasis put on planning in how it works with contractors and most recently-started projects being delivered in line with their business cases as a result. However, the report highlights the example of one of Sellafield’s project to refurbish an onsite lab so it could continue analysing waste samples – essential for safety.

The report finds that this very poorly managed and now-paused project has seen £127m wasted. Its failure, which resulted from a lack of understanding of what physical state its labs were in, and from not doing the right remedial work to address their deterioration, illustrates the need to improve asset management at Sellafield. The report urges Sellafield Ltd to explain how it is addressing the deteriorating condition of its assets, which its safety experts have warned is making the site increasingly unsafe.

The PAC’s report also finds indications of a sub-optimal culture at the site, with concerns raised in the report given that the exceptionally hazardous nature of many of Sellafield’s activities means that it is imperative that all employees and contractors on the site feel able to raise any concerns that they have without fear of consequences. The PAC is aware that the NDA paid £377,200 in 2023-24 to settle employment-related claims.

Further, the PAC previously noted that non-disclosure agreements have been used elsewhere in the public sector to cover up failure. The report finds that Sellafield Ltd has signed 16 non-disclosure agreements in the last three years. It further seeks publication from the NDA of information around the prevalence and perception of bullying and harassment in its annual report.

Chair comment

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The intolerable risks presented by Sellafield’s ageing infrastructure are truly world-class. When visiting the site, it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that one can be standing in what is surely one of the most hazardous places in the world. This is why we expect Sellafield’s management of its assets, and the delivery of the project to decommission it, to be similarly world-class. Unfortunately, our latest report is interleaved with a number of examples of failure, cost overruns, and continuing safety concerns. Given the tens of billions at stake, and the dangers onsite to both the environment and human life, this is simply not good enough.

“As with the fight against climate change, the sheer scale of the hundred-year timeframe of the decommissioning project makes it hard to grasp the immediacy of safety hazards and cost overruns that delays can have. Every day at Sellafield is a race against time to complete works before buildings reach the end of their life. Our report contains too many signs that this is a race that Sellafield risks losing. It is of vital importance that the Government grasp the daily urgency of the work taking place at Sellafield, and shed any sense of a far-off date of completion for which no-one currently living is responsible. Sellafield’s risks and challenges are those of the present day. There are some early indications of some improvement in Sellafield’s delivery which our report notes. Government must do far more to hold all involved immediately accountable to ensure these do not represent a false dawn, and to better safeguard both the public purse and the public itself.”  

June 5, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Zaporizhzhia ‘extremely fragile’ relying on single off-site power line, IAEA warns

Jun 4, 2025, https://www.ans.org/news/2025-06-03/article-7086/zaporizhzhia-extremely-fragile-relying-on-single-offsite-power-line-iaea-warns/

Europe’s largest nuclear power plant has just one remaining power line for essential nuclear safety and security functions, compared with its original 10 functional lines before the military conflict with Russia, warned Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The off-site power situation at the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is “extremely fragile,” Grossi said, since its last 330-kilovolt backup line has remained disconnected since the plant lost access to it on May 7. It is unclear when it will be restored.

As a result, Zaporizhzhia is entirely dependent on the last remaining 750-kV line for the external electricity required to operate the plant’s nuclear safety systems and cool its nuclear fuel.

After Russia took control of Zaporizhzhia in early 2022, the plant has lost all access to off-site power eight times, but it was usually restored within a day, according to the IAEA.

Quotable: “We are actively engaged. I have been discussing with the [energy] minister, with the Ukrainian regulator, and also, of course, with the Russian side, because they are in control of the plant. The idea is to be talking to everybody when it comes to safety,” Grossi said during a press conference Tuesday during his visit to Kyiv, Ukraine.

Grossi warned that even though Zaporizhzhia has not been operating for some three years now, its reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel still require continuous cooling, for which electricity is needed to run the water pumps.

“There are only two [power lines] in operation—one 750-kV and another 330-kV—which are intermittently down because of a number of situations… attacks or interruptions, we do not know,” Grossi added in his remarks. “The repair works have been performed but what we expect is this quite unpredictable situation will continue.”

“We have to move to a more stable situation, and this, of course, depends on overall political negotiation, which will lead to less—or, ideally, no—military activity around the plant.” Grossi said. “Absent that, what we are doing [and] what everyone is doing is (trying) to avoid the worst (and) repair it as soon as possible. Try to ensure outside power supply whenever it falls down.” Grossi plans to visit Russia as part of his regular contacts with both sides to ensure nuclear safety and security during the conflict.

A closer look: In addition to the lack of off-site power backup, on May 22 the IAEA reported a drone strike at Zaporizhzhia’s training center—the third such incident so far this year. There were no casualties or major damage; however, one person died in April 2024 when a drone struck the plant’s main containment building.

Ukraine blames Russia for the strikes, but Russia has denied responsibility.

The Zaporizhzhia-based IAEA team continues to monitor and assess other aspects of nuclear safety and security at the plant. They conducted a walkdown last week to measure and confirm stable levels of cooling water in the site’s 12 sprinkler ponds and visiting its two fresh fuel storage facilities, where no nuclear safety or security issues were observed.

The IAEA team has reported hearing military activities on most days over the past week, at different distances away from the power plant, Grossi said.

At Ukraine’s three operating nuclear plants—Khmelnytskyi, Rivne and South Ukraine—three of the nine total reactors are in planned outage for refueling and maintenance.

IAEA team members at these sites also continue to hear military activities nearby. At South Ukraine, the IAEA team saw a drone being shot at by antiaircraft fire on May 23, and plant workers reported that 10 drones were observed 2.5 kilometers (about 1.55 miles) south of the site the same evening. Also on May 23, Chernobyl workers saw two drones flying just a few miles from the site. And the IAEA team at the Khmelnytskyi plant was required to shelter on-site last Monday.

June 5, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

This is what Britain really needs to defend itself – and it doesn’t include spending billions on arms

COMMENT: Sir Keir Starmer – warhawk, and Torier that the Tories?

Keir Starmer has also argued that defence projects will stimulate the economy. Yet investments in sectors such as renewable energy and public infrastructure have demonstrated more consistent returns and broader societal benefits.

Karen Bell, 3 June 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/02/britain-defence-billions-arms-spending-climate-crisis

Spending should be focused on the immediate threats we face: underfunded public services and an escalating climate crisis

  • Karen Bell is professor of social and environmental justice at the University of Glasgow

The UK government has now unveiled its strategic defence review (SDR), positioning it as a bold response to global threats, particularly from Russia. The plan includes increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with aspirations to reach 3% in the next parliament.

The government’s narrative suggests that increased military spending will enhance national security and stimulate economic growth. However, this perspective neglects the immediate threats facing UK citizens: underfunded public services, a strained National Health Service and the escalating climate crisis.

Redirecting substantial funds to military projects, such as nuclear submarines and warheads, is likely to divert resources from essential sectors that directly affect citizens’ daily lives. Investments in healthcare, education and renewable energy not only address current societal needs but also contribute to long-term national resilience. Globally, on average more than 24,000 people die of hunger daily and cutting our aid budget will worsen this tragic situation.

The UK’s defence procurement history is marred by inefficiencies and mismanagement. The government’s hugely ambitious strategic defence review is an exercise in hope over experience. For many years big defence projects have been delayed as a result of unforeseen technical problems partly caused by overoptimistic military planners and advisers influencing gullible ministers. Defence officials are highlighting the plan for a big increase in the number of nuclear-powered attack submarines, yet the cost of the existing, and much-delayed, Astute class submarine fleet, has already increased from an estimated £4.3 bn to more than £11bn.

Meanwhile, spending on nuclear weapons has increased significantly more than anticipated and serious problems remain over the project to build a new fleet of Dreadnought nuclear missile submarines. Although the government suggests that priority should be given to the defence of Europe where, it says, the main threat to Britain’s security lies, it invests in expensive and vulnerable aircraft carriers for deployment elsewhere, including the far east.

The government’s review risks repeating past mistakes by committing to large-scale projects that have led to wasted resources and unmet objectives. Furthermore, while the UK spends more on defence than all but five other countries in the world already, evidence indicates that military build-up actually increases the likelihood of conflict.

Keir Starmer has also argued that defence projects will stimulate the economy. Yet investments in sectors such as renewable energy and public infrastructure have demonstrated more consistent returns and broader societal benefits.

The review claims that the defence strategy will support 400,000 UK jobs, including 25,000 in Scotland. While job creation is vital, the number, quality and sustainability of these jobs warrant scrutiny. There is likely to be a net loss of jobs as a result of shifting funding from other sectors. Analysis for the Scottish government showed that military spending has one of the lowest “employment multipliers” of all economic categories, ranking 70 out of 100 in terms of numbers of jobs generated. Much of the defence spending will probably be on weaponry from the US.

Furthermore, recent research is clearly showing that global boosts in defence spending will worsen the climate crisis. A 2020 report by Scientists for Global Responsibility and Declassified UK found that the UK military-industrial sector already produces greater quantities of carbon emissions than 60 countries. While the Ministry of Defence acknowledges the environmental impacts of its operations, its proposed solutions, particularly increased biofuel and nuclear, even where lower in carbon emissions, still threaten ecosystems, biodiversity and human health. In the light of these concerns, it’s imperative to consider alternative strategies that prioritise human security and sustainable development.

A group of academics, trade unionists and campaign groups has drafted an alternative defence review, a civil society response to the government’s SDR. We call for a radical break with successive UK governments’ failed security and defence policies, which distort Britain’s national priorities, fuel global instability, undermine international law, harm the environment and divert investment from public services and social infrastructure towards subsidies for the global arms industry. Our ADR suggests that most of this increased spending appears to be linked to policy influence by international arms companies.


This is what Britain really needs to defend itself – and it doesn’t include spending billions on arms

Karen Bell

Spending should be focused on the immediate threats we face: underfunded public services and an escalating climate crisis

  • Karen Bell is professor of social and environmental justice at the University of Glasgow

Tue 3 Jun 2025 03.15 AESTShare

The UK government has now unveiled its strategic defence review (SDR), positioning it as a bold response to global threats, particularly from Russia. The plan includes increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with aspirations to reach 3% in the next parliament.

The government’s narrative suggests that increased military spending will enhance national security and stimulate economic growth. However, this perspective neglects the immediate threats facing UK citizens: underfunded public services, a strained National Health Service and the escalating climate crisis.

Redirecting substantial funds to military projects, such as nuclear submarines and warheads, is likely to divert resources from essential sectors that directly affect citizens’ daily lives. Investments in healthcare, education and renewable energy not only address current societal needs but also contribute to long-term national resilience. Globally, on average more than 24,000 people die of hunger daily and cutting our aid budget will worsen this tragic situation.

The UK’s defence procurement history is marred by inefficiencies and mismanagement. The government’s hugely ambitious strategic defence review is an exercise in hope over experience. For many years big defence projects have been delayed as a result of unforeseen technical problems partly caused by overoptimistic military planners and advisers influencing gullible ministers. Defence officials are highlighting the plan for a big increase in the number of nuclear-powered attack submarines, yet the cost of the existing, and much-delayed, Astute class submarine fleet, has already increased from an estimated £4.3 bn to more than £11bn.

Meanwhile, spending on nuclear weapons has increased significantly more than anticipated and serious problems remain over the project to build a new fleet of Dreadnought nuclear missile submarines. Although the government suggests that priority should be given to the defence of Europe where, it says, the main threat to Britain’s security lies, it invests in expensive and vulnerable aircraft carriers for deployment elsewhere, including the far east.

The government’s review risks repeating past mistakes by committing to large-scale projects that have led to wasted resources and unmet objectives. Furthermore, while the UK spends more on defence than all but five other countries in the world already, evidence indicates that military build-up actually increases the likelihood of conflict.

Keir Starmer has also argued that defence projects will stimulate the economy. Yet investments in sectors such as renewable energy and public infrastructure have demonstrated more consistent returns and broader societal benefits.

The review claims that the defence strategy will support 400,000 UK jobs, including 25,000 in Scotland. While job creation is vital, the number, quality and sustainability of these jobs warrant scrutiny. There is likely to be a net loss of jobs as a result of shifting funding from other sectors. Analysis for the Scottish government showed that military spending has one of the lowest “employment multipliers” of all economic categories, ranking 70 out of 100 in terms of numbers of jobs generated. Much of the defence spending will probably be on weaponry from the US.

Furthermore, recent research is clearly showing that global boosts in defence spending will worsen the climate crisis. A 2020 report by Scientists for Global Responsibility and Declassified UK found that the UK military-industrial sector already produces greater quantities of carbon emissions than 60 countries. While the Ministry of Defence acknowledges the environmental impacts of its operations, its proposed solutions, particularly increased biofuel and nuclear, even where lower in carbon emissions, still threaten ecosystems, biodiversity and human health. In the light of these concerns, it’s imperative to consider alternative strategies that prioritise human security and sustainable development.

A group of academics, trade unionists and campaign groups has drafted an alternative defence review, a civil society response to the government’s SDR. We call for a radical break with successive UK governments’ failed security and defence policies, which distort Britain’s national priorities, fuel global instability, undermine international law, harm the environment and divert investment from public services and social infrastructure towards subsidies for the global arms industry. Our ADR suggests that most of this increased spending appears to be linked to policy influence by international arms companies.

By reallocating resources towards healthcare, education and climate resilience, the UK can address immediate domestic challenges while contributing to global stability. Such an approach not only enhances national security but fosters economic growth through the creation of sustainable jobs and industries.

The strategic defence review presents an opportunity to redefine the UK’s security priorities. However, by focusing predominantly on military expansion, it risks neglecting the pressing needs of its citizens and repeating past procurement failures. It’s time for the UK to embrace a holistic security strategy that truly addresses the challenges of the 21st century.

  • Karen Bell is professor of social and environmental justice at the University of Glasgow. Richard Norton-Taylor, a former Guardian security editor and now contributor to Declassified UK, also contributed to this article

June 5, 2025 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Scots aren’t having our voices heard – nuclear is one such case study

English Labour are pushing for more nuclear because they’re funded by the industry. The industry expects a return.

Leah Gunn Barrett, The National 1st June 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25205426.scots-arent-voices-heard—nuclear-one-case-study/

ON May 1, a public meeting was held in Dunbar. It was attended by 28 people, mostly retired workers from the nearby Torness nuclear power plant.

It was organised by Britain Remade, a lobby group headed by former Tory spad Sam Richards. He described Britain Remade as a “cross-party campaigning group” that believes in economic growth and building infrastructure.

Britain Remade’s campaign, “New Scottish Nuclear Power”, aims to reverse Scotland’s ban on new nuclear power.

Also present were councillor Norman Hampshire, the leader of East Lothian Council (ELC) and chair of the planning committee, and Labour MSP for South Scotland Martin Whitfield.

Sellafield is the site of Europe’s worst nuclear accident – the 1957 Windscale fire, that led to the atmospheric dispersion of radioactive materials throughout England, Wales and northern Europe. Sellafield has been a nuclear waste dump since 1959 and has been called Europe’s most toxic nuclear site, a “bottomless pit of hell, money and despair”. It’s a reason Scotland has been dubbed the “cancer capital of the world”.

That’s a hell of a track record.

Richards blamed high electricity bills on the UK’s failure to build more nuclear plants, claiming nuclear was the reason France had lower bills. Wrong. Nuclear power has never been economic. It requires government subsidies and there’s no solution for radioactive waste disposal. French energy bills are lower because France didn’t privatise its energy and thus retained the ability to cap costs. The French government owns 100% of Électricité de France (EDF), which runs the Torness plant and the UK’s four other operating nuclear plants.

EDF should be showing far more concern about the safety of its UK plants. The Torness reactor has 46 cracks in its core which the ONR (Office for Nuclear Regulation) said could lead to a reactor meltdown and the release of radiation into the environment. EDF has extended the life of the plant to 2030.

Britain Remade’s goal is to get the ban on nuclear lifted and to use the Torness site for new nuclear plants.

Whitfield trotted out two pro-nuclear talking points, both of which are easily refuted:

1. Nuclear power doesn’t increase CO2.

Not so. There are carbon emissions from mining, transporting and processing uranium, from constructing power plants and from transporting radioactive waste to places like Sellafield. By contrast, renewable energy doesn’t increase CO2, there’s no mining required or toxic waste to dispose of, and Scotland is bursting with renewables.

2. Nuclear power creates skilled jobs for life.

The renewables industry also creates skilled jobs for life without shortening it – in engineering, project management, data analysis and renewable energy technologies – and doesn’t endanger the health of workers or the local community.

Councillor Hampshire, who worked at Torness, said that although he “had to support renewables”, nuclear is needed for baseload power, which is the minimum power level on the grid.

Wrong again. Baseload power can be provided by any mix of generators, including variable wind and solar, if constant backup sources like tidal are provided. Furthermore, nuclear can’t be easily switched off, so when it’s present on the grid, much cheaper renewables are limited, which raises costs to the consumer.

Nonetheless, councillor Hampshire said he was lobbying hard for more nuclear power. He wants two Rolls-Royce SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) at the Torness site, claiming they’re cheaper and quicker to build and said that many SNP MSPs support him.

I wrote about SMRs in February, showing they are more expensive than and just as dangerous as large nuclear reactors; will generate more radioactive waste and will turn communities into de facto long-term nuclear waste disposal sites.

Only two SMRs are operating in the world – in Russia and China. Both are performing at less than 30% capacity and have been plagued by cost and time overruns. According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, these problems “make it even less likely that SMRs will become commercialised.”

Despite these facts, councillor Hampshire vows to include SMRs in the next ELC Local Development Plan. We were told that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes to ensure Torness remains an active nuclear site – with the UK having to import energy, otherwise.

During the Q&A, Whitfield was asked what it would take to change Scotland’s position. He replied “a change of government” and questioned whether Scotland has the authority to ban nuclear power since energy policy is reserved to the UK. It does because the Scotland Act 1998 devolves planning to Scotland.

Nevertheless, Whitfield said this could and would be tested through the courts, although he later clarified there were no definite plans to mount a legal challenge to Scotland’s authority to ban new nuclear power.

English Labour are pushing for more nuclear because they’re funded by the industry. The industry expects a return.

Nuclear power is another issue crying out for direct democracy, where the Scottish people – not special interests who are in bed with the politicians – have the power to decide via a referendum whether they want it or not. There are many other issues, local and national, over which the Scottish people have no control – pylons in the Highlands, corporate tax haven “freeports”, the closures of Ardrossan Harbour and Grangemouth, the Loch Lomond Flamingo Land development, to name just a few.

If we’re to stop special interests always crushing the interests of the people, we must demand our international human rights. That’s why Respect Scottish Sovereignty (RSS) is urging as many as possible to sign PE2135, to enact the Direct Democracy/Self-Determination Covenant (ICCPR) into Scots law.

June 5, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

UK government has already allocated £6.4bn to the Sizewell C nuclear project!

 The Sizewell C Development Expenditure Subsidy Scheme (DEVEX Scheme) has
been made for £5.5bn for the Sizewell C company. Under this scheme to
date, £3.9bn has been awarded to the company, in two tranches, one of
£1.2bn and one of £2.7bn. Prior to these awards, the Department had
awarded £2.5bn to the project since the Government Investment Decision in
November 2022 under the SZC Investment Funding Scheme. Hence, in total, the
Department has to date allocated £6.4bn to the project under both subsidy
scheme.

 Hansard 2nd June 2025

UIN 54121, tabled on 21 May 2025
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-05-21/54121

June 5, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C nuclear project to get go-ahead during Anglo-French summit 

UK ministers hope to sign up private sector investors for new Suffolk power
plant later this month. The new Sizewell C nuclear power station is
expected to get the final go-ahead during an Anglo-French summit in London
next month, as UK ministers edge towards securing billions of investment
from the private sector.

Darren Jones, a Treasury minister, told the
Financial Times earlier this year that the final investment decision for
Sizewell C, where shareholders formally commit to the investment, would be
“at the spending review” on June 11. Ministers are expected to reaffirm
the government’s intention to invest in Sizewell in or around the
spending review, according to people close to the situation, with details
expected on how much they could allocate in taxpayer support for the
project.

However, the final go-ahead is not expected until an announcement
by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron
during the Franco-British summit in London between July 8 and July 10,
according to people close to the talks in Britain and France. By then the
government and EDF will have received final bids from several private
investors who have been given a deadline of late June, allowing the formal
final investment decision to proceed.

Groups expected to bid for a stake in
Sizewell include insurer Rothesay, backed by the Singaporean infrastructure
fund GIC, the Canadian pension fund CDPQ, Amber Infrastructure Partners,
Brookfield Asset Management, pension fund USS, Schroders Greencoat and
Equitix, people close to the talks have said. Centrica, the owner of
British Gas, has also confirmed that it is in talks to invest in the
project.

 FT 3rd June 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/25927b63-6ce5-4964-b8df-086c010148f8

June 5, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Why we should worry about nuclear weapons again

Washington Post , by Jon B. Wolfsthal, Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda,3 June 25

The Cold War prospect of global annihilation has faded from consciousness, but the warheads remain.

ver the past 30 years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the prospect of nuclear war has faded from the American consciousness. With the end of the Cold War, films depicting the last days of humanity, such as 1959’s “On the Beach,” or the 1983 TV drama “The Day After,” largely disappeared from the Hollywood playbook. Schoolchildren no longer hid under their desks during practice drills to survive nuclear war.

But the weapons never went away. While thousands were scrapped and nuclear inventories were significantly reduced, many other weapons were put into storage and still thousands more remain deployed, ready for use.

Now, they and the dangers they pose are making a comeback.

The last nuclear age was defined by two superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — poised to destroy one another in less than an hour. They both kept nuclear weapons locked and loaded to deter the other by threatening retaliation and certain destruction.

Today’s global nuclear landscape is far more complicated and, in many ways, more precarious. More countries and more advanced technologies are involved. Weapons can fly farther, faster, from more places. Information, accurate or false, can move even more quickly. Autocrats and extremists hold positions of power in nuclear-armed countries. Nuclear threats, once taboo, are now increasingly common. And the last nuclear arms control treaty still in force between Russia and the United States expires in February.

Many of the most dangerous ideas from the Cold War are being resurrected: lower-yield weapons to fight “limited” nuclear wars; blockbuster missiles that could destroy multiple targets at once; the redeploying of a whole class of missiles once banned and destroyed by treaty. On top of this, countries are testing new ways to deliver these weapons, including nuclear-powered cruise missiles that can fly for days before hitting their targets; underwater unmanned nuclear torpedoes; fast-flying, maneuverable glide vehicles that can evade defenses; and nuclear weapons in space that can attack satellites or targets on Earth without warning.

Our organization, the Federation of American Scientists, was created by the same people who invented the atomic bomb at Los Alamos to ensure that when policy was made, it was informed by science and technical facts. For 80 years, we have sought to promote public accountability and transparency about nuclear arsenals. Relying only on unclassified information, including satellite imagery and government data, we maintain the world’s most accurate publicly available estimates of the world’s nuclear arsenals.  Now that the nuclear threat has roared back to life, we believe it is our responsibility to provide accurate, nonpartisan information to help reduce the risk of nuclear disaster. We underestimate that risk at our collective peril.

“At this moment in human history,” the Nobel Committee said in announcing last year’s Peace Prize, “it is worth reminding ourselves what nuclear weapons are: the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen.” The prize went to Nihon Hidankyo, an association of survivors of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 — the only time nuclear weapons have ever been used in wartime.

The numbers

Nine nations now have nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, Britain, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Together, they possess more than 12,200 nuclear warheads, located at approximately 120 sites in 14 countries. More than 9,500 are militarily active or deployed, ready for use. Roughly 2,100 of those are on high alert and can be launched in minutes and reach any point on the planet in less than half an hour.

Russia and the U.S. have long been the dominant nuclear powers. Today, nearly 90 percent of all warheads belong to them…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The total power of the warheads in the nine nuclear-armed states is an inconceivable destructive force: equivalent to more than 4.8 trillion pounds of TNT — or more than 145,000 Hiroshima bombs. A single U.S. strategic submarine can carry enough warheads to destroy any country, and detonation of a few hundred weapons could propel enough dust and soot into the air to block sunshine, cool the atmosphere and halt crops from growing — “nuclear winter.” Such a sequence of events would lead to worldwide famine.

In her 2024 bestseller, “Nuclear War: A Scenario,” Annie Jacobsen draws on scientific research to describe a postapocalyptic world in which cities and forests burn, temperatures plunge, lakes and rivers freeze, crops and farm animals die, toxic chemicals poison the air, people succumb to radiation poisoning or disease. “Only time will tell if we humans will survive,” she writes.

Everyone makes mistakes

The next nuclear age will bring severe new tests. Without restraint, nations will be building ever more nuclear weapons, and the chances of mistakes or miscalculations will grow.

and the chances of mistakes or miscalculations will grow.

Each of the nine countries’ leaders and the systems they use to control nuclear weapons will have to get every decision right every time. Deterrence theory relies on the assumption that decision-makers are rational actors…………………………………………………

Time to wake up………………………………..

The future…………………

Without working treaties, legal limits or a mutual agreement to cap their forces, both the United States and Russia could double their deployed nuclear arsenals in a year or two without building a single new weapon. Each country could simply move several hundred warheads out of storage and redeploy them on missiles, bombers and submarines. ……………………..

While buildups proceed, nations are becoming more secretive about their nuclear weapons. During the first Trump administration, the U.S. reversed nearly a decade of transparency measures and refused to declassify the size of the American nuclear stockpile — a previously annual practice during Barack Obama’s administration. Britain immediately followed suit, in a highly out-of-character move from one of the most transparent nuclear-armed states. Our organization advocated that the Biden administration declassify its arsenal numbers, which it did in 2024 — a practice Trump will undoubtedly roll back.

………………………………………………………………………..Surviving this new nuclear age will require the constant and informed attention of leaders, policymakers and engaged citizens alike. 

………………………..In the early 1980s, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Europe and the United States to demand a nuclear freeze. These mass movements, coupled with the vision of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, ended the last arms race.

Without renewed public pressure or political will, the world is condemned to live under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. We deserve better. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2025/us-russia-nuclear-weapons-proliferation-danger/

June 5, 2025 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Kremlin and Trump aides raise nuclear war fears after Ukraine drone strike

Vladimir Putin has warned Russia will respond to Kyiv’s attacks on nuclear-capable aircraft at airfields

Andrew Roth in Washington, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/04/ukraine-russia-nuclear-war-fears

As Vladimir Putin pledges to retaliate against Ukraine for last weekend’s unprecedented drone attack, Kremlin advisers and figures around Donald Trump have told the US president that the risk of a nuclear confrontation is growing, in an attempt to pressure him to further reduce US support for Ukraine.

Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and an important intermediary between the Kremlin and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, called the Ukrainian drone strike an attack on “Russian nuclear assets”, and echoed remarks from Maga-friendly figures warning of the potential for a third world war.

“Clear communication is urgent – to grasp reality and the rising risks before it’s too late,” Dmitriev wrote, adding a dove emoji.

Ukraine claimed that the strike damaged more than 40 Russian planes, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M heavy bombers that have been used to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities throughout the war, killing thousands and damaging crucial infrastructure that delivers heat and electricity to millions more.

But those planes can also carry weapons armed with nuclear warheads, and are part of a nuclear triad along with submarine and silo-based missiles that form the basis for a system of deterrence between Russia and the United States.

After a phone call between the two leaders on Wednesday, Trump said: “President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.”

Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994, in return for security assurances from the US, the UK and Russia.

Those skeptical of US support for Ukraine are seizing on the risks of a nuclear confrontation to argue that the conflict could possibly spin out of control.

Maga (Make America great again) influencers such as Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk have openly condemned the drone attack, with Bannon likening the strike to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and Kirk writing: “Most people aren’t paying attention, but we’re closer to nuclear war than we’ve been since this began in 2022.”

But more centrist advisers within the Trump camp – including some who have closer links to Ukraine – are also warning that the risks of a nuclear conflict are growing as they seek to maintain Trump’s interest in brokering a peace.

“The risk levels are going way up,” Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy for Ukraine and Russia, told Fox News. “When you attack an opponent’s part of their [nuclear] triad, your risk level goes up because you don’t know what the other side is going to do. And that’s what they did.”

Kellogg also repeated rumours that Ukraine had struck the Russian nuclear fleet at Severomorsk, although reports of an explosion there have not been confirmed. He said the US was “trying to avoid” an escalation.

Other current and former members of the administration skeptical of US support for Ukraine have also vocally opposed the drone strikes.

“It is not in America’s interest for Ukraine to be attacking Russia’s strategic nuclear forces the day before another round of peace talks,” said Dan Caldwell, an influential foreign policy adviser who was a senior aide to Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon until he was purged amid a leaking scandal last month.

“This has the potential to be highly escalatory and raises the risk of direct confrontation between Russia and Nato,” he said. “US should not only distance itself from this attack but end any support that could directly or indirectly enable attacks against Russian strategic nuclear forces.”

It is not the first time that concerns over Russia’s use of a nuclear weapon have been used to try to temper US support for Ukraine.

As Moscow’s forces were routed near Kharkiv and in the south at Kherson in September 2022, Russian officials sent signals that the Kremlin was considering using a battlefield nuclear weapon, senior Biden officials have said.

National security officials said they believed that if the Russian lines collapsed and left open the potential for a Ukrainian attack on Crimea, then there was a 50% chance that Russia would use a nuclear weapon as a result.

Ukrainian officials have responded by saying that Russia has embellished its threats of a nuclear attack in order to blackmail the US from giving greater support to Ukraine.

June 5, 2025 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Truce or trap? Ukraine makes sure peace talks go nowhere

Any progress towards a settlement will be incremental, slow and painful

Jun 2, 2025 By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

On Sunday, in the Russian regions of Bryansk and Kursk, both bordering Ukraine, bridges collapsed on and under trains, killing seven and injuring dozens of civilians. These, however, were no accidents and no extraordinary force of nature was involved either. Instead, it is certain that these catastrophes were acts of sabotage, which is also how Russian authorities are classifying them. Since it is virtually certain that the perpetrators acted on behalf of Kiev, Western media have hardly reported these attacks. Moscow meanwhile rightly considers these attacks terrorism.

On the same day, Ukraine also carried out a wave of drone attacks on important Russian military airfields. That story, trumpeted as a great success by Ukraine’s SBU intelligence service, has been touted in the West. The usual diehard Western bellicists, long starved of good news, have pounced on Ukraine’s probably exaggerated account of these assaults to fantasize once more about how Ukraine has “genius,” while Russia is “vulnerable” and really almost defeated. Despair makes imaginative. In the wrong way.

The reality of Ukraine’s drone strikes on the airfields is not entirely clear yet. What is certain is that Ukraine targeted locations in five regions, including in northern and central Russia as well as Siberia and the Far East. Kiev’s drone swarms were launched not from Ukraine but from inside Russia, using subterfuge and civilian trucks. Under International Humanitarian War (aka the Law of Armed Conflict), this is likely to constitute not a legitimate “ruse of war” but the war crime of perfidy, a rather obvious point somehow never mentioned in Western commentary.

Yet at least, in this instance the targets were military: This was either an act of special-ops sabotage involving a war crime (the most generous possible reading) or plain terrorism or both, depending on your point of view. Three of the attacked airbases, it seems, successfully fended off the Ukrainian first-person-view kamikaze drones. In two locations, enough drones got through to cause what appears to be substantial damage.

Ukrainian officials and, therefore, Western mainstream media claim that more than 40 Russian aircraft were destroyed, including large strategic bombers and an early-warning-and-control aircraft. Official Russian sources have admitted losses but not detailed them. Russian military bloggers, often well-informed, have quoted much lower figures (“in the single digits,” thirteen), while noting that even they still constitute a “tragic loss,” especially as Russia does not make these types of aircraft anymore.

In financial terms, Ukrainian officials claim that they have inflicted the equivalent of “at least 2 billion” dollars in damage. Even if it should turn out that they have been less effective than that, there can be little doubt that, on this occasion, Kiev has achieved a lot of bang for the buck: even if “Operation Spiderweb” took a long time to prepare and involved various resources, including a warehouse, trucks, and the cheap drones themselves, it is certain that Kiev’s expenses must have been much less than Moscow’s losses.

In political terms, Russia’s vibrant social media-based sphere of military-political commentators has revealed a sense of appalled shock and anger, and not only at Kiev but also at Russian officials and officers accused of still not taking seriously the threat of Ukrainian strikes even deep inside Russia. One important Telegram “mil-blogger” let his readers know that he would welcome dismissals among the air force command. But he also felt that the weak spots exploited by Kiev’s sneak drone attack have systemic reasons. Another very popular mil-blogger has written of “criminal negligence.”    

Whatever the eventual Russian political fall-out of these Ukrainian attacks, beware Western commentators’ incorrigible tendency to overestimate it. German newspaper Welt, for instance, is hyperventilating about the attack’s “monumental significance.” In reality, with all the frustration inside Russia, this incident will not shake the government or even dent its ability to wage the war.

Probably, its real net effect will be to support the mobilization of Russia. Remember that Wagner revolt that saw exactly the same Western commentators predicting the imminent implosion not merely of the Russian government but the whole country? You don’t? Exactly.

In the case of the terrorist attacks on civilian trains, the consequences are even easier to predict. They will definitely only harden Moscow’s resolve and that of almost all Russians, elite and “ordinary.” With both types of attacks, on the military airfields and on the civilian trains, the same puzzling question arises: What is Kiev even trying to do here?

At this point, we can only speculate. My guess: Kiev’s rather desperate regime was after four things:

First, a propaganda success for domestic consumption. Given that Zelensky’s Ukraine is a de facto authoritarian state with obedient media, this may actually work, for a moment. Until, that is, the tragedy of mobilization, all too often forced, for a losing proxy war on behalf of a fairly demented West, sinks in again, that is, in a day or so.

Second, with its combination of atrocities against civilians and an assault on Russia’s nuclear defenses, this was Kiev’s umpteenth attempt to provoke Russia into a response so harsh that it would escalate the war to a direct clash between NATO (now probably minus the US) and Russia. This is a Ukrainian tactic as old as this war, if not older. Call it the attack’s routine aspect. Equally routinely, that plan went nowhere. 

Then there was the attempt to torpedo the second round of the revived Istanbul talks, scheduled for Monday, 2 June, by provoking Russia to cancel or launch such a rapid and fierce retaliation strike that Kiev could have used it as a pretext to do the same. That is, as it were, the tactical dimension, and it also failed.

While the above is devious, it is also run-of-the-mill. States will be states, sigh. The fourth likely purpose of Kiev’s wave of sabotage and terror strikes – the strategic aspect, as it were – however, is much more disturbing: The Zelensky regime – and at least some of its Western backers (my guess: Britain in the lead) – are signaling that they are ready to wage a prolonged campaign of escalating terrorist attacks inside Russia, even if the fighting in Ukraine should end. Think of the Chechen Wars, but much worse again. This, too, would not succeed. One lesson of the Chechen Wars is precisely that Moscow has made up its mind not to bend to terrorism but instead eliminate its source, whatever the cost.

Regarding those Istanbul talks, they have taken place. Ukraine was not able to make Russia abandon them. Otherwise, the results of this second round of the second attempt at peace in Istanbul seem to have been very modest, as many observers predicted. Kiev, while losing, did its usual grimly comedic thing and offered Moscow a chance to surrender. Moscow handed over its terms in turn; and they have not changed and reflect that it is winning the war. Kiev has promised to study them.

Given that the gap between Ukrainian delusions and Russian demands seems unbridgeable at this point, even a large-scale ceasefire is out of reach. And that may be, after all, what both the Zelensky regime and its European backers want. As to Moscow, it has long made clear that it will fight until it reaches its war aims. In that sense, the new talks confirmed what the attacks had signaled already: peace is not in sight.

Russia’s chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky did, however, offer smaller, local ceasefires of “two to three days” that, he explained, would serve to retrieve the bodies of the fallen for decent burial. In the same spirit, Russia has committed to hand over 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers and officers.

There was something for the living as well: more prisoner exchanges, for those severely ill or injured as well as for the young, have been agreed. Figures are not clear yet, but the fact that they will take place on an “all-for-all” basis reflects a Russian gesture of good will.

Finally, Medinsky also revealed that the Ukrainian side handed over a list of 339 children that Russia has evacuated from the war zone. He promised that, as in previous cases, Russian officials will trace them and do their best to return the children to Ukraine. Medinsky pointed out that the number of children on Kiev’s list massively contradicts Ukrainian and Western stories – as well as lawfare – about an immense, “genocidal” Russian kidnapping operation.

In that sense, the talks at least helped to deflate an old piece of Western information war. Perhaps that is all that is possible for now: truly incremental humanitarian progress and a very gradual, very slow working toward a more reasonable manner of talking to each other. Better than nothing. But that’s a low bar, admittedly. 

June 5, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

  Lincolnshire will not be used to store nuclear waste after the county council voted to withdraw from the process. 


 BBC 3rd June 2025

“People haven’t been able to sell their houses, to do whatever they want to do, to move on with their lives, so we are delighted they now can.”

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), a government body, had earmarked an area near Louth, in East Lindsey, as a possible site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).

Speaking after the vote to end the talks, council leader Sean Matthews said communities had been subjected to years of “distress and uncertainty”.

NWS said it would take “immediate steps” to close down the consultation.

NWS originally earmarked the former Theddlethorpe gas terminal site, near Mablethorpe, for a storage facility.

A community partnership group was formed to open talks with local communities and councils.

The government body later announced it had moved the proposed location to land between Gayton le Marsh and Great Carlton.

Lincolnshire County Council today voted to follow East Lindsey District Council’s decision to quit the partnership group.

It means that the project cannot progress in Lincolnshire because it does not have the required “community consent”.

‘Treated appallingly’

Matthews, who represents Reform UK, said the authority’s former Conservative administration should “hang its head in shame” for allowing the process to continue for four years.

“I would like to apologise to the communities who have been treated appallingly,” he said.

However, Conservative opposition leader Richard Davies said his party had “always listened to the community” and “led the charge to say no”.

Mike Crooks, from the Guardians of the East Coast pressure group, which was set up to oppose the project, said the wait for a decision had left people “unable to go on with their lives”.

“People haven’t been able to sell their houses, to do whatever they want to do, to move on with their lives, so we are delighted they now can.”

In a statement, Simon Hughes, NWS siting and communities director, said it had granted £2m to support local community projects which had “left a lasting positive legacy”.

Analysis by Paul Murphy, BBC East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Environment Correspondent.

For the sleepy coastal village of Theddlethorpe, the four year-long “conversation” about the disposal of radioactive material has been a source of anger, distress and bewilderment…………………………………………………………..

That strong opposition grew, despite the promise from NWS of millions of pounds of investment, skilled jobs and transformative road and rail infrastructure.

Questions are being asked about how and why it took the county and district councils so long to reject the proposals when public opposition was being so powerfully expressed.

A similar nuclear disposal plan for East Yorkshire provoked similar furore and was kicked out by the local authority after just 28 days of public consultation.

The prospect of an underground nuclear disposal site in Lincolnshire appears to be dead and buried – unlike the UK’s growing pile of toxic waste from nuclear power stations.

The problem of finding a permanent and safe home for this deadly material is no longer Lincolnshire’s issue, but it hasn’t gone away. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce81471p313o

June 5, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Trump’s huge military budget will accelerate U.S. economic decay

May 30, 2025 Gary Wilson, Struggle La Lucha

President Donald Trump delivered a rally-style commencement speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on May 24, aggressively promoting militarism, nationalism, and his ongoing attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as well as transgender rights.

Addressing the graduating cadets, Trump glorified the U.S. military as “the greatest and most powerful army the world has ever known,” claiming personal credit for its expansion during his first term.

“I rebuilt the army and the military like nobody has ever rebuilt it before,” Trump boasted, putting military power at the center of U.S. global dominance.

Trump intensified his militaristic agenda: “We’re getting rid of the distractions and focusing our military on its core mission: crushing America’s adversaries, killing America’s enemies, and defending our great American flag.”

Trump said that’s why the U.S. will invest in new tanks, planes, drones, ships, and missiles. In addition, the U.S. will build the Golden Dome Missile Defense Shield, which has been described as a $175 billion fantasy and a boondoggle for Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

He also praised recent reactionary policies designed to dismantle DEI programs in the armed forces. 

The Trump administration has moved to ban trans troops from the military — a decision the Supreme Court upheld earlier this month. Trump’s policies have reintroduced a discriminatory ban on transgender military personnel and imposed new uniform physical standards aimed at severely limiting women’s participation in combat roles.

Unprecedented military expansion

On May 2, Trump released his budget request for 2026, dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Over 75% of Trump’s budget is allocated for the military and police.

In the budget proposal, military spending is $1.01 trillion, accounting for approximately 60% of the total requested. For the non-military Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Veterans Affairs, the request is $272.2 billion.

Funding for departments whose primary purpose isn’t military, military-adjacent, or policing is $409 billion, or only 24% of the budget. 

The proposal includes $163 billion in federal spending cuts, all of which target non-defense programs. For a breakdown of the cuts, see: Trump’s ‘big beautiful’ cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and more.

Military Keynesianism 

Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have argued that increased military spending and the production of armaments will reindustrialize the country and create jobs, using this rationale to justify historically large Pentagon budgets. And completely ignoring that military expansion is not, in any way, shape, or form, reindustrialization.

Trump has explicitly said it would provide unmatched military strength and support job creation through the purchase of new equipment and capabilities, mirroring the arguments made by Democrats, including Biden, about the economic benefits of Pentagon budgets.

The Biden administration promoted the jobs argument, especially when seeking support for military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Biden described the U.S. arms industry as the “arsenal of democracy,” emphasizing the economic benefits to states involved in weapons production.

Military Keynesianism is an economic policy approach that advocates for sustained, high levels of military spending as a primary tool for government stimulus and economic growth, based on the core principles of Keynesian economics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2025/05/30/trumps-big-beautiful-budget-military-spending-soars-accelerating-u-s-economic-decay/

June 5, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment