nuclear-news

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

The complex, long-form writers – but is anybody listening?

11 February 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/the-complex-long-form-writers-but-is-anybody-listening/

I sympathise with readers who have a short attention span. I myself am one of those. And nowadays, well – that’s pretty much everybody.

And yet, people keep writing long, and very long, articles. Are they wasting their time? Who actually reads these articles?

I used to think that long articles were indeed a waste of time. And in a certain sense, I was right. I came from the angle of an antinuclear activist, and for a long time, the “nuclear debate” was run by highly – informed people, who made sure to use the absolutely correct technical language – no weak slips into ordinary talk. The anti-nuclear experts generally showed their opponents that they were right up there with the jargon that only experts understood. So the ordinary peasant, the general public, including many well-educated people, “dazzled by science” couldn’t really understand the long arguments. The result was that most people were intimidated, felt they could not understand it all. which was exactly the situation that the nuclear lobby wanted.

Then along came Dr Helen Caldicott, and mucked it all up. She understood all the technical stuff, and could write about that. But she also used ordinary, understandable language. And worse – heaven forfend – she sometimes was emotional. God, she even described some nuclear propagandists as “wicked”. Personally, I thought that the term was accurate. Anyway, Dr Caldicott copped a lot of flak, including even from the anti-nuclear lobby, with their obsession about being “respectable”. How dare she be so “hysterical”. But then she couldn’t help it, having the disability of being female.

But, Dr Caldicott, with her many books, public speaking, meeting world leaders, even influencing Ronald Reagan, got her message through to people, and the “debate, has never been the same since.

So, I rejoiced at this development, which did help journalists to loosen up, and cover nuclear issues in a more readable and human way. And in shorter articles.

But now the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of being short and easily digestible, especially with the communications monster of social media. It is a sad thing that probably only old people have the time and the inclination to read long articles.

And people are missing out, because often the full story on a subject is really covered only in long articles. I have a collection of these, on a variety of topics, and I had planned to reference a number of them here. Some are very densely written, full of facts, dates, events – and therefore really informative – but still a bit of hard work to read. And some show how very complex a situation can be – how there are two sides, and maybe more than two, to a story.

So, here are examples of very informative ones:

Planet Plastic: How Big Oil and Big Soda kept a global environmental calamity a secret for decades, by Tim Dickinson.

US military action in Iran risks igniting a regional and global nuclear cascade, by Farah N. Jan.

Cumulative effects of radioactivity from Fukushima on the abundance and biodiversity of birds, by Timothy A Mousseau

Securing the nuclear nation, by Kate Brown

Very interesting are the articles which cover something in depth, showing contradictory sides, and how very complex a subject can be:

Some examples-

Betrayed: How Liberals Supported Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and Turned Against the Progressive Shah, by SL Kanthan,

The Long History Of Zionist Proposals To Ethnically Cleanse The Gaza Strip, by Mouin Rabbani.

And these can often be personal articles, about human conditions, character and integrity, leaving politics aside:

The heroes who saved the world from Chernobyl Two, by By Serhii Plokhy – also at The heroes who saved the world from Chernobyl Two.

Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule, by Ronan Farrow. Also at Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule, nuclear-news.

I hope that some people are reading long articles. Well, they must be, because some excellent movie documentaries and TV series often come up, and are derived from the written word. And perhaps many people are thus getting their longform stories in a different form. And perhaps some longform articles have a profound effect, even if it’s only on a relatively few readers.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Christina's notes, media | Leave a comment

France slashes renewable energy targets, expands nuclear power with new law

FRANCE 24,  12/02/2026 https://www.france24.com/en/france/20260212-france-slashes-renewable-energy-targets-favour-of-nuclear-power-new-energy-law

France is this week set to pass by decree a new energy law slashing the country’s renewable energy targets and massively expanding nuclear power production. The law change comes as a relief for state-run electricity provider EDF, which had been mandated to close some of its nuclear plants and is struggling to compete with price pressure from European solar and wind power producers.

France set out a new energy law after years of wrangling on Thursday which slashes its wind and solar power targets and drops a mandate for state-run firm EDF to shutter nuclear plants.

“We need to stop ​our internal family ‌squabbling. We need both nuclear and renewables,” Finance Minister Roland Lescure told reporters.

The law, to be ⁠pushed through by decree on Friday after almost three years of bitter disagreement among lawmakers, also reverses a previous legal mandate to shut 14 reactors.

That was a 2017 campaign ‌promise of President Emmanuel Macron, who later changed course, backing nuclear expansion with a plan for at ⁠least six new reactors.

The move to pare back renewables should help shield EDF, which operates a fleet of 57 reactors, as power demand grows more slowly than expected over the next decade. The company is struggling to ​remain competitive as abundant wind and solar in Europe have pushed down power prices and ‌forced reactors to lower output.

The new 10-year framework, known as the PPE, aims for EDF to produce 420 terawatt-hours of power from its existing fleet in 2035, a 5 percent increase.

“Nuclear is the backbone of our electricity system,” said Lescure, adding that a first new reactor should ‌be inaugurated by 2038.

EDF CEO Bernard Fontana welcomed the proposal, saying it would allow the company to advance toward its objectives. The law had triggered fierce debate among lawmakers pitting support ​for renewable subsidies against financing new nuclear at a time when France is struggling with high debt. The PPE also governs wind and solar tenders, and a decision on the matter is expected to be welcomed by the wind industry, which ​has struggled amid uncertainty over the plans and delayed tenders.

Still, wind and solar targets were lowered, to 105-135 gigawatts (GW) of installed ​capacity by 2035 from drafts that had called for 133-163 GW.

“If this PPE is ​more than two years late on paper, it’s at least a decade behind in its vision of an energy transition,” Greenpeace France said in a statement.

It lowers France’s 2035 target ​for installed offshore wind capacity to 15 GW from 18 GW the government had submitted for consultation in 2024.

The target for onshore wind capacity drops to 35-40 GW from the 45 GW previously communicated.

Solar capacity will be 55-80 GW by 2035, the report added, down from a previous forecast of 75-100 GW.  The law calls for France to consume 60 percent of its own energy ⁠from decarbonised electricity by 2030, shifting from 60 percent of energy from fossil fuels currently, and up to 70 percent from decarbonised electricity by 2035.

The new law is unlikely ⁠to lead to lower ​prices for end-users, said Emeric de Vigan, managing director of energy consultancy 42 Advisors, adding this could keep them from switching to electricity from oil and gas-based fuels.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

U.S. Tech Park in Israel May Have a Nuclear Power Plant

While President Trump has busted through a lot of international norms, and removed the U.S. from multilateral agreements like climate change, busting the bounds of the Nonproliferation Treaty would set a dangerous precedent that could be followed by similar actions by Russia and China

The fact that Israel has signed an MOU with the U.S. that could potentially involve it  acquiring U.S. manufactured SMRs is a signal that if India can do it, so can Israel. Saudi Arabia will not be far behind in asking for the same deal should the Israeli industrial park agreement move forward beyond the MOU stage.

 February 7, 2026 by djysrv, https://neutronbytes.com/2026/02/07/u-s-tech-park-in-israel-may-have-a-nuclear-power-plant/

Israel signed an agreement with the U.S. on 01/16/26  to build an industrial park to produce advanced computer chips at a location in the Negev desert that would use a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) to power the factory and nearby data centers also planned for this location.

Where things stand now, according to Israel news media, Israel and the US have inked an agreement to jointly build and operate a large technological park in Israel. The deal is part of a strategic cooperation agreement on AI signed in Jerusalem last month. (Israel government statement)

One of the surprising details to emerge from the discussions on the agreement relates to the energy infrastructure. The huge power demands of data centers and AI computer systems require a large, reliable 7/24/365 energy solution. As a result, the possibility appears to be kicking around of constructing one or more nuclear power plants, most likely SMRs, at the site.

The MOU, signed by the head of the National AI Directorate, Brig. Gen. (Res.) Erez Eskel, and the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg, reveals an ambitious plan to allocate 4,000 acres to the U.S. The park, which will be constructed in the Negev Desert or less likely in the Gaza Strip border area, and which will be called “Fort Foundry One”

Helberg travelled to Israel after signing similar agreements in Doha and Abu Dhabi. He said that Israel was an “anchor partner” in the effort, thanks to its technological ecosystem and its ability to produce “asymmetric results” in relation to its geographical size.

US Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Jacob Helberg said, “With the launch of Pax Silica, the United States and Israel are uniting our innovation ecosystems to ensure the future is shaped by strong and sovereign allies leading in critical technologies like AI and robotics.”  

Helberg comes to his role as a former lobbyist for Silicon Valley information technology firms and as a former executive for Google. One of his key interest areas has been addressing the national security risks posed to the U.S. by China. He wrote a book on the subject, The Wires of War: Technology and the Global Struggle for Power, (2021) calling for a stronger U.S. strategy against China’s technological ambition. According to the publisher’s book jacket, Helberg led Google’s global internal product policy efforts to combat disinformation and foreign interference in U.S. domestic affairs.

U.S. Thinks a Contractual Fig Leaf Can Cover the Absence off a 123 Agreement

Israel to date has no experience with civilian nuclear power plants used for electricity generation. The country has reportedly produced an unspecified number of nuclear weapons used as a deterrence factor when dealing with hostile neighbors like Iran. Also, Israel has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty due to policy of strategic ambiguity and its obvious reluctance to reveal the extent of its nuclear arsenal.

The official MOU for the Negev AI data center remains somewhat vague referring to a “high-intensity energy infrastructure” but it clearly is pointing to small modular reactors (50-300 MW). Due to the location in the extremely dry Negev desert, an advanced design, such as an HTGR, which does not require cooling water to operate, is likely to be chosen should the project reach a stage where a reactor design would be selected for this site.

The joint initiative is part of a broad international framework launched by the Trump administration called “Pax Silica“, a coalition of about twelve countries in technology, the aim of which is to secure supply chains of semiconductors and AI. Taiwan did not sign the agreement.

Israel joined the initiative in December 2025, and was the first country to sign a bilateral agreement with the U.S. in this framework. Among the other countries in the coalition are Qatar, the UAE, Australia, Greece, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and United Kingdom.

The Heavy Lift Associated with Civilian Nuclear Power in Israel

Israel has abundant natural gas supplies to support private wire gas power generation for data centers. It doesn’t need small modular reactors to power them.

The geopolitical heavy lift that would be required for a civilian nuclear power plant in Israel would probably set off a similar request from Saudi Arabia for the same kind of deal.

The Saudi government has been stalled for years in its quest for US nuclear reactors due to its insistence on the right to uranium enrichment as part of a 123 Agreement with the U.S. The Saudi government sees enrichment as a deterrence signal to Iran over its nuclear program. If the U.S. gives a green light to Israel, through some kind of three bank policy pool shot, to build U.S. supplied civlian SMRs, without a 123 Agreement,  the Saudis would likely ask for a similar deal.

While President Trump has busted through a lot of international norms, and removed the U.S. from multilateral agreements like climate change, busting the bounds of the Nonproliferation Treaty would set a dangerous precedent that could be followed by similar actions by Russia and China.

This would move the planet into dangerous territory. For this reason, consideration of a U.S. managed nuclear power plant in Israel may be too hot a potato for even Trump to toss over the transom. Bipartisan opposition in the Senate would be almost certain for a civilian nuclear reactor deal with Israel without a 123 agreement.

Israel does not have an agreement with the U.S. under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy act as such a move would require it to declare its nuclear infrastructure. The Israeli government has relied on strategic ambiguity about how many nuclear devices it has as a deterrence measure. The Israeli government is not going to give that up military advantage away to get small modular reactors to power data centers in a white collar industrial park.

Finally, the news release by the Israeli Prime Minister’s office about the U.S. deal may be one of a series of trial balloons the Israeli government has floated over the years about civilian nuclear power so it should be viewed with some skepticism for that point alone.

The U.S. plan apparently is to cover these issues with a contractual fig leaf that depends on a unique model in which the reactor operates under U.S. safety regulation and supervision, despite being located on Israeli territory. It’s a pretty thin leaf.

Watch What We Do Not What We Say

It is not lost on the Saudi and Israel governments that India enjoys a special relationship regarding recent developments that open the door to India for acquisition of civilian U.S. nuclear reactor technologies, without having a 123 Agreement, while these two nations are locked out these opportunities.

Where things get complicated is that the Saudi government has undoubtedly been watching how U.S. nuclear reactor firms are faring with India for some time. Recently, India opened the door to U.S. nuclear reactors by terminating its supplier liability law that acted very effectively as a trade barrier for U.S. firms.

Almost at the same time, the U.S. Department of Energy granted Holtec permission to export its 300 MW SMR to India.  The authorization names three Indian companies – Larsen & Tubro (Mumbai), Tata Consulting Engineers (Mumbai) and the Company’s own subsidiary, Holtec Asia (Pune) – as eligible entities with whom Holtec can share necessary technical information to execute its SMR-300 program. Holtec also plans to build a factory in India to manufacture the small reactors. Westinghouse is expected to seek to enter the Indian nuclear market.

What the Saudi government sees is that U.S. policy towards India shows a remarkably different approach to a country which has declared it has a nuclear arsenal, has tested its nuclear weapons, and is not a party to the Nonproliferation Treaty. Further, India does not have a 123 agreement with the U.S. and has no immediate plans to seek one. Israel has likely come to the same point of view.

The fact that Israel has signed an MOU with the U.S. that could potentially involve it  acquiring U.S. manufactured SMRs is a signal that if India can do it, so can Israel. Saudi Arabia will not be far behind in asking for the same deal should the Israeli industrial park agreement move forward beyond the MOU stage.

Saudi Plans for AI Data Centers Points to Nuclear Reactor to Power Them

The Saudi government’s ambitious plans and programs to transform the oil rich company into a regional powerhouse for artificial intelligence will require significant investments in electricity generation to power the AI data centers needed to carry out this effort.

According to a report in the New York Times, Saudi Arabia is investing $40 billion to become a dominant player for the use of AI in the Middle East. Data centers to support this program will require enormous amounts of electrical power to support the advanced semiconductors that process AI software, to power the data centers themselves, and to keep them cool in one of the hottest regions on the planet.

It follows that the Saudi government will coordinate its plans for a  nuclear new build with its massive investments in AI. It is likely that sooner or later Saudi Arabia’s need to break ground on the first two reactors in anticipation of the need for power for its AI program and related data centers.

It may decide that building commercial nuclear power plants to power its AI program is more important than the geopolitical consideration of having access to nuclear technologies with or without a U.S. 123 Agreement. Given the U.S. course of actions with India, Saudi Arabia may ask for the same kind of deal thus bypassing the entire enrichment policy issue it has with the U.S.

The Saud government has a tender outstanding, which has been on hold for some time, to build two 1,400 MW PWR type reactors. It has also explored options for SMRs for data centers and to power desalination plants to provide potable water for general and industrial uses. A award for the two reactors could be the first order of business the Saudi government will seek to pursue in asking for the same deal the U.S. gave India.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Israel, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Russia says will act responsibly despite New START nuclear treaty expiry

Both Beijing and Moscow expressed their regret at the lapse of the last Russia-US nuclear arms control treaty.

By News Agencies 5 Feb 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/5/russia-says-will-act-responsibly-despite-new-start-nuclear-treaty-expiry

The Kremlin says Russia will continue to be a responsible nuclear power, despite the expiry of the last nuclear arms control treaty between Moscow and Washington, which experts say risks ushering in a new global arms race.

The New START treaty expires on Thursday, marking the end of more than half a century of limits on the United States and Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons.

“Today the day will end, and it [the treaty] will cease to have any effect,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday. Arms control experts had previously said their assumption was that it expired at the end of Wednesday.

Russia had suggested both sides voluntarily extend the terms of the agreement for one year to provide time to discuss a successor treaty, a proposal which it said US President Donald Trump had never formally answered.

“The agreement is coming to an end. We view this negatively and express our regret,” said Peskov, who said the matter had come up in a call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping a day earlier.

“What happens next depends on how events unfold. In any case, the Russian Federation will maintain its responsible and attentive approach to the issue of strategic stability in the field of nuclear weapons and, of course, as always, will be guided first and foremost by its national interests.”

New START, first signed in Prague in 2010 by then presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, limited each side’s nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads – a reduction of nearly 30 percent from the previous limit set in 2002.

Deployed weapons or warheads are those in active service and available for rapid use as opposed to those in storage or awaiting dismantlement.

It also allowed each side to conduct on-site inspections of the other’s nuclear arsenal, although these were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic and have not resumed since.

‘China will not participate in disarmament negotiations’

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs joined a growing international chorus expressing regret over the treaty’s expiry.

“China regrets the expiration of the New START treaty, as the treaty is of great significance to maintaining global strategic stability,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said on Thursday.

“The international community is generally concerned that the expiration of the treaty will have a negative impact on the international nuclear arms control system and the global nuclear order.”

Trump has said he wants a better deal that will also bring in China. But Beijing refuses to negotiate with the other two countries because it has only a fraction of their warhead numbers – an estimated 600, compared with about 4,000 each for Russia and the US.

Lin reiterated this point, adding that China would not be joining the bilateral arms‑reduction talks.

“China’s nuclear forces are not on the same level as those of the United States and Russia, and China will not participate in disarmament negotiations at this stage,” Lin said.

Russia and the US together control more than 80 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads.

China’s nuclear arsenal, however, is growing faster than any country’s, by about 100 new warheads a year since 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

China is estimated to have at least 600 nuclear warheads, SIPRI says – well below the 800 each at which Russia and the US were capped under New START.

The White House said this week that Trump would decide the way forward on nuclear arms control, which he would “clarify on his own timeline”.

A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called on the US and Russia to act with “responsibility and restraint” to maintain “global security”.

The official added that Russia and China were both ramping up their nuclear capabilities and that NATO “will continue to take steps necessary” to ensure its own defences.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US congressional report explores option of not delivering any Aukus nuclear submarines to Australia.

COMMENT – What a typical USA plan?

They reneg on delivering the “goods” sold, but keep the $368 billion!

the Congressional Research report describes an alternative “military division of labour”, under which the US would not sell any Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

Report offers alternative of the US navy retaining boats and operating them out of Australian bases

Ben Doherty, Guardian, 6 Feb 26

A new United States congressional report openly contemplates not selling any nuclear submarines to Australia – as promised under the Aukus agreement – because America wants to retain control of the submarines for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan.

The report by the US Congressional Research Service, Congress’s policy research arm, posits an alternative “military division of labour” under which the submarines earmarked for sale to Australia are instead retained under US command to be sailed out of Australian bases.

One of the arguments made against the US selling submarines to Australia is that Australia has refused to commit to supporting America in a conflict with China over Taiwan. Boats under US command could be deployed into that conflict.

The report, released on 26 January, cites statements from the Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, and the chief of navy that Australia would make “no promises … that Australia would support the United States” in the event of war with China over Taiwan.

“Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs [nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarines] to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that would be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict,” the report argues.

“This could weaken rather than strengthen deterrence and warfighting capability in connection with a US-China crisis or conflict.”

Under the existing Aukus “optimal pathway’, Australia will first buy between three and five Virginia-class nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines, the first in 2032.

Following that, the first of eight Australian-built Aukus submarines, based on a UK design, is slated to be in the water “in the early 2040s”.

But the Congressional Research report describes an alternative “military division of labour”, under which the US would not sell any Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

The boats not sold to Australia “would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia” alongside US and UK attack submarines already planned to rotate through Australian bases.

The report speculated Australia could use the money saved to invest on other defence capabilities, even using those capabilities as a subordinate force in support of US missions.

“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities – such as … long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers … or systems for defending Australia against attack … so as to create an Australian capacity for performing other missions, including non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States.”

The report also raises cybersecurity concerns, noting that “hackers linked to China” are “highly active” in attempting to penetrate Australian government and contractors’ computers.

It argues that sharing nuclear submarine technology with another country “would increase the attack surface, meaning the number of potential digital and physical entry points that China, Russia, or some other country could attempt to penetrate to gain access to that technology”.

The debate over whether the US should sell boats to Australia is also grounded in ongoing concern over low rates of shipbuilding in the US: the country’s shipyards are failing to build enough submarines to supply America’s own navy, let alone build boats for Australia.

For the past 15 years, the US Navy has ordered boats at a rate of two a year, but its shipyards have never met that build rate “and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built”.

The US fleet currently has only three-quarters of the submarines it needs (49 boats of a force-level goal of 66). Shipyards need to build Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year to meet America’s own needs, and to lift that to 2.33 boats a year in order to be able to supply submarines to Australia.

Legislation passed by the US Congress prohibits the sale of any submarine to Australia if the US needs it for its own fleet. The US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities”.

The report argues that Australia’s strict nuclear non-proliferation laws could also weaken US submarine force projection under the current Aukus plan.

Australian officials have consistently told US counterparts that, in adherence to Australia’s commitments as a non-nuclear weapon state under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Australia’s attack submarines can only ever be armed with conventional weapons.

“Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that could in the future be armed with the US nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile with an aim of enhancing deterrence,” the report states……………………………………………………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/not-delivering-any-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia-explored-as-option-in-us-congressional-report

February 13, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran’s mysterious Pickaxe Mountain a ‘candidate’ for new nuclear activities

By Annika Burgess, ABC, 7 Feb 26

Hidden among the mountains in central Iran, work has been continuing on a mysterious underground facility believed to be buried beyond the range of US “bunker buster” bombs.

The site, known as Pickaxe Mountain, or Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, has never been accessed by international nuclear inspectors, and its exact purpose remains unclear.

Analysts monitoring its development via satellite imagery have witnessed security walls growing, spoil piles expanding and tunnel entrances being reinforced as engineers dig deeper into the mountain.

“We don’t have internal schematics to really judge what the inside will look like,” says Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the US Institute for Science and International Security.

“But given the size of the spoil piles, the amount of construction they’re doing, it wouldn’t be incomprehensible to see them establish an enrichment facility inside it.”

Located near the peak of the Zagros Mountains, the site is just 1.6 kilometres south of Natanz, which was Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility.

But Pickaxe Mountain was not affected when Natanz and two other key Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordow and Isfahan — were targeted in US strikes that aimed to disrupt Tehran from potentially developing nuclear bombs.

US President Donald Trump said the three sites were “obliterated” in the June 2025 attacks, but has renewed demands for Iran to make a deal over its nuclear program or face fresh strikes that would be “far worse”.

Negotiators from both countries held indirect talks in Oman on Friday, with Iran’s top diplomat striking a cautiously optimistic note after their conclusion.

However, the US delegation, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Mr Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, did not offer any immediate comment.

Recent assessments show Tehran’s nuclear program was severely damaged by the US during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, but it could be built up again.

And satellite imagery revealed Pickaxe Mountain could be a “potential candidate” for new uranium enrichment activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Where are the uranium stockpiles?

Iran’s stockpiles of 60 per cent enriched uranium remain missing.

Trucks observed outside Fordow and Isfahan before and after the US strikes suggested Iran may have moved the material.

But the IAEA director said there was a “general understanding” the enriched uranium was likely still buried under the damaged facilities.

“We need to go back there and to confirm that the material is there and it’s not being diverted to any other use,” Mr Grossi said in October…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-07/iran-nuclear-sites-program-us-strikes-pickaxe-mountain-uranium/106288446

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Iran, technology | Leave a comment

No evidence to support US claim China conducted nuclear blast test: Monitor

Robert Floyd, executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, said in a statement on Friday that the body’s monitoring system “did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion” at the time of the alleged Chinese test, adding that that assessment remains unchanged after further detailed analyses.

Washington wants Beijing to join a new nuclear weapons treaty after expiration of the New START accord between the US and Russia.

By Al Jazeera and News Agencies, 6 Feb 26, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/7/no-evidence-to-support-us-claim-china-conducted-nuclear-blast-test-monitor

An international monitor said it has seen no evidence to support the claim by a senior United States official who accused China of carrying out a series of clandestine nuclear tests in 2020 and concealing activities that violated nuclear test ban treaties.

US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno made the assertions about China at a United Nations disarmament conference in Geneva, Switzerland, on Friday, just days after a nuclear treaty with Russia expired.

“I can reveal that the US government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tonnes,” DiNanno said at the conference.

China’s military “sought to conceal testing by obfuscating the nuclear explosions because it recognised these tests violate test ban commitments,” he said.

“China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020,” he said.

DiNanno also made his allegations on social media in a series of posts, making the case for “new architecture” in nuclear weapons control agreements following the expiration of the New START treaty with Russia this week.

“New START was signed in 2010 and its limits on warheads and launchers are no longer relevant in 2026 when one nuclear power is expanding its arsenal at a scale and pace not seen in over half a century and another continues to maintain and develop a vast range of nuclear systems unconstrained by New START’s terms,” he said.

Robert Floyd, executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, said in a statement on Friday that the body’s monitoring system “did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion” at the time of the alleged Chinese test, adding that that assessment remains unchanged after further detailed analyses.

China’s ambassador on nuclear disarmament, Shen Jian, did not directly address DiNanno’s charge at the conference but said Beijing had always acted prudently and responsibly on nuclear issues while the US had “continued to distort and smear China’s national defence capabilities in its statements”.

We firmly oppose this false narrative and reject the US’s unfounded accusations,” Shen said.

“In fact, the US’s series of negative actions in the field of nuclear arms control are the biggest source of risk to international security,” he said.

Later on social media, Shen said, “China has always honored its commitment to the moratorium on nuclear testing”.

Diplomats at the conference said the US allegations were new and concerning.

China, like the US, has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bans explosive nuclear tests. Russia signed and ratified it, but withdrew its ratification in ⁠2023.

US President Donald Trump has previously instructed the US military to prepare for the resumption of nuclear tests, stating that other countries are conducting them without offering details.

The US president said on October 31 that Washington would start testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with Moscow and Beijing, but without elaborating or explaining what kind of nuclear testing he wanted to resume.

He has also said that he would like China to be involved in any future nuclear treaty, but authorities in Beijing have shown little interest in his proposal.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | China, spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Possibility of US ever selling Australia nuclear submarines is increasingly remote, Aukus critics say.

“The Aukus deal is a very attractive one for the Americans because they get a submarine base and dockyard at Australia’s expense in Western Australia, and they do not have any obligation to sell any Virginia-class submarines to us unless their navy can spare them.

“If the US say ‘there are no subs for you Australia’, it is not reneging on the deal: that is the deal, that is what Australia signed up to. That’s why it’s always been a bad deal for Australia.”

“The Australian government seems to be engaged in an exercise of denial: whenever these figures come out they have apologists who say ‘everything’s fine, there’s nothing see here’.

Malcolm Turnbull says government is ‘engaged in an exercise of denial’, as defence minister insists $368bn deal is ‘full steam ahead’

Ben Doherty, 6 Feb 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-us-australia

Australia’s submarine agency insists the Aukus agreement is progressing “at pace and on schedule”, but sceptics of the $368bn deal argue the chances of the US ever selling promised Virginia-class submarines to Australia are increasingly remote.

The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has said the Australian government is engaged “in an exercise of denial” about the parlous state of Aukus’s progress, while the Greens senator David Shoebridge said the deal was a “pantomime”, hopelessly one-sided in the US’s favour.

A new United States congressional report has openly contemplated the US navy not selling any nuclear submarines to Australia – as promised under Aukus – because the US wants to retain control of the submarines for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan.

The US fleet currently has only three-quarters of the submarines it needs (49 boats of a force-level goal of 66). Shipyards need to build Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year to meet the US’s own needs, and to lift that to 2.33 boats a year in order to be able to supply submarines to Australia.

Legislation passed by the US Congress prohibits the sale of any submarine to Australia if the US needs it for its own fleet. The US commander in chief – the president of the day – must certify that the US relinquishing a submarine “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities”.

Turnbull said US shipbuilding rates had “remained stubbornly set at that low level for a long time, despite many billions of dollars of extra investment”, and that expecting build rates to almost double within a couple of years in order to supply Australia with vessels was unrealistic.

“The Australian government seems to be engaged in an exercise of denial: whenever these figures come out they have apologists who say ‘everything’s fine, there’s nothing see here’.”

The January report by the US Congressional Research Service, Congress’s policy research arm, posits an alternative “military division of labour” under which the submarines earmarked for sale to Australia are instead retained under US command to be sailed out of Australian bases.

The report argues both for and against the US selling three Virginia-class submarines to Australia, beginning in 2032. But it makes the case that, in the event of a “conflict or crisis” with China over Taiwan, submarines under Australian command could not be ordered into operation, whereas US-commanded vessels, operated out of Australian bases, could be immediately deployed. Australia has consistently maintained it could offer no guarantees of supporting the US in a conflict with China.

“This could weaken rather than strengthen deterrence and warfighting capability in connection with a US-China crisis or conflict,” the report says.

The defence minister, Richard Marles, dismissed the report as “commentary” when asked on Thursday, insisting Aukus was “full steam ahead”.

“You’re going to hear a whole lot of commentary at the end of the day from the US Congress,” Marles said.

“We’ve heard the US president make clear the position of the United States in respect of this question, and he has said that we are full steam ahead in respect of this, and it includes the transfer of the Virginias.”

A spokesperson for the Australian Submarine Agency told the Guardian that Aukus remained firmly in the strategic interests of its three partners – Australia, the US and the UK – and that “Australia’s commitment to the Aukus partnership is unwavering”.

“All three Aukus partners are investing significantly in our respective industrial bases to ensure the success of Aukus, to meet respective requirements and timelines, including the delivery of three Virginia-class submarines to Australia by the US.”


The spokesperson said Aukus was progressing “at pace and on schedule”.

“The optimal pathway has been designed to ensure a methodical, safe and secure transition from Australian conventional submarines, drawing on more than 70 years’ experience and expertise of our Aukus partners in the safe and effective operation of naval nuclear propulsion.”

Turnbull: ‘It’s always been a bad deal for Australia’

Politically, in the US the Aukus agreement won approval from a Pentagon review last year, which supported the deal continuing. President Donald Trump – who won’t be the president to decide whether or not to sell US submarines to Australia – told reporters the deal was “full steam ahead”.

But Turnbull, the prime minister whose deal to buy submarines from the French group Naval was torn up by Scott Morrison in favour of Aukus, has long argued the Aukus agreement has always been irretrievably lop-sided in the US’s favour.

“The Aukus deal is a very attractive one for the Americans because they get a submarine base and dockyard at Australia’s expense in Western Australia, and they do not have any obligation to sell any Virginia-class submarines to us unless their navy can spare them.

“If the US say ‘there are no subs for you Australia’, it is not reneging on the deal: that is the deal, that is what Australia signed up to. That’s why it’s always been a bad deal for Australia.”

The congressional research report highlighted, again, the lagging rates of US shipbuilding.

For the past 15 years, the US navy has ordered Virginia-class submarines at a rate of two a year, but its shipyards have never met that build rate “and since 2022 has been limited to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built”.

Senator David Shoebridge, the Greens’ defence and foreign affairs spokesperson, said the US’s division of labour proposal exposed the “pantomime” that the Aukus agreement was concerned with Australia’s defence.

“No matter what flag is painted on the side of any nuclear submarines Australia gets, they will be US-controlled and US-directed.

“Critics of Aukus have always assumed that the US will not hand over any nuclear submarines unless Australia guarantees they will use them in a US war with China. This report now confirms this is the dominant view in Washington.”

Shoebridge said the Aukus deal was dangerously compromising Australian sovereignty to US interests, at the cost of billions in public funds.

“The fact that Trump, with his ‘America first’ approach to squeezing and humiliating US allies, is willing to press on with Aukus tells you all you need to know about the one-sided deal. If Trump wants it, we should resist it.”.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

NASA wants a nuclear reactor on the Moon. What would happen during a meltdown?

With NASA announcing plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon, what would happen if a meltdown strikes?

Hayley Bennett, BBC Science Focus, February 7, 2026 

NASA has announced plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon – a milestone that could power future lunar bases and long-term missions. But it also raises some big questions.

How much will it cost? Will someone need to stay up there to operate it? And, for the doom-mongers among us, what happens if it fails?……………………………………………………………………

its demise is a fascinating hypothetical.

What if it blew up?

We’ve really no idea what a nuclear meltdown on the Moon would look like – and, with current plans, there’s no indication it would even be big enough to be considered a meltdown.

But we can speculate, of course. It’s not just the size of the reactor that determines what happens if it blows – it’s the environment.

A reactor accident on the Moon would unfold very differently to one on Earth.

As the Moon has no atmosphere, no weather and one-sixth of Earth’s gravity, we might expect that instead of the explosion, mushroom cloud and aftershock (triggered by reactions with molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere) it would be something somewhat less dramatic. 

Instead, the reactor might simply overheat, perhaps producing an initial flash, then a glowing pool of molten metal that cools and solidifies in silence.

That’s not to say that such an event wouldn’t be dangerous for anyone manning the station. They would still be exposed to a strong surge in radiation.

That radiation would still be dangerous nearby, but without air or wind to carry radioactive dust, fallout would remain largely local.

A near miss

Thankfully, we don’t have a better answer to the question, though we might have done if certain US scientists had got their way back in the 1950s.

Project A119 was a secret plan to drop a hydrogen bomb on the Moon as part of the escalating ‘space race’ between the US and the Soviet Union.

Fortunately, it never really got beyond the planning stage. https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/moon-nuclear-reactor-meltdown

February 13, 2026 Posted by | space travel | Leave a comment

In nuclear race with Russia, Trump goes back to a Cold War future

After letting New START expire, Trump threatens to replace the era of arms control with a new arms race against Russia and China.

Aaron Maté, Feb 07, 2026

As if the lingering prospect of a new attack on Iran is not dangerous enough, the Trump administration is toying with a greater threat to global security.

With Thursday’s expiration of the New START treaty, the US and Russia no longer have any legal constraints on their arsenals of nuclear weapons. President Trump let the treaty collapse rather than accept a Kremlin offer to extend for one year, the maximum possible. This removes the last formal constraint on a renewed arms race between two states that already can destroy the world many times over.

There are unconfirmed reports that the two sides have reached an informal understanding to observe the treaty’s terms for at least six months. And, in a rare sign of progress, Moscow and Washington have announced a resumption of high-level military-to-military dialogue. The Biden administration suspended those contacts in late 2021 as Russia built up its forces on Ukraine’s borders.

Yet the news is far from reassuring…………………………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.aaronmate.net/p/in-nuclear-race-with-russia-trump?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=187111056&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

February 13, 2026 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Northwatch Comments on the NWMO’s Initial Project Description of a Proposed Deep Geological Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste

7 Feb 26, https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/88774/contributions/id/64898

The following points summarize Northwatch’s comments on the NWMO’s Initial Project Description of a Proposed Deep Geological Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste to be located at the Revell site in Treaty 3 territory in northwestern Ontario:

  • NWMO’s Deep Geological Repository Project should be designated for a full impact assessment and public hearing
  • The long-distance transportation of nuclear fuel waste from the reactor stations to the proposed repository site must be included in the impact assessment
  • NWMO’s Initial Project Description is inadequate and does not provide the information required, including and particularly it does not sufficiently describe or otherwise demonstrate that it has adequately examined alternatives to the project or alternative means of carrying out the project, and the IPD largely goes off course in its description of the need and purpose of the project.
  • As directed by the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act the need or purpose of the project is to effectively isolate the nuclear fuel wastes from people and the environment.
  • The NWMO has not provided a clear statement of the need and purpose for the project, and when it discussed the need and purpose of the project in its IPD it muddied the waters by including unsupported promotional statements and out-of-scope policy statements about the future role of nuclear power.
  • Instead of setting out careful consideration of alternative means of meeting the project need (to safely contain and isolate the nuclear fuel waste from people and the environment) the NWMO simply summarized some aspects of their 2003 studies. The IPD should include a contemporary assessment of alternative means of meeting the project need.
  • The NWMO’s consideration of alternative means of carrying out the project is too limited; the alternative means examination should also include alternative sites, alternatives in repository access (ramp vs shaft), transportation in used fuel containers instead of in transportation packages, the alternative means of in-water transfer of used fuel at repository site (vs “in air” ie. in hot cells), alternative mining methods, alternatives in waste emplacement (in-room vs in-floor) and alternatives in used fuel container design
  • The NWMO’s description of the project and project activities is too limited, and at times is promotional rather than factual in its approach.
  • The NWMO has misrepresented the fuel waste inventory, upon which repository size, years of operation, and resulting degrees of risk and contamination all hinge.
  • The NWMO excluded the first step in their project, which is the transfer of the used fuel waste from dry storage containers into transportation containers at the reactor site; this is consistent with past practice.
  • Without foundation the NWMO is attempting to exclude long-distance transportation from the Impact Assessment process; this is inconsistent with the impact assessment law in Canada and with the manner in which the NWMO has been describing their project over the last twenty years.
  • The Initial Project Description inadequately describes major project components and activities, including the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, waste placement and repository design and construction and closure, decommissioning and monitoring.
  • The description of the Project Site, Location and Study Area(s) is flawed and in some respects inaccurate.
  • The potential effects of the project are poorly described and in some instances the NWMO text is promotional rather than factual.
  • The description of the site selection process is very selective in the information it presents and creates a false impression of community experience through the siting process in the 22 communities that the NWMO investigated.
  • There are significant gaps and deficiencies in the Initial project description; several subject areas fundamental to the assessment of the deep geological repository are extremely limited or fully absent including the subjects of long-term safety, emergency response and evacuation plans, accidents and malevolent acts and security.
  • The Initial Project Description was poorly organized and was not copy edited; it lacked an index and there was no glossary included.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

“Journalism Deserves Better”: Ex-Washington Post Staffers Slam Billionaire Bezos for Gutting Paper

Democracy Now, February 06, 2026

The Washington Post has laid off more than 300 journalists, dismantling its sports, local news and international coverage. “Everybody is grieving, and it’s a loss for our readers,” says Nilo Tabrizy, one of the paper’s recently laid-off staff, who describes a “robotic” meeting announcing the cuts. “They didn’t have the dignity to look us in the eye.” The shocking staff culling has been widely attributed to the paper’s leadership under Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who bought the nearly 150-year-old institution in 2013. Karen Attiah, the former global opinion editor at the Post, was hired soon after Bezos’s arrival. She recounts how the arrival of a billionaire backer initially revitalized the paper with resources and creative freedom, before souring over the next decade.

“We thought [he] shared the same values that we had,” says Attiah, who was fired from the Post last fall over comments she made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. “Journalism deserves better than a billionaire owner who decides that partying in Europe is more important than people’s lives.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://www.democracynow.org/2026/2/6/karen_altiah_washington_post_layoffs_journalists

February 13, 2026 Posted by | media, USA | Leave a comment