nuclear-news

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

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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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.

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 | 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 | 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 | 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.

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.

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.

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 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 | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Improvements required following Barrow nuclear submarine site fire

 The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has served an enforcement notice
on BAE Systems Marine Ltd (BAESML) following a fire at the
Barrow-in-Furness site in Cumbria. ONR’s enquiries found that five
employees entered an area in the Devonshire Dock Hall facility when the
fire was still in progress on 30 October 2024. As a result, two employees
were taken to hospital for treatment. Both employees were discharged and
returned to work on the same day. Enquiries concluded that the licensee’s
arrangements for ensuring workers did not enter places of danger without
the appropriate safety instructions were inadequate. There was also a lack
of guidance to inform staff of their required actions in the event of a
fire.

 ONR 16th June 2025, https://www.onr.org.uk/news/all-news/2025/06/improvements-required-following-barrow-fire/

June 22, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Trump says US intelligence ‘wrong’ about Iran not building nuclear bomb

It is extremely rare for a US president to openly contradict the country’s intelligence community.

“This is not just one person, one team saying something,” “It’s the entire intelligence community in the United States. That he would dismiss them … it’s just astounding.”

US president doubles down on claim Iran is building nuclear weapon, again contradicting US intelligence community.

20 Jun 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/20/trump-says-us-intelligence-wrong-about-iran-not-building-nuclear-bomb

United States President Donald Trump has said his director of national intelligence was “wrong” when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not re-authorised the country’s suspended nuclear weapons programme.

The comments come after Trump earlier this week cast doubt on Tulsi Gabbard’s March 25 report to Congress, in which she reiterated the US intelligence community’s assessment. On Tuesday, Trump told reporters, “I don’t care” that the intelligence community’s finding contradicted his own claims, saying Iran was in the late stages of developing a nuclear weapon.

But speaking on Friday, Trump went further.

A reporter asked, “What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community said they have no evidence.”

The president responded, “Then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?”

“Your DNI [director of national intelligence], Tulsi Gabbard,” the reporter replied.

“She’s wrong,” Trump said.

Gabbard appeared to come to Trump’s defence later on Friday.

“America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly,” she wrote in a social media post. “President Trump has been clear that can’t happen, and I agree.”

However, that statement does not contradict her earlier assessment that Iran is not building a weapon. No known US intelligence assessment concludes that Iran is weaponising its nuclear programme.

It is extremely rare for a US president to openly contradict the country’s intelligence community, with critics accusing Trump of flagrantly disregarding evidence to justify potential direct US involvement in the fighting, according to Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara.

“This is not just one person, one team saying something,” Bishara said. “It’s the entire intelligence community in the United States. That he would dismiss them … it’s just astounding.”

Speaking on Friday, Trump also appeared to downplay the prospect of the US brokering a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, saying he “might” support such a deal, while adding, “Israel’s doing well in terms of war, and I think you would say that Iran is doing less well.”

“It’s hard to make that request right now. When someone’s winning, it’s harder than when they’re losing,” he added.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou Castro noted that Trump was “really making a point that he’s not going to make an effort to ask Israel to ease up on its aerial bombing of Iranian targets”.

“It seems that Trump is very squarely on Israel’s side as things are progressing, and … it appears that he is not leaning towards the diplomacy route, though, again, he is giving himself that two weeks’ time to make a final decision,” she said.

Trump on Thursday said he would take two weeks to decide the US response to the conflict. Experts say the decision would likely be transformative.

The US is seen as one of the few countries with the leverage to pressure Israel to step back from the brink of wider-scale regional war.

At the same time, the involvement of the US military is seen as key to Israel’s stated mission of completely dismantling Iran’s nuclear programme, which hinges on destroying the underground Fordow enrichment plant.

A successful attack on the facility would require both Washington’s 30,000-pound (13,000kg) GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and the B-2 bombers needed to deliver it.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump also downplayed the potential role of European countries in de-escalating the situation. That came hours after Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met the top diplomats from France, the UK, Germany and the EU in Geneva.

“Europe is not going to be able to help,” the US president said.

June 21, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Why won’t the BBC report on Israel’s nuclear weapons?

 DOES Israel have nuclear weapons? Yes. Will the BBC report that fact?
Apparently not. The broadcaster has quietly updated a story which wrongly
claims the “real answer is we do not know” if Israel has nuclear
weapons.

However, the BBC claim – which relies on the fact that the
Israeli government has not officially acknowledged its nuclear capabilities
– remains even in the updated version of a story purported to offer
answers to readers’ questions on the Iran-Israel conflict.

 The National 19th June 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25251643.wont-bbc-report-israels-nuclear-weapons/

June 21, 2025 Posted by | Israel, media | Leave a comment

The prophecy – about Donald Trump.

The world is on edge, and Trump’s insatiable hunger for attention could push it over the brink.

a chaos-driven showman, more concerned with headlines than consequences.

Trump’s ‘chaos’ might appeal to his voters but risks catastrophe on a global stage.

18 June 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/the-prophecy/

A chilling warning, attributed to a biographer of Donald Trump, has lingered in the air since his first campaign: “He would start World War 3 just to prove he could.” Whether this quote, possibly heard in a radio segment or buried in an article, came from Michael D’Antonio or another chronicler of Trump’s life, its exact source remains elusive. Yet, as the 47th President, Trump’s recent actions – bluster at the G7, threats against Iran, and a desperate need to recover from a humiliating military parade – make the warning feel prophetic. The world is on edge, and Trump’s insatiable hunger for attention could push it over the brink.

Trump has always been a performer, a man who thrives on the spotlight. Biographers such as D’Antonio, author of Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success, describe him as a “little boy” unchanged since first grade, craving validation at every turn. Timothy L. O’Brien, in TrumpNation, paints him as a chaos-driven showman, more concerned with headlines than consequences. This portrait aligns with the biographer’s alleged warning: a leader who might ignite a global crisis not for strategy, but for ego. In 2025, as Trump’s second term unfolds, his sabre-rattling suggests a dangerous willingness to test that theory.

The stage was set on June 14, 2025, when Trump’s military parade in Washington, meant to cement his strongman image, collapsed into a national embarrassment. Billed as a nation-building triumph, it drew sparse crowds, dampened by rain and mocked by critics. The White House spun absurd tales of its success, but the stark reality of empty fields left Trump humiliated. A bruised ego is a dangerous thing, and Trump, ever the performer, needed a bigger stage to reclaim his spotlight.

Enter the G7 summit. Still smarting from the parade fiasco, Trump arrived with a chip on his shoulder, ready to take it out on world leaders. The summit, meant to address trade, climate, and Ukraine, became a platform for his grievances – and a warning of how far he might go to prove his dominance.

Trump’s G7 performance was less statesmanship, more spectacle.

Sensing he wasn’t the most popular person in attendance he bailed early on June 16, citing Middle East tensions – specifically, backing Israel’s strikes and warning Iran to “evacuate Tehran.” His exit – though probably welcomed – left the G7 fragmented, with experts warning of a “global economy adrift.” The biographer’s WW3 warning loomed large: a leader who’d rather disrupt than unite, all to prove he’s in charge.

Iran Threats and Global Jitters

Trump’s Iran rhetoric is where the WW3 fears hit fever pitch. His tweeted threat to “evacuate Tehran,” tied to Israel’s escalating strikes, sent oil prices soaring and sparked panic; “We’re closer to a major military confrontation than we’ve been in two decades.” This isn’t just posturing; it’s a high-stakes gamble that could misfire. The 2020 Soleimani strike, which nearly sparked war with Iran, shows Trump’s willingness to roll the dice. The parade flop likely amplified this urge to punch above his weight, as if global brinkmanship could erase domestic embarrassment.

At home, Trump’s actions mirror his global aggression. Executive orders pardoning 1,500 January 6 rioters, blocking asylum-seekers, and designating drug cartels as terrorists signal a strongman act to rally his base. His tweets about military mobilisation in cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and New York risks weaponising the government against opponents, a domestic echo of his foreign provocations. If Trump’s parade failure pushed him to lash out at allies and Iran, what’s to stop him from escalating further to boost flagging polls? Starting a war might make him look strong.

The Risk of a Performer’s War

Trump’s “madman theory” – projecting unpredictability to keep foes guessing – worked in his first term to an extent, like pressuring North Korea. But in 2025, it’s a tighter rope. His Iran threats could provoke retaliation, especially with US troops on alert. His G7 snub and NATO skepticism weaken collective defence, leaving smaller nations exposed to Russia or China.

Trump’s ‘chaos’ might appeal to his voters but risks catastrophe on a global stage.

The biographer’s warning, even if apocryphal, captures this perfectly. Starting a war “to prove he could” isn’t about policy – it’s about ego. Trump’s parade flop, G7 antics, and Iran threats show a man desperate to reclaim the narrative, no matter the cost. The stakes – trade wars, Ukraine, the Middle East – are too high for a leader driven by applause.

The world is holding its breath. Trump’s actions have spiked tensions, alienated allies, and raised the spectre of conflict. The WW3 quote, whether from a biographer’s pen or a radio quip, haunts 2025. Its exact words may be lost, but its truth endures: a man who craves attention above all else is a dangerous force. From tariff wars to Tehran threats, Trump’s not just playing to the crowd – he’s playing with fire.

The question isn’t whether Trump would start a war to prove he could – it’s whether anyone can stop him.

June 21, 2025 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

Trump Rejects Intel on Iran’s Nuclear Program, Raising War Fears

19 June 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/trump-rejects-intel-on-irans-nuclear-program-raising-war-fears/

In a move that’s barely registering in Australian media, President Trump has publicly dismissed U.S. intelligence assessments concluding Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon, prompting concerns he may be leaning toward military conflict. The story carries significant global implications, including for Australia as a U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific.

While returning from the G7 summit in Canada, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, “I don’t care what [U.S. intelligence] said. I think [Iran] were very close to having one.” This directly contradicted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s March 2025 congressional testimony, where she stated Iran’s supreme leader had not restarted the nuclear weapons program suspended in 2003. Gabbard noted Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was at historic highs but maintained it was not pursuing a bomb. U.S. intelligence, including a November 2024 report under President Biden, similarly found no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program, though it highlighted activities such uranium enrichment that could position Iran to build one if it chose.

Trump’s remarks align him closely with Netanyahu, who has long warned of an “imminent” Iranian nuclear threat and recently advocated for pre-emptive strikes. Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian facilities last week, citing an International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran breached non-proliferation obligations and had enough near-weapons-grade uranium for multiple bombs, despite U.S. intelligence sources countering that Iran is “not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon” and is up to three years away from producing one.

Trump’s dismissal of his own intelligence community has fueled speculation about his intentions. His frustration with stalled diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions was evident when he said, “I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate with Iran.” The U.S. has deployed additional military assets to the region, including a carrier group and fighter jets, to provide Trump with “more options” for intervention.

The White House has reiterated Trump’s long-standing stance: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” A June 17 statement listed over a dozen instances since February 2025 where Trump emphasised this, framing it as a non-negotiable red line. Yet, his recent rhetoric, including a social media post demanding “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” from Iran, suggests a hardening position.

Trump may be under pressure from pro-Israel hawks in his circle, who downplay the risk of Iranian retaliation and frame strikes as a limited operation against nuclear sites. Others, such as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, argue Trump’s threats are “mainly bluster” to project strength, predicting he’ll back off to avoid derailing U.S.-Russia détente or triggering a global economic crisis. Still, the absence of Gabbard from key national security discussions signals a possible sidelining of voices advocating restraint.

Australia’s strategic alignment with the U.S. through AUKUS and its role in Middle East operations (e.g., past deployments in Iraq) mean a U.S.-Iran conflict could draw Canberra into logistical or political support, yet public discourse hasn’t engaged. The Australian government has not commented publicly on Trump’s stance (that I am aware of), and local coverage of Iran remains limited to brief mentions of Israel’s strikes.

A U.S. military strike on Iran could destabilise the Middle East, spike global oil prices, and strain Australia’s economy, which relies heavily on energy markets. It risks escalating into a broader conflict, potentially involving China or Russia, both of which have ties to Iran. Australia’s alliance obligations could also pressure it to back U.S. actions, complicating its Indo-Pacific balancing act. Either Trump is flexing his military muscle to deter Iran without war, or he’s being nudged toward a catastrophic conflict by Israel’s agenda.

The bottom line: The disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and U.S. intelligence underscores a volatile decision-making process, with implications Australia can’t afford to ignore.

June 21, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »