Golden Rule: The Journey for Peace
Today, on Armistice Day, we honor the original meaning of this date: a day dedicated to peace, to the end of war, and to the hope that we can build a different future. It is with that precise intention that we are incredibly proud to release our documentary:
Golden Rule: The Journey for Peace

We chose this day deliberately. While the world often focuses on military service, we seek to reclaim the radical hope of the original 1918 armistice, a moment that declared, “The war to end all wars is over.” Our film is a continuation of that promise, a testament to the courage it takes to sail for peace in a world still gripped by violence.
This film is a piece of our hearts, a story of the waves, the wind, and the unwavering commitment that carried our historic ketch across the Pacific, c
This Film is Our Armistice Day Commitment.
In a time of escalating conflict and a dangerous new nuclear arms race, this film is our active prayer for peace. It is our stand for climate justice and our pledge to protect our most vulnerable. ontinuing a 65-year legacy of bold, anti-nuclear activism.
Spoiler alert: deterrence doesn’t work.
‘A House of Dynamite’ reminds us there are no good choices after a nuclear launch, writes Linda Pentz Gunter
Warning: This article contains spoilers in connection to the film, A House of Dynamite. If you have not seen the film, you are advised to read no further (and to watch the film).
Upon the abrupt ending of Kathryn Bigelow’s new drama, A House of Dynamite, the three bros in the row in front of us at the cinema all exclaimed in unison, “Whaaaat??” They had expected the film to have an ending; a resolution; a big bang for their fourteen bucks. “Congratulations” I remember uttering under my breath, “you just missed the entire point of the movie.”
A House of Dynamite is not about seeing things blow up. It is about realizing that once things are about to blow up, there is no right decision anyone can make, not even the President of the United States. (In case you haven’t seen the film, an omission you should immediately remedy, it features three versions of the same 18-minute span during which US military, officials and the US president must respond to a single nuclear missile headed for Chicago.)
The editorial pages of the Washington Post, which have become a compliant mouthpiece for the paper’s owner, Trump-supporting billionaire Jeff Bezos, couldn’t wait to nitpick at the film, desperate to find “inaccuracies.” The US president, they complained, played by Idris Elba, would not have been “alone on Marine One with one military aide” when faced with deciding what to do about the missile.
Really? Chicago is about to be obliterated and this is what niggled at them? Doubtless the scene was done this way for dramatic effect. Their other gripe was that the greeting between the president and his deputy national security advisor was too formal. Perhaps the Post had to cling to these trivial pursuits because when it comes to the things of substance in the film, almost everyone familiar with how such a scenario would play out has called many of the depictions in it by and large chillingly accurate.
All of this was simply the Post’s way of navigating toward the central thesis of its editorial — entitled How to live in our nuclear ‘House of Dynamite — that “only deterrence, not disarmament, can actually keep the peace” and that “Mutually assured destruction works.” Houston, we’ve had a problem!
The problem we have is just how pervasive this belief is — that we are safer with nuclear weapons than without them. This is the case not only in virtually all political circles, not just the hawkish ones, but also among otherwise perfectly reasonable people. For those of us in the nuclear abolition movement, the deterrence credo is the biggest barrier against achieving our disarmament goals. That means we’ve got to keep exploding that myth, to use an unfortunate metaphor, because, as Bigelow’s film shows us, living in a house of dynamite means it will inevitably blow up.
A House of Dynamite, like Christopher Nolan’s film Oppenheimer before it, and the Chernobyl television series before that, provide our collective anti-nuclear movements with unmissable teachable moments. We may not like everything about the choices the directors made or their fidelity to absolute fact, but they deliver our issue to a mass audience of wildly high numbers we could never dream of reaching.
A House of Dynamite is currently the most watched film on Netflix (although for an erudition reality check, the most watched film in Netflix history is KPop Demon Hunters). Oppenheimer grossed $80.5 million in North America during its opening weekend. Chernobyl had a record-breaking 52% of its audience watching on its digital platforms, surpassing Game of Thrones, and an average of 4.7 million viewers per episode.
All of these dramas give us the chance to amplify our message. So did President Trump’s error-laden blurt last week that the US would resume testing nuclear weapons. The US Department of Energy has since explained to Trump that when it comes to “nuclear testing”, they “do not think it means what you think it means.” (If I’ve lost you, please see another popular movie, The Princess Bride.) But for a while, his remarks captured the headlines and generated a lot of ink.
To prove its point, and having clarified that there “will not be nuclear explosions”, according to DOE Secretary Chris Wright, the White House moved quickly to authorize the launch of a Minuteman III missile from the Vandenberg Space Force Base, which landed 30 minutes later on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, a typical practice exercise carried out several times a year. The Minuteman III is an intercontinental ballistic missile ground-based nuclear warhead delivery system. There was no actual nuclear warhead on the test.
Nevertheless, Trump’s confused threats before the latest test was launched, provoked an interesting debate within the nuclear disarmament movement as to how best to respond. The discussion took place on an email listserv, but I have permission from the correspondents to quote them. Many valid points were made across a spectrum of perspectives, stimulating further discourse……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Among other things, we have logic and common sense on our side. Despite what the hawks at the Washington Post might declare, it is abundantly obvious that having no nuclear weapons in the world is the surest path to peace. That’s also because we can’t be certain that nuclear weapons won’t be used accidentally or by a mad man (hello!). And deterrence relies on having one hundred percent certainty it will work, always and forever. That’s clearly one hundred percent unrealistic.
Oddly, even the Washington Post seemed to concede this in the end. In a curious non sequitorial last line in its editorial it extolled the virtues of Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense boondoggle, “even if it ultimately works half the time,” because “just as missile defenses can fail, so too can deterrence.”
Now there’s coherence for you. We should welcome a $25 billion downpayment of taxpayer money on a missile defense system that will only work half the time so that we can continue to spend $50 billion a year maintaining nuclear weapons we supposedly won’t use and $1.5-$2 trillion over the next three decades “modernizing” them, just in case none of this works after all and someone else does use theirs against us, at which point we can assume that about 50 percent of them will reach their target.
We can knock these specious arguments out of the air with a far greater success rate than Trump’s Golden Dome or Fort Greely’s missile interceptors, the ones that failed so drastically in A House of Dynamite. With all the well-versed arguments of our colleagues in our armory, let’s get to work. Fire away! https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/11/09/spoiler-alert-deterrence-doesnt-work/
New U.S. nuclear power boom begins with old, still-unsolved problem: What to do with radioactive waste

“I’m not sure that the tech industry has really thought through whether they want to be responsible for managing nuclear waste at their data center sites.”
Bob Woods CNBC, Sun, Nov 9 2025
Key Points
- The Trump administration aims to quadruple the current nuclear energy output over the next 25 years through construction of conventional reactors and next-gen small modular reactors, but a clear solution has yet to emerge for the old issue of radioactive waste.
- More than 95,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel (with a minority from weapons programs) sits temporarily stockpiled in special water-filled pools or dry casks at 79 sites in 39 states.
- The Department of Energy has no permanent disposal facility for nuclear waste, leaving taxpayers on the hook for payments to utilities of up to $800 million every year in damages, a bill that has reached $11.1 billion since 1998, and could grow to $44.5 billion in the future.
Nuclear power is back, largely due to the skyrocketing demand for electricity, including big tech’s hundreds of artificial intelligence data centers across the country and the reshoring of manufacturing. But it returns with an old and still-unsolved problem: storing all of the radioactive waste created as a byproduct of nuclear power generation.
In May, President Trump issued executive orders aimed at quadrupling the current nuclear output over the next 25 years by accelerating construction of both large conventional reactors and next-gen small modular reactors. Last week, the U.S. signed a deal with Westinghouse owners Cameco and Brookfield Asset Management to spend $80 billion to build nuclear plants across the country that could result in Westinghouse attempting to spinoff and IPO a stand-alone nuclear power company with the federal government as a shareholder.
There’s a growing consensus among governments, businesses and the public that the time is right for a nuclear power renaissance, and even if the ambitious build-out could take a decade or more and cost hundreds of billion of dollars, it will be an eventual boon to legacy and start-up nuclear energy companies, the AI-fixated wing of the tech industry and investors banking on their success.
But there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. Only two nuclear power plants have been built since 1990 — more than $15 billion over budget and years behind schedule — and they went online in just the last two years. Almost all of the 94 reactors currently operating in 28 states, generating about 20% of the nation’s electricity, were built between 1967 and 1990. And though often unspoken, there’s the prickly issue that’s been grappled with ever since the first nuclear energy wave during the 1960s and ’70s: how to store, manage and dispose of radioactive waste, the toxic byproduct of harnessing uranium to generate electricity — and portions of which remain hazardous for millennia.
Solutions, employing old and new technologies, are under development by a number of private and public companies and in collaboration with the Department of Energy, which is required by law to accept and store spent nuclear fuel.
The most viable solution for permanently storing nuclear waste was first proffered back in 1957 by the National Academy of Sciences. Its report recommended burying the detritus in deep underground repositories (as opposed to the long-since-abandoned notion of blasting it into low-Earth orbit). It wasn’t until 1982, though, that Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, assigning the DOE responsibility for finding such a site…………………………………
Other nations have moved forward with the idea. Finland, for instance, is nearing completion of the world’s first permanent underground disposal site ………………………………………..
An American startup, Deep Isolation Nuclear, is combining the underground burial concept with oil-and-gas fracking techniques. The methodology, called deep borehole disposal, is achieved by drilling 18-inch vertical tunnels thousands of feet below ground, then turning horizontal. Corrosion-resistant canisters — each 16 feet long, 15 inches in diameter and weighing 6,000 pounds — containing nuclear waste are forced down into the horizontal sections, stacked side-by-side and stored, conceivably, for thousands of years………………………………………………………………..
Recycling radioactive waste for modular reactors
An entirely different, old-is-new-again technology, pioneered in the mid-1940s during the Manhattan Project, is gathering steam. It involves reprocessing spent fuel to extract uranium and other elements to create new fuel to power small modular reactors. The process is being explored by several startups, including Curio, Shine Technologies and Oklo.

Oklo has gained attention among investors drawn to its two-pronged approach to nuclear energy. The company — which went public via a SPAC in 2024, after early-stage funding from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Peter Thiel’s venture capital firm and others — announced in September that it is earmarking $1.68 billion to build an advanced fuel reprocessing facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Concurrently, the company signed an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority “to explore how we can take used nuclear fuel sitting on its sites and convert it into fuel we can use in our reactors,” said a company spokeswoman……………………………..
Oklo exemplifies both the promise and the perplexity associated with the rebirth of nuclear power. On one hand is the attraction of repurposing nuclear waste and building dozens of SMRs to electrify AI data centers and factories. On the other hand, the company has no facilities in full operation, is awaiting final approval from the NRC for its Aurora reactor, and is producing no revenue. Oklo’s stock has risen nearly 429% this year, with a current market valuation of more than $16.5 billion, but share prices have fluctuated over the past month.
“It’s a high-risk name because it’s pre-revenue, and I anticipate that the company will need to provide more details around its Aurora reactor plans, as well as the [fuel reprocessing] program on the [November 11] earnings report call,” said Jed Dorsheimer, an energy industry analyst at William Blair in a late October interview. “
In the meantime, more than 95,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel (about 10,000 tons is from weapons programs) sits temporarily stockpiled aboveground in special water-filled pools or dry casks at 79 sites in 39 states, while about 2,000 metric tons are being produced every year. ………………………………………………………………………
Allison Macfarlane, professor and director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, as well as the chair of the NRC from 2012–2014, deems spent fuel reprocessing as far too expensive and a source of new waste streams, and dismisses deep borehole disposal as a “non-starter.”……………………
As far as nuclear waste, “we need to put [it] deep underground,” Macfarlane said.
………………………………………………………………….the rush to build new reactors — and generate even more waste — marches on alongside the data center boom……………………………….
Those long timelines alone should be a deterrent, said Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information Resource Service, a nonprofit advocate for a nuclear-free world. “It is fanciful to think that nuclear energy is going to be helpful in dealing with the increases in electricity demand from data centers,” he said, “because nuclear power plants take so long to build and the data centers are being built today.”
And then there’s the waste issue, Judson said. “I’m not sure that the tech industry has really thought through whether they want to be responsible for managing nuclear waste at their data center sites.”
But you can count Gates, the big tech billionaire who was backing nuclear even before the AI data center boom, as having not only thought about the waste problem, but dismissed it as major impediment. “The waste problems should not be a reason to not do nuclear,” Gates said in an interview with the German business publication Handelsblatt back in 2023….. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/09/nuclear-power-energy-radioactive-waste-storage-disposal.html
Stop the nuclear MADness

by Harlan Ullman,- 11/10/25 , https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5595645-strategic-nuclear-weapons-resurgence/
For better or for worse, strategic nuclear weapons are back on the docket.
Given that the Cold War ended 35 years ago, most Americans have little understanding of or interest in these weapons that could literally obliterate much if not all of our society. The marvelous Stanley Kubrick movie “Dr. Strangelove” satirized the notion of mutual assured destruction and the Soviet Union’s “doomsday device” that, once triggered, would destroy the world.
During the Cold War, the image of two scorpions in a bottle, representing the U.S. and Soviet Union, was popularized, meaning both could sting the other to death. Decades later, at least three scorpions inhabit that bottle, with the addition of China pursuing a serious strategic nuclear arsenal rivaling that of the other two military superpowers.
If not in the same bottle, certainly in the same room are the other nuclear states: Britain, France, North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan. Iran and Saudi Arabia are in the anteroom.
Now, these strategic nuclear matters have been brought to a head by the expiration of the New START Treaty in January and President Trump’s confusing and unhelpful comment that the U.S. will resume testing its nuclear weapons.
The New START treaty limited both the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed a voluntary extension of the treaty limits on warheads and launchers.
Trump’s comments on testing have completely disrupted the arms control process. By testing, does Trump mean actually exploding current warheads? Does he mean continuing the non-critical testing that does not require actual fission or fusion to take place? Or does he mean testing launchers?
If he’s talking about explosive testing, virtually all experts regard that as highly dangerous and unnecessary.
Worse, in response to Trump’s proposal to build a Golden Dome around and over America to defend against missile or bomber attacks, Putin held a press conference discussing Russia’s efforts surrounding the Skyfall and Poseidon missiles.
Skyfall is NATO’s designation for a nuclear powered, nuclear tipped cruise missile with nearly unlimited range. Poseidon is a nuclear powered, nuclear tipped unmanned underwater torpedo with transoceanic range.
While Skyfall is subsonic, flying feet above the surface, it could attack from any direction. Poseidon could sail undetected into U.S. harbors — say New York or San Francisco — and detonate a multi-megaton warhead
Megaton weapons can deliver 1,000 times more explosive power than the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. Multiple Poseidon attacks could destroy the American economy.
The strategic nuclear balance has been further complicated by conventional weapons with the capacity to strike and destroy these systems with pinpoint accuracy — cruise missiles such as Tomahawk and long-range convention bombs that can be launched at significant distances from targets. None of these have been included in arms control agreements, and the U.S. abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001.
The U.S. government has also lost experts who were deeply engaged in these issues. For example, not one of the current Joint Chiefs of Staff has any experience along these lines, as strategic arms control has not been a high priority. The same is true in the White House.
China, so far, has been unwilling to engage in arms control talks, probably waiting until it has expanded its own nuclear capability to a certain level. So under these circumstances, what if anything, can be done beyond leaders agreeing that nuclear weapons can never be used and nuclear war can never be fought?
The options are not good. Engagement with China must continue. Perhaps agreements for mutual inspection of nuclear systems to ensure safety and reliability can begin confidence-building measures. Military-to-military talks on nuclear issues and safeguards are always a good idea. However, given Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, is anyone willing to raise this possibility?
The only concrete step is to ensure that kinetic nuclear testing — namely exploding warheads underground or on the surface and in the air — remains forbidden. Otherwise, a new and unwanted and potentially threatening arms race will be on, and that cannot be permitted.
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D. is UPI’s Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and former United Kingdom Defense Chief David Richards are the authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe
Destroying Europe in order to save it: Extortion, theft, and the EU’s two disastrous choices

Strategic Culture Foundation, Joaquin Flores, November 5, 2025
Europe can postpone recognition of failure, but it cannot postpone the bill.
Europe now faces a stark choice forced by its disastrous war policy against Russia: either allow the EU to successfully move toward a centralized state over the heads of its member states, risking a mass Eurexit that may or may not succeed in reaction to that gamble, or delay the larger crisis through member states quietly accepting one of several schemes that will cripple the economy and create social strife regardless.
The Union must decide whether to use frozen Russian sovereign assets to finance a €140 billion “reparation” loan for Ukraine, or to issue joint debt through Eurobonds.
Both paths carry severe legal risks and impose heavy costs on citizens: one through contingent liabilities, the other through immediate taxes, austerity, and political instability. Pushing through the Eurobond option would amount to a structural coup, a radical re-engineering of the EU against its current form. A recent Politico piece framed these in terms of Option A and B, which helps to contrast these two potential ways forward.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s scheme from the European Commission reveals the depths of EU tyranny in its failed gambit to defeat Russia and guarantee investment outcomes in Ukraine.
SAFE, (Security Action for Europe), a €150 billion defense loan program, was initially proposed in March by von der Leyen with the goal of stimulating rapid defense investment. By May, EU ministers had given their final approval to the program, without consulting the European Parliament, provoking a suit from the Parliament.
Whether or not the Eurobond or Russian asset-seizure (theft) scheme is being proposed in light of (perhaps) likely-to-succeed challenges to the SAFE loan program, or if the Commission is trying to actually raise a total of nearly €300 billion, remains to be seen. What is certain is the push for SAFE comes chronologically after there was significant push-back from EU member states and ministers themselves on the feasibility of spending seized/frozen Russian assets (including interest on the moneys, for war against Russia, or anything else). And the Commission push for this Eurobond scheme comes after the EU Parliament presented a suit against SAFE.
What the Eurobond scheme and SAFE both have in common, nevertheless, is the mechanism for implementation, recklessly assuming authority to do so under a radically broadened interpretation of its powers re Article 122 TFEU.
The Commission is using threats to force member states to spend the frozen Russian assets. Refuse and each government faces a political crisis. Eurobonds are deeply unpopular because the mutualized debt falls on the population, leading to the overturning of governments at the ballot-box, and imposing them unilaterally would break EU treaties, leading to an emboldened Eurexit movement. Member states are being pushed to approve the use of unlawfully seized assets, completing the illegal expropriation through their own consent.
The stakes are far higher than money. This is a coup against the EU as it was conceived, a total re-envisioning of the Union itself. Ursula von der Leyen is not merely leveraging bonds to secure Ukraine funding. She is playing a game of chicken that risks the Union’s structure………………………………
Option A: Frozen Russian assets – huge legal risk, long-term cost to citizens
Legally, tapping frozen Russian assets is precarious………………………………….
….sovereign assets normally enjoy immunity from seizure under international law and bilateral treaties, reflected in the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004) and the 1989 Belgium–Russia bilateral investment treaty.…………………………………………………………………………………..
Option B: Eurobonds – unconstitutional overreach and overt social burden
Unilateral Eurobonds generally collide with the EU’s treaty architecture: the Commission cannot force the issuing of mutualized debt; joint borrowing requires unanimous backing and national ratification.
To do otherwise requires violating the EU’s treaty itself. Brussels is signaling it might act first and fight legal challenges later. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
If forced, citizens face higher taxes, constrained public services, and renewed austerity. Debt obligations do not disappear with elections; social unrest could deepen inequality, provoke Euroscepticism, and trigger exit pressures. Constitutionally, this makes the Commission behave as a sovereign treasury without legitimacy.
€140 bn in debt spread across 200 million workers equals €700 per worker. At 3 % annual interest, servicing costs €21 bn/year, or €105 per worker annually over ten years. Principal plus €42 bn interest totals €182 bn, or €910 per worker. This translates into grandmothers skipping groceries, students delaying college, and curtailed public services. Trade unions, left-wing groups, and small-business forces could trigger a pan-European ‘Yellow Vests’-style crisis.
Conclusion: Evergreening, sunk costs, and Who pays
Both options are evergreening: keeping failing policies alive to avoid losses. Option A buries legal risk and hands latent liabilities to future citizens; Option B openly burdens taxpayers and risks constitutional rupture. And even worse, both scenarios ignore the chronic economic hazard to Europe if it continues its course of sanctions on Russian energy, which could make it the least competitive economy in the developed world.
In both options, the EU is pouring billions either directly into Ukraine or into arms to supply it yet the war is almost certainly lost and the billions spent on expected returns from reconstruction of Russian-liberated territories will never be recovered, turning these investments into sunk costs that serve only to prolong the illusion of economic coherence.
Europe suffers a paradigm problem and an existential crisis at the level of its ‘Eurocracy.’ Paradoxically, the policies that are politically hardest to enact at this bureaucratic level are also the most necessary and potentially fruitful. Since the EU proposes to embark upon a radical reconstruction of the Union itself, perhaps it is appropriate to presume something as radical, but in the direction of stability, growth, and peace: 1) reversing its war-footing; 2) rapprochement with Russia along the U.S.-Russia model; 3) restoring energy pipelines like Nord Stream 2; 4) recognizing Ukraine as Russia’s legitimate sphere of influence; 5) joint investment with Russia in the post-Warsaw Pact sphere; 6) building on the OSCE and 1975 Helsinki Final Act framework; 7) developing a joint Eurasian economic and security architecture. This ensures stability, development, and prosperity for generations.
For Europe, this requires overcoming chronic Russophobia and eschewing Atlanticist paranoia. Europe can postpone recognition of failure, but it cannot postpone the bill. Who will be left holding it, and will there even be an EU that can pull this off? https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/11/05/destroying-europe-in-order-to-save-it-extortion-theft-and-the-eus-two-disastrous-choices/
US-Led ‘Coordination Center’ Replaces Israel as ‘Overseer’ of Gaza Aid Deliveries
Israel has continued to restrict aid deliveries into Gaza in violation of the ceasefire deal
by Dave DeCamp | November 9, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/11/09/us-led-coordination-center-replaces-israel-as-overseer-of-gaza-aid-deliveries/
The US military-led Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) that was recently established in southern Israel has replaced Israel as the “overseer” of Gaza aid deliveries, The Washington Post reported on Friday.
Since the ceasefire deal was supposed to be implemented on October 10, Israel has violated it by continuing to restrict aid deliveries entering Gaza. “Israel is blocking the Trump plan’s humanitarian clauses,” Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, told the Post.
Egeland said it was “very good news” that the US is more engaged in aid deliveries, though it remains unclear whether the restrictions will be lifted. “Our appeal is make the plan a reality,” he said. “Of course, the credibility of the United States is at stake here.”
One of the biggest impediments to aid deliveries is that Israel has only allowed trucks to enter Gaza through two border crossings, with most deliveries going through the Kerem Shalom crossing in southern Gaza. “We need full access. We need everything to be moving fast. We are in a race against time. The winter months are coming. People are still suffering from hunger, and the needs are overwhelming,” Abeer Etefa, a spokeswoman for the UN’s World Food Program, said last week.
There have been no direct aid deliveries to northern Gaza, where people need food the most, and, according to the Post report, many of the trucks allowed to enter Gaza carry commercial goods that few Palestinians can afford to purchase.
The Post report said the responsibility for Gaza aid was being shifted to the CMCC from the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), a unit of the Israeli Defense Ministry that oversees Israeli-occupied and controlled territory.
In response to the report, COGAT characterized the shift differently, saying the “Americans will be integrated into the formulation and implementation of coordination, supervision, and control mechanisms in the context of humanitarian aid, in full cooperation with the Israeli security services.”
An unnamed Israeli official said that the “Americans will take the lead in engaging with the international community on humanitarian matters. … It should be emphasized that this does not constitute a transfer of authority or responsibility from COGAT to the Americans.”
While the US leads the CMCC, where about 200 US troops have been deployed, the Post report said more than 40 other countries and organizations are also involved. The CMCC is also supposed to oversee an international force that may be deployed to Gaza under the ceasefire deal, but it remains unclear whether it will come together, as countries willing to participate want more clarity about exactly what their troops will be doing.
In the meantime, Israeli troops continue to occupy more than 50% of Gaza’s territroy and continue to carry out attacks against Palestinians. Since the ceasefire went into effect on October 10, at least 241 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
Iran says West will have to recognize it as nuclear science hub
By Xinhua,, November 11, 2025 https://www.chinadailyasia.com/hk/article/623347
TEHERAN – Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said on Monday that Western countries would eventually have to acknowledge Iran as a scientific hub in the field of peaceful nuclear technology, state media reported.
Speaking during a visit to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Araghchi praised the country’s achievements in the nuclear sector and reaffirmed Teheran’s commitment to defending its nuclear rights.
“The West’s main goal is to deprive Iran of its nuclear capabilities and maintain its monopoly,” Araghchi said, adding that “Western countries will ultimately have no choice but to recognize Iran as a scientific hub for the peaceful nuclear industry.”
He said Iran’s progress in nuclear science was the result of years of effort and sacrifice by Iranian scientists, and reiterated that no one in Iran would give up the country’s nuclear rights.
He said Iran has consistently sought to demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear program by cooperating with international bodies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Western governments have long accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Teheran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is aimed at power generation and medical purposes.
THE ELITE EURO SUICIDERS.

Tragically, some intent on suicide carry through with no one able to convince them not to. Currently most European leaders have such a mindset, risking the total economic destruction of their nations.
Aearnur, Nov 11, 2025
Idealism in its purest form is a noble and selfless endeavor when put into action. It can move mountains and radically shift perceptions when it is used to appeal to the masses……………..
True idealism in these days of relentless disinformation campaigns and all-pervasive western propaganda, is as rare as hens’ teeth. Nonetheless, most of the leadership we find across Europe appear driven by a certain fixed concept of ultimate rightness and ultimate wrongness. This distorted, heavily blinkered form of idealism permits no opposing thought to disrupt its 100% crusader mentality.
The idea of moderating their “idealistic”, totally fixed viewpoints or any of their set in stone foreign policies is anathema to them. To view the geopolitical realities holistically to them is totally unthinkable and unacceptable. Their aggressive drive toward mindless war with Russia, and now also with China, has no reverse gear. For them it is a matter of do… or die. And now we see that their economies are indeed dying.
Naturally it is not be the political leadership of Europe who are doing the dying. Those continuing to die by thousands per week are Ukrainians. These Ukrainians have a leadership equally locked into the same faux idealism driving their European sponsors.
Thus, from the two most influential spheres of power who preside over them the hapless Ukrainians are being driven to personal and national suicide along with the European tax payers footing the bill. No retreat from this reality is contemplated by Zelemsky or the EU elite for a moment. It clearly makes no difference to the fixed position of Zelensky or the majority of European leaders that their misbegotten cause is long lost.
Ukraine’s economy will never fully recover. With the conflict kept endlessly going by Zelensky and his sponsors refusing to confront reality and come to terms with the Russians the damage to it can only increase. At whatever distant point the conflict ends we can only image the cost to Ukraine’s sponsors (and taxpayers) to begin its reconstruction. Will it ever be a sovereign nation again one might ask? How many in-house industries will remain and how many large European and U.S. corporations and major business concerns will replace almost all of them while taking control of any Ukrainian entity at boardroom level? Ukraine, on this reading, is clearly doomed, at least by comparison with how she stood before this all began by the western coup of 2014.
And Europe, what of it? Doomed also? Perhaps not doomed, but we can already see the clear economic decline all across it, de-industrialization in Germany, constant turmoil in France and rising prices everywhere. Soon will come reduced investment and rising unemployment. With rival companies across the global south fueled by inexpensive Russian oil and gas while European nations buy expensive U.S. energy products instead things can only move in one inexorable direction. That direction can only be down through being constantly and increasingly out-priced and outproduced. Jobs will inevitably be shed as U.S. and European companies seek to cut labor costs in a frantic bid to somehow stay competitive.
The vast majority of European political elites, bound as slaves to the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels are, to all intents and purposes held tightly within an economic suicide pact. Only here and there, in Hungary and Slovakia do we see leaders determined not to go down with a ship holed below the water line by its own captain. Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico refuse to join the hate-blinded, faux idealistic warmongers of the Brussels elite.
Will the citizens of Germany and France and those of all others within the European Union continue to sit on their hands awaiting the signs of full economic collapse? Or will they now release themselves from the effects of at least two decades of misinformation, propaganda and barefaced lies that have been till now conditioning their reflexes to inaction? Will they at last derail the European juggernaut heading ever faster toward the blank wall of economic death and vote these faux idealistic elite European suiciders out?
Proposed solar farm could help make Island ‘centre of excellence’ – minister.

FARMERS should be able to “grow” solar power in their fields in the
same way as other crops, the Environment Minister has said during a speech
in which he highlighted the growing use of technology in agriculture.
Deputy Steve Luce, who was one of two members of the Council of Ministers
to address the 2025 Jersey Farming Conference, said that a proposed solar
farm in St Martin presented a “wonderful opportunity” for the Island to
play its part in combatting climate change. “The site could become a
European centre of excellence, showing how we could be helping farmers, and
producing sustainable energy, by enabling research and education to happen
at the same time,” he said. “In combining the latest agrivoltaics,
solar technologies, and innovations, Jersey could well end up leading on
this type of agricultural initiative.”
Jersey Evening Post 8th Nov 2025, https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2025/11/08/proposed-solar-farm-could-help-make-island-centre-of-excellence-minister/
Ukraine facing widespread power cuts after generating capacity reduced to ‘zero’ by Russian attacks
Power to be cut for as much as 16 hours a day across most of Ukraine while repairs are carried out
Guardian, Agence France-Presse, 9 Nov 25
Power will be cut for between eight and 16 hours across most regions of Ukraine on Sunday, state transmission system operator Ukrenergo has said, after Russian attacks targeting energy infrastructure reduced the country’s generating capacity to “zero”.
Moscow, which has escalated attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure in recent months, launched hundreds of drones at energy facilities across the country from Friday into Saturday, which killed at least seven people, according to Ukrainian officials.
The Russian attacks have disrupted electricity, heat and water supplies in several Ukrainian cities, with state power firm Centerenergo warning generating capacity “is down to zero”.
Ukrenergo has said repairs were carried out and energy sourcing diverted.
While the situation had somewhat stabilised, regions including Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kharkiv, Poltava, Chernihiv and Sumy could continue to experience regular power cuts, Ukraine’s energy minister said on Saturday night.
“The enemy inflicted a massive strike with ballistic missiles, which are extremely difficult to shoot down. It is hard to recall such a number of direct strikes on energy facilities since the beginning of the invasion,” Svitlana Grynchuk told local broadcaster United News.
Russian drones had targeted two nuclear power substations deep in western Ukraine, Kyiv’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha said, calling on the UN’s nuclear watchdog to respond.
The substations powered the Khmelnytskyi and Rivne nuclear plants, about 120km and 95km (75 miles and 59 miles) respectively from Lutsk, he said………………………………
Ukraine has in turn stepped up strikes on Russian oil depots and refineries in recent months, seeking to cut off Moscow’s vital energy exports and trigger fuel shortages across the country.
Early on Sunday, Russia’s air defence units destroyed 44 Ukrainian drones, RIA news agency reported, citing daily data from the Russian defence ministry. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/09/ukraine-facing-widespread-power-cuts-after-generating-capacity-reduced-to-zero-by-russian-attacks
-
Archives
- December 2025 (223)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


