2026 September 20 « nuclear-news

Cory Doctorow: AI’s big beasts aren’t really scared of their products. They’re scared of their competition

Once the government stipulates that “superintelligence risk” is an existential crisis, it must grant the hyperscalers a consent decree absolving them from any violations of antitrust law stemming from a conspiracy to halt direct competition with one another.

The US giants would love to stop battling each other and be protected from China – and they might have hit on just the narrative to make that possible, writes our tech columnist

Cory Doctorow, Sep 19, 2026, https://www.thenerve.news/p/cory-doctorow-ai-superintelligence-openai-anthropic-google-meta?utm_source=www.thenerve.news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=the-trouble-with-steven-pinker-weekend-edition&_bhlid=908300191252e2da6f90f63419219331f1249af1

There’s lots of reasons to believe the “hyperscaler” model of AI can never be profitable. This business model pursued by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and others of spending billions on chips and data centres in the hope of recouping it through subscriptions is delusional because of its gigantic expenditures and negative unit economics (the companies lose money with every new customer and every new use, and they lose more money with each generation of their products).

The industry strenuously denies this, of course. They insist that they are only days away from turning their balance-sheets right side up. All they have to do is fix those unit economics, then they can make back the cost of producing their models by selling access to them. The problem is that the evidence for those improving unit economics is weak, while the evidence that they’re faking their finances is very strong.

Same goes for the claims that these companies are already profitable. Dig into those claims and you’ll learn they depend on a new, special meaning of “profitable” that does not match the generally accepted accounting procedures (GAAP) definition, which is to say, these companies are claiming that they are so cool that their profitability can only be measured using a novel, secret form of mathematics.

But let’s give the AI bosses a momentary benefit of the doubt and stipulate that they are on the verge of acquiring positive unit economics, which will let them start to pay off the massive expenditures they incurred by training their models and enter their long-anticipated profitability phase, when the money furnaces they’ve been running for years turn into money printers, to the delight of the investors who’ve supplied the vast bales of $100 bills the companies have been shovelling into their models’ coalboxes for years now.

Basically, they’re saying: “Sure, it cost us a lot to get these rails laid, but now that the railroad is complete we can start running carriages over them and make a profit.” Unfortunately (for bosses and investors), this proposition is every bit as dubious as their claims to improving unit economics.

To understand why, just look at what happened the last time Anthropic shipped a major Claude update. Virtually overnight, scores of OpenAI’s best customers stopped paying for ChatGPT and started paying for Claude. That’s because chatbots have very low switching costs: going from one chatbot to another costs almost nothing:

Everyone using AI knows this to be true. When I walked the floor at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas last year, I asked every AI-powered gadget maker: “What will you do if your chatbot provider jacks up their prices?” and to a one, they said: “No problem, we’ve designed this thing so that we can switch chatbots with the click of a mouse.”

That means that you can’t just “build the railroad and run the carriages over it”. The minute you finish your railroad, your rivals will announce that they’ve got a new, adjacent railroad that’s even faster than yours, and you will have to get to work laying another set of tracks to support even faster trains.

This is a disaster all around: the AI companies are locked in a Red Queen’s race, a fatal beggar-thy-neighbor doom-loop. The only way they could escape that trap is by signing a non-aggression pact among themselves promising not to compete any more. But there’s two giant problems with this: first, it is incredibly, fantastically illegal under antitrust law, because it represents a conspiracy among the dominant players to cease to compete with one another; and, second, it leaves the field open for the further development of Chinese “open weight” models that customers can run on their own modest, low-powered computers, which are presently lagging the US “frontier models” by a mere four months.

Freaking out about superintelligence is a canonical example of ‘criti-hype’, where critics repeat boosters’ claims but append ‘(and that’s bad)’ to them

Even if you don’t trust Chinese models, you can extract their training through a process called distillation and transfer them to models you do trust.

But what if there was a way for the AI companies to get government permission to violate antitrust law and cease to compete with one another, and secure a ban on the use of Chinese open weight models? Turns out, there is a way to call time on the Red Queen’s race: merely insist that you are on the verge of teaching so many words to the word-guessing program that it will wake up and devour us all, and call for a ban on “superintelligence”.

Once the government stipulates that “superintelligence risk” is an existential crisis, it must grant the hyperscalers a consent decree absolving them from any violations of antitrust law stemming from a conspiracy to halt direct competition with one another.

Freaking out about “superintelligence” is a canonical example of “criti-hype”, where critics repeat boosters’ claims but append “(and that’s bad)” to them.

Remember, the tech giants want to stop competing. Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai colluded to rig the ad market with a secret program called Jedi Blue. Every year, Google sends Apple a bribe of more than $20bn in exchange for Apple not entering the search market. And the biggest tech companies in the world had a secret “no poach” agreement where they illegally promised not to try to hire one another’s top engineers by offering them raises.

The only thing Peter Thiel hates more than the Antichrist (spoiler, he’s just talking about Greta Thunberg) is “wasteful competition”.

When an industry that is eating itself alive through hyperscaling demands that the government bless a conspiracy to halt competition and ban open-source alternatives, you should be suspicious. When that industry is pursuing a venture that has lost more money than any other venture in human history, you should be very suspicious, especially when its “rogue AI hacking” story turns out to be a story about how a hacking tool did exactly what it was designed to do.

Peter Thiel is right: AI is full of wasteful competition, but not because competition is a waste – rather, it’s because the companies are competing to convince people to use their expensive products for the cheapest applications.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX IPO is indirectly propped up by X engagement metrics generated by letting the world’s stupidest chuds produce mountains of child porn and images of Sonic the Hedgehog with giant boobs using Grok. That is indeed wasteful (and reprehensible).

That doesn’t mean we should allow the AI companies to get the government to bless their conspiracy in restraint of trade; rather, it militates for having the government investigate them for securities fraud, trafficking in child sex abuse material, election finance violations, and a long list of other crimes and misdemeanours.

This is an edited version of a post from pluralistic.net. It is published under a CC BY 4.0 creative commons licence

Cory Doctorow, who was born in Toronto and now lives in Los Angeles and London, is the Nerve’s tech columnist. His new book, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI, is published by Verso

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, technology | Leave a comment

Lawfare Daily: ‘The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI’—A Conversation with Cory Doctorow

Jun 30, 2026 Lawfare DailyOn this episode of Lawfare Daily, Senior Editor Kate Klonick and Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein speak with Cory Doctorow—science fiction author, activist, journalist, adviser to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the writer who coined “enshittification”—about his new book, “The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI.” Doctorow argues that the most important thing about the AI boom isn’t what the technology can or can’t do, but the historic investment bubble and the new arrangements of work being built on top of it—the same analytic lens he brought to platform decay, now turned on AI. They discuss whether the AI bubble will actually burst or merely deflate, and the unit economics underneath it; the “reverse centaur,” the worker conscripted to serve the machine; and how it maps onto a broader culture and questions of AI “knowledge collapse,” the human analogue to AI model collapse.

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | media | Leave a comment

26 September International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

United Nations, September 2026

Achieving global nuclear disarmament is the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations. It was the subject of the General Assembly’s first resolution in 1946, which established the Atomic Energy Commission (dissolved in 1952), with a mandate to make specific proposals for the control of nuclear energy and the elimination of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction. The United Nations has been at the forefront of many major diplomatic efforts to advance nuclear disarmament since. In 1959, the General Assembly endorsed the objective of general and complete disarmament. In 1978, the first Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament further recognized that nuclear disarmament should be the priority objective in the field of disarmament. Every United Nations Secretary-General has actively promoted this goal.

Yet, today an estimated 12,187 nuclear weapons remain. Countries possessing such weapons have well-funded, long-term plans to modernize their nuclear arsenals. More than half of the world’s population still lives in countries that either have such weapons or are members of nuclear alliances. While the number of deployed nuclear weapons has appreciably declined since the height of the Cold War, not one nuclear weapon has been physically destroyed pursuant to a treaty. In addition, no nuclear disarmament negotiations are currently underway.

Meanwhile, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence persists as an element in the security policies of all possessor states and many of their allies. The international arms-control framework that contributed to international security since the Cold War, acted as a brake on the use of nuclear weapons and advanced nuclear disarmament, has come under increasing strain. On 2 August 2019, the United States’ withdrawal spelled the end of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, through with the United States and the Russian Federation had previously committed to eliminating an entire class of nuclear missiles. Furthermore, the Russian Federation announced on 21 February 2023 that it will suspend its participation in the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (“New START”). The extension of New START until February 2026 had provided an opportunity for the possessors of the two largest nuclear arsenals to agree to further arms control measures, however it expired on 5 February 2026 without a successor arrangement. Consequently, for the first time since the 1970s, no agreed limits constrain the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Russian Federation.

Frustration has been growing amongst Member States regarding what is perceived as the slow pace of nuclear disarmament. This frustration has been put into sharper focus with growing concerns about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of even a single nuclear weapon, let alone a regional or global nuclear war.

The General Assembly commemorates 26 September as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. This Day provides an occasion for the world community to reaffirm its commitment to global nuclear disarmament as a priority. It provides an opportunity to educate the public – and their leaders – about the real benefits of eliminating such weapons, and the social and economic costs of perpetuating them. Commemorating this Day at the United Nations is especially important, given its universal membership and its long experience in grappling with nuclear disarmament issues. It is the right place to address one of humanity’s greatest challenges; achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

In accordance with General Assembly resolution 68/32 and subsequent resolutions, the purpose of the International Day is to further the objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons through enhancing public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination. In so doing, it is hoped that these activities will help to mobilize new international efforts towards achieving the common goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.un.org/en/observances/nuclear-weapons-elimination-day

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Events | Leave a comment

Under Cover Of AI Doomsday, Big Tech Is Writing Its Own Rules

Today, democracy and the rule of law are controversial among billionaires in Silicon Valley and in the AI Safety world. Many simply don’t think it’s viable or moral. They believe the best case is for humanity to live in a gilded cage, fed and treated well by those rational enough to look out for the best interests of most of us, who cannot otherwise care for ourselves. To that end, anything they do to benefit their own power is virtuous.

“The consensus is that the next year or two is crunch time for humanity. These are actually just literal quotes from my colleagues at Anthropic. They’ll say things like ‘endgame’ or ‘crunch time.’ From their perspective, this is when Anthropic and its competitors decide the fate of humanity“

To unpack this, I’ll first describe the technology as best I can. Then I’ll offer two different narratives of what is happening. The first narrative, the doomer narrative driving this panic, is that AI is a new form of civilization uncontrollable by humans, and we are moving quickly toward a singularity where bots will take over. The second narrative, call it the “rule-of-law” narrative, is that AI products are risky, perhaps existentially risky, but they are manageable if we can apply standard rules, such as negligence or criminal fraud, to the powerful people building them.

Matt Stoller THE LEVER, September 16, 2026

Silicon Valley says its machines could destroy humanity.

The more immediate danger is letting the people building AI decide how they’re governed.

Editor’s note: Since Matt Stoller first published this essay on his Substack on Friday amid the mounting AI crisis, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei hascalled for slowing the development of powerful AI models, while OpenAI CEO Sam Altman hassaid an OpenAI IPO right now would be “ill-advised.”

But Stoller’s central point remains unchanged: The companies building these systems are still asking to set the rules. The real AI crisis doesn’t lie within the technology; it’s our failure to govern the powerful people building and profiting from it.

Something very weird is going on in our political economy discourse.

Over the past month, the executives at the top AI companies have engineered a slow-motion panic over AI, snowballing into an argument that they are on the verge of creating a technology with a reasonable chance of ending human civilization. A few days ago, Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old AI researcher at Anthropic, resigned his role and posted a thread on X, arguing these companies are building super-intelligent systems that may destroy the world. Coxon’s comments garnered a front-page Wall Street Journal story, more than 110 million views, and wide commentary from lawmakers, CEOs, AI experts, and journalists.

Then another 20-something Anthropic employee, Evan Hubinger, chimed in to say that most employees at Anthropic agreed with Coxon, and “do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans,” putting the odds at 10 percent within the next decade. These are extraordinary claims, and the people making them are nicknamed “AI Doomers” or sometimes called the “AI Safety” movement. This group loosely encompasses the network that used to surround disgraced crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, a quasi-religious order known as effective altruists, who believe a cadre of hyper-rational elites can guide humanity. Despite their weirdness, this technology’s capabilities are improving, and some dangerous events have happened recently.

Yet at the same time, Anthropic, a major artificial intelligence “frontier lab,” is likely to go public in the next six weeks with an initial public offering valuing the firm at multiple trillions. This move will immediately create many AI doomer billionaires and millionaires, and it follows a similar IPO from SpaceX and a possible future IPO for a similar firm, OpenAI. It’s about to be very good times for San Francisco real estate, the yacht business, or whatever else AI techies like to buy.

That said, it’s not clear these companies have a sustainable business. Despite raising hundreds of billions of dollars, they are likely not profitable. They are competing fiercely with each other, and with cheaper Chinese open-source models. OpenAI just cut pricing for one of its models by 80 percent, despite losing $26 billion in 2025. Where are the long-term sustainable profits? To remain at the frontier with pricing power, these guys have to spend every dollar of revenue they bring in on training ever more powerful models and then some.

Despite these financial hurdles and predictions of mass extinction, no one is considering canceling the IPOs. And that is true despite the fact that the AI doomer messaging has now broken through to the culture and politics writ large. Former Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin have suggested a Presidential working group on AI risk, modeled after similar commissions put together to deal with financial crises. Bernie Sanders is convening senators over the threats to humanity by AI and calling for a pause on AI development; Ted Cruz is calling for guardrails, and Democrats are considering a special House committee to look at Big Tech and AI. Celebrities like Sheryl Crow are posting in all black on their Instagram accounts.

Something about this odd dynamic, of multitrillion-dollar IPOs by loss-making companies, combined with panicky messages of doom passed around via influencers, seems off. It’s not that there’s no risk to AI systems. It’s that if you don’t accept the full doomer worldview, you get gaslit as not taking risk seriously. Right after 9/11, during the debate over the war in Iraq, the financial crisis in 2008, right before COVID-19, and during various bailouts, I was distressed by the broad demand to stop thinking or reasoning, as the urgency was too great to delay action. A similar pressure campaign feels like it’s happening now. And I’m not alone; experienced tech investor Roger McNamee and many others see it too.

It’s hard to escape that there’s something very strange and manipulative about AI safety discourse. The AI doomers have a lot of money; they run the major AI companies; they fund most AI research; and they staff the major AI Safety nonprofits, like the one that investigates security problems. Many are sincere, but the strange hyper-rationalist effective altruism theology is a huge part of the AI Safety space. As an academic computer scientist who has been around this world for a decade told me, “It’s a weird quasi-religion, like a cult. The core people are sociopaths, and then the rest are neurotics.” It’s not a coincidence that Sam Bankman-Fried was the single most important early funder of Anthropic.

So what is the real deal with AI products? Is it all just a ruse? Not at all. Agentic AI is truly a through-the-looking-glass type of technology that does unexpected things and presents new challenges.

Ok, let’s go to the technology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The AI Doomer Narrative

We’ll start with the doomers. Their view of the world is based on the idea that building generalized artificial intelligence is likely to end humanity, and they have believed that for many years. But they see the last six months as particularly validating to their fears……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The narrative from the AI Doomer world, most prominently an essayist named Dwarkesh Patel, is that this story shows we are on the verge of being supplanted as the dominant species on earth. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. So that’s the doomer narrative. And it is quite scary.

The Rule-Of-Law Narrative

Now, let’s go to the rule-of-law narrative, in which agents are not creatures, but are simply unsafe machines.

In this telling, it’s important not to think of agents as humans with wants and desires………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The bottom line is that OpenAI researchers released a system designed to hack, gave it access to powerful tools, let it run wild, and then it did the hell out of what it was asked to do in ways these researchers did not fully anticipate……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Why isn’t it possible to force model developers to invest in tech to make agents safer? Well, it is. We just choose not to force the powerful financiers at these AI firms to invest in safer products. “Perhaps it’s time that we put aside the sci-fi tales,” writes Newport, “and actually hold these labs to account for playing fast and loose with an ill-advised way of building AI systems.”

The Real Crisis

So where do I come down? Well, I think you can tell I believe in the rule-of-law narrative. And that’s because the evidence for it is overwhelming. It just doesn’t make any sense that we’d allow OpenAI and Anthropic to go public at multitrillion-dollar valuations, even though they make deeply unsafe products, unless we have a crisis with the rule of law………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

This dynamic isn’t driven by technological advance, it’s driven by a refusal to collectively manage risk. We just don’t govern. It’s true that AI creates serious cybersecurity vulnerabilities in our society for which we are unprepared, but it’s also true that corporations have successfully lobbied aggressively against being mandated to patch software infrastructure for many years, worsening this situation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….We haven’t constrained new technologies for decades, because we lost touch with our traditions of public governance. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The consensus is that the next year or two is crunch time for humanity. These are actually just literal quotes from my colleagues at Anthropic. They’ll say things like ‘endgame’ or ‘crunch time.’ From their perspective, this is when Anthropic and its competitors decide the fate of humanity.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Now it’s certainly possible to assume we will never be able to govern risk as a society. But recognize that’s not actually a fear of technology; it’s an argument about the inevitable weakness of democracy and how self-government is a ruse that will lead to our collective annihilation, while an all-powerful caste, by contrast, can protect and enrich our lives. It’s very Divine Right of Kings, actually.

In other words, the AI Safety goal is to find a way to place what they perceive as the immense power of AI in the hands of the only people capable enough to prevent the destruction of the human species, and not have to deal with those petty things like laws, competition, or democratic feedback. The real doomer solution for humanity is for the Anthropic IPO to go really, really well and to find a way to turn those losses into profits. So color me skeptical of ghost stories. We can manage the risks of AI products. The real crisis is that we no longer manage the risks of anything. https://www.levernews.com/the-ai-doomsday-distraction/

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Trump denials can’t hide $billions in US weapons sent to Ukraine

These continuing deliveries are not new awards, but they are still taxpayer-funded military aid to Ukraine that will add up to about $20 billion in aid over the 4 years of Trump’s term.

What Ukraine needs much more than weapons, and what the United States continues to provide in increasing amounts, is intelligence, logistics, and operational support. The details of this support are classified, but public reporting offers some insight.

Jennifer Kavanagh, 9 Sept 26, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-weapons-aid/

Trying to pin the blame for the depletion of U.S. military stockpiles on something other than the war in Iran, President Donald Trump fell back on a usual scapegoat last week: Ukraine. “The Biden administration gave far more munitions away to Ukraine, at no cost to them whatsoever, than we have used in Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

This is a familiar refrain. Trump loves to remind his audience that because of him, Americans are “not spending on Ukraine anymore” and instead, Europe is footing the bill. In truth, most people in the United States don’t think about Ukraine much these days. But since Trump himself brought it up, it’s worth asking: What exactly is going on with U.S. military support to Ukraine?

The answer might surprise you. Despite Trump’s rhetoric, the United States remains deeply embroiled in Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia in ways that create national security risks and run counter to Trump’s own foreign policy goals.

It is true that Trump has reduced U.S. support to Ukraine compared to its high mark under his predecessor, Joe Biden. First, his administration has stopped the use of Presidential Drawdown Authority to transfer weapons from U.S. stocks directly to Ukraine. The Biden administration used this mechanism to give Ukraine almost $35 billion in weapons free of charge. Second, the Trump administration has not requested additional funds for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which uses U.S. financing to purchase new weapons for Ukraine.

But Trump has not cut off all assistance to Ukraine. Several important channels remain. First, there are about $13 billion in outstanding USAI contracts as of June 2026, down from $20 billion in January 2025. These contracts, signed by Biden and now implemented by Trump, will procure weapons for Ukraine through about 2028. Weapons in the pipeline include longer-lead time systems like NASAMs, Patriot missiles and components (Ukraine is reportedly receiving at 10-20 PAC-3s per month under these contracts), counter-drone systems, artillery rockets, and ammunition.

These continuing deliveries are not new awards, but they are still taxpayer-funded military aid to Ukraine that will add up to about $20 billion in aid over the 4 years of Trump’s term. Weapons produced under these contracts come off overburdened U.S. production lines. This has a high opportunity cost given the limits of U.S. defense industrial capacity. Without obligations to Ukraine, industrial resources could shift to different weapons or systems that the United States needs more.

If the Trump administration were serious about ending U.S. spending on the Ukraine war, it could still recoup these funds and reallocate the money to support U.S. defense production needs. It has instead allowed the aid to continue.

There has also been some new funding approved since Biden left office. Congress included about $800 million of USAI funding in the 2026 and 2027 NDAAs. We can expect more in future bills as well.

And the State Department has continued to send military aid of its own. A portion of this aid goes through the Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior, including drones, armored vehicles, guns, grenade launchers, and similar equipment. Since this equipment ends up with Ukraine’s National Guard and border police it is often counted as non-military and intended for things like counterdrug operations, but today these personnel serve as combat units.

The State Department has also approved $3 billion of new arms sales to Ukraine in 2025 and 2026 that will be at least partially funded from foreign military financing (FMF), which means U.S. dollars supporting foreign government purchases of U.S. weapons. Some of these funds may come from money allocated but not spent under President Biden, but much of the funding will be new, coming from the State Department’s budget.

The bottom line is that U.S. weapons transfers to Ukraine continue under Trump, amounting to, on average, as much at $5 billion per year. But this is no longer the most important, or expensive, type of support that the United States gives to Ukraine

For example, the United States gives Ukraine real-time targeting information, including on the movement of Russian troops and the location of key command centers. This information has been important to Ukraine’s mid-range strike campaign on Russian logistics as well as its deep strikes against military and energy targets inside of Russia. In addition, U.S. reconnaissance and surveillance assets in countries on the NATO border (including routine E-3 flights) are integrated with Ukraine’s air defense network, improving the accuracy and speed of Ukraine’s response.

Beyond intelligence, the United States also provides logistical and maintenance support, including forward and remote assistance to repair American-made equipment, necessary spare parts to keep older systems running, and training. It also facilitates the expensive transfer of European purchases of U.S. weapons.

The cost of the intelligence, logistics, and other operational support the United States provides to Ukraine does not show up anywhere as an itemized bill, even as U.S. assistance increases. But we can use available public information to draw some conclusions about the expenses incurred.

The 2024 defense supplemental bill, for instance, allocated about $15 billion to “military training, intelligence sharing, increased presence, and other support activities.” In theory, these funds are intended to cover activities conducted in support of Ukraine that would not occur if the United States remained uninvolved in that conflict. Some portion of this money will go to the salaries of military personnel who would be paid no matter where they work.

Since about a third of each military service’s budget is personnel costs, we could estimate the cost of extra activities conducted for Ukraine, excluding baseline manpower, at about $10 billion over the course of a year or so. If Trump has truly expanded intelligence sharing with Ukraine, this price tag may have increased over time.

The money included in the bill is likely only a portion of the actual burden the U.S. military and intelligence community have shouldered to support Ukraine’s war. Many intelligence activities, like tasking and analyzing satellite data and collecting signals intelligence, might be covered in classified national security budgets. Starting in 2023, in fact, the classified intelligence budget increased by 10%, a large jump over the 2022 total. The increase was justified by intelligence community leaders as resulting from shifts in the national security landscape, including especially concern about China’s rise and spillover from conflict in Ukraine. Since the total increase in funding was about $10 billion, we can guess that Ukraine-related expenditures might amount to $3-$5 billion per year, or about one-third to one-half of the total increase.

All told, then, U.S. taxpayers are still spending roughly $20 billion per year on Ukraine. Today, assistance to Ukraine comes primarily in the form of direct operational support, not weapons. But the shift in type of aid increases the risk of U.S. support to Ukraine to average Americans.

First, assisting Ukraine in striking energy targets inside of Russia has a perverse effect on the Trump administration’s efforts to keep gas prices low. As Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent acknowledged, Ukraine’s strikes inside Russia push global oil prices up, imposing higher costs of living on Americans.

Second, U.S. intelligence support deepens U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s war, making it an all-but-direct combatant. Russian assistance to Iran, both in terms of weapons and intelligence sharing, is a reaction to the comparable U.S. role in Ukraine, and it leaves U.S. servicemembers in the Middle East and elsewhere less safe. Growing U.S. participation in Ukraine also increases the risk that miscalculation leads to a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation, a nightmarish possibility given the degraded state of U.S. military readiness.

Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. He has instead deepened U.S. entanglement in ways that create real risks and new fiscal costs for the United States. American interests would be best served if the United States were to walk away entirely, but if Trump instead opts for the status quo, he should at least be honest about it.

Jennifer Kavanagh

Dr. Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities. Previously, Dr. Kavanagh was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. She is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israeli officials fume over award-winning death-by-AI documentary

Mon, 14 Sep 2026 , https://www.sott.net/article/508401-Israeli-officials-fume-over-award-winning-death-by-AI-documentary

Israeli Culture Minister Miki ZoharCulture Minister Miki Zohar has called for NAZA’s directors to be stripped of citizenship while accusing them of “betrayal against the state”

Several senior Israeli politicians have lashed out at the filmmakers behind a documentary accusing the IDF of using AI-assisted systems in the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza. Zohar went so far as to accuse the two Oscar-winning directors of treachery and threatened to have them stripped of Israeli citizenship.

The controversy erupted after the 80-minute-long film NAZA – the name alludes to an Israeli military shorthand for expected “collateral casualties” – received a 25-minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival last week and won the Special Jury Prize.

The film, directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, is based on the accounts of anonymous Israeli military and intelligence insiders alleging that the IDF heavily relied on AI systems to identify people and homes for attack on a massive scale, often disregarding collateral civilian casualties. Some insiders described the process as “insanely fun” and akin to a “videogame.”

The IDF has categorically rejected the film’s portrayal, saying the selection and approval of strikes are carried out “by human personnel only.”

Comment: Israel’s AI systems tech did exactly that…movement…noise...bombed.

The film also caused a stir among senior Israeli officials. Zohar called the accolade “shocking,” accusing the directors of seeking to “harm their homeland just to get applause from anti-Semites around the world.”

He wrote on X on Sunday:

“[This] is inconceivable and constitutes a betrayal of the state… As Minister of Culture, I will act immediately to revoke the Israeli citizenship of these despicable creators.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett had attacked the documentary even before the award, calling it a “horrific blood libel” and saying it was particularly infuriating that the accusations had come from Israeli filmmakers. He also acknowledged civilian casualties in Gaza, but argued that “there is no magic button that can destroy Hamas, or any terrorist organization hiding behind” ordinary people.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir – widely regarded as one of the most hardline figures of Israel’s right-wing camp – called the directors a “disgrace,” suggesting Hamas would welcome them, while former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman branded the pair “enemies of Israel.”

Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor his office commented on the matter.

Despite Zohar’s threat, there is no precedent of Israeli filmmakers being stripped of citizenship for producing a critical documentary, while the minister himself does not have a mandate to take such a measure.

Israeli law allows a court to strip citizenship for a “breach of loyalty,” including terrorism, treason, and serious espionage, but in the past the power was treated extremely cautiously. In 2022, as Israel’s Supreme Court considered two cases involving citizens convicted of serious terrorist attacks, it ruled against the revocation, citing flaws in the proceedings and stressing that the measure could only be applied in exceptional circumstances.

However, Israeli filmmakers have faced other legal consequences in the past over similar work. In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on screenings of the documentary Jenin, Jenin – a film by Palestinian-Israeli director Mohammad Bakri which portrayed alleged IDF abuses. The court ordered Bakri to pay around $57,000 in damages after he was sued for defamation.

In 2012, Haaretz journalist Uri Blau was sentenced to four months of community service for unauthorized possession of classified IDF documents used in reporting on targeted killings, even though his articles had passed military censorship. Meanwhile, his military source was sentenced to several years in prison.

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, media | Leave a comment

When War Comes Home: A Constitutional Warning

by Andrew P. Napolitano | Sep 10, 2026, https://ronpaulinstitute.org/when-war-comes-home-a-constitutional-warning/

A failed war does not end when the drones stop flying. It creates a new danger: A government that refuses to admit defeat and a president who, having failed abroad, seeks muscular victories elsewhere.

The war against Iran is a case study in the limits of military power, the dangers of presidential overreach and the enduring wisdom of the Constitution’s separation of powers. It was unauthorized, unconstitutional, illegal, strategically incoherent and — by the standards by which wars must be judged — a geopolitical failure.

The American people were told that force would achieve clear objectives. Iran would be compelled to surrender. Somehow, American security would be enhanced. The region would become more stable.

Instead, the United States expended enormous resources, consumed scarce munitions, deepened regional instability and failed to produce the political outcome President Donald Trump promised. Senior military officials just last week warned him that extending large-scale operations risked exhausting critical military capabilities and weakening America’s ability to respond elsewhere.

The United States can destroy buildings, eliminate targets, deploy aircraft, ships, missiles, drones and troops anywhere on the planet. But war is not a video game in which the destruction of enemy assets automatically produces political surrender. War is a contest of wills, societies, culture and endurance.

And here is the constitutional question that should have been asked before the first bomb was dropped: Who gave the president the authority to begin this war? The Constitution did not.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. The framers deliberately rejected the British model in which kings could drag nations into conflicts based upon personal judgment, ambition or political convenience. James Madison warned that the executive branch was “the branch of power most interested in war,” and therefore the Constitution placed the decision to enter war outside the president’s constitutional reach.

The president is commander in chief. He commands forces after lawful congressional decisions have been made. He does not possess the power to transform his title into a personal authority to begin wars.

That principle has been repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court. In cases such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court rejected the idea that President Harry Truman had unlimited power simply because he claimed national security. Justice Robert Jackson’s famous concurrence warned that executive power is most dangerous when it operates in a “zone of twilight” where presidents attempt to expand authority beyond constitutional boundaries and without congressional concurrence.

The Iran war belongs precisely in that twilight — where executive ambition collides with constitutional restraint.

The administration may argue that modern threats require flexibility. That argument has been made by presidents of both parties for decades. But flexibility is not the same as unlimited authority. The Constitution was written for difficult moments, not easy ones. It was designed to restrain presidents even when they believe they have compelling reasons to act.

The military failure abroad has created a political dilemma at home. A president who promised victory must now confront the reality that victory was never achieved.

The danger is what happens next.

History teaches that political leaders who suffer public humiliation abroad often seek demonstrations of strength elsewhere. Foreign-policy failure can produce domestic overreach. Leaders who cannot achieve the desired result overseas may attempt to prove their power through actions at home.

That is where the war comes home.

The president, frustrated by military limitations, may turn toward radical immigration enforcement, Supreme Court-prohibited tariffs, statutorily prohibited domestic deployments of military forces, stealing foreign-owned oil, and assertions of executive authority that collide with free speech and free association.

But the Constitution does not permit a president to substitute disappointment for law.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person — not just Americans — shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment guarantees all persons — not just Americans — from whom the government seeks life, liberty or property the right to a public trial before an impartial jury, and other constitutional protections. These protections apply not because accused persons are necessarily innocent but because government power is too dangerous to operate without restraints.

Evidence is not conviction. Accusation is not guilt. Presidential assertion is not judicial judgment.

The executive branch cannot simply identify alleged criminals in speedboats or elsewhere, declare them enemies and impose punishment without trial. That is a system the American Revolution rejected.

The same principle applies to the use of military force inside the United States. The founders were deeply suspicious of standing armies being used for law enforcement. That suspicion produced constitutional protections and later statutes prohibiting the military’s role in civilian law enforcement.

The military exists to defend the nation from foreign threats. It is not a presidential police force.

Likewise, Congress — not the president — defines crimes and establishes punishments. A president cannot create new categories of enemies and decide their fate by executive command. The Constitution does not authorize a monarchy with aircraft carriers.

Every generation faces a temptation to exchange freedom for security. Every generation is told that normal rules cannot apply because a crisis is too serious, an enemy too dangerous and a moment too urgent.

The founders knew that argument well and they rejected it.

The Constitution was written precisely because government officials would sometimes believe that their objectives justified employing extraordinary power. The separation of powers, congressional war authority, judicial review and due process protections are not obstacles to effective government. They are safeguards against government becoming the threat it was created to prevent.

The ultimate question is not whether a president is strong enough to exercise power. The question is whether the president is restrained enough to obey the laws he has sworn to uphold.

That is the fear of a republic when the war comes home. To paraphrase the author Herman Melville, beware the president weeping when he bares an iron hand.

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Japan aims to increase its reliance on nuclear power, but headwinds remain

the government secured passage of a revised electricity business law in July, enabling public financing for reactor replacement projects.

Efforts to address spent nuclear fuel generated by nuclear power plants remain stalled. The nuclear fuel cycle policy, which calls for reprocessing and reusing spent fuel, lacks a clear path forward, as completion of the key reprocessing plant in the village of Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, has been repeatedly postponed.

A final disposal site has also yet to be selected for the high-level radioactive waste produced through reprocessing.

Sep 16, 2026 , https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/09/16/japan/nuclear-power-five-rebuild-2040/

The Japanese government has set a target of replacing up to five nuclear reactors by the 2040s and as many as 14 by the 2050s.

In the July decision to revise its nuclear energy policy guidelines, the government presented specific numerical targets for reactor replacement for the first time since the triple meltdown at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in March 2011.

The government also reaffirmed its policy of making “maximum use” of nuclear power, seeking to encourage investment in related industry sectors and to foster skilled personnel.

Important step

After the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry released draft revisions to the guidelines in June, Nozomu Mori, chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan and president of Kansai Electric Power, welcomed the move.

“This sends a powerful message that Japan will continue to utilize nuclear power in the future,” Mori told a news conference. “An extremely important step has been taken.”

The previous guidelines, adopted in 2023, effectively extended the maximum operating life of nuclear reactors beyond the standard 60-year limit and called for making maximum use of existing facilities.

The latest revision goes further by adopting a more proactive approach to replacing reactors that are to be decommissioned after reaching the end of their operating lives.

Within the industry, Kansai Electric has already begun geological surveys in preparation for the possible construction of a new reactor at its Mihama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture.

Another proposal calls for building a reactor at Kyushu Electric Power’s Sendai nuclear power plant in Kagoshima Prefecture e while decommissioning reactors at the utility’s Genkai nuclear power plant in Saga Prefecture.

Data centers

With electricity demand expected to rise sharply amid the construction of data centers and semiconductor plants, the government regards nuclear power, together with renewable energy, as a key source of decarbonized electricity.

Under the Strategic Energy Plan approved by the Cabinet in 2025, the government aims to increase nuclear power’s share of the electricity generation mix to around 20% in fiscal 2040.

The revised guidelines set numerical targets for reactor replacement on the basis of estimates that nuclear generating capacity could fall as much as 5.5 million kilowatts short of the level needed to meet that goal by the 2040s and up to 16 million kilowatts short by the 2050s.

By establishing specific targets, the government hopes to create a business environment conducive to large-scale investments and strengthen efforts to develop skilled personnel.

The number of people seeking employment in the nuclear power industry has declined since the accident at the disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 plant. Nuclear power projects typically take about 20 years from the start of construction to the launch of operations and can cost trillions of yen, making it difficult to raise funds and recoup investments.

Against this backdrop, the government secured passage of a revised electricity business law in July, enabling public financing for reactor replacement projects.

At a meeting of ministers responsible for nuclear energy policy, in which the revisions to the guidelines were adopted, participants agreed to provide funding for nuclear power projects through the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization and to draw up a road map for workforce development.

“We will make maximum use of nuclear power, which contributes to energy security and decarbonization,” Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said at the meeting.

Nuclear fuel cycle issues

A final disposal site has also yet to be selected for the high-level radioactive waste produced through reprocessing. As part of the repository selection process, a first-stage survey has started on Minamitorishima, a Pacific island administered by the Tokyo village of Ogasawara. Still, Ogasawara is only the fourth municipality nationwide to accept such a survey.

In late August, the industry ministry asked Hitachiomiya, a city in Ibaraki Prefecture, to accept a first-stage survey for the final disposal site selection.

With no clear prospect for any further increase in the number of candidate sites, officials in affected local governments have voiced criticism. One asked, “Is it really appropriate to allow discussions on reactor construction alone to continue moving forward?”

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Centrica And X‑Energy Progress Nuclear Plans

Centrica and X‑energy have confirmed that X‑energy’s Xe‑100
Generation IV small modular reactor has been accepted into the UK’s Generic
Design Assessment (GDA), marking a key step towards commercial licensing.
The move coincides with the first anniversary of the companies’ partnership
and follows a direction from government to bring the design into the formal
review process.

Under their collaboration, the companies aim to deploy up
to 6GW of new nuclear capacity across the UK, equivalent to around 10-20
Xe‑100 power stations depending on the size of each installation.

Acceptance into the GDA initiates a multi‑year process to assess the
reactor’s suitability for deployment and operation ahead of site‑specific
permits. The review, expected to take about three years, will be led by the
Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the Environment Agency (EA) and
Natural Resources Wales. The UK submission builds on the Xe‑100’s
progress with US licensing and is expected to benefit from greater
collaboration between UK regulators and the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, including the transfer of NRC‑reviewed design documentation
and safety analyses into UK assessments.

Construction.co.uk 16th Sept 2026, https://www.construction.co.uk/construction-news/334683/centrica-and-x8209energy-progress-nuclear-plans

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Covert Pentagon propagandists are tracking anti-war Americans, skirting the law

Wyatt Reed· The Grayzone, September 15, 2026

When a semi-anonymous social media user declared that the federal government had targeted her in a bizarre entrapment scheme, the paranoid claim snowballed into a more disturbing revelation: the Pentagon appears to be breaking the law by paying conservative influencers to track, surveil, and propagandize Americans. Who else is involved in the covert scheme?

In mid-August, a conservative activist using the digital moniker “Datarepublican” quietly admitted she was employed by the Pentagon as a “special government employee.” For months, she’d been pocketing a government paycheck while intensely lobbying for President Trump’s imperialist misadventures online and tracking their most vocal critics in a digital database.

Datarepublican was identified in 2025 as Jennica Pounds, a Utah-based mother with nearly a million followers whose stated raison d’etre is “fighting communists” – a moniker she applies liberally to anyone perceptibly to the left of Barry Goldwater.

And she’s not alone. Pounds has emerged as the face of a new wave of right-wing influencers who are being covertly employed by the US Department of War to spread pro-government propaganda. On August 29th, Washington Post reporters revealed at least three more digital activists are surreptitiously working for the Pentagon, which designates them as either special government employees (SGEs) or as what the US military calls “highly qualified experts” (HQEs).

Named in the Pentagon’s army of influencers were retired Air Force colonel Rob Maness, and retired Army colonels Kurt Schlichter and Thomas Anderson. Like Pounds, Anderson also operated in relative anonymity until recently, posting under the Twitter handle “Cynical Publius.” Schlicter, for his part, is a prolific right-wing troll who has frequently fantasized about the ethnic cleansing and extermination of Palestinians.

The operation appears to be in breach of two federal laws, the Hatch Act and the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibit government employees from engaging in political activities while on the clock, and forbid them from directing their propaganda efforts at the US population, respectively.

The aforementioned right-wing activists are the only ones known to have been working secretly for the Department of War. But the revelations about paid Pentagon propaganda posters come as the US military pursues a flurry of murky partnerships with prominent conservative influencers like top TPUSA widow Erika Kirk, who was appointed to the Air Force Academy Board of Visitors by Trump in March in an effort to further slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s “legacy.”

Then there’s Laura Loomer, the obsessively anti-Muslim Trump ally, who is producing de facto press releases for self-proclaimed “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth, enjoying Pentagon press credentials, and earning references as an “informal advisor to the Department of War.”

A propagandist accidentally outs herself as secret Pentagon employee

Like previous unflattering military disclosures, an apparently disgruntled employee was responsible for the revelation that Hegseth’s Department of War has quietly begun paying off online influencers.

In a since-deleted thread originally published on Twitter/X, Pounds – posting under the pseudonym Datarepublican – claimed that Trump’s undersecretary for public diplomacy at the State Department, Sarah B. Rogers, attempted to “set [her] up” by leaking documents to her in what she described as an effort to induce her to carry out a criminal act…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Tracking antiwar activists, raising further questions about legality

On August 28, the Pentagon special government employee unveiled a new digital database tracking those she accused of “orbiting the anti-imperialist spine,” called “DSA Explorer.”

Alongside the Democratic Socialists of America, the page displays a vast, near-impenetrable web of connections between groups like Black Lives Matter, CODEPINK, Pastors for Peace, Greek’s Syriza Party, and the NAACP. The site, Pounds wrote, catalogues the people and organizations comprising “the wider anti-imperialist solidarity network.”

Individuals listed include such disparate figures as the British Labour Party’s Dianne Abott, former Colombian President Gustavo Petro, and conscious rapper Talib Kweli. Clearly hoping to prompt investigation by federal authorities, Pounds accuses dozens of those listed of operating as “potential unregistered foreign agents.”

In an ironic twist of fate, Pounds’ efforts to censor and blacklist her opponents closely mirror those of the former disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz, who was also officially empowered by the US government to target the perceived political enemies of the regime. Desperate to criminalize leftists for imagined crimes, Pounds is now emulating the Deep State censors she once railed against.

But in pursuing American citizens by name with a McCarthyite surveillance scheme, Pounds could be opening herself up to litigation by her targets. Perhaps sensing the legal delicacy of her clumsy name-and shame project, she placed a fine-print legalese “disclaimer” on the page, claiming the material was for “research, educational, and journalistic purposes only.”……………………………………………………………………………..

Days after launching “DSA Explorer,” Pounds published a nearly-identical database focusing on anarchists and antifascist activists in the Americas and Europe who’d been using the “Noblogs” platform, showcasing information which appeared to have been stolen and handed to her by the US government…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Who is else secretly working for the Pentagon?

While Pounds, Maness, Schlichter, and Anderson have been forced to admit to having partnered with the Pentagon without prior public disclosure, It’s still unknown whether the Department of War is employing other special employees, or whether Pentagon may be paying others through third parties. But one extremely influential MAGA personality who appears to be close to the Pentagon – so close she hitched a ride to Guantanamo Bay with War Secretary Pete Hegseth – is Laura Loomer.

In addition to making headlines for accusing lawmakers of African descent of being “ghetto Black bitches,” Loomer has also recently launched a crusade against The Grayzone and its editor-in-chief, Max Blumenthal. While Blumenthal was reporting from Iran on the funeral of slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Loomer demanded his arrest, writing on social media:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://thegrayzone.com/2026/09/15/covert-pentagon-propagandists-tracking-americans/

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Michiganders Oppose Proposed LANL Data Center at the University of Michigan in Ypsilanti Township.

Last week residents of Ypsilanti Township expressed their anger over a proposed high-performance computing facility near the Huron River in a partnership between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Residents are concerned that the proposed project would fuel research into the nuclear arms race. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE0fycQix-Q, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1EVU54Zwbs

The proposed plan involves a $1.2 billion dollar computing facility of almost 300,000 square feet for classified federal research and non-classified university research in science and technologies. The Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Stockpile Stewardship Program would dedicate most of the space to LANL work that includes nuclear weapons research. The Stockpile Stewardship Program was developed after the end of the Cold War, has expanded and the NNSA has taken it over. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/stockpile-stewardship-and-management-plan-ssmp

Michiganders point out that the proposed research would go beyond maintaining the existing weapons stockpile.

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

Trump Plans New Sale of 2,000-Pound Bombs to Israel, Which Keeps Using Them to Massacre Gazans

SCHEERPOST, September 16, 2026, Brett Wilkins Common Dreams

The Trump administration is preparing to send Israel tens of thousands of 2,000-pound bombs, The Washington Post reported Tuesday—a move that would rank as the largest single sale of the highly destructive munitions, which the Israel Defense Forces have used in some of the deadliest US-backed airstrikes on Gaza and Lebanon.

According to the Post, the proposed $2.8 billion package includes 20,000 MK-84 bombs and 20,000 BLU-117 bombs, as well as 20,000 I-2000 penetrator warheads. The munitions would be purchased with US taxpayer funds through the Foreign Military Financing program. The proposal has been informally presented to congressional committees that review major arms transfers.

The MK-84 is among the largest conventional bombs in the US arsenal. The Post reported that its blast can propel metal fragments thousands of feet, penetrate thick concrete and metal, and create large craters.

“If Hezbollah or whoever is in a building, an MK-84 will bring down the whole building,” Trevor Ball, a former US Army explosive ordnance disposal technician, told the Post.

Following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) loosened rules of engagement to effectively allow the killing of an unlimited number of civilians when targeting even a single low-ranking Hamas member in an airstrike.

Combined with the utilization of cutting-edge artificial intelligence technology to select targets at a far faster rate than humans alone could, IDF use of 1,000- and 2,000-pound bombs has contributed heavily to the staggering casualty toll in Gaza, where officials say that more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded since October 2023.

That month, Israeli forces struck Gaza’s Jabalia refugee camp with such munitions, killing at least 126 Palestinians in a bid to assassinate a single Hamas commander.

Michael Lynk, who served as the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories from 2016 to 2022, said early in the war that “the scale of Palestinian civilian deaths in such a short period of time appears to be the highest such civilian casualty rate in the 21st century.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://scheerpost.com/2026/09/16/trump-plans-new-sale-of-2000-pound-bombs-to-israel-which-keeps-using-them-to-massacre-gazans/

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Can America Build Enough Nuclear Reactors?

September 14, 2026, By: Paul J. Saunders, and Daniel Poneman, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/can-america-build-enough-nuclear-reactors

A potential US–South Korea nuclear deal could bring eight new reactors to America. But can the US nuclear industry scale fast enough?

The United States may be preparing for one of its biggest nuclear construction pushes in decades.

Reports suggest Washington and Seoul are considering a nuclear energy cooperation agreement that could lead to the construction of as many as eight reactors in the United States, potentially including Westinghouse AP1000s and South Korean APR1400s.

Daniel Poneman, former US deputy secretary of energy and former CEO of Centrus Energy, calls the prospect “huge”—both for the US nuclear industry and the broader strategic relationship between the United States and South Korea.

The potential agreement comes as US electricity demand is growing after roughly two decades of relatively flat demand, driven in part by the rapid expansion of data centers. But Poneman argues that demand is not the biggest obstacle. The harder question is whether the US nuclear industry can build fast enough to meet it.

That challenge extends to nuclear fuel. As Washington works to reduce reliance on Russian uranium enrichment, the domestic enrichment industry will also need to scale. While there is a path forward, the United States needs to move quickly.

In this episode of Three Questions, Center for the National Interest president Paul Saunders and Poneman discuss the potential US–South Korea nuclear deal, the growing demand for nuclear power, and whether the US nuclear industry has the capacity to meet the moment.

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Memories of Greenpeace and its anti-nuclear campaign

By Sarah Millington, 16 Sept 26, https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/26552830.memories-greenpeace-anti-nuclear-campaign/

GREENPEACE Day is observed every year on September 15, marking the 1971 voyage that launched the global environmental organisation.

A group of activists sailed from Vancouver, Canada, to protest against US nuclear weapons testing at Amchitka Island in Alaska.

Although they did not stop the test itself, their dramatic action attracted international attention and marked the birth of what would become one of the world’s most influential environmental organisations.

Greenpeace has a long association with Cumbria through its anti-nuclear campaigning around Sellafield. For decades, the organisation has raised concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear fuel reprocessing and the environmental impact of operations at the site.

In April 1995, around 250 Greenpeace activists entered and occupied parts of the Sellafield reprocessing plant in a protest timed to coincide with international nuclear non-proliferation talks.

September 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Events | Leave a comment