nuclear-news

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

It’s not ‘Who lost Ukraine?’ It’s ‘Who destroyed Ukraine?

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL , 15 Aug 25

When Mao won the Chinese civil war in 1949, adding China to the USSR in the roster of commie countries, the US war hawks of that era excoriated the Truman administration for ‘losing’ China’. Their unhinged claim was that the commie filled State Department made Mao’s inevitable takeover possible. That helped fuel Sen. Joe McCarthy’s equally unhinged campaign to smoke out all those imagined commies in the Truman administration a year later.

A whiff of that 1949 anti commie hysteria is playing out on mainstream media ahead of Friday’s sit down between President Trump and Russian President Putin seeking a ceasefire and end to this disastrous war destroying Ukraine.

Morning Joe Scarborough this morning pondered whether Trump will cave to evil Putin’s Ukraine dismembership demands to achieve the peace that might garner him a Nobel Peace Prize. Yep, Moring Joe laid out the ‘Who lost Ukraine’ meme on Trump to prepare us for the onslaught of anti-Trump, anti-Russian hysteria sure to follow if a settlement reflecting the reality of Ukraine’s dismembership is inked in Alaska tomorrow.

A settlement is only possible if a US/Russia settlement verifies the battlefield reality. Ukraine’s military is teetering on collapse with over a million dead cannon fodder and 4 oblasts gone to Russia forever. If Trump accomplishes peace…which is far from likely, the blame game will focus on Trump who ‘lost’ Ukraine which will end up as a greatly diminished rump state dependent on US/European life support for years to come.

Historians instead should begin with the 6 administrations preceding Trump’s second term 2.0: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump 1.0 and most grievously Joe Biden. H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, Trump 1.0 and Biden all promoted NATO expansion into Ukraine and dismissed all Russian security pleas that such expansion was a Red Line Russia would view as an existential threat.  

While his predecessors put Ukraine on the road to destruction, Joe Biden essentially pulled the trigger on a war Ukraine had no chance of winning. Putin tried to avoid invading. He saw Ukraine massing 60,000 elite troops on the Donbas border to polish off the Ukrainian separatists there seeking independence and safety from Kyiv neo fascists. His plea of December 21 2021 was dismissed out of hand. Biden told Putin that Russia’s security interests, which included autonomy for Ukrainian separatists as well as a neutral Ukraine not in NATO, were ‘not subject to discussion whatsoever.’

Biden knew that response would provoke a Russian invasion. But Biden miscalculated that US weapons combined with draconian Russian sanctions would result in a Vietnam style defeat for Russia, possibly even the overthrow of President Putin.

So here we are three years, eight months later with Putin, not Trump holding all the cards in tomorrow’s negotiation. Trump knows the correct outcome is settling on Russia’s terms: no return of Ukraine territory, no NATO for Ukraine and a demilitarized Ukraine that can never attack inside Russia territory again. He also knows he’ll be branded by America’s ravenous war hawks as ‘The man who lost Ukraine’ should he end the war.

Nobody lost Ukraine. But we now know who destroyed Ukraine. The only question to be answered is…How severely Ukraine will be destroyed before the guns go silent.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Setting the record straight on the background to events in Ukraine.

First, both the provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass region voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 in resistance to a U.S.-backed coup that overthrew the elected president Viktor Yanukovych in February of that year. The independence vote came just eight days after neo-Nazis burned dozens of ethnic Russians alive in Odessa.  To crush their bid for independence, the new U.S.-installed Ukrainian government then launched an “anti-terrorist” war against the provinces, with the assistance of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which had taken part in the coup. It is a war that is still going on eight years later, a war that Russia has just entered.

During these eight years, the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Azov have used artillery, snipers and assassination teams to systematically butcher more than 5,000 people (another 8,000 were wounded) — mostly civilians — in the Donetsk Peoples Republic, according to the leader of the DPR, who provided these figures in a press conference recently. In the Luhansk People’s Republic, an additional 2,000 civilians were killed and 3,365 injured. The total number of people killed and wounded in Donbass since 2014 is more than 18,000.

This has received at most superficial coverage by The New York Times; it has not been covered by Western corporate media because it does not fit the official Washington narrative

Ukraine & Nukes     After a New York Times reporter grossly distorted what Putin and Zelensky have said and done about nuclear weapons, Steven Starr corrects the record and deplores Western media, in general, for misinforming  and leading the entire world in a dangerous direction.  https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/03/ukraine-nukes/ By Steven Starr,

   The New York Times recently published an article by David Sanger entitled “Putin spins a conspiracy theory that Ukraine is on a path to produce nuclear weapons.”  Unfortunately, it is Sanger who puts so much spin in his reporting that he leaves his readers with a grossly distorted version of the what the presidents of Russia and Ukraine have said and done.

Ukrainian Volodymyr  Zelensky’s recent statements at the Munich conference centered around the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which welcomed Ukraine’s accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in conjunction with Ukraine’s decision to return to Russia the nuclear weapons left on its territory by the Soviet Union.

In other words, the Budapest Memorandum was expressly about Ukraine giving up its nukes and not becoming a nuclear weapon state in the future. Zelensky’s speech at Munich made it clear that Ukraine was moving to repudiate the Budapest Memorandum; Zelensky essentially stated that Ukraine must be made a member of NATO, otherwise it would acquire nuclear weapons.  

This is what Zelensky said, with emphasis added: 

“I want to believe that the North Atlantic Treaty and Article 5 will be more effective than the Budapest Memorandum.

Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability [i.e. Ukraine relinquished the Soviet nuclear weapons that had been placed in Ukraine during the Cold War]. We don’t have that weapon. … Therefore, we have something. The right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to ensuring security and peace guarantees. 

Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. . . I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt. . . 

I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.”

Sanger’s Times article implies that it was a “conspiracy theory” that Zelensky was calling for Ukraine to acquire nuclear weapons. Sanger was not ignorant of the meaning of the Budapest Memorandum, rather he chose to deliberately ignore it and misrepresented the facts. 

President Vladimir Putin, along with the majority of Russians, could not ignore such a threat for a number of historical reasons that The New York Times and ideologues such as Sanger have also chosen to ignore. It is important to list some of those facts, since most Americans are unaware of them, as they have not been reported in the Western mainstream media. Leaving parts of the story out turns Putin into just a madman bent on conquest without any reason to intervene.

First, both the provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass region voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 in resistance to a U.S.-backed coup that overthrew the elected president Viktor Yanukovych in February of that year. The independence vote came just eight days after neo-Nazis burned dozens of ethnic Russians alive in Odessa.  To crush their bid for independence, the new U.S.-installed Ukrainian government then launched an “anti-terrorist” war against the provinces, with the assistance of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which had taken part in the coup. It is a war that is still going on eight years later, a war that Russia has just entered. 

During these eight years, the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Azov have used artillery, snipers and assassination teams to systematically butcher more than 5,000 people (another 8,000 were wounded) — mostly civilians — in the Donetsk Peoples Republic, according to the leader of the DPR, who provided these figures in a press conference recently. In the Luhansk People’s Republic, an additional 2,000 civilians were killed and 3,365 injured. The total number of people killed and wounded in Donbass since 2014 is more than 18,000.

This has received at most superficial coverage by The New York Times; it has not been covered by Western corporate media because it does not fit the official Washington narrative that Ukraine is pursuing an “anti-terrorist operation” in its unrelenting attacks on the people of Donbass.  For eight years the war instead has been portrayed as a Russian “invasion,” well before Russia’s current intervention.

Likewise, The New York Times, in its overall coverage, chose not to report that the Ukrainian forces had deployed half of its army, about 125,000 troops, to its border with Donbass by the beginning of 2022. 

In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. We c

The importance of neo-Nazi Right Sektor politicians in the Ukraine government and neo-Nazi militias (such as the Azov Battalion) to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, also goes unreported in the mainstream corporate media.  The Azov battalion flies Nazi flags; they have been trained by teams of U.S. military advisers and praised on Facebook these days. In 2014, Azov was incorporated in the Ukrainian National Guard under the direction of the Interior Ministry.

The Nazis killed something on the order of 27 million Soviets/Russians during World War II (the U.S. lost 404,000). Russia has not forgotten and is extremely sensitive to any threats and violence coming from neo-Nazis. Americans generally do not understand what this means to Russians as the United States has never been invaded.  

So, when the leader of Ukraine essentially threatens to obtain nuclear weapons, this is most certainly considered to be an existential threat to Russia. That is why Putin focused on this during his speech preceding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sanger and The New York Times must discount a Ukrainian nuclear threat; they can get away with doing so because they have systematically omitted news pertaining to this for many years.

Sanger makes a very misleading statement when he writes, “Today Ukraine does not even have the basic infrastructure to produce nuclear fuel.”

Ukraine is not interested in making nuclear fuel — which Ukraine already purchases from the U.S. Ukraine has plenty of plutonium, which is commonly used to make nuclear weapons today; eight years ago Ukraine held more than 50 tons of plutonium in its spent fuel assemblies stored at its many nuclear power plants (probably considerably more today, as the reactors have continued to run and produce spent fuel). Once plutonium is reprocessed/separated from spent nuclear fuel, it becomes weapons usable. Putin noted that Ukraine already has missiles that could carry nuclear warheads, and they certainly have scientists capable of developing reprocessing facilities and building nuclear weapons.

In his Feb. 21 televised address, Putin said Ukraine still has the infrastructure leftover from Soviet days to build a bomb. He said:

“As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging.

Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometers.

But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era.

If Ukraine acquires weapons of mass destruction, the situation in the world and in Europe will drastically change, especially for us, for Russia. We cannot but react to this real danger, all the more so since let me repeat, Ukraine’s Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to our country.”

NATO-US Refuse Binding Nuclear Treaties

In his Times piece, Sanger states, “American officials have said repeatedly that they have no plans to place nuclear weapons in Ukraine.”

But the U.S. and NATO have refused to sign legally binding treaties with Russia to this effect. In reality, the U.S. has been making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO, while training and supplying its military forces and conducting joint exercises on Ukrainian territory. Why wouldn’t the U.S. place nuclear weapons in Ukraine — they have already done so at military bases within the borders of five other European members of NATO.  This in fact violates the spirit of the NPT, another issue that Sanger avoids when he notes that Russia has demanded that the U.S. remove nuclear weapons from the European NATO-member states.

For years the U.S. proclaimed that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) facilities it was placing in Romania and Poland, on the Russian border, were to protect against an “Iranian threat,” even though Iran had no nuclear weapons or missiles that could reach the U.S. But the dual-use Mark 41 launching systems used in the Aegis Ashore BMD facilities can be used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, and will be fitted with SM-6 missiles that, if armed with nuclear warheads, could hit Moscow in five-to-six minutes. Putin explicitly warned journalists about this danger in 2016; Russia included the removal of the U.S. BMD facilities in Romania and Poland in its draft treaties presented to the U.S. and NATO last December. 

I wonder if Sanger has ever considered what the U.S. response would be if Russia placed missile launching facilities on the Canadian or Mexican border? Would the U.S. consider that a threat, would it demand that Russia remove them or else the U.S. would use military means to do so?

30 Years Ago 

Sanger states that today Russia takes a “starkly different from the tone Moscow was taking 30 years ago, when Russian nuclear scientists were being voluntarily retrained to use their skills for peaceful purposes.”

Russians would reply that 30 years ago NATO had not moved to Russian borders and was not flooding Ukraine with hundreds of tons of weapons and the U.S. had not yet overthrown the government in Kiev to install an anti-Russian regime.

While the Times is still considered the U.S. “paper of record,” during the last few decades it has devolved into the primary mouthpiece for the official narratives coming from Washington.

There is a real danger to the nation when a free press is replaced with corporate media that stifles and censors dissent. Rather than a free press, we now have a Ministry of Propaganda that acts as an echo chamber for the latest diktats from the White House. The systematic creation of false narratives by corporate media, designed to serve the purposes of the federal government, have so misinformed the American public about world events that we find the nation ready to go to war with Russia. 

This is suicidal course for not only the U.S. and the EU, but for civilization as a whole, because this would likely end in a nuclear war that will destroy all nations and peoples.  

Steven Starr is the former director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, and former board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility.  His articles have been published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Federation of American Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. He maintains the Nuclear Famine website.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | history, media, Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The ‘third nuclear age’ is a politically motivated label that seeks to justify a renewed arms race.

Tom Vaughan, Lecturer in International Security, University of Leeds, August 16, 2025, https://theconversation.com/the-third-nuclear-age-is-a-politically-motivated-label-that-seeks-to-justify-a-renewed-arms-race-263009

In August 1945 the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 people, overwhelmingly civilians. Eighty years on from this slaughter – which the then US army commander and later president Dwight D. Eisenhower called “completely unnecessary” – is an apt time to ask how the world has changed since Japan’s skies lit up with atomic fire.

Many in the military as well as academics and nuclear theorists argue that a “third nuclear age” has begun. By this they mean that a new and different set of nuclear threats are emerging which fundamentally challenge the existing tenets of nuclear “deterrence”. The response, some argue, is to invest heavily in our nuclear weapons systems to secure ourselves against this new age of uncertainty.

To understand this claim, it’s worth looking back at the history of the nuclear era. Most (but not all) scholars working on “nuclear ages” accept that the first nuclear age, between 1945 and 1991, was characterised by the cold war nuclear stand-off between the world’s two nuclear armed superpowers: the US and the Soviet Union.

The second nuclear age, from 1991 to 2014, is usually understood to have started when the cold war ended. Policymakers worried about “proliferation” – the spread of nuclear weapons to new states and even non-state terrorist groups. Western policy focused on countering this process, often through military means.

The third nuclear age, which is thought to have begun in 2014, it thought to reflect a new set of challenges. This will involve the entry of more nuclear-armed states into the fray, erosion of longstanding non-proliferation and arms control agreements and the development of so-called “strategic non-nuclear weapons”. This term refers to non-nuclear technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) command and control networks, hypersonic missiles and advanced missile defence systems.

There are fears that non-nuclear armed “adversaries” might use these systems to directly attack other states’ nuclear arsenals, undermining their ability to deliver a retaliatory nuclear strike. This is likely to pose a challenge to established practices on which the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is based.

But how much has really changed in the past decade? No new nuclear powers have emerged – the most recent was North Korea in 2006. China, often seen as the bogeyman of the third nuclear age, has had a nuclear weapons capability since 1964. AI integration into nuclear command and control systems, while extremely risky, has yet to happen.

Reliable missile defence against modern nuclear warheads is still widely considered to be technologically impossible. The impact of hypersonic missiles on the calculus of nuclear deterrence is debated, since intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are already very fast.

In short, what’s different this time around?

Western-centric thinking

A more penetrating line of questioning is to ask about the politics underlying the idea of a third nuclear age. Ideas are never neutral, and they shape our understanding of the world. The third nuclear age concept (like that of the second nuclear age before it) came out of the US defence establishment, which was trying to understand how it could remain globally dominant against challenges to its supremacy from China.

The idea has since been filtered through academia and back into the policy world, where it has started to gain “common sense status”: as night follows day, the dawn of the third nuclear age is around the corner. But this is neither objective nor inevitable. It’s a conceptual tool for thinking about nuclear politics in a particular way.

It’s a US-centric perspective reflecting a fear that western dominance of the nuclear arena is under threat. US and allied militaries need to progressively integrate new technologies into their nuclear systems and modernise their arsenals to deal with a “more uncertain” world, ignoring the fact that massive risk and uncertainty have always been a built-in feature of nuclear deterrence strategies.

Here, the biggest threats to nuclear stability come not from the thousands of nuclear warheads held by the established nuclear weapons states, but from would-be disruptors who can threaten nuclear arsenals with non-nuclear systems – echoing old second nuclear age fears about proliferation.

This is why Iran remains a villain of the story alongside China, as we can see from the hyperbole about Iran’s “hypersonic” missile capabilities and how its behaviour gave Israel and the US the excuse to launch “counter-proliferation” strikes against its nuclear facilities in June this year.

It bears repeating that Iran is still not a nuclear-armed state. But the new emphasis placed on non-nuclear technologies in third nuclear age thinking also puts states which don’t even have nuclear programmes in the crosshairs of Iraq-style wars of aggression in the name of “counter-proliferation”.

New arms race

To be crystal clear: the nuclear world is as dangerous as ever. The problem is that third nuclear age thinking, with its focus on supposedly unprecedented disruptions, leads us to think that new solutions are necessary. “Old” ideas about nuclear disarmament become irrelevant, because the instabilities introduced by new technologies supposedly make it impossible for nuclear weapons states to give up their arsenals.

The third nuclear age becomes a conceptual stalking horse for a fresh nuclear arms race.

When the British armed forces chief Admiral Sir Tony Radakin warned of a dawning third nuclear age in December 2024, he was not making a neutral observation. He was arguing for resources to be funnelled into nuclear modernisation at the expense of welfare and healthcare programmes. Today, before any modernisation, Britain maintains a first-strike deliverable total of 31 megatons of nuclear explosive power. That’s more than 2,000 Hiroshimas’ worth of destruction.

So we should be sceptical of this concept. The threat of nuclear annihilation has been with us since August 1945 and comes – as always – from nuclear weapons and the states who operate them.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel Is Beginning To Choke On Its Own Lies

Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 08, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/israel-is-beginning-to-choke-on-its?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=170415282&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Netanyahu has confirmed reports that Israel plans an extreme escalation in Gaza which will entail the total military occupation of the entire enclave and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, which the Israeli spin machine has termed “voluntary migration”.

To be clear, anyone who says the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza would be “voluntary” is lying. Starving a population and deliberately making their land uninhabitable is exactly the same as forcing them out at gunpoint. Saying “leave or you’ll starve” is not meaningfully different from saying “leave or I’ll shoot you in the head”. Israel’s planned mass expulsion will be as forced and involuntary as any in recorded history.

President Trump has fully signed off on this move, washing his hands of the mass atrocity he is cosigning by telling the press that it’s going to be “pretty much up to Israel.”

Trump is lying. It’s up to him. That’s why more than 600 former senior Israeli security officials from Mossad and Shin Bet just sent Trump a letter urging him to compel Netanyahu to make peace in Gaza. They understand that the US president has always had the power to end the Gaza holocaust; numerous Israeli insiders have said that this mass atrocity would not be possible without US assistance.

Trump could end all this at any time, and chooses not to. This makes him one of the most evil people in the world.

This whole genocide is powered by lies. Netanyahu just told Fox News that the horrifying aerial footage of the destruction in Gaza that we’ve been seeing is because every single building in Gaza was booby trapped with explosives by Hamas.

“The reason you see the flattened buildings is because Hamas booby traps every single building,” Netanyahu said. “So when we come in, we first have the population moved even though Hamas tries to keep them in the combat zones. But after they move, and we start to move into the neighborhoods that are now populated only by terrorists, they ignite these booby traps. So what we do is we put in an APC, an armored personnel carrier, with a lot of explosives. Detonate it. It sets off all the booby traps and the buildings begin to collapse as a result of that. They’re empty buildings, they’re not populated buildings.”

Absolutely nobody believes this is true. Not one single person alive on this earth sincerely believes that Gaza now looks like a gravel parking lot because Hamas placed explosives inside every single building. Netanyahu doesn’t believe it. Israel’s most venomous supporters don’t believe it. It’s just part of the nonstop fountain of lies they are spewing to avoid acknowledging what we all know we’re looking at. They’ve told so many lies by now that they’ve got to keep lying and lying just to stay afloat, like a man desperately treading water to avoid drowning.

This genocide is one nonstop insult to our intelligence. It’s actually degrading at this point. The lies Israel and its supporters have to pretend to believe are getting so ridiculous that supporting Israel is now an act of public humiliation and self-debasement.

Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett has a long rant on his social media accounts complaining that Israel’s “status in the United States is collapsing”, including among Republicans, with public sentiment turning against them because of what is happening in Gaza.

As you might expect, Bennett does not frame this as a sign that Israel should stop committing genocide in Gaza, but rather complains of a crisis of “antisemitism” in the United States, and accuses Netanyahu of failing to adequately propagandize Americans.

“Jews in the United States are subject to a torrential wave of anti-Semitism, like him I don’t remember in my life,” Bennett moans, adding, “Antisemites increase to compare the ‘hunger’ in Gaza to the Holocaust, and thus reduce the memory of the Holocaust. They act that the hunger accusation will haunt israel its citizens, our soldiers, for generations.”

“If Netanyahu’s propaganda men worked against the enemies of Israel *outside* a tenth of the talent, speed and dedication with which they operate the propaganda machine against their political rivals *inside* israel our situation would be amazing,” Bennet writes, saying he wants to “re-establish a rapid and synchronized explanation headquarters”.

“Explanation” is the literal translation of the Hebrew word “hasbara”, i.e. pro-Israel propaganda.

Meanwhile the term “hasbara” itself is reportedly being abandoned by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, as westerners have come to associate the term with genocide propaganda.

The Times of Israel reports:

“Long referred to as hasbara, a term used to denote both public relations and propaganda that has been freighted with negative baggage in recent years, the ministry now brands its approach as toda’a — which translates to ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’ — an apparent shift toward broader, more proactive messaging.”

So they’re not abandoning the genocide, and they’re not abandoning the genocide propaganda, they’re just abandoning the word for the genocide propaganda because people have come to associate that word with propaganda in support of genocide.

The entire Zionist project is built on a foundation of lies. And their lies are starting to catch up with them. They’re now at a point where the lies are beginning to damage the public image they’re intended to protect.

When a liar is recognized as a liar, his lies will forevermore work only as an antidote to his past lies, and as a light to further expose his intent. From that point on any lie he tells just shows people how ugly his character and intentions really are.

There is no other weapon that works that way. No other weapon which when it’s seen immediately stops working, actively disarms the attacker, starts fixing what he broke, and starts attacking him.

Truth will win in the end.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Geological disposal facility for nuclear waste could cost £54bn and ‘appears unachievable’.

15 Aug, 2025 By Tom Pashby

The UK government’s proposed solution for long-term storage of high-level waste from the nuclear sector, a geological disposal facility (GDF), has been described as “unachievable” in a Treasury assessment of the project.

 The National Infrastructure and Service
Transformation Authority (Nista), a Treasury unit, made the assessment in
its Nista Annual Report 2024-2025, published on 11 August, where it rated
213 other major infrastructure projects.

A GDF represents a monumental
undertaking, consisting of an engineered vault placed between 200m and 1km
underground, covering an area of approximately 1km2 on the surface. This
facility is designed to safely contain nuclear waste while allowing it to
decay over thousands of years, thereby reducing its radioactivity and
associated hazards. NWS declares that this method offers the most secure
solution for managing the UK’s nuclear waste, aimed at relieving future
generations of the burden of storage.

The project would be so vast that it
would require two separate development consent order (DCO) applications to
be approved – one for exploratory works and another for the project
itself. Nuclear Free Local Authorities secretary Richard Outram said:
“The Nista Red rating is hardly surprising. The GDF process is fraught
with uncertainties and the GDF ‘solution’ remains unproven and costly.
“A single facility as estimated by government sources could cost the
taxpayer between £20bn and £54bn, this being a nuclear project it is much
more likely to be the latter and beyond.”

 New Civil Engineer 15th Aug 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/geological-disposal-facility-for-nuclear-waste-could-cost-54bn-and-appears-unachievable-15-08-2025/

August 16, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Smotrich Announces Major West Bank Settlement Expansion To ‘Bury the Idea of a Palestinian State’.

The planned construction appears to be a response to Western countries saying they will recognize a Palestinian state

by Dave DeCamp | August 14, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/08/14/smotrich-announces-major-west-bank-settlement-expansion-to-bury-the-idea-of-a-palestinian-state/

The Israeli government is moving forward with a plan for the massive expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank that would cut off the northern part of the Palestinian territory from its southern regions, a plan Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said will “bury the idea of a Palestinian state.”

Smotrich, who also holds a position in the Defense Ministry that allows him to expand settlements, announced that he plans to approve the construction of 3,401 housing units for the controversial E1 settlement project, which has been frozen for decades due to international opposition.

“They will talk about a Palestinian dream, and we will continue to build a Jewish reality,” Smotrich said at a press conference at the site of the planned construction. “This reality is what will permanently bury the idea of a Palestinian state, because there is nothing to recognize and no one to recognize.”

In an earlier statement, Smotrich said, “After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are breaking conventions and connecting Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem. This is Zionism at its best – building, settling, and strengthening our sovereignty in the Land of Israel.”

The announcement appears to be Smotrich’s response to several Western countries, including the UK, France, Canada, and Australia, announcing plans to recognize a Palestinian state by September if certain conditions are met.

The Israeli settlement watchdog Peace Now said the Israeli government’s Higher Planning Council is set to hold a hearing next Wednesday, August 20, for the final approval of the settlement construction. The group said the hearing was scheduled at “record speed.”

“The E1 plan is deadly for the future of Israel and for any chance of achieving a peaceful two-state solution. We are standing at the edge of an abyss, and the government is driving us forward at full speed,” Peace Now said in a statement.

“There is a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to the terrible war in Gaza — the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel — and it will ultimately come. The government’s annexation moves are taking us further away from this solution and guaranteeing many more years of bloodshed,” the group added.

The news was also strongly condemned by Palestinian officials. The presidency of the Palestinian National Council said the settlement expansion was a “systemic plan to steal land, Judaize it, and impose biblical and Talmudic facts on the conflict.”

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Israel, politics | Leave a comment

‘A million calls an hour’: Israel using Microsoft cloud for mass surveillance of Palestine.

Aug 09, 2025 , Mikael Thalen (Tech Reporter), https://san.com/cc/a-million-calls-an-hour-israel-using-microsoft-cloud-for-mass-surveillance-of-palestine/

Summary

1 million an hour

Israel is reportedly collecting and storing as much as 1 million phone calls an hour from Palestine on Microsoft’s Azure cloud servers.

200 million hours

Since the partnership began between Microsoft and Israel in 2022, over 200 million hours of phone call audio has been captured as of July.

Used in war

The captured cell phone data from Gaza and the West Bank is reportedly being used for blackmail, detainments, arrests and airstrikes.

Full story

Israel’s military intelligence unit has been relying on Microsoft to conduct mass surveillance of phone calls from Palestine, according to a joint investigation by The Guardian, +972 Magazine and the Local Call. The operation, enabled by a customized and segregated environment on Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform, is reportedly capable of processing up to 1 million phone calls an hour.

The system launched in 2022 following a meeting the year prior between Yossi Sariel, then the commander of the intelligence agency known as Unit 8200, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Leaked internal Microsoft documents as well as interviews with 11 sources, including Microsoft staff and Israeli intelligence officials, revealed that approximately 11,500 terabytes of data, equivalent to 200 million hours of audio, was stored on Microsoft servers in the Netherlands and Ireland as of July.

The captured data has reportedly been used to target Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank for blackmail, detention and arrest.

Arrests, detainments and airstrikes

“When they need to arrest someone and there isn’t a good enough reason to do so, that’s where they find the excuse,” a Unit 8200 source was quoted as saying.

Israel also dug through the data, according to the investigation, after carrying out airstrikes to find intelligence that could be cited as justification.

Captured phone calls are retained in the cloud for around one month. That time may be expanded to give Unit 8200 the ability to retrieve older telephone conversations involving people who become of interest, The Guardian said.

Microsoft denies knowledge

Microsoft said its CEO was not aware of the types of data that would be stored when he agreed to aid Unit 8200. An external review commissioned by Microsoft on the partnership, carried out earlier this year after the ties between the company and Israel were revealed, found no evidence that Azure was used to target or harm people in Palestine, the company said.

After the surveillance operation was uncovered, Microsoft again said that at no time was it “aware of the surveillance of civilians or collection of their cellphone conversations using Microsoft’s services, including through the external review it commissioned.”

Internal records on the 2021 meeting between Nadella and Sariel do not show that cell phone surveillance was mentioned. Instead, Sariel is said to have referred to “sensitive workloads” of secret data.

Other documents, however, suggest Microsoft engineers in both the U.S. and Israel were aware that raw intelligence, such as audio files, would be stored in the cloud environment. Israel initially reached out to Microsoft after realizing its own internal servers were incapable of storing such vast amounts of data.

“You don’t have to be a genius to figure it out,” one source said. “You tell [Microsoft] we don’t have any more space on the servers, that it’s audio files. It’s pretty clear what it is.”

Numerous Israeli sources insisted that the mass-surveillance program had saved lives by detecting and thwarting attacks on civilians. The system, however, did not prevent the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack, which has been used to justify increased surveillance.

Alan Judd (Content Editor) contributed to this report.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

The cost of the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent

Research Briefing, 12 August, 2025 Claire Mills, Esme Kirk-Wade, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8166/


Since the acquisition of the UK’s first strategic nuclear deterrent in the 1950s, the cost of procuring and maintaining it, and which Government department should finance it, has always been a matter of debate.

Ascertaining precise costs for the nuclear deterrent can be difficult, as this information is not easily available from public sources. The nuclear deterrent is also supported by an overarching, and complex, network of programmes, infrastructure, equipment and people, which is referred to as the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE). Separating out individual costs for the nuclear deterrent from within that structure is not straightforward, particularly since 2023 when the government started reporting all nuclear-related spending as a single line (the DNE) in its departmental estimates.

Synergies between the civilian nuclear sector and the defence nuclear enterprise complicate that picture further.

Cost of the existing ‘Trident’ nuclear deterrent

The UK’s nuclear deterrent is provided by four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) which house the Trident II D5A missile and associated Mk4A/Holbrook warhead. The decision to procure Trident, as the nuclear deterrent is often referred, was taken in the early 1980s. Spending on the programme was largely complete by the time of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. Total acquisition expenditure on the programme was £12.52 billion, which equates to approximately £23 billion in 2024/25 prices.

Prior to 2023, annual in-service costs, which also included the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and the Nuclear Warhead Sustainment Capability Programme, basing, decommissioning and disposals, were estimated at 6% of the defence budget (£3 billion for 2022/23). In 2023, the decision was taken to bring all nuclear-related programmes and expenditure, including the in-service running costs of the deterrent, under one heading: the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE), and to ringfence it within the MOD budget. The intention is to provide greater flexibility within the nuclear programme and to try and insulate the rest of the conventional equipment plan from any changes in nuclear spending. In doing so, direct comparisons of in-service costs for the nuclear deterrent over time are no longer possible.

Replacing the nuclear deterrent

A programme is currently underway to replace the Vanguard-class submarines from the early 2030s.

The estimated cost of the design and manufacture of a new Dreadnought- class of four SSBN is £31 billion, including inflation over the life of the programme. A £10 billion contingency has also been set aside, making an upper-end estimate of £41 billion in total acquisition costs for the Dreadnought class. In May 2025 the Ministry of Defence said that £3.37 billion of the contingency had been accessed as of March 2024. It also said that the remainder had been allocated to future years, suggesting that the full £10 billion in contingency funding will be spent.

In 2016 the goverment said that it expected in-service costs for the nuclear- deterrent, once the new Dreadnought SSBN entered service, to continue at approximately 6% of the defence budget. Following the decision in 2023 to amalgamate all nuclear-related spend under a single DNE budget, however, the government said that an “equivalent comparison” for future in-service costs was no longer possible.

A programme to replace the UK’s nuclear warhead was also confirmed in February 2020. In the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, the government announced £15 billion for the programme within the current Parliament (to 2029).

Wider costs

The decision to amalgamate nuclear spending under one budget heading: the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE), reflects the increasing interdependence between the nuclear deterrent and the Royal Navy’s other conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine programmes, including the new AUKUS-SSN being developed in conjunction with the US and Australia. This is particularly relevant to the costs associated with basing, infrastructure and nuclear propulsion.

There are various costs associated with replacing the nuclear deterrent that are not part of the capital costs of the Dreadnought programme or the sovereign warhead programme, but fall within wider spending on the defence nuclear enterprise. Those costs include the UK’s participation in the US-led Trident Service-Life Extension programme, extension of the service-life of the current Vanguard-class SSBN, and various basing and nuclear infrastructure projects.

Spending on nuclear programmes across of the whole Defence Equipment Plan to 2033 is currently forecast at £128 billion. That represents a £10 billion increase on the original forecasts in the 2023-2033 equipment plan.  

Who will pay for it?

In line with convention, the Dreadnought programme will be funded from the Ministry of Defence’s departmental budget.

There has been a longstanding debate over budgetary responsibility for the nuclear deterrent, with frequent calls made for the capital costs of the replacement programme to be removed from the MOD budget. 

August 16, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Pentagon to Create ‘Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force’

“You will see them flowing into the streets of Washington“

“They will be strong, they will be tough and they will stand with their law enforcement partners.”

by Kyle Anzalone | Aug 12, 2025, https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/pentagon-to-create-domestic-civil-disturbance-quick-reaction-force/

The Department of Defense is planning to create a rapid response force of National Guard troops to quickly deploy to American cities where protests or unrest are occurring.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that it obtained documents showing the Pentagon is creating a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force.”

“The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour,” the outlet explained. “They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively.”

One hundred troops at each base would be on standby to deploy within an hour, while the entire quick force would begin operations within 12 hours. The National Guard will be equipped with weapons and riot gear, and the deployments will be limited to 90 days to prevent burnout among the troops.

On Monday, Trump announced a major crackdown on crime in Washington, DC, by federalizing the Metropolitan DC police and deploying 800 National Guard troops to the capital city. “This is Liberation Day in DC, and we’re going to take our capital back,” Trump said during a press conference at the White House. “I’m officially invoking the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. And placing the DC Metropolitan Police under direct federal control.”

“In addition, I’m deploying the National Guard to help restore law, order and public safety,” he added.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said residents of DC will soon see the National Guard in the capital. “You will see them flowing into the streets of Washington in the coming week,” he explained. “At your direction as well, sir, there are other units we are prepared to bring in — other National Guard units, other specialized units. They will be strong, they will be tough and they will stand with their law enforcement partners.”

The new quick reaction force may be deployed to other American cities if Trump perceives that there is too much crime. Trump threatened to take similar steps in other major cities, noting he hopes some of them “self-clean up.” “If we need to, we’re going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster,” the president said.

The planned force could face legal barriers as it attempts to deploy to American cities. Many Democratic led-cities may object to a Republican President deploying troops. Additionally, federal law limits the National Guard’s ability to conduct law enforcement within the U.S.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Vonnegut on Nagasaki: “The most racist, nastiest act by this country, after human slavery”

““The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable,” Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, once said, “but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki” — which he labeled a war crime.”

Author: John LaForge,  August 7, 2014, https://www.peacevoice.info/2014/08/06/vonnegut-on-nagasaki-the-most-racist-nastiest-act-by-this-country-after-human-slavery/

For the full article:
Vonnegut on Nagasaki: “The most racist, nastiest act by this country, after human slavery”
877 Words

“The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable,” Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, once said, “but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki” — which he labeled a war crime.

In his 2011 book Atomic Cover-Up, Greg Mitchell says, “If Hiroshima suggests how cheap life had become in the atomic age, Nagasaki shows that it could be judged to have no value whatsoever.” Mitchell notes that the US writer Dwight MacDonald cited in 1945 America’s “decline to barbarism” for dropping “half-understood poisons” on a civilian population. The New York Herald Tribune editorialized there was “no satisfaction in the thought that an American air crew had produced what must without doubt be the greatest simultaneous slaughter in the whole history of mankind.”

Mitchell reports that the novelist Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. — who experienced the firebombing of Dresden first hand and described it in Slaughterhouse Five — said, “The most racist, nastiest act by this country, after human slavery, was the bombing of Nagasaki.”

On Aug. 17, 1945, David Lawrence, the conservative columnist and editor of US News, put it this way: “Last week we destroyed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japanese cities with the new atomic bomb. …we shall not soon purge ourselves of the feeling of guilt. …we…did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children. … Surely we cannot be proud of what we have done. If we state our inner thoughts honestly, we are ashamed of it.”

If shame is the natural response to Hiroshima, how is one to respond to Nagasaki, especially in view of all the declassified government papers on the subject? According to Dr. Joseph Gerson’s With Hiroshima Eye, some 74,000 were killed instantly at Nagasaki, another 75,000 were injured and 120,000 were poisoned.

If Hiroshima was unnecessary, how to justify Nagasaki?

The saving of thousands of US lives is held up as the official justification for the two atomic bombings. Leaving aside the ethical and legal question of slaughtering civilians to protect soldiers, what can be made of the Nagasaki bomb if Hiroshima’s incineration was not necessary?

The most amazingly under-reported statement in this context is that of Truman’s Secretary of State James Byrnes, quoted on the front page of the August 29, 1945 New York Times with the headline, “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Byrnes cited what he called “proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.”

On Sept. 20, 1945, Gen. Curtis LeMay, the famous bombing commander, told a press conference, “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

According to Robert Lifton’s and Greg Mitchel’s Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial (1995), only weeks after August 6 and 9, President Truman himself publicly declared that the bomb “did not win the war.”

The US Strategic Bombing Survey, conducted by Paul Nitze less than a year after the atom bombings, concluded that “certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and ever if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Likewise, the Intelligence Group of the US War Department’s Military Intelligence Division conducted a study from January to April 1946 and declared that the bombs had not been needed to end the war, according to reports Gar Alperovitz in his massive The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb. The IG said it is “almost a certainty that the Japanese would have capitulated upon the entry of Russia into the war.”

Russia did so, Aug. 8, 1945, and as Ward Wilson reports in his Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons, six hours after news of Russia’s invasion of Sakhalin Island reached Tokyo — and before Nagasaki was bombed — the Supreme Council met to discuss unconditional surrender.

Experiments with hell fire?

Nagasaki was attacked with a bomb made of plutonium, named after Pluto, god of the underworld earlier known as Hades, in what some believe to have been a ghastly trial. The most toxic substance known to science, developed for mass destruction, plutonium is so lethal it contaminates everything nearby forever, every isotope a little bit of hell fire.

According to Atomic Cover-Up, Hitoshi Motoshima, mayor of Nagasaki from 1979 to 1995, said, “The reason for Nagasaki was to experiment with the plutonium bomb.” Mitchell notes that “hard evidence to support this ‘experiment’ as the major reason for the bombing remains sketchy.” But according to a wire service report in Newsweek, Aug. 20, 1945, by a journalist traveling with the president aboard the USS Augusta, Truman reportedly announced to his shipmates, “The experiment has been an overwhelming success.”

US investigators visiting Hiroshima Sept. 8, 1945 met with Japan’s leading radiation expert, Professor Masao Tsuzuki. One was given a 1926 paper on Tsuzuki’s famous radiation experiments on rabbits. “Ah, but the Americans, they are wonderful,” Tsuzuki told the group. “It has remained for them to conduct the human experiment!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, edits its quarterly newsletter, and writes for PeaceVoice.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | history, Japan, Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

Over 100 Children Have Died of Severe Hunger Amid Israeli Siege: Gaza Health Ministry.

“People are being starved, children are being killed, families have lost everything,” said the United Nations agency for Palestinian Refugees.


Brad Reed, Aug 11, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/gaza-children-starvation-2673875979

The Gaza Health Ministry announced on Monday that more than 100 children in Gaza have died of severe hunger during Israel’s siege of the territory.

As Al Jazeera reported, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said that a total of 222 Palestinians have died from hunger during the siege, including 101 children. The vast majority of these deaths have come in just the last three weeks when the hunger crisis in Gaza started to garner international media attention, the ministry said.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East on Monday emphasized the direness of the situation in a statement calling for a cease-fire to allow more aid into Gaza.

“People are being starved, children are being killed,” the agency said. “Families have lost everything. Political will and leadership can stop an escalation and end the war. Every heartbeat counts.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that there is no starvation crisis in Gaza and has said such reports are part of a “fake” propaganda campaign waged by Israel’s enemies.

However, it isn’t just the Gaza Health Ministry warning of a hunger crisis in the region, as international charity Save the Children last week said that 43% of pregnant and breastfeeding women who showed up to its clinics in Gaza last month were malnourished, which represented a threefold increase since March, when the Israeli military imposed a total siege on the area.

The latest numbers about starvation in Gaza come as the Israeli government is pushing forward with a plan to fully invade and occupy Gaza, which experts have warned will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis among its people.

“If these plans are implemented, they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction,” said Miroslav Jenca, the United Nations assistant secretary general, over the weekend.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Netanyahu’s Plan To Occupy Gaza Violates World Court Ruling That Israeli Occupation is Illegal.

 August 12, 2025 By Marjorie Cohn ScheerPost, https://scheerpost.com/2025/08/12/netanyahus-plan-to-occupy-gaza-violates-world-court-ruling-that-israeli-occupation-is-illegal/

As the death toll of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip surpasses 61,000 and Israel continues to starve Gazans to death, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear that Israel plans to occupy all of Gaza. When asked in an August 7 appearance on Fox News whether Israel would “take control of all of Gaza,” Netanyahu replied, “We intend to.”

The Israeli Occupation Forces say they already control about 75 percent of Gaza. The remaining 25 percent includes Gaza City, Khan Younis, and many neighborhoods and refugee camps in central Gaza. 

Israel’s occupation of Gaza flies in the face of the July 19 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court). In its landmark 83-page advisory opinion, the ICJ held, “The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.” 

During the proceedings at the ICJ, Israel had argued that because it withdrew its military forces from Gaza in 2005, it no longer occupied the Gaza Strip. But the World Court concluded that Israel continues to occupy Gaza because it exercises “effective control” of “the land, sea and air borders” and maintains “restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone.” The court noted that “This is even more so since 7 October 2023.”

Israel’s Security Cabinet Approves the Takeover of Gaza City

Netanyahu’s stated intention leaves no doubt that he aims to make Israel’s occupation of Gaza official. On August 8, in the first step toward executing that plan, the Israeli security cabinet authorized the takeover of Gaza City, the forcible displacement of the 1 million Palestinians taking refuge there, and their confinement in “camps.”

To eliminate media witnesses to its impending slaughter, Israeli Occupation Forces killed five Al Jazeera journalists near Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital on the evening of August 10. They included the beloved Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent Anas al-Sharif, who had reported widely from northern Gaza. 

“The Israeli Government’s plan for a complete military takeover of the occupied Gaza strip must be immediately halted. It runs contrary to the ruling of the International Court of Justice that Israel must bring its occupation to an end as soon as possible, to the realisation of the agreed two-State solution and to the right of Palestinians to self-determination,” UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk stated on August 8. “On all evidence to date, this further escalation will result in more massive forced displacement, more killing, more unbearable suffering, senseless destruction and atrocity crimes.”

In a Joint Statement issued on August 9, more than 20 countries, joined by the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, expressed “their strong condemnation and categorical rejection of Israel’s announcement of its intention to impose full military control over the Gaza Strip.” They wrote, “We consider this announcement a dangerous and unacceptable escalation, a flagrant violation of international law, and an attempt to entrench the illegal occupation and impose a fait accompli/facts on the ground by force, in contravention of international legitimacy.”

On August 10, the United Nations Security Council convened an emergency meeting at the request of the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Greece, and Slovenia, who issued the following statement:

We condemn the Government of Israel’s decision to further expand its military operations in Gaza. This plan risks violating international humanitarian law. We call on Israel to urgently reverse this decision and not to implement it. And we reiterate that any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law … We call on both parties to secure an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the release of all the hostages, and to urgently advance efforts to achieve a two-state solution.

All UN member countries except Israel and the U.S. denounced Netanyahu’s occupation plan for Gaza at the Council meeting. For example, the representative from Somalia said the ICJ “was unequivocal” that Israel’s occupation, blockade, denial of humanitarian access, and actions constituting collective punishment in Gaza violate international law. Algeria’s representative strongly condemned the Israeli security cabinet’s decision to displace the entire population of Gaza City and northern Gaza and impose full military control of Gaza, stating that “these are war crimes, and those who draw their maps in blood must not walk in the shadow of impunity.” The delegate from Denmark invoked the ICJ’s ruling that any unilateral attempts to alter the demography or status of Gaza amounts to a clear violation of international law. China’s ambassador said the Council “must firmly oppose any attempt to occupy Gaza.”

The same day the Council met, Saudi Arabia issued a statement saying it “condemns in the strongest possible terms the decision of the Israeli occupation authorities to occupy the Gaza Strip and categorically condemns their persistence in committing crimes of starvation, brutal practices, and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people.”

Trump Gives Israel the Green Light to Occupy Gaza

“They’re talking about occupying areas that are packed with so many people,” said Mukhlis al-Masri, who was forced to leave his home in northern Gaza and is now in Khan Younis. He told The New York Times that “If they do that, there will be incalculable killing. The situation will be more dangerous than anyone can imagine.”

The United States tried to prevent the meeting of the Security Council, the body empowered by the UN Charter to maintain international peace and security. Although unable to thwart the meeting from taking place, the threat of a U.S. veto prevented the Council from considering a resolution. 

Dorothy Shea, U.S. interim ambassador to the UN, charged that the Security Council meeting was “emblematic of the counterproductive role that far too many governments on this council and throughout the UN system have played on the issue.” Her comments demonstrate the U.S.’s consistent defiance of international law.

Donald Trump gave Israel the tacit green light to take over Gaza. “That’s going to be pretty much up to Israel,” he said when asked about Netanyahu’s plan. 

The United States routinely provides Israel with diplomatic cover for its international crimes – not only in the Security Council, but also at the ICJ and the International Criminal Court. The ICC has charged Netanyahu with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

And the U.S. also flouts its legal obligations by enabling – indeed, aiding and abetting – Israel’s genocide by providing millions of dollars in weapons used to massacre Palestinians. 

The U.S. has the power to stop Netanyahu’s illegal and dangerous plan. “Unless the United States changes its stance, I think ultimately, Israel will continue with this plan,” warned Will Todman, chief of staff of the geopolitics and foreign policy department and a senior fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That would be a disaster – for the people of Gaza and the region, the rule of law, and the integrity of the global community.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

A Mob of Alien Creatures Just Took 4 Nuclear Reactors Completely Offline.

They found their way into the filter drums of the pumping station.

By Darren Orf, Aug 15, 2025 , https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a65775055/jellyfish-nuclear-shutdown/

Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:

  • A swarm of jellyfish shut down four of six nuclear reactors at the Gravelines power plant near Calais, France.
  • The jellyfish found their way into the filter drums of the pumping station, causing a temporary shutdown over the weekend.
  • Jellyfish swarms are increasing around the world as warmer oceans provide better spawning conditions and low-oxygen dead zones (caused largely by agricultural runoff) kill off aquatic competition.

Jellyfish are remarkable creatures. They’re twice as old as dinosaurs; they don’t have brains, lungs, or a heart; and they’ve nearly cracked the secret to immortality. But there’s another accolade that they can affix to their already impressive biological resumé—they’re the scourge of nuclear reactors.

This fact was proven this past Sunday, when three of the six reactors at Gravelines power plant near Calais in northern France shut down unexpectedly because a swarm of jellyfish had entered the plant’s cooling system, according to the government-owned utility operator Électricité de France, or EDF. y Monday morning, a fourth reactor also temporarily shut down.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | environment | Leave a comment

Equinix enters into multiple advanced nuclear deals to power data centers

By Laila Kearney, August 14, 2025

 Major data center developer and operator Equinix (EQIX.O), opens new tab
has entered into several advanced nuclear electricity deals, including
power purchase agreements for fission energy and pre-ordering microreactors
for its operations, the company said on Thursday.

 Big Tech’s race to expand technologies like generative artificial
intelligence, which requires warehouse-like data centers that can require
city-sized amounts of electricity at a single site, is driving up global
energy consumption and raising fears about depleted power supplies.

 Reuters 14th Aug 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/equinix-enters-into-multiple-advanced-nuclear-deals-power-data-centers-2025-08-14/

August 16, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Reckon you can put a nuclear reactor on the Moon?

You have until Thursday August 21 to respond if you do

The Register, Richard Speed, Fri 15 Aug 2025 

NASA’s plans to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon have moved on – the agency has now put out a Request For Information (RFI) to gauge industry interest in the project.

An RFI is not an invitation to bid for the work. Interested parties need to register their interest by 21 August, and only later, there’s a chance that they could be used to “finalize a potential opportunity later this year.” It comes after a directive from NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy that called for the US to be the first to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon.

Things will need to move fast if the agency is to meet the goal of being ready to launch by the first quarter of fiscal year 2030.

Dubbed the Fission Surface Power System, the reactor must have a mass of less than 15 metric tons, have a minimum power output of 100 kWe, and utilize a closed Brayton cycle power conversion system.

NASA is no stranger to nuclear power. It had rovers and spacecraft powered by the technology and has looked into Brayton cycle power conversion for nuclear electric propulsion on Mars missions [PDF].

The Apollo missions used Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) to power experiments to be left on the lunar surface. These contained plutonium-238, and one returned to Earth on Apollo 13, remaining on the lunar module. The container for the plutonium is now at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, and no release of radiation has been detected.

One hundred kilowatts of power is, however, an order of magnitude greater than the nuclear power sources launched by NASA to date. It would be enough to power the International Space Station (ISS), which currently charges its batteries using electricity generated by solar arrays attached to the outpost………………………https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/15/nuclear_moon/

August 16, 2025 Posted by | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries