Trump proposes nuclear deal with Russia and China to halve defense budgets
‘We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things,’ the US president said
Guardian staff and agencies in Washington, Fri 14 Feb 2025
Donald Trump said that he wants to restart nuclear arms control talks with Russia and China and that eventually he hopes all three countries could agree to cut their massive defense budgets in half.
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump lamented the hundreds of billions of dollars being invested in rebuilding the nation’s nuclear deterrent and said he hopes to gain commitments from the US adversaries to cut their own spending.
“There’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many,” Trump said. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”
“We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive,” Trump said.
While the US and Russia have held massive stockpiles of weapons since the cold war, Trump predicted that China would catch up in their capability to exact nuclear devastation “within five or six years”.
He said that if the weapons were ever called to use, “that’s going to be probably oblivion”.
Trump said he would look to engage in nuclear talks with the two countries once “we straighten it all out” in the Middle East and Ukraine.
“One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say: ‘Let’s cut our military budget in half.’ And we can do that. And I think we’ll be able to.”
Trump in his first term tried and failed to bring China into nuclear arms reduction talks when the US and Russia were negotiating an extension of a pact known as New Start. Russia suspended its participation in the treaty during the Biden administration, as the US and Russia continued on massive programs to extend the lifespans of or replace their cold war-era nuclear arsenals………………………
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/13/trump-nuclear-russia-china
Anas Sarwar’s insistences on nuclear energy serves wrong people.

Last week, Anas Sarwar challenged John Swinney over his
determination to continue SNP policy that uses planning to veto new nuclear
power plants in Scotland. Sarwar announced at FMQs that 29% of the energy
mix that morning came from nuclear.
John Swinney pointed out 70% came from
renewables and suggested Labour would only muddy the water for investors in
Scotland if they focused unduly on the “junior partner” in the energy
mix.
Sarwar then pointed out China has built 29 nuclear power plants. Fine
– China has also built two-thirds of the world’s wind and solar
resource, yet its use of coal also makes it the world’s largest emitter.
Which tells us what precisely? Forget China – focus on Scotland. Scotland
backing nuclear is like geothermal and hydro-powered Iceland backing gas.
It makes no sense at all. Our destiny is to develop clean, green baseload
energy sources for ourselves and the rest of the world.
What’s so wrong with nuclear?
Jings, where to start? Nuclear costs more to produce, plants
take far longer to construct, leave behind radioactive waste and depend
largely on highly enriched uranium derived from Russia and workers forced
to risk radiation and exploitation.
Wind critics complain that
intermittency means baseload (flick of a switch) energy like gas must be
ready for wind-free days. But nuclear isn’t flick of a switch either –
it takes too long to power up and down so stays permanently on (apart from
planned maintenance) even when wind is high.
Last year, six international
academics were so worried about Labour’s new stance, they issued a joint
statement. Maybe it didn’t reach the new Prime Minister, but it was
published in The National. Professor Steve Thomas, Dr Paul Dorfman,
Professor MV Ramana, Professor Amory Lovins and Tetsunari Iida stated that
after 60 years of commercial history, “nuclear power is further from, not
nearer to, survival without massive public subsidies”, and contributes as
much electricity in one year as renewables add in three days.
Nuclear isn’t cheaper – anywhere. The German Institute for Economic Research
examined 674 nuclear power plants built across the world since 1951 and
found the average plant made a loss of €4.8 billion. It also isn’t
greener – the International Panel on Climate Change says renewables are
now 10 times more efficient than nuclear at CO2 mitigation.
And it certainly isn’t quicker. Professor Naomi Oreskes from Harvard University
wrote in Scientific American: “The most recent US nuclear power reactors
were started in 2013 and are still not finished. That’s the problem with
imagined ‘breakthrough’ technologies. The breakthrough can be sudden,
but implementation is slow.” [Sarwar] wrote a column for the Daily Record
which insisted: “John Swinney could end the SNP’s ideological
opposition to nuclear power, with the stroke of a pen.” Ah, Anas. The
boot’s on the other foot.
Opposition to nuclear in Scotland isn’t
ideological. But Labour’s deep attachment certainly is. Anas Sarwar also
contended that if Swinney backed nuclear, “he could unlock billions of
pounds of investment in Scotland and create spates of new quality jobs”.
Mmm. Spates. Maybe this was written in a hurry. Like the billions not
invested by the City of London in Sizewell or Hinkley C over the past
decade? Come on.
So, what’s Labour’s nuclear love-in really about? Some
think Starmer inherited “an absolute monster” after the Tories’ bad
decision to put billions of public cash into Sizewell. But others like
Professor Andrew Stirling and senior research fellow Philip Johnstone
advanced a different theory in the latest edition of the European:
“Nuclear affections are a military romance. Powerful defence interests
– with characteristic secrecy and highly active PR – are mostly driving
the dogged persistence.”
The National 13th Feb 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24931561.anas-sarwars-insistences-nuclear-energy-serves-wrong-people/
Chernobyl nuclear power station hit by ‘Russian drone’
Despite hitting the nuclear plant, the small fire was quickly contained and officials said
there was no apparent radiation leak. The Chernobyl nuclear power station
was hit overnight in an apparent drone strike, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) has said. Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, said a
Russian drone strike with a “high explosive warhead” hit the outer
shelter of the nuclear plant. The IAEA said that a UAV hit the shelter
protecting the site at approximately 1.50am local time.
Footage from lastnight, showing a Russian Drone striking the Containment Structure around
Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) in Northern
Ukraine, as well as the extent of the Damage from inside the Containment
Structure.
iNews 14th Feb 2025,
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/chernobyl-nuclear-power-station-hit-by-russian-drone-3535413
Great British Nuclear competition winners announcement still ‘around Spending Review’

13 Feb, 2025 By Tom Pashby
Great British Nuclear (GBN) has confirmed that the winners of its small modular reactor (SMR) competition will still be announced around the time of the Spending Review on 11 June 2025, despite reports that it would take place on 26 March at the Spring Statement.
GE-Hitachi, Holtec Britain, Rolls-Royce SMR and Westinghouse Electric Co. were announced as the final four companies in contention following the conclusion of the initial tender
stage at the end of September. NuScale dropped out at this point, while EDF
exited the competition in July when it failed to submit documents before
the deadline.
GBN completed two rounds of assessment with the four
shortlisted companies and is now entering negotiations ahead of the
submission of final tenders. The nuclear body said in November 2024 it had
started “detailed negotiations” with the four small modular reactor
(SMR) developers remaining in its competition for deployment in the UK. GBN
debunks financial news site report. Financial news site The Motley Fool
reported on 11 February that the announcement was “expected to be
announced by Great British Nuclear on or around the time of the Spring
Budget Statement, scheduled for 26 March”.
New Civil Engineer 13th Feb 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/great-british-nuclear-competition-winners-announcement-still-around-spending-review-13-02-2025/
Warning sent about need for strategic policing reform to address security of SMRs

New Civil Engineer, 2 Feb, 2025 By Tom Pashby
Security concerns have been raised following the publication of the draft National Policy Statement for nuclear energy which would change where small modular reactors (SMRs) could be situated.
National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation (EN-7) was published in draft form on 6 February following an announcement by the prime minister about the slashing of legislation aroudn the development of nuclear energy generation projects………………………………….
Limited details about security in EN-7 raises policing questions
Despite EN-7 being 64 pages, just two lines are dedicated to specifically addressing the security of SMRs.
The proposed proliferation of SMRs in the UK presents a novel nuclear security risk because of there potentially being many more smaller nuclear-licensed sites which are closer to people and property than gigawatt-scale reactors which tend to be in remote coastal locations.
King’s College London Centre for Science & Security Studies research fellow Ross Peel previously told NCE that security planning for SMRs in the UK is “not where it should be”.
In a section titled “Security of Site”, EN-7 says “Ensuring that the proposed nuclear infrastructure will be secure is vital. The Security Considerations section of EN-1 addresses security considerations in detail.
“The applicant should engage with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) as part of early engagement on securing a Nuclear Site Licence to understand what steps will be required to comply with relevant site security requirements.”
Recent analysis by the Alan Turing Institute’s Centre for Emerging Technology and Security said that policing capability was not up to scratch to protect SMRs.
Policing SMRs would require a significant uplift in funding and workforce at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) which is run by the Civil Nuclear Police Authority (CNPA). The CNPA is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).
Local police forces, overseen by the Home Office, could also be required to increase their capacity to respond to CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) incidents.
It is currently unclear how any resource uplift would be funded, and which bodies would provide that funding. As things stand, gigawatt-scale nuclear power sites’ security is funded by the developers themselves.
The business model for SMRs is not yet settled, with different developers proposing different management mechanisms.
Existing policing model does not accommodate complex demands of SMRs
Former police investigations and review commissioner Scotland and co-author of the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security analysis on SMR policing John McNeill said: “The ONR can specify security standards for SMRs, but they cannot require policing bodies to comply with their requirements.
“ONR can specify, approve, or reject, security arrangements, and vary these in response to changes in the threat assessments. But they cannot require any Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) or Chief Constable (CC) to assign resources to meet their defined standards. Not even [the government] can direct them.
“Policing of airports and football grounds, even schools and educational campuses, shows how hard this will be to fund fairly…………………………………………………………….
“The existing policing model does not readily accommodate the complex demands of responding to the protection of the critical national infrastructure, nor a spread of SMRs.
It’s an outdated model that is not fit for this purpose. Since 2012 the 43 local (directly elected) policing bodies have set the priorities and assigned the budgets, for their police areas.
“We have already highlighted the complexities of policing a proliferation of SMRs in new areas of the country. Policing will need to extend their capability and capacity to respond. And meet the associated costs. It will not be enough to promise a reduction in their electricity bills sometime in the future!
“In short, the deafening silence from the Home Office and policing bodies is not reassuring to apprehensive communities who may have an SMR (or more) in their back yard.
“Finally, who pays the piper? Contractors will baulk at paying for local security. Site security may be less problematic.”
Sheffield Hallam University hosts the Centre of Excellence in Terrorism, Resilience, Intelligence and Organised Crime Research (Centric).
Centric professor in governance and national security Fraser Sampson co-authored the policing reform analysis with McNeill.
Sampson said: “The introduction of SMRs (and now associated data centres) is being presented as wholly different from whatever has gone before. That means the policing and security arrangements will need to be wholly different as they are the solution to the wrong problem.
“The engineering, environmental and economic noises are deafening but so is the silence on the extraordinary challenges that this will bring for community-level policing and resilience.
Policing and security are a network of systems. Turbocharging one part of a system will only pay off if the rest of the system can keep up – otherwise, the fast bit has to wait for the rest. No one wants to be responsible for the weakest link in the security chain.
“Workforce vetting has proved challenging enough for policing; an exponential increase in both volume and speed of reliable vetting must have a significant resource impact but add in risks from supply chain integrity, cyber-attacks and insider threats.”
Sampson said that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “states more than half of radioactive [materials] thefts/losses since 1993 occurred during authorised transit.
“Where is the reassurance coming from that proliferation will improve these figures? We’re not dealing with Swampy anymore.”
Concerns about security of SMRs raised in parliament
In a debate about SMRs in the House of Lords, backbench Labour peer Lord Harris of Haringey asked about the potential increased demand on nuclear policing. The debate took place on 22 January 2025, before the publication of EN-7.
Outside of parliament, Harris is chair of the National Preparedness Commission (NPC), which works “to promote policies and actions to help the UK be significantly better prepared to avoid, mitigate, respond to, and recover from major shocks, threats and challenges”.
In the Lords debate, Harris asked: “What consideration has been given to who will protect and police modular nuclear reactors?
“Will it be the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which would mean covering far more sites than it currently does, or will it be the other police forces?
“What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Home Office?”……………………………………………………………………..
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/warning-sent-about-need-for-strategic-policing-reform-to-address-security-of-smrs-12-02-2025/
Nuclear waste site plans in Midlands face major setback as council withdraws
Proposals for a massive underground hazardous nuclear waste site in the
Midlands have hit a setback after a council withdrew from a major
partnership, ignited because the agency behind the scheme are now looking
at putting the entrance close to a national beauty spot rather than a
disused gasworks.
Yesterday (wed) the leader of East Lindsey District
Council announced it was leaving a community partnership with Nuclear Waste
Services (NWS), the government agency which is behind the project to
dispose of Britain’s radioactive waste in a Ground Disposal Facility (GDF).
Insider Media 13th Feb 2025, https://www.insidermedia.com/news/midlands/nuclear-waste-site-plans-in-midlands-face-major-setback-as-council-withdraws
Why Welsh speakers oppose Wylfa nuclear plant
Letter David Thomas: I was dismayed to see your article (Report, February
8), blithely dismissing the impact of the planned Wylfa Newydd nuclear
power station on Welsh-speaking communities. You parrot the view of the
nuclear industry that nothing should stand in the way of the bulldozers,
with little regard for the wider picture here in Wales.
The valid concerns
of Welsh-speaking communities are deemed illegitimate by the nuclear
industry, and Welsh speakers’ interests are portrayed as akin to those of
bats and newts — as unnecessary “blockers” to progress.
The ongoing survival of the Welsh language is nothing short of a miracle in the face of
the linguistic, economic and political hegemony of our English neighbour.
To dismiss linguistic and cultural concerns that the Wylfa Newydd plan
might entail is to dismiss the very existence of Wales as a linguistic and
cultural entity.
The Welsh government has committed to a target of having
1mn Welsh speakers by 2050. This plan has been ratified on repeated
occasions by the Welsh electorate, and surveys show that an overwhelming
majority of the Welsh population are well disposed to the language, even
among groups of non Welsh speakers.
We might also question why Ynys Môn
(Anglesey) is perceived as a suitable site for a new nuclear power plant.
Wales is already a net exporter of energy, yet Welsh consumers pay more for
electricity than the vast majority of their English counterparts.
Possibilities for renewables in the form of onshore and offshore wind and
tidal energy appear promising, yet attempts to pioneer tidal power in Wales
have been blocked by successive UK governments.
FT 12th Feb 2025
https://www.ft.com/content/3c9045c5-8cb4-4db3-bdf1-734b7cd789bf
Doctors fear health fallout from nuclear energy plans

Canberra Times, By Marion Rae, February 12 2025
Doctors have warned of no “safe” level of radiation from a proposed network of nuclear reactors as battlelines are drawn for the federal election.
Similar to other nuclear-powered nations, Australians living within a certain radius of a reactor would need to be issued potassium iodide tablets for use in a radiation emergency, a nuclear briefing has learned.
“The only reason that everyone in that radius is given that is because they might need it,” Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy Josh Wilson told a nuclear briefing on Tuesday.
If anyone comes to buy your house, the proximity of a reactor will be noted on the land titles register, and insurers will not cover nuclear accidents, he said.
The warning came as doctors fronted parliament to warn of long-term health risks for workers and surrounding communities, particularly children.
Evidence included a meta-data analysis of occupational and environmental exposure that accumulated data on more than seven million people.
It found living within 30km of a reactor increased overall cancer risk by five per cent, with thyroid cancer increasing by 14 per cent and leukaemia by nine per cent.
A separate study of workers in the nuclear industry in France, the United Kingdom and the United States analysed results from more than 300,000 people who were monitored for over 30 years.
Finding not only increased cancer rates but surprisingly increased rates of heart attacks and strokes, it found impacts at low doses were larger than previously thought.
“There is no ‘safe’ lower dose of radiation. The science is clear. All exposure adds to long-term health risks,” vice-president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War Dr Margaret Beavis said……………………………
Under the coalition’s nuclear energy blueprint, seven reactors would be built across five states to replace ageing coal-fired power plants with more gas-fired plants to provide baseload power in the interim.
“Zero-emissions nuclear plants” are a key part of the Nationals’ election pitch to regions where coal plants are already closing, while Labor is pressing ahead with the transition to renewable energy backed up by big batteries.
Public Health Association of Australia spokesman Dr Peter Tait said the idea that the nuclear industry was free of greenhouse gas emissions was a “furphy”, given the construction and uranium supply chain involved.
Emissions would rise threefold under the nuclear plan due to increased coal and gas use, he warned, with the first plant not due to come online until the late 2030s.
From a public health perspective, Australians can’t afford that delay, Dr Tait said.
Executive director of Doctors for the Environment Dr Kate Wylie said prolonging the dependency on fossil fuels would mean more Australians would be affected by their known health risks, including increased rates of asthma.
Nuclear energy would also put communities at risk during the next drought, when reactors would be first in line for scarce water, Dr Wylie said.
“The ethical thing to do is to choose the least water-intensive energy sources, which are wind and solar,” she said. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8890265/doctors-fear-health-fallout-from-nuclear-energy-plans/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIan3hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHaAJ7wF9BUi9CgA1_tQDXS5gC2WCrX8HSFZUrOQPGgXABnNkhEvlgHKolQ_aem_OShH2FPpE3tO3RIv_gAgBg
NUCLEAR BRIBERY: Nuclear Waste Services funds Cumbrian community projects

More than 260 projects across Cumbria and Lincolnshire have received
financial support from Nuclear Waste Services (NWS). The community projects
have received millions of pounds worth of funding from NWS in the last
three years. The communities in which NWS operates have been supported by
funding that aims to benefit people and projects. Over the last three
years, more than £10 million has been awarded to over 260 initiatives
across Cumbria and Lincolnshire ranging from youth schemes, mental health
initiatives, and mountain rescue.
Carlisle News & Star 13th Feb 2025, https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24931120.nuclear-waste-services-funds-cumbrian-community-projects/
The Pentagon Is Recruiting Elon Musk To Help Them Win a Nuclear War

By Alan MacLeod / MintPress News 10 Feb 25
Donald Trump has announced his intention to build a gigantic anti-ballistic missile system to counter Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, and he is recruiting Elon Musk to help him. The Pentagon has long dreamed of constructing an American “Iron Dome.” The technology is couched in the defense language – i.e., to make America safe again. But like its Israeli counterpart, it would function as an offensive weapon, giving the United States the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response. This power could upend the fragile peace maintained by decades of mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that has underpinned global stability since the 1940s.
A New Global Arms Race
Washington’s war planners have long salivated at the thought of winning a nuclear confrontation and have sought the ability to do so for decades. Some believe that they have found a solution and a savior in the South African-born billionaire and his technology.
Neoconservative think tank the Heritage Foundation published a video last year stating that Musk might have “solved the nuclear threat coming from China.” It claimed that Starlink satellites from his SpaceX company could be easily modified to carry weapons that could shoot down incoming rockets. As they explain:
Elon Musk has proven that you can put microsatellites into orbit, for $1 million apiece. Using that same technology, we can put 1,000 microsatellites in continuous orbit around the Earth, that can track, engage and shoot down, using tungsten slugs, missiles that are launched from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China.”
Although the Heritage Foundation advises using tungsten slugs (i.e., bullets) as interceptors, hypersonic missiles have been opted for instead. To this end, a new organization, the Castelion Company, was established in 2023.
Castelion is a SpaceX cutout; six of the seven members of its leadership team and two of its four senior advisors are ex-senior SpaceX employees. The other two advisors are former high officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, including Mike Griffin, Musk’s longtime friend, mentor, and partner.
Castelion’s mission, in its own words, is to be at the cutting edge of a new global arms race. As the company explains:
Despite the U.S. annual defense budget exceeding those of the next ten biggest spenders combined, there’s irrefutable evidence that authoritarian regimes are taking the lead in key military technologies like hypersonic weapons. Simply put – this cannot be allowed to happen.”
The company has already secured gigantic contracts with the U.S. military, and reports suggest that it has made significant strides toward its hypersonic missile goals.
War and Peace
Castelion’s slogan is “Peace Through Deterrence.” But in reality, the U.S. achieving a breakthrough in hypersonic missile technology would rupture the fragile nuclear peace that has existed for over 70 years and usher in a new era where Washington would have the ability to use whatever weapons it wished, anywhere in the world at any time, safe in the knowledge that it would be impervious to a nuclear response from any other nation.
In short, the fear of a nuclear retaliation from Russia or China has been one of the few forces moderating U.S. aggression throughout the world. If this is lost, the United States would have free rein to turn entire countries – or even regions of the planet – into vapor. This would, in turn, hand it the power to terrorize the world and impose whatever economic and political system anywhere it wishes.
If this sounds fanciful, this “Nuclear Blackmail” was a more-or-less official policy of successive American administrations in the 1940s and 1950s. The United States remains the only country ever to drop an atomic bomb in anger, doing so twice in 1945 against a Japanese foe that was already defeated and was attempting to surrender.
President Truman ordered the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a show of force, primarily to the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. government wished to use the atomic bomb on the U.S.S.R. President Truman immediately, however, reasoned that if America nuked Moscow, the Red Army would invade Europe as a response.
As such, he decided to wait until the U.S. had enough warheads to completely destroy the Soviet Union and its military. War planners calculated this figure at around 400, and to that end—totaling a nation representing one-sixth of the world’s landmass—the president ordered the immediate ramping up of production.
This decision was met with stiff opposition among the American scientific community, and it is widely believed that Manhattan Project scientists, including Robert J. Oppenheimer himself, passed nuclear secrets to Moscow in an effort to speed up their nuclear project and develop a deterrent to halt this doomsday scenario.
In the end, the Soviet Union was able to successfully develop a nuclear weapon before the U.S. was able to produce hundreds. Thus, the idea of wiping the U.S.S.R. from the face of the Earth was shelved. Incidentally, it is now understood that the effects of dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons simultaneously would likely have sparked vast firestorms across Russia, resulting in the emission of enough smoke to choke the Earth’s atmosphere, block out the sun’s rays for a decade, and end organized human life on the planet.
With the Russian nuclear window closing by 1949, the U.S. turned its nuclear arsenal on the nascent People’s Republic of China.
The U.S. invaded China in 1945, occupying parts of it for four years until Communist forces under Mao Zedong forced both them and their Nationalist KMT allies from the country. During the Korean War, some of the most powerful voices in Washington advocated dropping nuclear weapons on the 12 largest Chinese cities in response to China entering the fray. Indeed, both Truman and his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, publicly used the threat of the atomic bomb as a negotiating tactic.
Routed on the mainland, the U.S.-backed KMT fled to Taiwan, establishing a one-party state. In 1958, the U.S. also came close to dropping the bomb on China to protect its ally’s new regime over control of the disputed island – an episode of history that resonates with the present-day conflict over Taiwan.
However, by 1964, China had developed its own nuclear warhead, effectively ending U.S. pretensions and helping to usher in the détente era of good relations between the two powers—an epoch that lasted well into the 21st century.
In short, then, it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.
Nuking Japan? OK. Nuking Mars? Even Better!
Musk, however, has downplayed both the probability and the consequences of nuclear war.
According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, there are over 12,000 warheads in the world, the vast majority of them owned by Russia and the United States. While many consider them a blight on humanity and favor their complete eradication, Musk advocates building thousands more, sending them into space, and firing them at Mars.
Musk’s quixotic plan is to terraform the Red Planet by firing at least 10,000 nuclear missiles at it. The heat generated by the bombs would melt its polar ice caps, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The rapid greenhouse effect triggered, the theory goes, would raise Mars’ temperatures (and air pressure) to the point of supporting human life.
Few scientists have endorsed this idea…………………………………………………..
Elon and the Military-Industrial-Complex
Until he entered the Trump White House, many still perceived Musk as a radical tech industry outsider. Yet this was never the case. From virtually the beginning of his career, Musk’s path has been shaped by his exceptionally close relationship with the U.S. national security state, particularly with Mike Griffin of the CIA……………………………………….
Griffin became the chief administrator of NASA. In 2018, President Trump appointed him the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. While at NASA, Griffin brought Musk in for meetings and secured SpaceX’s big break. In 2006, NASA awarded the company a $396 million rocket development contract – a remarkable “gamble,” in Griffin’s words, especially as it had never launched a rocket. National Geographic wrote that SpaceX “never would have gotten to where it is today without NASA.”…………………………………………………….
Today, the pair remain extremely close, with Griffin serving as an official advisor to Castelion. A sign of just how strong this relationship is that, in 2004, Musk named his son “Griffin” after his CIA handler.
Today, SpaceX is a powerhouse, with yearly revenues in the tens of billions and a valuation of $350 billion. But that wealth comes largely from orders from Washington. Indeed, there are few customers for rockets other than the military or the various three-letter spying agencies.
In 2018, SpaceX won a contract to blast a $500 million Lockheed Martin GPS into orbit. While military spokespersons played up the civilian benefits of the launch, the primary reason for the project was to improve America’s surveillance and targeting capabilities. SpaceX has also won contracts with the Air Force to deliver its command satellite into orbit, with the Space Development Agency to send tracking devices into space, and with the National Reconnaissance Office to launch its spy satellites. All the “big five” surveillance agencies, including the CIA and the NSA, use these satellites.
Therefore, in today’s world, where so much intelligence gathering and target acquisition is done via satellite technology, SpaceX has become every bit as important to the American empire as Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Simply put, without Musk and SpaceX, the U.S. would not be able to carry out such an invasive program of spying or drone warfare around the world.
Global Power
An example of how crucial Musk and his tech empire are to the continuation of U.S. global ambitions can be found in Ukraine. Today, around 47,000 Starlinks operate inside the country. These portable satellite dishes, manufactured by SpaceX, have kept both Ukraine’s civilian and military online. Many of these were directly purchased by the U.S. government via USAID or the Pentagon and shipped to Kiev.
In its hi-tech war against Russia, Starlink has become the keystone of the Ukrainian military. It allows for satellite-based target acquisition and drone attacks on Russian forces. Indeed, on today’s battlefield, many weapons require an internet connection. One Ukrainian official told The Times of London that he “must” use Starlink to target enemy forces via thermal imaging.
The controversial mogul has also involved himself in South American politics……………………………………………….
At Trump’s inauguration, Musk garnered international headlines after he gave two Sieg Heil salutes – gestures that his daughter felt were unambiguously Nazi. Musk – who comes from a historically Nazi-supporting family – took time out from criticizing the reaction to his salute to appear at a rally for the Alternative für Deutschland Party. There, he said that Germans place “too much focus on past guilt” (i.e., the Holocaust) and that “we need to move beyond that.” “Children should not feel guilty for the sins of their parents – their great-grandparents even,” he added to raucous applause.
The tech tycoon’s recent actions have provoked outrage among many Americans, claiming that fascists and Nazis do not belong anywhere near the U.S. space and defense programs. In reality, however, these projects, from the very beginning, were overseen by top German scientists brought over after the fall of Nazi Germany. Operation Paperclip transported more than 1,600 German scientists to America, including the father of the American lunar project, Wernher von Braun. Von Braun was a member of both the Nazi Party and the infamous elite SS paramilitary, whose members oversaw Hitler’s extermination camps.
Thus, Nazism and the American empire have, for a long time, gone hand in hand. Far more disturbing than a man with fascist sympathies being in a position of power in the U.S. military or space industry, however, is the ability the United States is seeking for itself to be impervious to intercontinental missile attacks from its competitors.
On the surface, Washington’s Iron Dome plan may sound defensive in nature. But in reality, it would give it a free hand to attack any country or entity around the world in any way it wishes – including with nuclear weapons. This would upend the fragile nuclear peace that has reigned since the early days of the Cold War. Elon Musk’s help in this endeavor is much more worrying and dangerous than any salutes or comments he could ever make. more https://www.mintpressnews.com/pentagon-recruiting-elon-musk-nuclear-war/289055/
The Coventry experiment: why were Indian women in Britain given radioactive food without their consent?
When details about a scientific study in the 1960s became public, there was shock, outrage and anxiety. But exactly what happened?
By Samira Shackle, Guardian, 11 Feb 25
In 2019, Shahnaz Akhter, a postdoctoral researcher at Warwick University, was chatting to her sister, who mentioned a documentary that had aired on Channel 4 in the mid-1990s. It was about human radiation experiments, including one that had taken place in 1969 in Coventry. As part of an experiment on iron absorption, 21 Indian women had been fed chapatis baked with radioactive isotopes, apparently without their consent.
Having grown up in Coventry’s tight-knit South Asian community, Akhter was shocked that she had never heard of the experiment. When she looked into it, she found an inquiry by the Coventry Health Authority in 1995 conducted soon after the documentary aired. The inquiry examined whether the experiment put the subjects’ health at risk and whether informed consent was obtained. But the only mention of the women’s perspectives was a single sentence: “At the public meeting, it was stated that two of the participants who had come forward had no recollection of giving informed consent.”
…………………………………… rather than putting out a public call for information, Akhter quietly asked around within her community for people who might know families that had been affected.
By chance, at about the same time, a historian and broadcaster, Dr Louise Raw, came across some old reporting about the radioactive chapatis – specifically, a 1995 story in India Today following up on the documentary, which jogged her memory of watching the film when it aired. Raw is interested in hidden histories and was immediately intrigued.
……………………………………………………….The story provoked major anxiety in Coventry. Though the study only involved 21 women, Owatemi was contacted by scores of people terrified that their mothers or grandmothers had been affected.
………………………………………Desperate for information, Kalbir – an articulate, assertive woman who sees herself as a fighter – tried to get access to her mother’s medical records, only to hit dead ends: the doctor’s surgery no longer existed and medical confidentiality still applied after death. Meanwhile, Akhter and Owatemi’s efforts were stalling too. The Medical Research Council (MRC), the public body that funds and coordinates research into human health in the UK, says it does not have any documentation relating to the study, not even a list of who was experimented on………………………………
The study took place more than 50 years ago, yet it still stirs up strong emotions, tapping into a host of broader anxieties about racial health inequalities and abuses by the medical establishment. After so many years have elapsed, sorting truth from panic is a complex task. What really happened in Coventry in 1969?
……………………………………………………..In the postwar period, doctors used radiation to treat everything from arthritis to ringworm. By the mid-1950s, it had become clear that exposure increases the chance of developing certain cancers and can cause infertility. The use of radiation was pared back, but medical researchers remained excited about the quick, precise experimentation it offered.
……………………………………..a new set of principles for ethical research on humans, known as the Nuremberg Code, had been introduced. The first of its 10 points is: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” The code also sets out other principles: experiments should be for the good of society and carried out by qualified researchers, and the risk should never exceed the potential benefit. But at first the code didn’t have much effect on researchers in the UK and the US, who saw it as something that applied to evil war criminals, not high-minded doctors who wanted to further scientific knowledge. In 1964, the medical researcher Paul Beeson, who had been a professor of medicine at both Yale and Oxford, wrote that the Nuremberg Code was “a wonderful document to say why the war crimes were atrocities, but it’s not a very good guide to clinical investigation which is done with high motives”.
……………………………..There are countless other examples from the US, UK and Canada. A number of these involved radiation exposure: in the 1950s, pregnant women in London and Aberdeen were injected with radioactive iodine to test their thyroid function despite the fact that radiation exposure of any sort poses a risk to a foetus. In Massachusetts in the 1940s and 1950s, boys with learning difficulties at a residential school were fed radioactive oatmeal as part of an experiment to see how Quaker Oats were digested.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. in Cardiff Elwood hired an Indian housewife to teach a group of Welsh women to make traditional chapatis. Using flour fortified with radioactive iron, they made 200 chapatis to freeze until needed. Meanwhile, Elwood looked for participants. He needed South Asian women who still ate a traditional diet. Eventually he settled on Coventry, where there was a community of migrants from the Punjab region of India. Elwood’s team enlisted a doctor’s surgery in Foleshill, the centre of Coventry’s South Asian community, to identify women who could take part.
………………………………………………………….Despite translation difficulties, and the possibility that the women did not understand what was happening, the study got under way. Every morning for four days, the women were asked to eat one of the irradiated chapatis, which were delivered on dry ice each morning. A few hours later, Tom Benjamin, a field worker on Elwood’s team, would return, visiting all 21 houses to check the women had eaten it and record what foods they’d had with it. Seventeen days later, the women were picked up and driven an hour and a half to Harwell Laboratory for testing,
…………………………………Kalbir finds it upsetting to imagine her mother there. “The terror these women must have gone through,” she said. “They were already struggling in England. Our homes were being attacked by racists, we would get abused on the street, and then the system does this to them.”
The study, published in 1970, found that iron was not absorbed any more effectively from chapatis and the fermented flour they use than from bread. No one informed the women about the results, and no one followed up to check whether the radiation exposure had impacted their health.
………………………………………………In the 1990s, MRC officials insisted that it would be a poor use of public money to do a follow-up study on the women since the level of radiation exposure was so low. But to people who already feel misled, such reassurances can feel like a repetition of the “doctor knows best” mentality. “I feel anger, frustration and massive anxiety,” Kalbir told me. “I’m desperate to get answers and justice.” As it has surfaced and resurfaced, the story of the radioactive chapatis has come to represent something more than itself. “These women had a hard time in England,” said Kalbir. “They didn’t understand the way research and the medical professions worked. They had a great deal of trust. This shouldn’t have happened.” https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/feb/11/the-coventry-experiment-why-were-indian-women-in-britain-given-radioactive-food-without-consent
‘Nothing prepared us for Sizewell C devastation’

Richard Daniel, Environment reporter, BBC East of England, 10 Feb 25
Groundwork for a new nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast is well under way, but the funding needed to build it has still not been agreed.
Sizewell C said it was confident a final investment decision on the station would be made this summer.
Meanwhile, the cost of its sister project, Hinkley Point C in Somerset, has risen to as high as £46bn.
Opponents have likened Sizewell C to the beleaguered HS2 rail project and said the government should pull out before it is too late.
So what is the state of play?
In east Suffolk, signs of development are hard to miss.
Thousands of trees have been felled, and a huge swathe of land stretching from the outskirts of Leiston to the coast have been cleared for a new construction compound and access road to the Sizewell C site.
Elsewhere, land is being dug up for a new link road off the A12, a new bypass around the villages of Stratford St Andrew and Farnham, and two park-and-ride sites at Wickham Market and Darsham.
The groundwork started a year ago.
The twin reactors would generate 3.2 GW of electricity, sufficient to power six million homes.
So far the UK government, which has an 85% stake in the project, has pledged £5.5bn towards development work.
Last month, EDF denied reports that the total cost of the project had risen to over £40bn, up from an estimated £20bn in 2018.
It is seeking investors and the government said a final investment decision would be made in June.
‘It’s all gone’
David Grant’s farm at Middleton, near Leiston, has been cut in two by the new Sizewell link road and an access road to the B1122.
He said he had lost 38 acres (15 hectares) of arable land.
Opponents of Sizewell C still argue the project should be scrapped before it is too late.
Alison Downes, from Stop Sizewell C, said: “The taxpayer is being forced to pay for what is basically a bet that this project is a good idea and should go ahead.
“The possibility that Sizewell C could go ahead at whatever price is just completely inconceivable.
“Every penny they spend on Sizewell C is a penny lost to cheaper, quicker renewable energy projects that could get us to net zero more quickly and address our climate crisis.”
“Nothing prepared us for the devastation caused,” he said.
“It’s all gone, dug out with machines completely ruthlessly and without any sympathy.
“I think this is HS2, but bigger, frankly.
“I’ve got friends who were involved in the HS2 cancellation and they haven’t even been able to repurchase their land. Luckily we have the option to repurchase if this doesn’t go ahead.”
‘Every penny they spend is a penny lost’
Opponents of Sizewell C still argue the project should be scrapped before it is too late.
Alison Downes, from Stop Sizewell C, said: “The taxpayer is being forced to pay for what is basically a bet that this project is a good idea and should go ahead.
“The possibility that Sizewell C could go ahead at whatever price is just completely inconceivable.
“Every penny they spend on Sizewell C is a penny lost to cheaper, quicker renewable energy projects that could get us to net zero more quickly and address our climate crisis.”…………………. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9qwygd5j4o
Trump Promises Billions in Defense Cuts
State of the Union: Trump said that Elon Musk’s DOGE will audit the Pentagon and Department of Education.
Mason Letteau Stallings, Feb 9, 2025 more https://www.theamericanconservative.com/trump-promises-billions-in-defense-cuts/
Trump said that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency would soon lead an audit of the Pentagon and “find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse.”
The Department of Education will be another one of Musk’s targets, Trump said. “I’m going to tell him very soon, like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the Department of Education.”
Trump’s comments came during a pre-Super Bowl interview with Bret Baier of Fox News.
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, in a separate interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” offered that military shipbuilding should be an area of interest for DOGE. “There is plenty to look into in ship building, which is an absolute mess,” he said.
According to Waltz, the Pentagon suffers from widespread problems. “Everything seems to cost too much, take too long, and deliver too little to the soldiers,” he said, adding that “we do need business leaders to go in there and absolutely reform the Pentagon’s acquisition process.”
The resurgence of nuclear power: a conversation with M. V. Ramana

energy central, 12 Feb 25
Ahmad Faruqui 45,027,conomist-at-Large. Ahmad Faruqui is an energy economist who has worked on electricity pricing issues throughout the globe and testified numerous times before regulatory commissions and governmental bodies.
Professor Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the University of British Columbia. His latest book is Nuclear is Not the Solution. I put some questions to him on what is causing a resurgence of nuclear power and whether it is a good or a bad idea.
Faruqui. What is causing the resurgence? The sudden arrival of data centers, driven by the quest for AI? Or climate change?
Ramana. I would first dispute the idea that there is an actual resurgence in nuclear power. What we are seeing is a resurgence in talk about nuclear power. We have seen similar waves of talk about nuclear power, most recently during the first decade of this millennium when there was much talk about a so-called nuclear renaissance. It was during that period that the US government introduced the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which provided significant incentives to utilities to build nuclear plants.
Utilities proposed building more than thirty reactors, but of these only four nuclear reactors proceeded to the construction stage, and two of these reactors in the state of South Carolina were abandoned mid-project following huge cost and time overruns, after over 9 billion dollars were spent. Only two reactors were actually built, at the Vogtle power plant in Georgia, and these ended up costing over $36 billion, much more than the $14 billion estimated when construction of those reactors started, and even more than the roughly $5 to $6 billion figures that were suggested when the Energy Policy Act was passed.
It is in light of this history that we should consider the talk about new nuclear plants today. Coming back to your question, what is causing this talk about resurgence: I would argue that this is mostly motivated by the nuclear industry’s struggle to stay alive and viable. Many nuclear plants today are operating only because of government subsidies of one kind or the other. So, if the industry has to build anything new, it has to resort to hype and artificially induced panic about running out of power.
…………………………………………………………………………… Faruqui. Japan, which had shut down its nuclear power plants after the 2011 incident at Fukushima, is now planning to expand it rapidly to meet its climate goals. Does that surprise you?
Ramana. Once again, I would separate the rhetoric from reality………………………. Despite the strong support from the Japanese government to restart nuclear reactors for over a decade, Japan got just 5.6 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants in 2023. That does not suggest that nuclear power will expand “rapidly”.
Faruqui. What is the status of nuclear power in Germany?
Ramana. Germany has shut down all of its reactors over a long phaseout process starting with a law passed in 2000. At that time, Germany’s nuclear reactors produced a little over 150 TWh of electrical energy. That has declined to zero in 2024. This decline in electrical energy has more than been compensated by renewables. In 2024, wind power contributed 136.4 TWh, biomass contributed 36 TWh, and solar photovoltaics contributed 72.2 TWh. Altogether renewables provided 62.7 percent of Germany’s electricity, and emissions from the power sector have declined by 58 percent between 1990 and 2024.
…………………………………………….Ramana. ………………..Most countries around the world do not operate nuclear plants. The existing nuclear plants are heavily concentrated in a few countries.
Faruqui. What are the main barriers to nuclear power: costs, delays in construction and activation, or inability to safely handle nuclear waste?
Ramana. I would say that the main barrier is cost; delays in construction and commissioning also translate into financial losses for the utilities building nuclear plants.
Faruqui. Are small modular reactors (SMRs), which are being put forward by tech billionaires such as Bill Gates, going to solve the problems associated with large, conventional reactors?
Ramana. I do not think so. As I mentioned earlier, one of the main challenges confronting those promoting nuclear power is poor economics. This problem is worse for small modular reactors. If they are ever built, SMRs will generate lower amounts of power, which means less revenue for the owner. But the cost of constructing these reactors will not be proportionately smaller. Therefore, electricity from SMRs will be more expensive than power from large nuclear plants……………………..
Faruqui. Can nuclear fusion get around the problems faced by nuclear fission energy?
Ramana. In my opinion, generating electrical power from nuclear fusion is unlikely to ever be economically viable. Three basic challenges confront using nuclear fusion to generate electricity. First, there is the “physics challenge”: to produce more energy than is used by the facility as a whole. Current nuclear fusion experiments are far from meeting this challenge. Second, there is the “engineering challenge” of converting what works in an experimental set up and produces energy for a microscopic fraction of second into a continuous source of electricity that operates 24 hours/day, 365 days/year. The third is the economic challenge of having this incredibly complicated process compete with other simpler and far cheaper ways of generating electricity.
Faruqui. Many nuclear plants have been shut down over the years in the US. What were the reasons? Are those concerns still valid for functioning power plants, such as Diablo Canyon in California?
Ramana. Most nuclear plants that were shut down in recent years were closed because of economic reasons……………………………………………………………………………
Faruqui. Some nuclear plants that were shut down are being reopened. In particular, Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania which was shut down in 1979 after a major disaster. What risks are associated with its reopening?
Ramana. Again, I would like to see the plant actually start operating before saying that the plant is “being reopened”………………………………… , the dangers of continuing operations are high and increasing.
Faruqui. Nuclear proponents argue that incidents such as Chernobyl in 1986 in what is now Ukraine and Fukushima in 2011 in Japan were caused by bad design and bad operations and are unlikely to occur in the US. Do you agree?
Ramana. While it is true that we are unlikely to have another severe accident exactly like the ones at Chernobyl and Fukushima, there are many different combinations of initiating factors and failures that can lead to another accident that results in radioactive materials being dispersed into the biosphere. …………………………………. For Perrow, “the dangerous accidents lie in the system, not in the components” and are inevitable……
more https://energycentral.com/c/gn/resurgence-nuclear-power-conversation-m-v-ramana
Jobs Jobs Jobs ! -screams the nuclear lobby

And the media faithfully regurgitates the message.
It’s not new, but it is now being spouted with a new exuberance (- or desperation?) in Britain:
“Hinkley C construction set to create 3,000 new jobs in next 18 months”. – Construction Enquirer 11th Feb 2025, West Somerset Free Press 10th Feb 2025, Burnham-on-sea.com 10th Feb 2025, BBC 10th Feb, 2025 , Somerset Live 10th Feb 2025, “creating thousands of highly skilled jobs” – Adam Smith Institute 10th Feb 2025 , Irvine Times 10th Feb 2025
As a child, I always wondered why people got so excited at the idea of more jobs. I used to think that they didn’t really want the jobs. They just wanted the money that you get paid for the job. And really, that still applies.
I now know that jobs can also bring personal satisfaction, a pleasure in doing something well, in knowing that your work is valuable. But I’d have to question that in some jobs – for example, in the 1960s if you worked for the Dow Chemical Company, making napalm to burn Vietnamese children. And I question it about the nuclear weapons-nuclear power industry.
Today, we know about ionising radiation causing illness and deaths, about the environmental damage of the nuclear fuel chain, the waste problem, about the intrinsic connection between the “civil” and military nuclear industries. We also know of the increasing evidence that the nuclear industry is not a healthy workplace.
So, why is the nuclear lobby spruiking “jobs” as the reason for the nuclear industry? The UK has an official unemployment rate of 4.4%, not wonderful, but not a crisis – not a statistically very high rate for a G20 country I would have thought that the biggest arguments for a new nuclear industry would be that it’s supposed to fix climate change, to be a clean industry, to be an economically successful industry.
The trouble is – there is ample evidence that nuclear power cannot fix climate change, is not clean, and most critical for Britain, it is not economically viable. That’s why the industry can’t get investors. The UK government has to supply direct funding through grants and investments to support the development of new nuclear power plants, particularly for projects like Sizewell.
And there’s a constant stream of corporate media articles, about the nuclear resurgence and the great future and employment in the (non-existent) small nuclear reactors. Professor Ramana of the University of British Columbia has questioned this resurgence, and examined what is actually happening : “I would first dispute the idea that there is an actual resurgence in nuclear power. What we are seeing is a resurgence in talk about nuclear power”.

The media, when it republishes handouts from the nuclear lobby, is not doing journalism. It’s just repeating propaganda .
It is hard to find proper journalistic scrutiny on the jobs situation in UK’s nuclear industry. But there is such scrutiny:
- Only 20 % of Great British Nuclear staff employed permanently.
- The Wylfa project – will deny local people of Ynys Môn the opportunity to take up green jobs in the interim……… For the reality, as established at the two existing gigawatt projects, at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and increasingly at Sizewell C in Suffolk, is that, for these large construction projects, large national and multinational civil engineering contractors are engaged, with experience in delivering mega projects at this scale, and they bring with them specialist subcontractors with their own transient workforces.
- Hinkley Point C ‘using cheap foreign labour‘ , say striking workers.
- Nuclear power is nothing if not hugely capital, not labour, intensive.
When touting for nuclear power as a great jobs-provider, surely it would be reasonable to compare this with alternative energy sources, but this, of course, is never mentioned in nuclear industry handouts to media.But – Renewables create more jobs/$ than fossils and nuclear.
I can only conclude that Sr Keir Starmer’s Labour government is all too well aware of the money pit into which they are plunging Britain, with these grandiose nuclear projects of Hinkley Point C, and Sizewell C. They must be hoping to get the British public, and investors, enthused about the nuclear job market, especially at a time when the government is about to make brutal cuts in welfare benefits. The rather dodgy assumption might be that human beings – disabled or too ill to work, family carers, suddenly losing income, will be able to work in the supposedly expanding nuclear industry.
-
Archives
- January 2026 (277)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- 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





