On Neo-Nazi Influence in Ukraine
The Azov Battalion, which arose during the coup, became a significant force in the war against the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass, who resisted the coup. Its commander, Andriy Biletsky, infamously said Ukraine’s mission is to “lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival … against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”
the Azov backer’s television channel had by this time aired the hit TV show Servant of the People (2015-2019), which catapulted Volodymyr Zelensky to fame and ultimately into the presidency under the new Servant of the People Party. The former actor and comedian’s presidential campaign was bankrolled by Kolomoisky, according to multiple reports.
Zelensky was elected president on the promise of ending the Donbass war. About seven months into his term he traveled to the front line in Donbass to tell Ukrainian troops, where Azov is well-represented, to lay down their arms. Instead he was sent packing. The Kyiv Post
A short history of neo-Nazism in Ukraine in response to some who say, “There is no evidence that Nazism has substantial influence in Ukraine.” Joe Lauria reports.
By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 20 Apr 25
The U.S. relationship with Ukrainian fascists began after the Second World War. During the war, units of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) took part in the Holocaust, killing at least 100,000 Jews and Poles.
Mykola Lebed, a top aide to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the fascist OUN-B, was recruited by the C.I.A. after the war, according to a 2010 study by the U.S. National Archives.
The government study said, “Bandera’s wing (OUN/B) was a militant fascist organization.” Bandera’s closest deputy, Yaroslav Stetsko, said: ““I…fully appreciate the undeniably harmful and hostile role of the Jews, who are helping Moscow to enslave Ukraine…. I therefore support the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine….”
The study says: “At a July 6, 1941, meeting in Lwów, Bandera loyalists determined that Jews ‘have to be treated harshly…. We must finish them off…. Regarding the Jews, we will adopt any methods that lead to their destruction.’”
Lebed himself proposed to “’cleanse the entire revolutionary territory of the Polish population,’ so that a resurgent Polish state would not claim the region as in 1918.” Lebed was the “foreign minister” of a Banderite government in exile, but he later broke with Bandera for acting as a dictator. The U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps termed Bandera “extremely dangerous” yet said he was “looked upon as the spiritual and national hero of all Ukrainians….”
The C.I.A. was not interested in working with Bandera, pages 81-82 of the report say, but the British MI6 was. “MI6 argued, Bandera’s group was ‘the strongest Ukrainian organization abroad, is deemed competent to train party cadres, [and] build a morally and politically healthy organization….’” An early 1954 MI6 summary noted that, “the operational aspect of this [British] collaboration [with Bandera] was developing satisfactorily. Gradually a more complete control was obtained over infiltration operations …
Britain ended its collaboration with Bandera in 1954. West German intelligence, under former Nazi intelligence chief Reinhard Gehlen, then worked with Bandera, who was eventually assassinated with cyanide dust by the KGB in Munich in 1959.
Instead of Bandera, the C.I.A. was interested in Lebed, despite his fascist background. They set him up in an office in New York City from which he directed sabotage and propaganda operations on the agency’s behalf inside Ukraine against the Soviet Union. The U.S. government study says:
“CIA operations with these Ukrainians began in 1948 under the cryptonym CARTEL, soon changed to AERODYNAMIC. … Lebed relocated to New York and acquired permanent resident status, then U.S. citizenship. It kept him safe from assassination, allowed him to speak to Ukrainian émigré groups, and permitted him to return to the United States after operational trips to Europe. Once in the United States, Lebed was the CIA’s chief contact for AERODYNAMIC. CIA handlers pointed to his ‘cunning character,’ his ‘relations with the Gestapo and … Gestapo training,’ [and] the fact that he was ‘a very ruthless operator.’”
The C.I.A. worked with Lebed on sabotage and pro-Ukrainian nationalist propaganda operations inside Ukraine until Ukraine’s independence in 1991. “Mykola Lebed’s relationship with the CIA lasted the entire length of the Cold War,” the study says. “While most CIA operations involving wartime perpetrators backfired, Lebed’s operations augmented the fundamental instability of the Soviet Union.”
Bandera Revival
The U.S. thus covertly kept Ukrainian fascist ideas alive inside Ukraine until at least Ukrainian independence was achieved. “Mykola Lebed, Bandera’s wartime chief in Ukraine, died in 1998. He is buried in New Jersey, and his papers are located at the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University,” the U.S. National Archives study says.
The successor organization to the OUN-B in the United States did not die with him, however. It had been renamed the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), according to the International Business Times (IBT).
“By the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration was honeycombed with UCCA members. Reagan personally welcomed [Yaroslav] Stetsko, the Banderist leader who oversaw the massacre of 7,000 Jews in Lviv, in the White House in 1983,” IBT reported. “Following the demise of [Viktor] Yanukovich’s regime [in 2014], the UCCA helped organise rallies in cities across the US in support of the EuroMaidan protests,” it reported.
That is a direct link between Maidan and WWII-era Ukrainian fascism.
Despite the U.S. favoring the less extreme Lebed over Bandera, the latter has remained the more inspiring figure in Ukraine.
In 1991, the first year of Ukraine’s independence, the neo-fascist Social National Party, later Svoboda Party, was formed, tracing its provenance directly to Bandera. It had a street named after Bandera in Liviv, and tried to name the city’s airport after him. (Svoboda won 10 percent of the Rada’s seats in 2012 before the coup and before Sen. John McCain and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland appeared with Svoboda’s leader the following year.)
In 2010, pro-Western Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko declared Bandera a Hero of Ukraine, a status reversed by President Viktor Yanukovych, who was overthrown with the help of Ukrainian neo-Nazis in 2014.
More than 50 monuments, busts and museums commemorating Bandera have been erected in Ukraine, two-thirds of which have been built since 2005, the year the pro-American Yuschenko was elected. A Swiss academic study says:
“On January 13, 2011, the L’vivs’ka Oblast’ Council, meeting at an extraordinary session next to the Bandera monument in L’viv, reacted to the abrogation [skasuvannya] of Viktor Yushchenko’s order about naming Stepan Bandera a ‘Hero of Ukraine’ by affirming that ‘for millions of Ukrainians Bandera was and remains a Ukrainian Hero notwithstanding pitiable and worthless decisions of the courts’ and declaring its intention to rename ‘Stepan Bandera Street’ as ‘Hero of Ukraine Stepan Bandera Street.’”
Torchlit parades behind Bandera’s portrait are common in Ukrainian cities, particularly on Jan. 1, his birthday, including this year.
Mainstream on Neo-Nazis
From the start of the 2013-2014 events in Ukraine, Consortium News founder Robert Parry and other writers began providing the evidence NewsGuard, which bills itself as a news-rating agency, says doesn’t exist. Parry began reporting extensively on the coup and the influential role of Ukraine’s neo-Nazis. At the time, corporate media also reported on the essential part neo-Nazis played in the coup. [See: ROBERT PARRY: Ukraine’s Inconvenient Neo-Nazis]
As The New York Times reported, the neo-Nazi group, Right Sector, had the key role in the violent ouster of Yanukovych. The role of neo-fascist groups in the uprising and its influence on Ukrainian society was well reported by mainstream media outlets at the time.
The BBC, the NYT, the Daily Telegraph and CNN all reported on Right Sector, C14 and other extremists’ role in the overthrow of Yanukovych. The BBC ran this report a week after his ouster:
After the coup a number of ministers in the new government came from neo-fascist parties. NBC News (100 percent NewsGuard rating) reported in March 2014: “Svoboda, which means ‘Freedom,’ was given almost a quarter of the Cabinet positions in the interim government formed after the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych in February.”
Svoboda’s leader, Tyahnybok, whom McCain and Nuland stood on stage with, once called for the liberation of Ukraine from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” The International Business Times (82.5 percent) reported:
“In 2005 Tyahnybok signed an open letter to then Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko urging him to ban all Jewish organisations, including the Anti-Defamation League, which he claimed carried out ‘criminal activities [of] organised Jewry’, ultimately aimed at the genocide of the Ukrainian people.”
Before McCain and Nuland embraced Tyahnybok and his social national party, it was condemned by the European Parliament, which said in 2012:
Continue reading‘We thought it was the end of the world’: How the US dropped four nuclear bombs on Spain in 1966
Myles Burke https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250404-how-the-us-dropped-nuclear-bombs-on-spain-in-1966 7 Apr 25
In 1966, the remote Spanish village of Palomares found that the “nuclear age had fallen on them from a clear blue sky”. Two years after the terrifying accident, BBC reporter Chris Brasher went to find what happened when the US lost a hydrogen bomb.
On 7 April 1966, almost 60 years ago this week, a missing nuclear weapon for which the US military had been desperately searching for 80 days was finally found. The warhead, with an explosive power 100 times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was carefully winched from a depth of 2,850ft (869m) out of the Mediterranean Sea and delicately lowered onto the USS Petrel. Once it was on board, officers painstakingly cut into the thermonuclear device’s casing to disarm it. It was only then that everyone could breathe a sigh of relief – the last of the four hydrogen bombs that the US had accidentally dropped on Spain had been recovered.
“This was not the first accident involving nuclear weapons,” said BBC reporter Chris Brasher when he reported from the scene in 1968. “The Pentagon lists at least nine previous accidents to aircraft carrying hydrogen bombs. But this was the first accident on foreign soil, the first to involve civilians and the first to excite the attention of the world.”
This terrifying situation had come about because of a US operation code-named Chrome Dome. At the beginning of the 1960s, the US had developed a project to deter its Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, from launching a pre-emptive strike. A patrol of nuclear-armed B-52 bombers would continuously criss-cross the skies, primed to attack Moscow at a moment’s notice. But to stay airborne on these long looping routes, the planes needed to refuel while in flight.
On 17 January 1966, one such bomber was flying at a height of 31,000ft (9.5km) over the Almería region of southern Spain, and attempted a routine air-to-air refuelling with a KC-135 tanker plane. “I believe what happened was the bomber was closing at a too-high rate of closure speed and he didn’t stabilise his position,” US Maj Gen Delmar Wilson, the man in charge of dealing with the catastrophic accident, told Brasher, “with the result that they got too close and collided.”
The B-52 bomber’s impact with the refuelling plane tore it open, igniting the jet fuel the KC-135 was carrying and killing all four of the crew onboard. The ensuing explosion also killed two men in the B-52’s tail section. A third managed to eject, but died when his parachute did not open. The other four members of the bomber’s crew successfully bailed out of their burning plane before it broke apart and fell to earth, raining down both flaming aircraft fragments and its lethal thermonuclear cargo onto the remote Spanish village of Palomares.
Everyone kept talking about a ‘broken arrow’. I learnt then that ‘broken arrow’ was the code word for a nuclear accident – Capt Joe Ramirez
The huge fireball was seen a mile away. Thankfully, it did not trigger a nuclear explosion. The bomber’s warheads were not armed and had built-in safeguards to prevent an unintended atomic chain reaction. But the thermonuclear devices did have explosives surrounding their plutonium cores as part of the triggering mechanism. In the event of an accident, the bombs had parachutes attached to them designed to cushion the impact on landing and prevent radioactive contamination. And indeed, one undetonated bomb did land safely in a riverbed and was recovered intact the following day. Unfortunately, two of the plummeting nuclear bombs’ parachutes failed to open.
That morning, Spanish farmer Pedro Alarcón was walking to his house with his grandchildren when one of the nuclear bombs landed in his tomato field and blew apart on impact. “We were blown flat. The children started to cry. I was paralysed with fear. A stone hit me in the stomach, I thought I’d been killed. I lay there feeling like death with the children crying,” he told the BBC in 1968.
Devastation and chaos
The other hydrogen bomb also exploded when it hit the ground near a cemetery. These dual blasts created vast craters and scattered highly toxic, radioactive plutonium dust across several hundred acres. Burning aircraft debris also showered the Spanish village. “I was crying and running about,” a villager called Señora Flores told the BBC in 1968. “My little girl was crying, ‘Mama, Mama, look at our house, it is burning.’ Because of all the smoke I thought what she said must be true. There were a lot of stones and debris falling around us. I thought it would hit us. It was this terrific explosion. We thought it was the end of the world.”
Once the news that the bomber had come down with nuclear weapons aboard reached US military command, a huge operation was launched. At the time of the disaster, Capt Joe Ramirez was an US Air Force lawyer stationed in Madrid. “There were a lot of people talking, there was a lot of excitement in the conference room. Everyone kept talking about a ‘broken arrow’. I learnt then that ‘broken arrow’ was the code word for a nuclear accident,” he told BBC’s Witness History in 2011.
US military personnel were scrambled to the area by helicopter. When Capt Ramirez arrived in Palomares, he immediately saw the devastation and chaos wrought by the accident. Huge pieces of smoking wreckage were strewn all over the area – a large part of the burning B-52 bomber had landed in the school’s yard. “It’s a small village but there were people scrambling in different directions. I could see smouldering debris, I could see some fires.”
Despite the carnage, miraculously no one in the village was killed. “Nearly 100 tonnes of flaming debris had fallen on the village but not even a chicken had died,” said Brasher. A local school teacher and doctor climbed up to the fire-scarred hillside to retrieve the remains of the US airmen who had been killed. “Later still, they sorted the pieces and the limbs into five coffins, an act that was to cause a certain amount of bureaucratic difficulty when the Americans came to claim only four bodies from that hillside,” said Brasher.
Three of the B-52 crew who managed to eject landed in the Mediterranean several miles off the coast and were rescued by local fishing boats within an hour of the accident. The fourth, the B-52 radar-navigator, ejected through the plane’s explosion, which left him badly burned, and was unable to separate himself from his ejection seat. Despite this, he managed to open his parachute and was found alive near the village and taken to hospital.
However, this still left the problem of locating the plane’s deadly nuclear payload. “My main concern was to recover those bombs, that was number-one priority,” Gen Wilson told the BBC in 1968.
One of our nuclear bombs is missing
“The first night, the Guardia Civil [the Spanish national police force] had come to the little bar in Palomares, and that was about the only place that had electricity. And they had reported what they considered to be a bomb, so we immediately despatched some of our people to this riverbed which is not far from the centre of town, and, in fact, it was a bomb, so we placed a guard on that. And then the next morning, at first daylight, we started conducting our search, and I believe it was something in the order of 10am or 11am the following morning, we located two other bombs.”
This accounted for three of the nuclear bombs, but there was still one missing. By the next day, trucks filled with US troops had been sent from nearby bases, with the beach in Palomares becoming a base for some 700 US airmen and scientists urgently trying to contain any radioactive contamination and locate the fourth warhead.
“The first thing that you could see as the search really got underway in earnest was Air Force personnel linking up hand-by-hand and 40 or 50 people in a line. They would have designated search areas. There were some people with Geiger counters who started arriving, and so they started marking off the areas which were contaminated,” said Capt Ramirez in 2011. When US personnel registered an area contaminated with radiation, they would scrape up the first three inches of topsoil and seal it in barrels to be shipped back to the US. Some 1,400 tonnes of irradiated soil ended up being sent to a storage facility in South Carolina.
Both the US and Spain, which at the time was under the brutal rule of Francisco Franco’s military dictatorship, were keen to downplay the devastating accident. Franco was especially worried that radiation fears would hurt Spain’s tourism industry, a major source of revenue for his regime. In an effort to reassure the local population and the wider world that there was no danger, the US Ambassador to Spain, Angier Biddle Duke, would end up taking a swim in the sea off Palomares coast in front of the international press just weeks after the accident.
But despite hundreds of US personnel conducting an intensive and meticulous search of the surrounding area for a week, they still couldn’t find the fourth bomb. Then Capt Ramirez spoke to a local fisherman who had helped rescue some of the surviving airmen who had splashed down in the sea. The fisherman kept apologising to Capt Ramirez for not being able to save one of the US flyers, whom he thought he had witnessed drifting down into the depths.
Capt Ramirez realised that the fisherman could have actually seen the missing nuclear bomb. “All the bodies had been accounted for, I knew that,” he said. The search then quickly shifted to the Mediterranean Sea, with the US Navy mobilising a flotilla of more than 30 ships, including mine-sweepers and submersibles, to scour the seabed. The exploration of miles of ocean floor was both technically complicated and a very slow process, but after weeks of exhaustive searching, a newly developed deep-diving vessel, Alvin, finally located the missing bomb in an underwater trench.
Nearly four months after it was first lost, the warhead was finally made safe and back in US hands. The next day, despite the secrecy with which the US military had surrounding its nuclear arsenal, it took the unusual step of showing the bomb to the world’s press. Ambassador Duke reasoned that unless people saw the bomb for themselves, they would never feel certain that it had actually been recovered.
Event to mark 40th anniversary of mysterious death of Willie McRae
The National 31st March 2025, By James Walker, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25052033.event-mark-40th-anniversary-mysterious-death-willie-mcrae/
AN EVENT is to be held in the Highlands to mark the anniversary of the mysterious death of Willie McRae.
In 1980, McRae – a top lawyer and senior SNP member – made headlines after representing a group opposed to dumping nuclear waste in the Ayrshire hills at a public inquiry.
He won, and the victory proved a major setback in plans for having nuclear waste buried across the UK.
But on the evening of Good Friday, April 5, 1985, McRae set off from his flat in Glasgow’s southside for his holiday cottage close to Dornie in Wester Ross. He never arrived.
Instead, on April 6, his car was found by the side of the road. He was in the front seat with a bullet through his right temple.
On Sunday, April 7, McRae died without ever regaining consciousness.
A post-mortem concluded suicide, but questions have persisted for decades. A gun was not found when the scene was first visited by the police, but was when the scene was searched the following week.
Now, a group of Yessers is looking to hold an event to draw new attention to McRae’s case.
“Forty years has passed since a man was found dying on a Highland road in mysterious circumstances. Not just any man, but a seeker of justice and a thorn in the side of the establishment,” Pete Smith, an event organiser and a member of Yes Highlands and Islands, told The National.
He added: “Willie McRae took a massive secret to his grave and we intend to seek justice for McRae by demanding a public enquiry into the case.”
There are six speakers lined up, including Ron Culley whose book Firebrand examines the McRae case in detail and is also mentioned on the flyer which has been created for the event (above).
A piper and – reportedly – a film crew will also be in attendance.
The organisers also wished to stress that this is not an independence event, although added that the “quest for Scotland’s self governance is of course linked to this killing”.
The event will be held at the Willie McRae Memorial Cairn, on the A87 at the side of Loch Lorne, at 12 noon on April 5.
Attendees will then head to the nearby Invergarry Hotel for speeches – with those wishing to attend asked to register via Eventbrite due to limited space.
Organisers were also keen to highlight that parking is limited near the cairn.
Britain’s worst nuclear disaster: the Windscale fire of 1957
When a routine procedure went wrong in October 1957, a fire broke out at
the Windscale nuclear power station in Cumbria, UK. By the time it was put
out, radiation had been sent across Britain and Europe.
Jonny Wilkes reveals what happened, and why we should be grateful that it wasn’t much
worse. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima: three names that have gone
down in infamy; bywords for the nightmare scenarios that can occur when the
production of nuclear power goes disastrously wrong. Before them all
though, was Windscale.
History Extra 27th March 2025,
https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/atomfall-real-nuclear-windscale-disaster-fire/
The US hypocrisy about Israel’s nuclear weapons must stop
What stands out from the television series is the grip Israel has had over US policy regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons.
a secret federal bulletin that threatens disciplinary actions for any US official who publicly acknowledges Israel’s nuclear weapons.
The existence of these weapons may have started as a deterrent against another Holocaust but has now morphed into an instrument of an aggressive and expansionist Israel.
By Victor Gilinsky, Leonard Weiss | March 21, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/2025/03/the-us-hypocrisy-about-israels-nuclear-weapons-must-stop/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel%20s%20nuclear%20weapons&utm_campaign=20250324%20Monday%20Newsletter
An extraordinary three-part series on Israeli television, The Atom and Me, lays out how the country got its nuclear weapons. It takes for granted what anyone who pays attention has known for years. But the series goes well beyond a general discussion about Israel’s nuclear weapons. It shows the country’s single-minded determination to get the bomb no matter what it took, including stealing nuclear explosives and bomb components from the United States and violating a major nuclear arms control treaty to which Israel is a party—and lying about it.
As the Trump administration is in serious discussion about joining Israel in attacks on Iran to stop it from getting nuclear weapons, it is useful to shed illusions about Israel’s modus operandi.
US officials stay mute. A thread running through the three episodes is a continuing conversation, before he died in 2018, with Benjamin Blumberg, the head of Lakam, the Israeli scientific intelligence agency responsible for the nuclear missions that led to the Israeli bomb, some so secret they were kept from the Mossad. (Mossad is the Israeli agency that handles foreign intelligence collection and covert action.) Blumberg was in failing health and agreed to talk so long as the interview was not aired until after his death.
That conversation is mixed with archival material and recent interviews. The significance of the series lies not in showing what was not previously known—although there are details in that category—but in the admissions on Israeli public television, with the approval of the Israeli censors, about events that have been denied by Israel’s supporters in the United States, including the US government.
Several events discussed in the television series deal directly with the United States: the theft in the 1960s of bomb quantities of uranium 235 from the NUMEC facility in Pennsylvania, where the leaders of the Israeli team that spirited Eichmann out of Argentina appeared inexplicably in 1968 with false identities; the illicit purchase of hundreds of high-speed switches (krytrons) for triggering nuclear weapons, and spiriting them out of the country in the 1980s by Israeli spy and arms dealer, and by then Hollywood producer, Arnon Milchan; and, most significantly at this point, Israel’s 1979 nuclear test in the seas off South Africa of what appears to be the initial fission stage for a thermonuclear weapon. The nuclear test violated the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty to which Israel is a party.
What stands out from the television series is the grip Israel has had over US policy regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons.
Not since John Kennedy has any US president tried to rein in Israel’s nuclear program. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, did not challenge the Israelis on nuclear issues (and covered up Israel’s attempt during the 1967 six-day war to sink the US spy ship Liberty). Such has been Israel’s political clout in the United States.
No one was ever charged in the disappearance of nuclear material from NUMEC. When the issue of Israel’s involvement arose again in 1976, President Gerald Ford’s attorney general suggested to the president the possibility of charging US officials, presumably in the Atomic Energy Commission, with failing to report a felony. But it was too late. Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter, who let the matter drop. Milchan was never charged for the filching of krytrons even though he later bragged about his arms dealing and spying for Israel. And Carter—and every US president after him—took no enforcement action in response to the illegal 1979 nuclear test.
The United States’ indulgence of Israeli nuclear weapons has not escaped international attention, and the evident hypocrisy has undermined US nonproliferation policy. The US government’s public position continues to be that it does not know anything about Israeli nuclear weapons, and this will apparently continue until Israel releases the United States’ gag. This policy is allegedly enforced by a secret federal bulletin that threatens disciplinary actions for any US official who publicly acknowledges Israel’s nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, Israel brags about its nukes. Ironically, the Israelis feel free to allude to their nuclear weapons whenever they find it useful. The best example is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2016 speech on receipt of the Rahav, the latest submarine supplied by Germany. The Times of Israel, using the standard “according to foreign reports,” described the submarine as “capable of delivering a nuclear payload.” In his speech, Netanyahu said, “Above all else, our submarine fleet acts as a deterrent to our enemies … They need to know that Israel can attack, with great might, anyone who tries to harm it.” How else, other than with nuclear weapons, can a submarine be a deterrent? The submarines’ long-range cruise missiles could not only hit Iran’s capital, Tehran, Israel’s main security concern, they could also hit any European capital.
Those submarine-based cruise missiles—if they exist—might be tipped with thermonuclear warheads, which are also carried on planes and ground-based rockets. Light-weight thermonuclear weapons allow flexibility in delivery, but the two-stage designs are highly sophisticated. The Israelis logically decided that they had to conduct at least one low-yield fission test—even though they had promised not to do this—to be sure their first stage produced the radiation that would initiate the thermonuclear fuel in the second stage.
In the last episode of the Israeli television series, journalist Meir Doron, who has written on Israel’s security secrets, says: “After the nuclear test, for the first time, the heads of the Israeli nuclear program, Blumberg, Shimon Peres, and all the people from the reactor, could sleep soundly at night. They knew that what they’re building works.”
While Israel did not sign the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it signed and ratified the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which obligates parties not to explode a nuclear device in the atmosphere or oceans. Such a test also triggers a nonproliferation provision of US law, the 1977 Glenn Amendment (Sec.102 (B) to the Arms Export Control Act), that imposes severe sanctions on any country (other than the five approved in the NPT) that explodes a nuclear device after 1977. Upon learning of such an explosion, the president is supposed to impose the wide-ranging sanctions “forthwith.” That, of course, did not happen.
The nuclear explosion’s characteristic two-hump signal was detected by a US satellite on September 22, 1979, and US intelligence agencies were convinced Israel was the culprit. President Carter did not want to risk his ongoing Middle East policy efforts by blaming Israel. The White House asked a group of scientists whether the detected light flash could somehow have been unconnected with a nuclear explosion. The scientists came up with some ideas that gave the president a public out. At the same time, the White House kept classified Navy reports on ocean sound waves from the explosion that supported the satellite data. And Carter wrote in his diary: “We have a growing belief among our scientists that the Israelis did indeed conduct a nuclear test explosion in the ocean near the southern end of Africa.” All this was essentially a cover-up.
The Glenn Amendment allows the president to delay sanctions on national security grounds or waive them entirely with the help of congressional action. The law does not allow the president to ignore it. But that is exactly what all of them have done.
The price of silence. The US government’s silence on Israel’s nuclear weapons has meant silence about them in discussions on Iran’s nuclear program. Public debate is an essential part of US policy development and, in the case of Iran, is hobbled by an inability to have an honest appraisal of the nature and purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons.
The existence of these weapons may have started as a deterrent against another Holocaust but has now morphed into an instrument of an aggressive and expansionist Israel.
The inability to have honest public discussion allows for the pretense by Israel and its supporters that it faces an existential threat from Iran, which is ready to drop a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv as soon as it gets one. Various aspects of the Iran issue are hidden by an inability to weigh all the elements of policy needed to arrive at an intelligent US policy.
The US government’s silence has also taught the press to avoid the issue. The last time a White House correspondent asked about Israeli nuclear weapons, even then indirectly, was when Helen Thomas asked President Obama in 2009 whether he knew of any nuclear weapons in the Middle East. She got a chilly non-response—Obama said he was not going to speculate.
An exception to the general lack of press interest in the issue is a 2018 New Yorker report by Adam Entous, revealing how US presidents have signed secret letters to the Israelis promising to do nothing to interfere with Israel’s nuclear weapons or acknowledge their existence.
Israel claims this US obligation flows from a “deal” made by Nixon and Golda Meir in their 1969 meeting during the 15 minutes when they were alone. William Quandt, Kissinger’s aide at the time, says in the third episode, “There is no documentary record on the American side to this day. No one else was in the room.” Nor has any Israeli record appeared. Without any record, there can be no enduring obligation.
So why did US presidents go along with the Israeli version of the US obligation, including denying any knowledge about Israeli nuclear weapons, long after it ceased to be in the United States’s interest to do so? Entous reported that when Trump first entered office in 2017 his staff was confronted by Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer (a former American who switched allegiance to Israel). He is said to have acted “like he owned the place,” but it worked. He got his way.
The single-mindedness of the Israeli establishment—that what it thinks is best for Israel overrides all other considerations—is caught at the end of the third television episode. The conversation with Benjamin Blumberg turns to Israel’s more-than-amicable relations with apartheid-era South Africa, from which it got uranium to fuel the Dimona reactor and later permission to conduct the 1979 nuclear test, and to which Israel provided tritium to upgrade South Africa’s nuclear weapons. He is asked, was not South Africa an oppressive racist regime? “All true,” said Blumberg, “but what do I care. I wanted what was best for Israel.” It’s time to realize that what is “best for Israel” is not necessarily good for the United States.
Editor’s note: Victor Gilinsky was a commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the events in question. Leonard Weiss was a long-term aide to Senator Glenn and the author of the first version of the Glenn Amendment. They both appear in the mentioned Israeli TV series.
These Are The Six Times The USA Lost Nuclear Weapons
The US military has had at least 32 “Broken Arrow” incidents.
Tom Hale, Senior Journalist, FL Science 17th Jan 2025, https://www.iflscience.com/these-are-the-six-times-the-usa-lost-nuclear-weapons-77661
Keys, phones, headphones, socks, thermonuclear weapons – some things just always seem to go missing. Believe it or not, there were at least six instances when the US lost atomic bombs or weapons-grade nuclear material during the Cold War.
Not only that, but the US is responsible for at least 32 documented instances of a nuclear weapons accident, known as a “Broken Arrow” in military lingo. These atomic-grade mishaps can involve an accidental launching or detonation, theft, or loss – yep loss – of a nuclear weapon.
February 13, 1950
The first of these unlikely instances occurred in 1950, less than five years after the first atomic bomb was detonated. In a mock nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, a US B-36 bomber en route from Alaska to Texas began to experience engine trouble. An icy landing and stuttering engine meant the landing was going to be near-impossible, so the crew jettisoned the plane’s Mark 4 nuclear bomb over the Pacific. The crew witnessed a flash, a bang, and a sound wave.
The military claims the mock-up bomb was filled with “just” uranium and TNT but no plutonium core, meaning it wasn’t capable of a conventional nuclear explosion. Nevertheless, the uranium and the weapon have reportedly never been recovered.
March 10, 1956
On March 10, a Boeing B-47 Stratojet set off from MacDill Air Force Base Florida for a non-stop flight to Morocco with “two nuclear capsules” onboard. The jet was scheduled for its second mid-flight refueling over the Mediterranean Sea, but it never made contact. No trace of the jet was ever found.
February 5, 1958
In the early hours of February 5, 1958, a B-47 bomber with a 3,400-kilogram (7,500-pound) Mark 15 nuclear bomb on board accidentally collided with an F-86 aircraft during a simulated combat mission. The battered and bruised bomber attempted to land numerous times, but to no avail. Eventually, they made the decision to jettison the bomb into the mouth of the Savannah River near Savannah, Georgia, to make the landing possible. Luckily for them, the plane successfully landed and the bomb did not detonate. However, it has remained “irretrievably lost” to this day.
January 24, 1961
On January 24, 1961, the wing of a B-52 bomber split apart while on an alert mission above Goldsboro, North Carolina. Onboard were two nuclear bombs. One of these successfully deployed its emergency parachute, while the other fell and crashed to the ground. It’s believed the unexploded bomb smashed into farmland around the town, but it has never been recovered. In 2012, North Carolina put up a sign near the supposed crash site to commemorate the incident
December 5, 1965
An A-4E Skyhawk aircraft loaded with a nuclear weapon rolled off the back of an aircraft carrier, USS Ticonderoga, stationed in the Philippine Sea near Japan. The plane, pilot, and nuclear bomb have never been found.
In 1989, the US eventually admitted their bomb was still sitting on the seabed around 128 kilometers (80 miles) from a small Japanese island. Needless to say, the Japanese government and environmental groups were pretty annoyed about it.
Spring, 1968
At some point during the Spring of 1968, the US military lost some kind of nuclear weapon. The Pentagon still keeps information about the incident tightly under wraps. However, some have speculated that the incident refers to the nuclear-powered Scorpion submarine. In May 1968, the attack submarine went missing along with its 99-strong crew in the Atlantic Ocean after being sent on a secret mission to spy on the Soviet Navy. This, however, remains conjecture.
When Carter met Kim – and stopped a nuclear war
Tessa Wong, Asia Digital Reporter, BBC News, 11 Jan 25 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpee202y907o—
Three decades ago, the world was on the brink of a nuclear showdown – until Jimmy Carter showed up in North Korea.
In June 1994, the former US president arrived for talks in Pyongyang with then leader Kim Il-sung. It was unprecedented, marking the first time a former or sitting US president had visited.
But it was also an extraordinary act of personal intervention, one which many believe narrowly averted a war between the US and North Korea that could have cost millions of lives. And it led to a period of greater engagement between Pyongyang and the West.
All this may not have happened if not for a set of diplomatic chess moves by Carter, who died aged 100 on 29 December.
“Kim Il-sung and Bill Clinton were stumbling into a conflict, and Carter leapt into the breach, successfully finding a path for negotiated resolution of the standoff,” North Korean expert John Delury, of Yonsei University, told the BBC.
In early 1994, tensions were running high between Washington and Pyongyang, as officials tried to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear programme.
US intelligence agencies suspected that despite ongoing talks, North Korea may have secretly developed nuclear weapons.
Then, in a startling announcement, North Korea said it had begun withdrawing thousands of fuel rods from its Yongbyon nuclear reactor for reprocessing. This violated an earlier agreement with the US under which such a move required the presence of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear watchdog.
North Korea also announced it would withdraw from the IAEA.
American suspicion spiked as Washington believed Pyongyang was preparing a weapon, and US officials broke off negotiations. Washington began preparing several retaliatory measures, including initiating UN sanctions and reinforcing troops in South Korea.
In subsequent interviews, US officials revealed they also contemplated dropping a bomb or shooting a missile at Yongbyon – a move which they knew would have likely resulted in war on the Korean peninsula and the destruction of the South’s capital, Seoul.
It was in this febrile atmosphere that Carter made his move.
For years, he had been quietly wooed by Kim Il-sung, who had sent him personal entreaties to visit Pyongyang. In June 1994, upon hearing Washington’s military plans, and following discussions with his contacts in the US government and China – North Korea’s main ally – Carter decided to finally accept Kim’s invitation.
“I think we were on the verge of war,” he told the US public broadcaster PBS years later. “It might very well have been a second Korean War, within which a million people or so could have been killed, and a continuation of the production of nuclear fissile material… if we hadn’t had a war.”
Carter’s visit was marked by skillful diplomatic footwork – and brinkmanship.
First, Carter had to test Kim’s sincerity. He made a series of requests, all of which were agreed to, except the last: Carter wanted to travel to Pyongyang from Seoul across the demilitarised zone (DMZ), a strip of land that acts as a buffer between the two Koreas.
“Their immediate response was that no-one had ever done this for the last 43 years, that even the United Nations secretary-general had to go to Pyongyang through Beijing. And I said, ‘Well, I’m not going, then’,” he said.
A week later, Kim caved.
The next step for Carter was harder – convincing his own government to let him go. Robert Gallucci, the chief US negotiator with North Korea at the time, later said there was “discomfort in almost all quarters” about the US essentially “subcontracting its foreign policy” to a former president.
Carter first sought permission from the State Department, who blanked him. Unfazed, he decided to simply inform then-US president Bill Clinton that he was going, no matter what.
He had an ally in vice-president Al Gore, who intercepted Carter’s communication to Clinton. “[Al Gore] called me on the phone and told me if I would change the wording from “I’ve decided to go” to “I’m strongly inclined to go” that he would try to get permission directly from Clinton… he called me back the next morning and said that I had permission to go.”
The trip was on.
‘Very serious doubts’
On 15 June 1994, Carter crossed over to North Korea, accompanied by his wife Rosalyn, a small group of aides and a TV crew.
Meeting Kim was a moral dilemma for Carter.
“I had despised Kim Il-sung for 50 years. I was in a submarine in the Pacific during the Korean War, and many of my fellow servicemen were killed in that war, which I thought was precipitated unnecessarily by him,” he told PBS.
“And so I had very serious doubts about him. When I arrived, though, he treated me with great deference. He was obviously very grateful that I had come.”
Over several days, the Carters had meetings with Kim, were taken on a sightseeing tour of Pyongyang and went on a cruise on a luxury yacht owned by Kim’s son, Kim Jong-il.
Carter discovered his hunch was right: North Korea not only feared a US military strike on Yongbyon, but was also ready to mobilise.
“I asked [Kim’s advisers] specifically if they had been making plans to go to war. And they responded very specifically, ‘Yes, we were’,” he said.
“North Korea couldn’t accept the condemnation of their country and the embarrassment of their leader and that they would respond.
“And I think this small and self-sacrificial country and the deep religious commitments that you had, in effect, to their revered leader, their Great Leader as they called him, meant that they were willing to make any sacrifice of massive deaths in North Korea in order to preserve their integrity and their honour, which would have been a horrible debacle in my opinion.”
Carter presented a list of demands from Washington as well as his own suggestions. They included resuming negotiations with the US, starting direct peace talks with South Korea, a mutual withdrawal of military forces, and helping the US find remains of US soldiers buried in North Korean territory.
“He agreed to all of them. And so, I found him to be very accommodating,” Carter said. “So far as I know then and now, he was completely truthful with me.”
Crucially, Carter came up with a deal where North Korea would stop its nuclear activity, allow IAEA inspectors back into its reactors, and eventually dismantle Yongbyon’s facilities. In return, the US and its allies would build light-water reactors in North Korea, which could generate nuclear energy but not produce material for weapons.
While enthusiastically embraced by Pyongyang, the deal was met with reluctance from US officials when Carter suggested it in a phone call. He then told them he was going on CNN to announce details of the deal – leaving the Clinton administration little choice but to agree.
Carter would later justify forcing his own government’s hand by saying he had to “consummate a resolution of what I considered to be a very serious crisis”. But it did not go down well back home – officials were unhappy at Carter’s “freelancing” and attempt to “box in” Clinton, according to Mr Gallucci.
Near the end of the trip, they told him to convey a statement to the North Koreans, reiterating Clinton’s public position that the US was continuing to press for UN sanctions. Carter disagreed, according to reports at that time.
Hours later, he got on the boat with Kim, and promptly went off-script. As TV cameras rolled, he told Kim the US had stopped work on drafting UN sanctions – directly contradicting Clinton.
An annoyed White House swiftly disowned Carter. Some openly expressed frustration, painting a picture of a former president going rogue. “Carter is hearing what he wants to hear… he is creating his own reality,” a senior official complained at the time to The Washington Post.
Many in Washington also criticised him for the deal itself, saying the North Koreans had used him.
But Carter’s savvy use of the news media to pressure the Clinton administration worked. By broadcasting his negotiations almost instantaneously, he gave the US government little time to react, and immediately after his trip “it was possible to see an almost hour-by-hour evolution in US policy towards North Korea” where they ratcheted down their tone, wrote CNN reporter Mike Chinoy who covered Carter’s trip.
Though Carter later claimed he had misspoken on the sanctions issue, he also responded with typical stubbornness to the blowback.
“When I got back to Seoul, I was amazed and distressed at the negative reaction that I had from the White House. They urged me not to come to Washington to give a briefing, urged me to go directly to… my home,” he said.
But he went against their wishes.
“I decided that what I had to offer was too important to ignore.”
A final dramatic coda to the episode happened a month later.
On 9 July 1994, on the same day as US and North Korean officials sat down in Geneva to talk, state media flashed a stunning announcement: Kim Il-sung had died of a heart attack.
Carter’s deal was immediately plunged into uncertainty. But negotiators ploughed through, and weeks later hammered out a formal plan known as the Agreed Framework.
Though the agreement broke down in 2003, it was notable for freezing Pyongyang’s nuclear programme for nearly a decade.
‘Carter had guts’
Robert Carlin, a former CIA and US state department official who led delegations in negotiations with North Korea, noted that Carter’s real achievement was in getting the US government to co-operate.
“Carter was, more or less, pushing on an open door in North Korea. It was Washington that was the bigger challenge… if anything, Carter’s intervention helped stop the freight train of US decision-making that was hurtling toward a cliff,” he told the BBC.
Carter’s visit was also significant for opening a path for rapprochement, which led to several trips later, including one in 2009 when he travelled with Clinton to bring home captured US journalists.
He is also credited with paving the way for Donald Trump’s summit with Kim Jong Un – Kim Il-sung’s grandson – in 2018, as “Carter made it imaginable” that a sitting US president could meet with a North Korean leader, Dr Delury said.
That summit failed, and of course, in the long run Carter’s trip did not succeed in removing the spectre of nuclear war, which has only grown – these days North Korea has missiles regarded as capable of hitting the US mainland.
But Carter was lauded for his political gamble. It was in sharp contrast to his time in office, when he was criticised for being too passive on foreign policy, particularly with his handling of the Iran hostage crisis.
His North Korea trip “was a remarkable example of constructive diplomatic intervention by a former leader,” Dr Delury said.
His legacy is not without controversy, given the criticism that he took matters in his own hands. His detractors believe he played a risky and complicated game by, as CNN’s Mike Chinoy put it, “seeking to circumvent what he viewed as a mistaken and dangerous US policy by pulling the elements of a nuclear deal together himself”.
But others believe Carter was the right man for the job at the time.
He had “a very strong will power”, but was also “a man of peace inside and out,” said Han S Park, one of several people who helped Carter broker the 1994 trip.
Though his stubbornness also meant that he “did not get along with a lot of people”, ultimately this combination of attributes meant he was the best person “to prevent another occurrence of a Korean War”, Prof Park said.
More than anything, Carter was convinced he was doing the right thing.
“He didn’t let US government clucking and handwringing stop him,” says Robert Carlin. “Carter had guts.”
JIMMY CARTER: Commemorations by nuke watchdogs
January 2, 2025, https://beyondnuclear.org/jimmy-carter-1924-2024-nuke-watchdog-commemorations/
Given his very extensive involvement in key nuclear issues, president Jimmy Carter’s death, at age 100, on December 29, 2024, elicited response from nuclear watchdogs. (See Peter Baker and Roy Reed’s New York Times obituary, here.)
Tom Clements, Savannah River Site (SRS) Watch director, published a tribute: “Thank you, Jimmy Carter, for your monumental environmental and non-proliferation decision in 1977! South Carolina and the nation owe you a debt of gratitude.”
Clements focused on Carter’s decision to halt commercial reprocessing in the U.S., which led to the cancellation of the Barnwell, South Carolina reprocessing facility near the border with Georgia, in the same town as a leaking “low-level” radioactive waste dump “serving” several dozen states for decades on end. Rural Barnwell, South Carolina is majority African American, with low-income challenges. It is also the birthplace of musician James Brown. It is nearby not only the SRS nuclear weapons complex, but also the Vogtle nuclear power plant on the Georgia side of the Savannah River, the largest in the country by both number of reactors (four), as well as nuclear mega-wattage-electric (more than 4,000).
Bob Alvarez of Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), former senior advisor to the Energy Secretary during the Clinton administration, added that “Carter, as Governor of [Georgia], stopped the [Atomic Energy Commission] plan to dig a 15-foot diameter shaft and dispose of 80 million gallons of high-level radioactive wastes at the Savannah River Plant beneath the region’s primary ground water supply.”
Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South coordinator, celebrated Carter’s appointment of Tennessee Valley Authority chair S. David Freeman (pictured above, with the president in the Oval Office), who cancelled nine proposed atomic reactors.
As Carroll pointed out, “Jimmy Carter’s stand against [commercial] reprocessing not only halted the U.S. reprocessing endeavor but largely chilled the technology globally.”
This came at a crucial time. Argentina and Brazil, as well as South Korea and Taiwan, followed Carter’s lead and banned commercial radioactive waste reprocessing. Each country was a military dictatorship at the time, embroiled in cross-border tensions with their geopolitical neighbors, and were flirting with the idea of becoming nuclear weapons powers. Commercial irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing would have provided them with a pathway to obtaining weapons-usable Plutonium-239.
In 1974, India followed just such a pathway to nuclear weapons status, using a Canadian CANDU research reactor, and U.S. reprocessing technology. This sparked a nuclear arms race with rival Pakistan.
Ian Fairlie echoed Carroll’s observation, saying:
“…[Carter’s] non-proliferation efforts extended beyond the US, e.g. he twisted the IAEA’s arm to establish its International Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) program (https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/22204883033.pdf) in order to stop (commercial) reprocessing world-wide.”
Fairlie added:
“In my lectures, I sometimes highlight the fact that there have only been 2 political leaders in the West who questioned their nuclear establishments, and both were well versed in nuclear physics. Carter, a nuclear chemist, and Angela Merkel the former German Chancellor, who was a theoretical quantum physicist.”
As previously mentioned above, Carroll also shared that:
“Dave Freeman and Arjun Makhijani’s Time to Choose report on renewable energy inspired Carter to appoint Dave to the TVA board where Dave distinguished himself by cancelling nine reactors on order and launched a public power career in which he saw goals of the [1974] report becoming real. Despite nuclear industry hype we see the present day colossal success of wind and solar energy as nuclear continues to lose momentum.”
Freeman, nicknamed “The Green Cowboy,” headed up the Ford Foundation’s Energy Policy Project in the early 1970s. Freeman hired Makhijani to co-author the A Time to Choose: America’s Energy Future report.
Makhijani went on to found the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), where he serves as president. In August, 2007, Makhijani authored Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, which he dedicated to Freeman, as well as to Beyond Nuclear’s founding president, Helen Caldicott.
Carroll also commented that: “Jimmy Carter cast a long shadow! His example of wearing a sweater and turning down the thermostat resulted in flat energy demand growth for at least two decades.”
Carroll also shared a Mother Jones article, by Kai Bird, published on Dec. 29, 2024, “The Bold Environmental Vision of President Jimmy Carter: He protected Alaska’s wilderness and promoted solar energy before it was cool.”
Carter was also famous for installing solar panels on the White House. The New York Times has published an article entitled “What Happened to Carter’s White House Solar Panels? They Lived On. The panels, removed under Ronald Reagan, found new homes from Maine to China. And their legacy still reverberates.”
(In a later presidential administration, Steven Strong of Solar Design Associates was hired to install solar panels in the White House swimming pool area. After Ronald Reagan’s “solar sabotage” decades earlier, Strong joked he installed the solar panels extra well, so they would be very difficult to remove. Steven Strong, and his wife Marilyn Strong, were Beyond Nuclear Launch Partners in 2007 when we were founded, and continued to serve and support us for years thereafter.)
Jimmy Carter also established a key radioactive waste policy task force during his administration. Its final report laid much of the groundwork for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended.
Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, also attempted to hammer out a key nuclear arms reduction treaty — SALT II, Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II — with the Soviet Union. He effectively succeeded, even though the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty. As reported by the U.S. State Department:
“…On June 17, 1979, Carter and [Soviet leader] Brezhnev signed the SALT II Treaty in Vienna. SALT II limited the total of both nations’ nuclear forces to 2,250 delivery vehicles and placed a variety of other restrictions on deployed strategic nuclear forces, including MIRVs [Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles].
However, a broad coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats grew increasingly skeptical of the Soviet Union’s crackdown on internal dissent, its increasingly interventionist foreign policies, and the verification process delineated in the Treaty. On December 17, 1979, 19 Senators wrote Carter that “Ratification of a SALT II Treaty will not reverse trends in the military balance adverse to the United States.” On December 25, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and on January 3, 1980, Carter asked the Senate not to consider SALT II for its advice and consent, and it was never ratified. Both Washington and Moscow subsequently pledged to adhere to the agreement’s terms despite its failure to enter into force. Carter’s successor Ronald Reagan, a vehement critic of SALT II during the 1980 presidential campaign, agreed to abide by SALT II until its expiration on December 31, 1985, while he pursued the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and argued that research into the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) adhered to the 1972 ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty.”
Jimmy Carter’s Nobel Peace Prize had to do with his use of the Office of the President of the United States as a mere stepping stone. Carter, a highly skilled carpenter himself, made Habitat for Humanity a household name, thanks to his decades of volunteer home-building for low-income families. The Carter Center in Atlanta, under the former president’s leadership, pursued such noble causes as international peace negotiations, overseas election observation, and disease eradication.
(As reported in the New York Times obit linked at the top of this post:
“While his presidency was remembered more for its failures than for its successes, his post-presidency was seen by many as a model for future chief executives. Rather than vanish from view or focus on moneymaking, he established the Carter Center to promote peace, combat disease and tackle social inequality. He transformed himself into a freelance diplomat traveling the globe, sometimes irritating his successors but earning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002…
…Long pilloried by Republicans as a model of ineffectual liberal leadership and shunned by fellow Democrats who saw him as a political albatross, Mr. Carter benefited in recent years from some historical reappraisal, reinforced by a visit to Plains by Mr. Biden in 2021 and a gala celebration of the Carters’ 75th wedding anniversary three months later. Several recently published books argued that his presidency had been more consequential than it was given credit for.
In “His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life,” published in 2020, Jonathan Alter called him “perhaps the most misunderstood president in American history,” one who was ahead of his time on the environment, foreign policy and race relations.
Similarly, Kai Bird maintained in “The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter” (2021) that the traditional view of Mr. Carter as a better former president than president was belied by the historical evidence. “The record of these achievements is not to be lightly dismissed,” he wrote.
And Stuart E. Eizenstat, Mr. Carter’s domestic policy adviser, insisted in “President Carter: The White House Years” (2018) that the former president was a thoroughly decent, honorable man who had been underrated. While he may have been miscast as a politician, Mr. Eizenstat wrote, Mr. Carter’s accomplishments, measured against those of other presidents, made him “one of the most consequential in modern history…“)
The First Lady served as his co-equal partner is many of these pursuits, just as she had done in the White House years. At the time of her death, Eleanor Rosalynn (née Smith) Carter, also born and raised in Plains, GA, had been married to Jimmy Carter for 77 years. She trail-blazed her own advocacy path as First Lady, including on mental health issues, promoting childhood reading, etc.
Despite Jimmy Carter’s positive and praiseworthy record summarized above, throughout his career, including while president of the United States, some of his actions re: nuclear power and weaponry were more troubling.
Of course, as president and commander in chief, Carter oversaw the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. This included full-scale nuclear weapons testing on Western Shoshone land, at the Nevada Test Site, from 1977 to 1981. Although such testing was conducted underground during that time period, under the requirements of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, an estimated one-third of underground tests in the U.S. were vented to the atmosphere anyway, either accidentally, or intentionally.
Along with First Lady Rosalynn Carter ((August 18, 1927 – November 19, 2023), Jimmy Carter toured the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, just days after Unit 2 had a 50% core meltdown. An element of the staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was, at that moment, still concerned a dangerous hydrogen explosion could occur.
The Carters’ TMI-2 tour was an attempt to downplay concerns about the worst reactor meltdown in U.S. history. Its significance still unfolds to this day. (See, for example, Beyond Nuclear’s coverage at the 35th annual commemoration in 2014. Also see Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) coverage at the 25th annual commemoration in 2004.)
The Carters’ tour of TMI led to a spoof by Saturday Night Live entitled “The Coca-Cola Syndrome.”
However, TMI-2 was not Jimmy Carter’s first close encounter with a serious reactor disaster. In 1952, as a young U.S. Nuclear Navy officer, Carter was sent to Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, to help deal with the aftermath of the first known reactor disaster in world history. (See a Jan. 4, 2025 New York Times article about Carter’s role at the Chalk River reactor meltdown disaster recovery mission.)
Jimmy Carter, a Naval Academy graduate (Class of 1946), also served in high posts in Admiral Hyman Rickover’s Nuclear Navy, including coordinating the pre-operational deployment of a very early nuclear submarine. As mentioned in the Times article immediately above, Carter was certified as among the very first “Atomic Submariners” in U.S. Nuclear Navy history.
As John D. Miller detailed:
“[Carter] was the precommissioning commanding officer of the ship that I later served as a nuclear engineering officer on for 30 months, the USS SEAWOLF (SSN575), the world’s second oldest nuclear submarine.”
And as reported in the New York Times obit linked at the top of this post:
“…In October 1952, Lieutenant Carter went to work for Capt. Hyman Rickover, who was well along in developing the Navy’s first nuclear-powered submarines and ships. After going back to school to study nuclear engineering, Lieutenant Carter became the executive officer in a crew that would build and prepare the first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus. By the winter of 1953, he was dreaming of commanding his own sub…”
After leaving office, former President Carter spoke at the dedication of a nuclear-powered, and -armed, attack submarine named after him.
Although Rickover had offered Carter a very high-ranking command position in the Nuclear Navy, Carter instead chose to return to his tiny hometown of Plains, Georgia to carry on the family’s peanut farming, after his father’s death. (Carter’s father had also served in the Georgia state legislature.) Jimmy Carter then later served on the Sumter County school board, and was eventually elected to the Georgia state legislature, the Georgia governorship, and the U.S. presidency.
While campaigning for president in New Hampshire in 1976, Jimmy Carter got in hot water with the groundbreaking anti-nuclear power movement there — the Clamshell Alliance — which was battling against the Seabrook nuclear power plant. As documented by Green Mountain Post Films in the 1978 documentary film “The Last Resort,” Carter referred to nuclear power as just that:
Candidate Jimmy Carter comes to New Hampshire in 1976 and calls nuclear power “the last resort”; Tony and Louisa Santasucci, angry Seabrook residents whose land borders the plant site: “We don’t need a monster like that!”.
Israel attacks the United Nations
Contrary to popular belief, the United Nations General Assembly has only accepted Israel’s membership conditionally (resolution 273). However, Tel Aviv has never respected its commitments. It refuses to implement 229 resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. It has just declared a UN agency a “terrorist organization,” called for its headquarters in New York to be razed, designated its Secretary General António Guterres persona non grata, and has just attacked four times UN peacekeepers in Lebanon (UNIFIL), wounding two blue helmets.
Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 15 October 2024 by Thierry Meyssan, https://www.voltairenet.org/article221376.html
Israel has just attacked a position of the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. When the British withdrew from Mandatory Palestine (i.e. Palestine placed by the League of Nations under the provisional administration of the United Kingdom) on May 14, 1948, the Zionist General Council, an offshoot of the Haganah (i.e. the main militia of the immigrant Jewish community), unilaterally proclaimed the independence of the State of Israel. It was announced by the chairman of the Jewish Agency (i.e. the executive of the World Zionist Organization).
It is important to note here that the British occupier withdrew from only about a quarter of Mandatory Palestine. It had already officially left the other three quarters, constituting Mandatory Transjordan, the future Jordan.
After a few days of reflection, the United Nations General Assembly decided to recognize the new state, not without having emphasized that in principle, it was not up to a militia, the Haganah, to proclaim a state, even if this proclamation came to fill the void left by the departure of the mandatory authority, that is to say the British. The General Assembly had noted that the proclamation of independence said nothing about the regime of this state (theocracy or republic), nor about its borders. It intended to pursue its plan for the creation of a binational state, both Arab and Jewish, without territorial continuity between the two entities (Jerusalem and Bethlehem having an international status). It had been reassured by the new state’s reference to “complete equality of social and political rights for all citizens without distinction of belief, race and sex.”
The day after independence, Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen sent their armies to Palestine. Official history today assures that these six countries (the “Arabs”, understand the “Muslims”) did not accept a Jewish state, while five of them opposed Jewish colonization after British colonization and the sixth supported Israel. Religion was a problem only for Izz al-Din al-Qassam, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazi mufti Mohammed Amin al-Husseini.
Identicaly, propaganda assures that these armies were defeated by the valiant Israeli army, implying “from the first day, the Jews are morally superior to the Arabs”. The reality was quite different. The world war had just ended and none of these countries, except Transjordan, had an army worthy of the name.
Their troops were exclusively formed of volunteers. In addition, the Transjordanian army, which ended the conflict, fought on the side of Israel against the other Arabs. Indeed, Transjordan, still under British influence, hoped to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state and annex its territory. Its army was none other than that of the British (the “Arab Legion”) and was still placed under the command of General John Bagot Glubb (alias “Glubb Pasha”). It was the Transjordanians (in fact the British) and not the Israelis who defeated the other Arab armies.
During the conflict, its sovereign, King Abdullah I was also proclaimed “King of Palestine.” During this conflict, the Israeli forces let the British of Transjordan fight against the Arabs and applied Plan D (in Hebrew: Plan “Dalet”). The Haganh intended to share as little territory as possible with Transjordan. Israeli forces illegally imported weapons from Czechoslovakia (already ruled by the communists), probably with the agreement of the USSR, supposedly to fight against British colonization, in reality to expel the Palestinians. This is the Nakhba (catastrophe). 750,000 Palestinians (between 50 and 80% of the population) were forcibly displaced.
Israel requested and obtained, the following year, its membership in the United Nations. At that time, no decolonized state was part of it. The countries under Anglo-Saxon influence were in the majority. However, they only accepted Israel under conditions. In its resolution 273, the UN General Assembly referred to a written commitment by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the provisional government of Israel, Moshe Shertok, by which he “accepts without any reservation the obligations arising from the Charter of the United Nations and undertakes to observe them from the day it becomes a Member of the United Nations” [1].
To date, Israel has failed to uphold this commitment and has failed to comply with 229 Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Its membership could therefore be suspended at any time.
In recent months,
• Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz said on March 23 that the UN had become “an anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli organization that harbors and encourages terrorism.”
• Israel has campaigned against a UN agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), accusing it of serving Hamas. Last July, the Knesset passed three laws (1) banning UNRWA from operating on Israeli territory (2) stripping its staff of diplomatic immunities (3) declaring it a terrorist organization.
• Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, declared at the end of his term last August, speaking from the UN headquarters in New York, that “this edifice must be razed from the face of the Earth.”
• Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz declared UN Secretary-General António Guterres persona non grata.
• The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) deliberately targeted French, Italian and Irish soldiers of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
The bottom line:
• Israel was not created by its people, but by its army.
• The first Arab-Israeli war was not won by the Israelis, but by the Arabs of Transjordan under British command.
• By joining the United Nations, Israel committed itself to respecting all its resolutions, which it has violated 229 times.
• After Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran, the Netanyahu government has opened an eighth front against the United Nations.
Opposed to Netanyahu, two-thirds of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas
Voltairenet.org, by Thierry Meyssan 13 Sept 24
The recent general strike in Israel is not just a demonstration against the rhetoric that we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists and that the IDF will release the hostages held in Gaza. It marks the beginning of a realization that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is not defending Jews. While Jewish Israelis are not yet aware of the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, they are becoming aware of the anti-Arab pogroms in the West Bank. Gradually, they are beginning to admit that their enemies are not their neighbours, but are among them. These are the revisionist Zionists.
Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 12 September 2024
Israeli public opinion is changing. After having turned away from Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, ineffective during the October 7 attack, some Israelis rallied behind him again after the Iranian retaliation on April 11. About a third of them now support him. They are both settlers, illegally implanted in the West Bank, and citizens who perceive Arabs, Turks and Persians as enemies.
The remaining two-thirds are slowly opening their eyes. The execution of six hostages by Hamas on August 31, just as the “Defense Forces” (IDF) were about to free them, showed them that, far from allowing their release, the presence of soldiers in Gaza condemns them to death. They now see the Prime Minister’s obstinacy in invading not only Gaza, but also the West Bank, to the detriment of the hostages’ lives, as proof that he serves the interests of the settlers alone, and not those of all Israeli Jews. Yet they fail to see the suffering of Israeli Arabs, the pogroms in the West Bank and the ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
It was against this backdrop that Israel’s historic trade union, the Histadrut, which was the main Yichuv organization between the wars, called a general strike. ……………………………………………………the strike was well attended. It inscribed in the minds of Israelis that Benyamin Netanyahu did not defend Jews, that he had never defended them.
At the same time, one of the government’s 32 members, Defense Minister General Yoav Gallant, declared in cabinet that the Prime Minister’s new objective of occupying the Philadelphia Corridor (i.e., the small Egyptian-Gazawi border strip) violates the Camp David Accords without bringing the slightest strategic advantage. When the cabinet discussion turned to invective, General Gallant took the matter public……………………………………………………………………………..
At the time, no one understood the connection between the unionists and the general. However, we later learned that he had been dismissed for having exploded in the Council of Ministers and demanded an explanation for the Prime Minister’s lack of reaction to reports from the Shin Bet (counter-intelligence) and the IDF. Four months before the October 7 attack, all Israeli intelligence services were drafting report after report announcing the “Perfect Storm” (code name for the October 7 “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation) that the Palestinian Resistance was preparing. The Prime Minister refused to listen. He remained deaf to General Gallant’s outburst. He did not defend his country during the October 7 attack, but used it to ethnically cleanse Gaza and allowed anti-Arab pogroms to multiply in the West Bank.
As a result, the question we’ve been asking since mid-November [1] is also starting to resonate with Israelis: what if Benyamin Netanyahu wasn’t incompetent, but an accomplice in the attack?
This question is on the minds of many Israelis, who have called for a state commission of inquiry into all aspects of the October 7 attack, its preparation and response. Israel’s Attorney General, Gali Baharav Miara, who considers the issue relevant, has also called for this. However, Benjamin Netanyahu and his accomplices opposed it.
This question has been on everyone’s lips ever since the Israeli press revealed that the counter-espionage Shin Bet/Shabak had warned the Prime Minister of the imminent attack 10 weeks earlier [2]. This time, we’re no longer talking about foreign sources, but about one of Israel’s security agencies.
Gradually, the story of the current coalition government resurfaces. Jewish supremacists (the Kahanists) are not just another Jewish sect. Certainly, they militate for the destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the rebuilding in its place of Solomon’s temple, whereas the Haredi rabbis, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic, in addition to the leading Israeli rabbis, consider such acts impure and forbid all Jews to enter the courtyards of the Al-Aqsa mosque. They thus seem to distinguish themselves from the revisionist Zionists of Volodymyr Jabotinski and Benzion Netanhayou, who campaigned for a Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates. In reality, Rabbi Meïr Kahane was an agent of Yitzhak Shamir (Jabotinky’s successor) in the United States, who financed him through Mossad, of which he was then one of the leaders. In fact, during his first term as Prime Minister, in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu had a tunnel dug under the Al-Aqsa mosque.
No one in Israel would fail to recall that Volodymyr Jabotinsky and Benzion Netanhayou (the Prime Minister’s father) were allies of Benito Mussolini, who hosted their militia, the Betar, in Rome [3]. A fortiori, no Israeli dares question the links between these historic fascists and Nazism. It’s true that Jabotinsky died at the start of the war, on August 4, 1940, in New York, without having to comment on the latter’s racial ideology. But during the inter-war period, as a director of the (World) Zionist Organization, he had allied himself with the Ukrainian integral nationalists of Symon Petlioura and Dmytro Dontsov against the Soviets. Their men massacred Jews without eliciting the slightest reaction from him. When the Zionist Organization demanded an explanation, he resigned without reply.
David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Allied Prime Minister, said that Jabotinsky was surely a fascist and possibly a Nazi, which is why he opposed the transfer of his ashes to Jerusalem.
The question arises for two reasons: firstly, revisionist Zionists conducted negotiations with the Nazis throughout the Second World War against the Allies. It was the Germans who refused to go any further in their collaboration, whereas the Jewish followers of Jabotinsky were for continuing……………………. more https://www.voltairenet.org/article221242.html
USING UKRAINE SINCE 1948
By Joe Lauria, Consortium News., June 11, 2024, https://popularresistance.org/using-ukraine-since-1948/
The U.S. Has Staged Operations With Extremists From Ukraine To Undermine Russia For Nearly 8 Decades.
It’s led us to the doorstep of nuclear annihilation.
The United States has for nearly 80 years seen Ukraine as the staging ground for its once covert and increasingly overt war with Russia.
After years of warnings, and after talk since 2008 of Ukraine joining NATO, Russia fought back two years ago. With neither side backing down, Ukraine is increasingly becoming a flashpoint that could lead to nuclear war.
The West thinks Russia is bluffing.
But its doctrine states that if Russia feels its existence is threatened it could resort to nuclear arms. Instead of taking these warnings seriously, NATO is recklessly opening corridors for a ground war against Russia in Ukraine; France says it’s putting together a coalition of nations to enter the war, despite Russia saying French or any other NATO force would be fair game.
In Paris the other day Joe Biden said Russia wants to conquer all of Europe but can’t even take Khariv. It is this kind of inflammatory nonsense, combined with allowing Ukraine to fire NATO weapons into Russian territory, that is imperiling us all.
The danger started building up many years ago but it is now reaching a climax.
The U.S. relationship with Ukraine, and its extremists, to undermine Russia began after the Second World War. During the war, units of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) took part in the Holocaust, killing at least 100,000 Jews and Poles.
Mykola Lebed, a top aide to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the fascist OUN-B, was recruited by the C.I.A. after the war, according to a 2010 study by the U.S. National Archives.
Lebed was the “foreign minister” of a Banderite government in exile, but he later broke with Bandera for acting as a dictator. The U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps termed Bandera “extremely dangerous” yet said he was “looked upon as the spiritual and national hero of all Ukrainians….”
Instead of Bandera, the C.I.A. was interested in Lebed, despite his fascist background. They set him up in an office in New York City from which he directed sabotage and propaganda operations on the agency’s behalf inside Ukraine against the Soviet Union.
The U.S. government study says:
CIA operations with these Ukrainians began in 1948 under the cryptonym CARTEL, soon changed to AERODYNAMIC. …
Lebed relocated to New York and acquired permanent resident status, then U.S. citizenship. It kept him safe from assassination, allowed him to speak to Ukrainian émigré groups, and permitted him to return to the United States after operational trips to Europe.
Once in the United States, Lebed was the CIA’s chief contact for AERODYNAMIC. CIA handlers pointed to his ‘cunning character,’ his ‘relations with the Gestapo and … Gestapo training,’ [and] the fact that he was ‘a very ruthless operator.’
The C.I.A. worked with Lebed on sabotage and pro-Ukrainian nationalist propaganda operations inside Ukraine until Ukraine’s independence in 1991.
“Mykola Lebed’s relationship with the CIA lasted the entire length of the Cold War,” the study says. “While most CIA operations involving wartime perpetrators backfired, Lebed’s operations augmented the fundamental instability of the Soviet Union.”
Continued Until And Beyond Ukrainian Independence
The U.S. thus covertly kept Ukrainian fascist ideas alive inside Ukraine until at least Ukrainian independence was achieved.
Mykola Lebed, Bandera’s wartime chief in Ukraine, died in 1998.
He is buried in New Jersey, and his papers are located at the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University, the U.S. National Archives study says.
The Successor Organization To The OUN-B In The United States Did Not Die With Him, However. &Nbsp;It Had Been Renamed The Ukrainian Congress Committee Of America (UCCA), According To IBT.
“By the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration was honeycombed with UCCA members. Reagan personally welcomed [Yaroslav] Stetsko, the Banderist leader who oversaw the massacre of 7,000 Jews in Lviv, in the White House in 1983,” IBT reported. “Following the demise of [Viktor] Yanukovich’s regime [in 2014], the UCCA helped organise rallies in cities across the US in support of the EuroMaidan protests,” it reported.
That is a direct link between the U.S.-backed 2014 Maidan coup against a democratically-elected Ukrainian government and WWII-era Ukrainian fascism.
Since 2014, the U.S. pushed for an attack on the Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine who had rejected the coup, and NATO began training and equipping Ukrainian troops. Combined with talk since 2008 of Ukraine joining NATO, Russia reacted after years of warning.
More than two years after Russia’s intervention, with Ukraine clearly losing the war, Western leaders will do just about anything to save their political skins, as they’ve staked too much on winning in Ukraine. Don’t listen to them. They need a West in denial of the dangers facing us.
As President John F. Kennedy said in his 1963 American University speech:
“Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”
The world may wake up when it’s too late — after nuclear missiles have already started flying.
Declassified files reveal plans for nuclear power plant in Tyrone, northern Ireland
WeAreTyrone, By Callum McGuigan, 3 September 2024
DECLASSIFIED Government documents have revealed high-level discussions over a proposal to build a nuclear power plant near Coalisland during the 1950s.
Papers recently opened at the Public Records Office in Belfast under the 20-year rule outline how close Tyrone and the North was to achieving atomic power decades ago.
The two sites envisioned for the dawn of a nuclear age in the North were earmarked as Washing Bay and Derrywarragh Island, both just miles from Coalisland.
Secret talks were held between Stormont and Westminister with the strictest confidence, not just because of Cold War paranoia, but also in fear of recent IRA skirmishes at the border…………………………………………………………………………………
Disaster
The nuclear planning preparations were shortlived, as in October of 1957 the worst nuclear disaster in the UK would halt the progress of developments in the North.
The Windscale nuclear site in England caught fire and radiation spread across the UK and Europe.
The disaster was ranked five out of seven on the International Nuclear Disaster Scale, just two rankings below Chernobyl.
Ultimately, the plans never went ahead.
Reacting to the proposals contained in the recently-declassified files, Coalisland independent councillor, Dan Kerr, said that the ‘risks would have outweighed the positives’.
“When you think of nuclear plants you think of big industrial cities and urban areas, but you also can’t help but remember the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
“It would have been a huge employment opportunity in Coalisland, but at the same time, the risks to locals and the environment would have far outweighed the positives.
“Looking at Lough Neagh now, you could imagine if a disaster like Chernobyl were to have happened here, the whole area and maybe even large parts of the North, could have been turned into a complete wasteland………………………………… https://wearetyrone.com/news/declassified-files-reveal-plans-for-nuclear-power-plant-in-tyrone/
Declassified files show NI’s future reformist PM ‘against nuclear plant in Catholic area’
The man who would become Northern Ireland’s key reformist Prime Minister
repeatedly expressed alarm at a plan to build a nuclear reactor in a
Catholic area of Tyrone, a previously secret file from the old Stormont
government reveals.
In 1950s Northern Ireland, Terence O’Neill was
Minister of Home Affairs and then Finance Minister at a time when the
unionist administration was adapting to life after the Second World War,
the new challenges of the Cold War, the extension of Clement Atlee’s
welfare reforms across the Irish Sea and the IRA border campaign.
Belfast Telegraph 28th Aug 2024
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 