2025 June 22 « nuclear-news

Trump Has Bombed Iran. What Happens Next Is His Fault.

Caitlin Johnstone, Jun 22, 2025,https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/trump-has-bombed-iran-what-happens?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=166504460&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The US military has bombed multiple Iranian nuclear sites on the orders of President Trump, immediately putting tens of thousands of US military personnel in the region at risk of an Iranian retaliation which can then escalate to full-scale war.

Earlier this month Iran’s Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh explicitly warned the United States that a direct US attack would result in Tehran ordering strikes on US bases in the middle east, saying “all US bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them in host countries.”

In the lead-up to Trump’s act of war on Iran, the president told the press that an attack on American troops will mean a harsh response from the US, saying, “We’ll come down so hard if they do anything to our people. We’ll come down so hard. The gloves are off. I think they know not to touch our troops.”

Trump reiterated this threat to Iran in his announcement of the US attack today.

“There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” Trump said. “Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”

So you can see how we might already be on our way toward a war of nightmarish proportions as a result of the president’s unprovoked act of aggression. Tehran now has to choose between reestablishing deterrence with extreme aggression or opening the floodgates to a whole host of existential threats from both outside and inside the country. Add to that the possibility of Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz and the fact that Iran has now been strongly incentivized to actually obtain a nuclear weapon, and it looks very likely that we are plunging into a situation that could unfold in any number of horrific ways.

Right now American political discourse is rife with the narrative that the US has been “dragged” into Israel’s war, which I reject entirely. Every step of the way this entire thing has been signed off on by US leadership. We are at this point because Trump and his regime knowingly chose to take us here.

US troops within reach of Iran’s missiles are reportedly being briefed that they can expect to be on the receiving end of retaliatory strikes in the coming days.

Again, Iran explicitly warned it would attack the US military if the US military did the thing it just did. If and when these retaliatory strikes come, the warmongers will try to argue that this is a valid reason to escalate this war. They will be lying. They chose to make this happen.

Whatever transpires from this point on is the fault of Donald Trump and the unelected thugs he listens to. If US troops are killed, the war sluts in Washington and the Pentagon propagandists in the press will list their names and bandy about their photos and demand that their deaths be avenged with further acts of war — but it will not be Iran’s fault that they died.

It will be Trump’s fault. It will be the fault of everyone whose decisions led up to bombs being dropped on Iranian energy infrastructure, and the fault of everyone who put those soldiers in harm’s way.

None of this needed to happen. Iran was at the negotiating table. The Iran deal was working fine before Trump shredded it to put us on this terrible trajectory. The warmongers artificially manufactured this situation and knowingly inflicted this horror upon our world.

I am really not looking forward to all the melodramatic victim-LARPing if and when Iran kills US military personnel stationed in west Asia. The US is the only nation on earth that can rival Israel in its ability to play the victim when the ball they’ve thrown at the wall bounces back.

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Reference, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear power plant warning as heatwave hits France.

Independent Forrest Crellin, Friday 20 June 2025

France’s electricity supply faces potential disruption as soaring river temperatures, driven by an impending heatwave, threaten to curtail nuclear power generation along the Rhone.

Nuclear operator EDF announced on Friday that high water temperatures are expected to impact electricity production from 25 June, particularly at the 3.6-gigawatt Bugey nuclear power plant in eastern France.

This marks the first such warning for high river temperatures in France for 2025.

The issue stems from environmental regulations governing the discharge of cooling water, which can be breached when river temperatures become excessively high due to heatwave conditions.

The alert comes as state forecaster Meteo France predicts a significant heatwave will sweep across the country this weekend.

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, France | Leave a comment

Ted Cruz Suggests US Is Involved in Israeli Strikes on Iran, Despite US Denials

“We are carrying out military strikes today,” Senator Cruz said in an interview.

By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, June 18, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/ted-cruz-suggests-us-is-involved-in-israeli-strikes-on-iran-despite-us-denials/

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was caught stumbling to answer basic questions about Iran and the U.S.’s role in Israel’s war in an eye-opening interview airing Wednesday, despite his full-throated support for overthrowing the Iranian government and deeper U.S. involvement in the fighting.

In clips of the interview with far right provocateur Tucker Carlson posted on social media on Tuesday, the senator alarmingly suggests that the U.S. is, in fact, already heavily involved in Israel’s strikes on Iran.

“We are carrying out military strikes today,” Cruz said. “I said we — Israel is leading them, but we’re supporting them.”

This directly contradicts what federal officials have said about the U.S.’s involvement. The State Department has said that Israel’s strikes are “unilateral,” and directed all embassies and consular posts to reiterate that claim in a cable, CBS reported on Sunday. The cable instructed officials to emphasize to their respective host governments that the U.S. “is not involved in Israel’s unilateral action against targets in Iran and did not provide tanker support.”

This position has not changed in recent days, as the strikes have intensified and President Donald Trump openly mulls becoming more deeply involved in the war. Numerous Trump administration spokespeople claimed on Tuesday that any reports of the U.S. participating in Israeli strikes in Iran are “not true.”

“American forces are maintaining their defensive posture, and that has not changed. We will defend American interests,” said spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer on Tuesday.

The U.S. military is already involved in the conflict. Officials have been open about the U.S.’s defensive positions in helping to strike down missiles fired at Israel.

However, direct U.S. involvement in conducting strikes on Iran, as Cruz suggests is happening, would be a major escalation of the war. Cruz’s statements potentially suggest that the U.S. is actually directly aiding in the bombings, as the Senate is privy to classified information about the military not available to the public.

“You’re breaking news here,” said Carlson. “This is high stakes, you’re a senator. If you’re saying the United States government is at war with Iran right now, people are listening!”

It’s possible that Cruz is suggesting deeper U.S. involvement to push the Trump administration into striking Iran, as many conservative lawmakers have done in recent days — in hopes of pushing the dangerous pipe dream of regime change in Iran.

“I think it is very much in the interest of America to see regime change,” Cruz told Fox News on Sunday. “I don’t think there’s any redeeming the ayatollah.”

Despite his confidence that he could install a better government in Iran, earlier in the interview, Cruz is caught unable to even name basic facts about Iran’s population.

“I don’t know the population,” Cruz says.

“You don’t know the population of the country you seek to topple?” Carlson asks, incredulously. “How could you not know that?”

In a follow up, Carlson says, “okay, what’s the ethnic mix of Iran?”

Cruz hesitates, then says, “they are Persians, and predominantly Shia,” he says, tellingly naming a religious sect rather than an ethnicity. When Carlson asks what proportion of the population is Persian, Cruz becomes incensed.

“I’m not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran,” Cruz says sarcastically, his voice raised.

“You’re a senator who’s calling for the overthrow of the government!” Carlson exclaims in response.

The exchange highlights a rift among the right over the U.S.’s role in the Middle East. Carlson’s interview circulated widely online for exposing Cruz’s blasé ignorance of the country he wants to wage war against.

However, Carlson, who has consistently allied with white supremacists, himself owes much of his career to the figures who peddled the lies that led to the Iraq War. Early on, Carlson was a proponent of the U.S.’s invasion, and only changed his mind later because of racist beliefs that Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t “worth invading” because “the people aren’t civilized.”

This is, as commentators have noted, a drastically different approach to anti-interventionism from the left’s anti-war and anti-imperialist foundations. And yet, Carlson’s interview caught attention online as the right has sought to capitalize on genuine anti-war sentiment among the public that’s been completely dismissed by the Democratic Party.

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel’s attacks on Iran?

By Andrew Macaskill, Federico Maccioni and Pesha Magid, June 21, 2025,
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-are-nuclear-contamination-risks-israels-attacks-iran-2025-06-19/

LONDON/DUBAI, June 19 (Reuters) – Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear installations so far pose only limited risks of contamination, experts say. But they warn that any attack on the country’s nuclear power station at Bushehr could cause a nuclear disaster.

Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world’s oil.

Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast – home to Iran’s only nuclear power station – only to say later that the announcement was a mistake.

WHAT HAS ISRAEL HIT SO FAR?

Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one.

The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran.

Israel has also attacked Arak, also known as Khondab.

The IAEA said Israeli military strikes hit the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, which was under construction and had not begun operating, and damaged the nearby plant that makes heavy water. The IAEA said that it was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so there were no radiological effects.

In an update of its assessment on Friday, the IAEA said key buildings at the site were damaged. Heavy-water reactors can be used to produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make an atom bomb.

WHAT RISKS DO THESE STRIKES POSE?

Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far.

He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. “The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that,” he said. “Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments,” he said.

Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle – the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor – pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks.

At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. “When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals,” she said.

The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including the weather, she added. “In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely.”

The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities.

Simon Bennett, who leads the civil safety and security unit at the University of Leicester in the UK, said risks to the environment were minimal if Israel hits subterranean facilities because you are “burying nuclear material in possibly thousands of tonnes of concrete, earth and rock”.

WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR REACTORS?

The major concern would be a strike on Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr.

Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be “mainly a chemical problem” for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors “is a different story”.

Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added.

James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr “could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe”, but that attacks on enrichment facilities were “unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences”.

Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. “The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic … but it actually doesn’t tend to travel large distances and it’s barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel’s attacks have been virtually nil,” he added, while stating his opposition to Israel’s campaign.

Bennett of the University of Leicester said it would be “foolhardy for the Israelis to attack” Bushehr because they could pierce the reactor, which would mean releasing radioactive material into the atmosphere.

WHY ARE GULF STATES ESPECIALLY WORRIED?

For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardizing a critical source of desalinated potable water.

In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities.

Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water.

In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics.

While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline.

“If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly,” said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi’s Water Research Center.

“Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination,” he said.

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, MIDDLE EAST | Leave a comment

Weaponized Stupidity – How Nonsense Became a Strategy of Control

Most people speak to convey meaning. Trump speaks to obliterate it.

If you say something smart, you get a headline. If you say something unhinged, you get the news cycle.

Trump doesn’t need reality. He needs confusion.

Closer to the Edge, Jun 20, 2025, https://www.closertotheedge.net/p/weaponized-stupidity?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3721088&post_id=166334561&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=8cf96&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Weaponized stupidity is not a mistake. It’s not a blunder. It’s not a man fumbling for words or getting lost mid-sentence. It is a system — carefully constructed, viciously effective, and designed to collapse the very idea of shared reality. It is not the absence of intelligence. It is the performance of incoherence, deliberately crafted to overwhelm logic, disarm the listener, and leave nothing standing but power. Donald Trump didn’t stumble into this style. He perfected it. He refined stupidity into a political force multiplier, and he’s been using it to dominate American life like a man attacking a chessboard with a leaf blower.

This is not a speaking style. It’s not charisma. It’s not even lying in the traditional sense. It’s noise deployed at scale — a full-spectrum assault on language itself. He doesn’t say things to be understood. He says them to make understanding feel impossible. His goal is not to persuade, but to wear you down. To batter your brain with so many contradictions, fragments, slogans, and unfinished thoughts that eventually you stop trying to follow the logic and just let the volume carry you. It’s not debate. It’s verbal arson.

He opens his mouth and unleashes a slurry of slogans, invented anecdotes, half-remembered headlines, imaginary phone calls, and personal grievances that contradict themselves before they finish. This is not a glitch. This is the operating system. When Trump speaks, it’s like watching someone argue with a fog machine. By the time you try to fact-check the first sentence, he’s already five tangents deep into blaming Germany for interest rates, praising a guy who may not exist, and claiming a large man cried on a tarmac. None of it makes sense. All of it dominates the room.

That’s the point.

Weaponized stupidity works because it breaks the social contract of communication. Most people speak to convey meaning. Trump speaks to obliterate it. The more incoherent he is, the more difficult it becomes to pin him down, rebut his statements, or even quote him accurately. He becomes impossible to refute — not because he’s right, but because he’s made language itself an unreliable witness.

And it’s not just his supporters who fall for it. The press chases it. The opposition tries to decode it. Cable hosts waste entire segments “breaking it down” like it’s a riddle instead of what it actually is: a bullshit tsunami designed to overwhelm your brain with raw sewage. The more absurd the content, the more media oxygen it sucks up. If you say something smart, you get a headline. If you say something unhinged, you get the news cycle.

The brilliance of the strategy — the real black magic — is that it rewires the audience. It makes people associate clarity with elitism. If someone speaks with precision and intellect, they must be hiding something. But if someone speaks like a drunk uncle trapped in a drive-thru speaker, well, that guy must be “real.” It inverts trust. It turns confusion into proof of authenticity. The dumber it sounds, the more believable it feels.

And it doesn’t just muddy the truth. It exhausts the will to pursue it. The goal isn’t to convince you. It’s to make you give up. When someone contradicts themselves twelve times in sixty seconds, it’s not a debate — it’s a stress test on your mental endurance. Most people tap out. They shrug. They say, “That’s just how he talks.” And in that moment — that shrug, that surrender — he wins. He’s not smarter. He’s just louder, longer, and willing to be more shameless than anyone else in the room.

What makes it so infuriating is that it works. It works on a press trained to pull quotes. It works on a public trained to skim headlines. It works on institutions still pretending we’re operating in a shared reality. But Trump doesn’t need reality. He needs confusion. He needs volume. He needs the kind of language that melts truth into a puddle of vibes, slogans, and Twitter threads arguing about what he “really meant.”

And here’s the final twist of the knife: he’s branded the chaos. He calls it “the weave.” He thinks it’s genius. And in a sick way, it is. Because it’s not just gibberish — it’s tactical gibberish. A Trojan horse of stupidity that carries a payload of unchecked power.

So no, this isn’t harmless. This isn’t just a “different communication style.” This is a weaponized breakdown of language, designed to eliminate the very conditions under which democracy can function. If nothing makes sense, nothing can be challenged. If every sentence is nonsense, there’s no way to hold the speaker accountable. And when people finally stop asking questions — not because they got answers, but because they got tired — then the mission is complete.

This is not mere stupidity. This is stupidity deployed with intent. It’s not a bug. It’s the whole goddamn platform. And unless we start naming it, dragging it into the light, and ripping off its camouflage of “authenticity,” we’re going to keep losing to a man who governs like a malfunctioning game show host and commands like a foghorn with a grudge.

We are not being beaten by brilliance.

We are being beaten by weaponized nonsense delivered at scale.

And if we keep mistaking it for comedy, we’ll laugh all the way into the abyss.

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | culture and arts | Leave a comment

The Guardian view on Israel, the US and Iran: you can’t bomb your way out of nuclear proliferation

19 June 25, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/18/the-guardian-view-on-israel-the-us-and-iran-you-cant-bomb-your-way-out-of-nuclear-proliferation

The age of disarmament is over. But military action only increases the dangers instead of ending the threat.

Eighty years after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 40 years after the US and Soviet Union pledged to reduce their arsenals, the threat of nuclear war has resurged with a vengeance. The age of disarmament is over, a prominent thinktank warned this week: “We see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric and the abandonment of arms control agreements,” said Hans M Kristensen of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The world’s nine nuclear-armed states have amassed the equivalent of 145,000 Hiroshima bombs. Israel’s illegal attack upon Iran is purportedly a last-ditch attempt to prevent it joining this club – as Israel did long ago, though does not admit it. While Tehran possesses the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to, US intelligence believes it has not made that decision – and would still need up to three years to build and deploy one. Israel does not appear to be striking Iran because US nuclear diplomacy has failed, but because it fears it might succeed. Many of its targets are unrelated to the nuclear programme, and some even to Iran’s military. Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly invoked regime change: more honestly, regime collapse.

Few believe Israel can destroy Iran’s nuclear programme without the US. The Israeli prime minister seeks to bait Donald Trump into joining this assault: if he can’t get one of the peace deals he wants, how about taking a military triumph? Mr Trump’s shifting rhetoric has suggested he is being dragged along, to the alarm of Maga isolationists and others who recognise the folly of seeing an easy win. But he may still hope to threaten Iran into a deal.

The bigger threat is nuclear proliferation globally. The remaining US-Russian nuclear arms control treaty, New Start, is due to lapse in February – leaving them without limits on their arsenals for the first time in half a century. Both are already pursuing extensive modernisation programmes. China is still far behind, but its armoury is growing fastest, at around 100 warheads a year. This month’s strategic defence review commits the UK to spending £15bn on new submarine-launched warheads and opens the door to the reintroduction of air-launched nuclear weapons. North Korea appears to be building a third uranium enrichment site. Taboos elsewhere are eroding, in an increasingly unstable world where impunity reigns. Support for an independent deterrent has soared in South Korea, no longer confident of the US umbrella.

Weapons are becoming not only deadlier, but riskier, with the integration of nuclear and conventional capabilities increasing the prospect of miscalculations. And potential flashpoints dot this bleak landscape. Russia has repeatedly talked up the threat of nuclear war in Ukraine – but that does not guarantee it is an empty one. India’s unprecedented use of Brahmos cruise missiles in last month’s clash with Pakistan signals a new and dangerous phase in south Asia’s strategic balance.

https://23436458a8ae2b1172122abeb1b16846.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, coupled with the survival of North Korea, sent the message that the safest course is not to shun weapons of mass destruction but to pursue and cling to them at all costs. Attacking Iran, which limited its programme in exchange for sanctions relief, will only fuel that conviction. It may set back Tehran’s nuclear progress somewhat, but makes it more likely to rush for the bomb – and avoid the international scrutiny it previously accepted. Saudi Arabia and others would surely follow fast. Arab and Muslim countries have rightly denounced Israel’s strikes and called for disarmament “without selectivity”. The current crisis makes that look a more hopeless cause than ever – but is the clearest evidence of why it is needed in place of a nuclear race which can have no winners.

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ford’s nuclear obsession is robbing Ontario of its true clean energy future

Canada’s National Observer Adrienne Tanner, June 19th 2025

Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford just can’t seem to shake his aversion to renewables.

Ford’s new Energy for Generations plan, mapping out energy generation from now to 2050, is laudable for its end goal: to all but end Ontario’s reliance on gas for electricity generation. But its single-minded pursuit of new nuclear power projects is myopic when it comes to solar and wind, the gold standard sources of clean energy.

Ontario is seriously eyeing sites for three even bigger nuclear plants than it already has — “the equivalent of adding about five Darlington Nuclear Generating Stations to the grid,” the report states — with the possibility of even more of them down the road.

As for solar and wind, the plan calls for a modest increase of slightly more than double the small amounts produced now which comprise 11 per cent of Ontario’s power supply. And the clincher: solar and wind will get a boost while nuclear plants are being scaled up, but only for a short while.

Once new nuclear plants are up and running, Ontario actually plans to dial back progress on renewables. It sounds like the province plans to tear down solar installations and wind farms and haul the pieces off to metal recyclers and landfills. And why? On those questions, the plan is silent.

The only hint is a bullseye graphic comparing the amount of land needed for a new nuclear plant compared to the much greater amounts needed to generate the same amount of power from solar or wind. As might be expected from a plan that reads like a pro-nuclear manifesto, there isn’t a single mention of the radioactive waste generated from nuclear power plants and the still-unsolved challenges associated with its disposal.

Like his Alberta counterpart, Premier Danielle Smith, Ford seems almost pathologically opposed to solar and wind energy. From the moment he was elected, Ford made it clear he was not interested in clean technology of any description; he cancelled 750 renewable energy projects, slowed the buildout of electric vehicle charging stations, ended the provincial EV rebate, repeatedly lowered gas taxes and has sided with Enbridge, Ontario’s natural gas provider, at every turn.

He’s budged on EV charging stations recently, probably because failing to build at least some would be a bad look for a province trying to capture EV and battery manufacturing industries. And last year, when it became clear Ontario needed more energy to meet skyrocketing demand, the Ontario government finally opened the door to more solar and wind. Judging by his past record, I would bet that wasn’t Ford’s idea.

…………………………………………. There might be other forces at play causing Ford to favour Big Nuclear over solar and wind. Ford’s government has always been open-minded, shall we say, to the siren songs of business lobbyists, and the nuclear industry is currently in high gear. It could be Ford can only get excited about energy megaprojects with their jobs and potential for federal backing, regardless of the risk and cost. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/06/19/opinion/ford-ontario-energy-nuclear-solar-wind?nih=Vf0DQztC-W6YOqBGCjgdMvyuSr-jgXEgtm__lNRKxi0&utm_source=National+Observer&utm_campaign=d7478891e6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_06_19_01_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cacd0f141f-d7478891e6-277039322

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

EU Needs $280 Billion for Nuclear Energy, And That’s Just the Start

Oil Price.com, By Tsvetana Paraskova – Jun 18, 2025

The European Union estimates it will require $277 billion in investments for conventional nuclear power expansion by 2050.
Some EU countries are considering Small Modular Reactors and other advanced nuclear technologies as alternatives or supplements to traditional large-scale nuclear plants.
The EU is also pursuing nuclear fusion research as a potential long-term solution for energy independence and decarbonization.

The European Union countries planning to expand their nuclear power capacities will need as much as $277 billion (241 billion euros) in investments by 2050, according to Brussels’ estimates.

That’s only the investment needed for the conventional large-scale nuclear reactors currently in the plans of nearly half of the EU member states. The sum doesn’t include investment in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs), or microreactors, or investment in nuclear fusion efforts.

Some EU countries are open to returning to nuclear power generation, but only via SMRs and other advanced nuclear energy technology—not conventional large-scale nuclear power plants. These will require additional billions of U.S. dollars in investment.

Delivering the EU’s current plans to boost nuclear energy capacity will require $277 billion (241 billion euros), both for lifetime extensions of existing reactors and the construction of new large-scale reactors, the European Commission said in its latest assessment of nuclear investment needs by 2050.

While the EU’s biggest economy, Germany phased out nuclear power in 2023, some other EU countries see nuclear energy as an important part of their decarbonization, industrial competitiveness, and security of supply strategies.

…………………………………………………… the required investment in SMRs will be in addition to the $277 billion the EU estimates is necessary for large-scale conventional reactors.

So, the price tag of Europe’s nuclear power ambitions will be much higher. While SMRs hold promise, they are unlikely to be deployed commercially before the 2030s, and large-scale conventional reactors are notoriously facing delays and cost overruns.

………………….. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/EU-Needs-280-Billion-for-Nuclear-Energy-And-Thats-Just-the-Start.html

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Niger to nationalise uranium project co-owned with France’s Orano

Niger has said it will nationalise a large uranium project it jointly owns
with French nuclear fuel producer Orano, in a significant escalation of the
tensions between the west African country’s military government and the
state-owned company. The plan was announced on the state broadcaster late
on Thursday, after ministers adopted a draft resolution transferring
complete ownership of the Somair project to the government in Niamey. Orano
owns just over 63 per cent of Somair and Niger’s state-run Sopamin holds
the rest.

FT 20th June 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/a0f40288-f932-409a-bc98-eb8e05b43086

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Niger, politics | Leave a comment

Why 2024’s global temperatures were unprecedented, but not surprising.

Human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2024 continued to drive
global warming to record levels. This is the stark picture that emerges in
the third edition of the “Indicators of Global Climate Change” (IGCC)
report, published in Earth System Science Data. IGCC tracks changes in the
climate system between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
science reports. In doing so, the IGCC fills the gap between the IPCC’s
sixth assessment (AR6) in 2021 and the seventh assessment, expected in
2028.

Carbon Brief 18th June 2025, https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-2024s-global-temperatures-were-unprecedented-but-not-surprising/

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change | Leave a comment

It’s good to talk: US-UK anti-nuclear alliance forged from film discussion

The NFLAs were delighted to partner with film makers and producers from
the United States in promoting the documentary film ‘SOS – The San
Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power’s Legacy’ and by participating in a
discussion last week of the issues raised. NFLA Secretary Richard Outram
joined US filmmakers James Heddle, Mary Beth Brangan and Morgan Peterson
for the discussion on Wednesday 11 June. UK participants were invited to
watch the documentary film before the event and then contribute their
questions and comments. Attendees included academics and activists from
several of the established campaigns opposed to nuclear power in the UK,
and their knowledge and experience helped make the discussion more
engaging.

NFLA 19th June 2025 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/its-good-to-talk-us-uk-anti-nuclear-alliance-forged-from-film-discussion/

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, UK, USA | Leave a comment

25 June RAF Fairford Protest: Don’t Bomb Iran!

Demonstration and peace vigil at Fairford

Wednesday 25 June, 6.00 – 7.30 pm

Join us at the Fairford US air base to say no to war with Iran as the US gears up to join Israel’s illegal attack on Iran.

Last week war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, launched a war of aggression against Iran, claiming that Israel’s attacks were necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is on the point of developing nuclear weapons for the past 25 years, even though US spy agencies recently told Senators that they had assessed that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Trump has refused to rule out joining Israel’s war with Iran or clarify what action he intends to take.

Meanwhile, US military forces around the world are preparing for war:

US Air Force tanker aircraft for air-to-air refuelling have deployed to bases in Europe.
US Air Force attack aircraft have deployed to the Middle East, including F-35 jets from Lakenheath in Suffolk which have moved to Saudi Arabia and F-15Es from Lakenheath deployed in Jordan.
A US Navy aircraft carrier battlegroup is steaming towards the Persian Gulf to join the large US naval presence already in the region.
US Air Force flights from the USA to Israel, possibly carrying munitions, appear to be using UK airports as staging posts.

If the US attacks Iran, past history suggests it is highly likely that the UK will also align itself with the US and Israel to support their illegal war.

Defence Secretary John Healey has boasted that military assets including Typhoon jets have begun arriving in the Middle East, with more to follow.
RAF aircraft have for months been conducting spy flights over Gaza to gather intelligence for the Israeli armed forces, and it is likely that UK Reaper drones have also been conducting spying missions aimed at Iran.
The Conservative Party is urging Prime Minister Kier Starmer to join in with a war against Iran.

Demo at Fairford base on Wednesday 25 June:

6.00 – 7.30 pm: come for as long or short a time as you can manage.

Bring banners, placards, and friends!
We suggest parking on the grass verge opposite the main gate at Fairford base – please don’t park in any of the residential closes or areas off Horcott road or Whelford Road.

Details may change depending on the situation, so please check the web page here before you set out.

Although there are as yet no indications whether Fairford will play a role in any US attacks on Iran, B-52 heavy bombers flew daily missions from the base to bomb Iraq during the 2003 Gulf War. Earlier this year B-52 bombers visited Fairford to rehearse for wartime deployment, and conducted missions to the Middle East, flying close to Iran. US drones have also flown from Fairford and there are plans in place for it to be a regular home to US drone operations in the future.

This is a highly dangerous situation, which could rapidly escalate out of control and is already leading to the butchering of many more innocent civilians in the Middle East. Please join us to send out a strong message to the US military and UK government that we will do everything we can to resist their plans for this horrific war.

For more details see web page or call Drone Wars UK on 07960811437

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Three years left to limit warming to 1.5C, leading scientists warn

The Earth could be doomed to breach the symbolic 1.5C warming limit in as
little as three years at current levels of carbon dioxide emissions. That’s
the stark warning from more than 60 of the world’s leading climate
scientists in the most up-to-date assessment of the state of global
warming.

Nearly 200 countries agreed to try to limit global temperature
rises to 1.5C above levels of the late 1800s in a landmark agreement in
2015, with the aim of avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate change.

But countries have continued to burn record amounts of coal, oil and gas
and chop down carbon-rich forests – leaving that international goal in
peril. “Things are all moving in the wrong direction,” said lead author
Prof Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at
the University of Leeds.

“We’re seeing some unprecedented changes and we’re
also seeing the heating of the Earth and sea-level rise accelerating as
well.” These changes “have been predicted for some time and we can directly
place them back to the very high level of emissions”, he added. At the
beginning of 2020, scientists estimated that humanity could only emit 500
billion more tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the most important
planet-warming gas – for a 50% chance of keeping warming to 1.5C.

But by the start of 2025 this so-called “carbon budget” had shrunk to 130 billion
tonnes, according to the new study. That reduction is largely due to
continued record emissions of CO2 and other planet-warming greenhouse gases
like methane, but also improvements in the scientific estimates. If global
CO2 emissions stay at their current highs of about 40 billion tonnes a
year, 130 billion tonnes gives the world roughly three years until that
carbon budget is exhausted.

BBC 19th June 2025, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4l927dj5zo

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change | Leave a comment

Supreme Court clears the way for temporary nuclear waste storage in Texas and New Mexico

By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 19 June 2025, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-14825147/Supreme-Court-clears-way-temporary-nuclear-waste-storage-Texas-New-Mexico.html

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday restarted plans to temporarily store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico, even as the nation is at an impasse over a permanent solution.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed a federal appeals court ruling that invalidated the license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to a private company for the facility in southwest Texas. The outcome should also reinvigorate plans for a similar facility in New Mexico roughly 40 miles (65 kilometers) away.

The federal appeals court in New Orleans had ruled in favor of the opponents of the facilities.

The licenses would allow the companies to operate the facilities for 40 years, with the possibility of a 40-year renewal.

The court’s decision is not a final ruling in favor of the licenses, but it removes a major roadblock. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion focused on technical procedural rules in concluding that Texas and a major landowner in southwest Texas forfeited their right to challenge the NRC licensing decision in federal court.

The justices did not rule on a more substantive issue: whether federal law allows the commission to license temporary storage sites. But Kavanaugh wrote that “history and precedent offer significant support for the commission´s longstanding interpretation” that it can do so.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in dissent that the NRC’s “decision was unlawful” because spent nuclear fuel can be temporarily stored in only two places under federal law, at a nuclear reactor or at a federally owned facility. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas signed on to the dissenting opinion.

Roughly 100,000 tons (90,000 metric tons) of spent fuel, some of it dating from the 1980s, is piling up at current and former nuclear plant sites nationwide and growing by more than 2,000 tons (1,800 metric tons) a year. The waste was meant to be kept there temporarily before being deposited deep underground.

The NRC has said that the temporary storage sites are needed because existing nuclear plants are running out of room. The presence of the spent fuel also complicates plans to decommission some plants, the Justice Department said in court papers.

Plans for a permanent underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain, northwest of Las Vegas, are stalled because of staunch opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.

The NRC´s appeal was filed by the Biden administration and maintained by the Trump administration. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, are leading bipartisan opposition to the facilities in their states.

Lujan Grisham said she was deeply disappointed by the court´s ruling, reiterating that Holtec International, awarded the license for the New Mexico facility, wasn´t welcome in the state. She vowed to do everything possible to prevent the company, based in Jupiter, Florida, from storing what she called “dangerous” waste in New Mexico.

“Congress has repeatedly failed to secure a permanent location for disposing of nuclear waste, and now the federal government is trying to force de-facto permanent storage facilities onto New Mexico and Texas,” she said. “It is a dangerous and irresponsible approach.”

The NRC granted the Texas license to Interim Storage Partners, based in Andrews, Texas, for a facility that could take up to 5,500 tons (5,000 metric tons) of spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants and 231 million tons (210 million metric tons) of other radioactive waste. The facility would be built next to an existing dump site in Andrews County for low-level waste such as protective clothing and other material that has been exposed to radioactivity. The Andrews County site is about 350 miles (560 kilometers) west of Dallas, near the Texas-New Mexico state line.

The New Mexico facility would be in Lea County, in the southeastern part of the state near Carlsbad.

Associated Press writer Susan Montoya Bryan contributed to this report from Albuquerque, N.M.

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, wastes | Leave a comment

Going to war with China will be an unequivocal disaster for Australia

Perhaps the Honourable Minister should also be and remain quiet – or better still be removed from his portfolio – because he is doing nothing for the Labor cause; and seems to be actively attempting to reduce Labor’s chance at a second term. He should unequivocally realise that if Australia goes to war the Liberal mantra will become, ‘this is on you Labor, you dragged us into this war and it is up to the LNP to get us out.’

the US will not place any of its assets at risk in order to defend Australia, this should be fundamentally and clearly understood by the people of Australia.

19 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Dr Strobe Driver https://theaimn.net/going-to-war-with-china-will-be-an-unequivocal-disaster-for-australia/

“Up shit creek in a barbed-wire canoe, without a paddle”: The implausible direction Australia’s current Defence Minister is taking the country.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the above mentioned expression it means things are about as bad as they can get; likely to get worse; and are as it stands, a continuum of a disaster.

This is where Australia stands at the moment when examining Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific; the rise of China; the ‘position’ this is placing Australia in terms of it being a ‘middle power’ in the region; the dependence on the United States of America (US) as an ally; and the way in which the current Defence Minister (the Honourable Richard Marles (MP) is approaching the current and future components of the regional strategic situations.

The spat between former prime minister Keating and the current Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Marles is ongoing and is far too detailed to go into here other than to mention Keating believes Marles has essentially ‘ceded Australia’s sovereignty’ to another country (the US); and Marles wants ‘strategic transparency from China in its regional military build-up’ and of course the well-worn argument that Australia will be dragged into a war should the US-China situation become ‘kinetic’ – in other words the fighting becomes real. So, with this in mind let’s ‘cut to the chase’ and figure out how Australia would actually ‘fair’ in the outbreak of a war with China and utilise some rationale.

First and foremost, and as I have previously stated in my book The Brink of 2036, the US having sought and gained assurance that Australia is its ‘closest ally’ decides it will ‘go after’ China over its retrocession claims on Taiwan and a war breaks out – the question that begs is, what does that make Australia? This makes Australia an enemy of China and therefore, the Chinese military is now legally entitled to strike Australia.

China would veto any and all conversation in the UNSC (as it is a Permanent Five (P5) member) and use all of its legal powers to circumvent any and all United Nations’ debate about its use of force against US allies. Secondly, the US will not place any of its assets at risk in order to defend Australia, this should be fundamentally and clearly understood by the people of Australia. The US may come to Australia’s aid – it will utilise discretion – however, should it be deemed necessary, it will only enter into any and all aspects associated with the protection of Australia when its assets are not at a high risk of destruction/incapacitation. Where does this leave Australia? One could safely argue a dyad: alone, unless the US’ intervenes.

For the purpose of this essay war has been declared and therefore, a perspective is needed.

The most telling perspective is that Australia faces a rising power and bearing in mind China has continued its rise exponentially since circa-2010, as before that one could safely argue its rise was only incremental, and thus, it is now a major regional power – soon to become a global one. Hence, Australia will have become the enemy of an enormously powerful country.

What then, would said country do to its middle-power regional enemy? There are no surprises here as it is being played out by Israel in the Gaza strip; and the Russian Federation in Ukraine and moreover, it is exceedingly visible; and easy-to-understand. As a side issue, though an important one, and just to strike further terror into the hearts of Australians, the US and Russia as members of the P5 have shut down through the power of veto any and all conversation about whether Israel’s incursion into Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are not warranted. One need not even bother to assume what pathway China will take in its war/fight with Australia. With this in mind let’s move towards China’s kinetic tactics on Australia.

As with any war the first things that need to be destroyed are ‘bases and bridges.’ Bases because they house personnel and vital equipment and bridges which essentially refer to anything (not just bridges over a waterway) that equipment can be transported from in order to get ‘to’ a place/location. China with its significant and enormous amount of missiles and the ability to place them through assets (submarines in particular), will fire hundreds of them into Australian assets – some for advantage and some for ‘publicity,’ that is to say, ‘here’s what we can do.’ The former will be RAAF bases, RAN and RAA bases with a single focus on maintenance and repair facilities; and the latter will be major railway lines (the Ghan; Indo-Pacific; and north east coast public lines); and then major highways the Bruce Highway in particular, will be targeted as will the Darwin-Adelaide highway.

The Honourable Defence Minister should cease and desist with his current monologue and political ineptness toward China and should be upfront with the Australian people in what will happen, should we go down this ‘rabbit hole’ of exceptionalism in the region; and yet, willingly yet aimlessly back the US. Australia will become a failed state if we go to war and it is timely to remind the Australian public there are (approximately) as many personnel in the NYPD as there are personnel in the Australian Defence Force.

The level of political-ineptness and downright political-maladroitness shown by this minister is however nothing new, as Australia seems to have had a cavalcade of utterly hopeless defence ministers over the past three decades. The real problem this time is this one is politically stupid-to-the-core when Australians need astute, articulate and well-defined decision-making.

Meanwhile, China continues to plan its ongoing rise to ‘pax-Sino’ and we have someone at the helm who is plainly and insufferably politically incompetent when there is a dire need to truly understand the milieu of Australia’s defence needs.

‘Punishment phase’ explained: The punishment phase of aerial bombardment is designed to ‘inflict enough pain on enemy civilians to overwhelm their territorial interests’ and in doing so induce surrender, or hasten total defeat. See: Robert Pape. Bombing To Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996, 59.

Dr Strobe Driver – Strobe completed his PhD in war studies in 2011 and since then has written extensively on war, terrorism, Asia-Pacific security, the ‘rise of China,’ and issues within Australian domestic politics. Strobe is a recipient of Taiwan Fellowship 2018, MOFA, Taiwan, ROC, and is an adjunct researcher at Federation University.

June 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries