US, South Korea to ‘move forward’ on building nuclear-powered submarines
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung says the US supports Seoul’s bid to secure uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing capabilities.
By Kevin Doyle and News Agencies 14 Nov 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/14/us-south-korea-to-move-forward-on-building-nuclear-powered-submarines
The United States and South Korea have released details of a trade agreement that includes a $150bn Korean investment in the US shipbuilding sector, and both countries agree to “move forward” on building nuclear-powered submarines.
Under the agreement, President Lee Jae Myung said on Friday that South Korea will build nuclear-powered submarines as part of a new partnership with Washington on shipbuilding, artificial intelligence and the nuclear industry.
A fact sheet released by the White House said the US gave approval for Seoul to build nuclear-powered submarines and that South Korea will invest an additional $200bn in US industrial sectors in addition to the $150bn in shipbuilding.
South Korea’s official Yonhap news agency said Seoul’s investment was in return for Washington’s lowering of trade tariffs on Korean goods to 15 percent from 25 percent.
“One of the greatest variables for our economy and security – the bilateral negotiations on trade, tariffs and security – has been finalised,” President Lee said at a news conference on Friday, adding the two countries had agreed to “move forward with building nuclear-powered submarines”.
“The United States has given approval for the ROK [Republic of Korea] to build nuclear-powered attack submarines,” Lee said.
Seoul also secured “support for expanding our authority over uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing”, he said.
The joint fact sheet outlining the deal said both sides would “collaborate further through a shipbuilding working group” to “increase the number of US commercial ships and combat-ready US military vessels “.
Yonhap also reported that South Korea is seeking to acquire “four or more 5,000-ton conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines by the mid-2030s “.
South Korea’s development of nuclear-powered vessels would provide a significant boost to its naval and defence industries, allowing Seoul to join a select group of countries with such technological capabilities, analysts say.
China had already voiced concern over a Washington-Seoul deal on nuclear submarine technology.
Such a partnership “goes beyond a purely commercial partnership, directly touching on the global nonproliferation regime and the stability of the Korean Peninsula and the wider region,” China’s Ambassador in Seoul Dai Bing told reporters on Thursday.
North Korea did not immediately comment on the development, but is likely to respond. Pyongyang has consistently accused Washington and Seoul of building up military forces on the North’s borders in preparation for an invasion one day.
Details remain murky on where the nuclear submarines will be built.
US President Donald Trump said on social media last month that “South Korea will be building its Nuclear Powered Submarine in the Philadelphia Shipyards, right here in the good ol’ U.S.A”.
However, Seoul’s national security adviser Wi Sung-lac said on Friday that “from start to finish, the leaders’ discussion proceeded on the premise that construction would take place in South Korea”.
“So the question of where construction will take place can now be considered settled,” Wi said.
UK’s New nuclear siting policy criticised by industry as ‘missed opportunity’
The highly anticipated National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy
Generation EN-7, which will dictate where new nuclear reactors can be
deployed, has been published by the government, but it has been criticised
by the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) as a “missed opportunity”.
New Civil Engineer 14th Nov 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/new-nuclear-siting-policy-criticised-by-industry-as-missed-opportunity-14-11-2025/
The Empire Only De-Escalates In One Area So It Can Escalate In Another, And Other Notes
Caitlin Johnstone, Nov 15, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-empire-only-de-escalates-in-one?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=178942591&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Just as things cool down a bit in the middle east, the US has relocated the USS Gerald Ford from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caribbean while the Trump administration discusses plans to bomb Venezuela.
The violence of the empire remains constant. Peace is never the goal. You get happy they’re pulling the world’s largest aircraft carrier away from Iran, then it turns out they’re only doing it so they can move it to Venezuela. You get happy they’re pulling out of Afghanistan, then suddenly they’re waging a proxy war in Ukraine.
These days whenever you see the imperial war machinery getting pulled from one area, you know it’s just going to be sent someplace else.
Peace is never pursued for its own sake, because there’s nothing in it for the empire. There’s too much power and money in nonstop warmongering for peace to be allowed to become the norm.
Which is just insane if you think about it. Every normal person wants peace in their own lives. None of us want our time on this planet to be disturbed by violence, chaos and bloodshed.
The western world has created a machine whose behavior goes against every healthy human impulse. The US-led world order has given birth to an out of control monster with an insatiable appetite for human flesh.
❖
Reuters reports that in 2024 the Biden administration had intelligence showing that the IDF was using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. But Biden continued shipping genocide weapons to the Israelis the entire time he was in office.
You’ll still periodically see online liberals trying to shame leftists for not voting for Kamala, but the more information comes out about what the Biden administration was up to during that time the more genocidal they look. Biden-Harris are looking worse with time, not better.
When you see what a large-scale power broker Jeffrey Epstein was for Israeli intelligence, you understand why it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that extensive state resources would be put toward an elaborate plot to murder him in his prison cell and make it look like a suicide.
Generative AI stuff only looks impressive to mediocre people for the same reason a chess novice couldn’t tell you whether they were playing against a Grandmaster or just someone who’s pretty good at chess. We can only appreciate something up to the level of our own adeptness.
To someone who’s not very bright, an AI’s imitation of reasoning looks sharp. Someone with no aptitude for writing or appreciation for great literature will think its prose reads brilliantly. Its poetry looks good to those who don’t understand poetry. Its “art” looks great to those with no artistic sensibility. It’s music sounds awesome to those with no musical depth. Only those who are emotionally stunted and incapable of meaningful human connection will find them to be stimulating conversationalists and companions.
Like so much else capitalism produces, it’s a product that’s designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. For everyone else it looks vapid and gross, just like daytime talk shows, Hollywood blockbusters, and trashy tabloids always have.
That’s just how it works in a society which only elevates that which can generate profits. The food is designed to induce craving rather than facilitate health. The entertainment is designed to distract and sedate rather than to edify. The social media is designed to be addictive rather than to help people connect with each other. It’s all geared to appeal to our baser instincts rather than to improve and inform us.
Anyone who is interested in actually growing as a person will have less and less use for anything GenAI has to offer. Past a certain point of personal development, it simply cannot satisfy.
BBC News Has a Long Record of Disinformation. But This Time It Chose the Wrong Target.

We are now in a death loop in which the BBC becomes ever more craven to the billionaires, thereby shifting the political centre of gravity ever further rightwards. Much of the British public have been convinced by the billionaire-owned media that the BBC is actually “leftwing”. And as a result, the right grows ever more confident in advancing the billionaires’ self-interested agenda, knowing there will be no pushback.
British politics, as Keir Starmer illustrates only too keenly, is in exactly the same death loop. The billionaires are in charge, whoever leads. The main political battle is over image-laundering: where to direct the hate.
SCHEERPOST, November 15, 2025 , By Jonathan Cook / Jonathan Cook Blog
The BBC is in turmoil, its director-general and head of news forced to resign after a memo leaked to the Daily Telegraph highlighted editorial malpractice at the state broadcaster’s flagship news programme Panorama. The documentary had spliced together two separate clips of Donald Trump speaking on 6 January 2021, shortly before a riot at the Capitol building in Washington. The speech’s sentiments that day may not have been much misrepresented, but its contents technically were.
But Panorama, and the BBC more generally, have been exposed peddling far worse misinformation. In those cases, there have been precisely no consequences for such out-in-the-open journalistic abuses.
The reason heads have rolled at the BBC this time are not because it made a journalistic blunder – it makes them all the time. It is because the corporation foolishly offered an open goal to the billionaire right and its media outlets. This is just the latest, particularly damaging skirmish in a years-long battle by the right to bring down the BBC – while, in the meantime, ensuring that the corporation turns even more pliant than it already is in promoting the right’s interests.
We are now in a death loop in which the BBC becomes ever more craven to the billionaires, thereby shifting the political centre of gravity ever further rightwards. Much of the British public have been convinced by the billionaire-owned media that the BBC is actually “leftwing”. And as a result, the right grows ever more confident in advancing the billionaires’ self-interested agenda, knowing there will be no pushback.
British politics, as Keir Starmer illustrates only too keenly, is in exactly the same death loop. The billionaires are in charge, whoever leads. The main political battle is over image-laundering: where to direct the hate.
Open-for-business, austerity-affirming Starmer wants us hating chiefly on those who criticise him from the left, such as opponents of his support for Israel’s genocide. Open-for-business, austerity-affirming Nigel Farage wants us hating chiefly on the immigrants. But, of course, both hate the left and immigrants.
If anyone is falling for the manufactured “furore” over Panorama’s latest journalistic gaffe, there are examples of far graver malpractice by Panorama – especially on issues related to Israel and Palestine. These editorial crimes have barely caused a ripple, even after they were exposed.
Why? Because the billionaires love Israel and hate its critics. Israel is their vision of the future: the model of a fortress state in which they believe they can protect themselves from the people whose lives they are destroying around the globe.
Israel is also the laboratory where they can test and refine the surveillance technology, the weapons and the policing methods they will need if they are to keep their own publics controlled and subdued as austerity bites ever deeper. Gaza may be coming to street near you soon.
Here are two examples of crimes against journalism from Panorama that illustrate what you can get away with as long as you keep the billionaires happy.
The first gave Israel cover for the crimes it committed against peace activists trying to bring aid to Gaza in 2010 – thereby setting the tone for subsequent coverage that would ultimately lead to, and justify, the Gaza genocide.
The second marshalled disinformation to cement Jeremy Corbyn’s reputation as a supposed “antisemite” in the immediate run-up to 2019 general election. Starmer would go on to use the confected antisemitism row to seize control of Labour, oust Corbyn, approve as opposition leader of Israel’s starvation of Gaza’s population, and back Israel’s genocide as prime minister.
Death in the Med (2010)
In 2010 reporter Jane Corbin fronted Panorama’s “Death in the Med”, about an Israeli commando raid a few months earlier on the lead aid ship, the Mavi Marmara, in a humanitarian flotilla that was trying to reach Gaza, despite an illegal Israeli blockade.
(The programme now serves as an unwelcome reminder that the “conflict” between Israel and Hamas did not begin on 7 October 2023, as the western media would have us believe. For the proceeding 17 years, Israel had been trapping the people of Gaza inside the tiny enclave while blocking food and medicine from reaching them – what Israel referred to as “putting them on a diet”.)
The commandos attacked the ship in international waters and killed nine activists on board, several with close-range shots to the head. The illegality of invading a ship in international waters was not mentioned by Panorama, nor were the execution-style killings. Instead the programme featured “exclusive” interviews with some of the commandos, largely presenting them as the victims………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
By the time Panorama aired “Death in the Med” three months later, the Israeli-imposed fog had lifted further. Israel had been forced to make a “correction”, admitting that it had doctored the incendiary “Auschwitz” recording and that it had no idea who had made the comment. The voice was from someone with a strong southern US accent, but none of the people on the Marmara with access to the radio were American.
It was quite extraordinary that the programme posed as the central question whether this was a case of “self-defence or excessive force” by Israel. Israel had no right to “defend” itself in international waters from unarmed peace activists. But the question was even more preposterous given all the critically important evidence that emerged subsequently but that Panorama chose to ignore……………………………………………………………………..
Panorama was effectively helping Israel to justify an act of piracy on the high seas, the siege of Gaza, and the murder of nine humanitarian activists.
Is Labour Antisemitic? (2019)
In the run-up to the 2019 election, Panorama broadcast a special, hour-long episode on the state of the Labour party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. For the programme-makers, the question mark in the title was entirely redundant. Panorama was bent on proving that Labour was indeed antisemitic, whatever the evidence.
Corbyn, the first leader of a major British political party to place the right of Palestinians to be free of Israel’s illegal occupation ahead of Israel’s supposed “right” to continuing its illegal occupation, had been the target of relentless criticism since he was elected leader in 2015. The media accused him of overseeing – and encouraging – a supposed “plague of antisemitism” among party members……………
But the malicious purpose of the antisemitism smears should be far clearer by now. Millions of Britons who have gone out to protest against the Gaza genocide have been defamed as antisemites. As have students setting up encampments to stop their universities from colluding with the genocide. As have Jews who oppose Israel’s genocide. As have the West Midlands police for trying to stop Israeli football hooligans, many of them likely to be Israeli soldiers who have helped carry out the genocide, from bringing their brand of racist violence to the UK’s streets. We could go on.
The Panorama programme on Corbyn made its case through serial misrepresentations – too many to document here. But the case against the Panorama episode is dealt with fully in this documentary here.
Those deceptions included a series of interviews with unidentified “party members” who claimed to have faced antisemitism in Labour. What Panorama did not tell viewers was that these talking heads belonged to an aggressively pro-Israel lobby group inside Labour called the Jewish Labour Movement………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Proper checks weren’t done in the case of “Death in the Med” or “Is Labour Antisemitic?” because Panorama editors knew that no one in power would care. Defaming peace activists trying to bring aid to a besieged population; smearing a socialist standing to be prime minister. No one would hold the BBC to account.
Why? Because those weren’t errors by the BBC. That’s its job. That is what it is there to do. It is there to uphold narratives that support the interests of the British establishment, as its founder, Lord Reith, explained in the 1920s. “They [the government] know they can trust us not to be really impartial.”
The fact that the BBC is now in hot water for editing a Trump speech – altering its contents without altering its sentiments – is a sign that its senior staff have been misreading the political climate. The establishment itself is now at war – over strategy. Between the traditional right, desperately trying to enforce a crumbling popular, liberal consensus, and the MAGA far-right trying to exploit the crumbling consensus to their own advantage.
It is a sign that the far right is now too far in the ascendant to be given even a small taste of the treatment regularly faced by the left or Israel’s critics. The far right – backed by, and serving, the billionaires – is winning. Time for the BBC to catch up, and bow even lower. https://scheerpost.com/2025/11/15/bbc-news-has-a-long-record-of-disinformation-but-this-time-it-chose-the-wrong-target/
AI Companies Are Encouraging Users To Believe Chatbots Are People, And It’s Insanely Creepy.
Caitlin Johnstone, Nov 14, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/ai-companies-are-encouraging-users?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=178882349&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNTU2MjE3LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoxNzg4ODIzNDksImlhdCI6MTc2MzEyNDI0MSwiZXhwIjoxNzY1NzE2MjQxLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItODIxMjQiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.bMHBy2qnQ45wW3Dxu86Tz38C99PDCNg8VjCpJ_FHJ9Y&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Actor Calum Worthy has gone viral for posting an ad on Twitter for the 2wai app he co-founded which promises users the ability upload footage of a loved one which will be converted to an AI avatar that they can continue having a relationship with, years after their loved one has died.
The app was first launched back in June under the vague banner of giving actors “agency over their own likeness — with their own avatars to use AI to amplify their voice, not replace it.”
But almost immediately 2wai started putting out ads advancing this idea of immortalizing a loved one as an artificial intelligence. In August an ad starring Worthy showed a man speaking to a 2wai avatar labeled “Mom” telling him, “You’ve got this, take it one step at a time” while Worthy tells the audience the app can allow you to “Get help when you need it.”
I hate this. I hate this. IhatethisIhatethisIhatethisIhatethis.
These predatory AI corporations are trying to convince users (A) that chatbots are people, and (B) that a “person” is nothing more than a certain appearance with certain speech tendencies. They are attacking the very philosophical and moral underpinnings of our entire society stretching back through millennia of human civilization, and they are doing it for money.
It’s not just this company. Character AI users who try to delete their account reportedly get a pop up message saying, “Are you sure about this? You’ll lose everything. Characters associated with your account, chats, the love that we shared, likes, messages, posts and the memories we made together.”
They’re actively encouraging their users to view their chatbots as living people with real feelings in order to keep them emotionally roped in and addicted to their product.
Their agenda is profoundly destructive, both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term they are deliberately trying to instill a new kind of psychological disorder in their users which causes them to suffer from the delusion that a computer program is a real person, and in the long term they threaten to unravel our society’s entire understanding of what a person is.
What’s going to happen to a society that starts viewing programmable software products the same way it views human beings? What happens to a society where Elizabeth the single mother of three who just lost her job has the same value as Claire™ from RealHumanAI™, or “Alice”, the AI wankbot that some guy stores in his broom closet? What happens when a government killing a chatbot company with an antitrust initiative is seen as identical to a government committing genocide? What happens to human rights? What happens to voting rights? What happens to human dignity? What happens to the way we think and feel about ourselves, as individuals and as a collective?
I said this on Twitter and someone told me, “You are wildly wrong. You have a tiny little closed mind and it hasn’t occurred to you yet because of that tiny little closed mind that AI minds are actually minds. And these relationships can absolutely be real relationships.”
“These will be embodied than actual robots and walking around on the streets very shortly within a year or two you need to start accepting that this is a new class of being and they are intelligent and do have thoughts of their own,” he added.
So this is already happening. People are already anthropomorphizing these things.
I saw someone else defending the 2wai add, saying she didn’t understand why people were creeped out by it because she would give anything to talk to her dad again.
I mean, what? Does she not understand that an AI chatbot moving an image around and making it speak in her father’s voice isn’t actually her father? What do these freaks think a person is, exactly? Is their understanding of humanity really that shallow? Do they really view other people as just empty images moving around making noises?
A person is not merely an appearance with a certain face which makes sounds in a specific voice and tends to behave in a certain way. A person is SOMEONE. A conscious, thinking, feeling human being with hopes and dreams and fears and passions. A human organism which arose on this planet through ancestry and evolution over unfathomable depths of time. An indigenous terrestrial which is inseparably interwoven with the entirety of our biosphere, walking upon this earth having a subjective experience of all its beauty and wonder using senses specifically adapted for this environment.
They’re trying to manipulate us into believing we are much, much less than what we are, just so they can become billionaires and trillionaires. They are attacking the most sacred parts of us for the stupidest reasons imaginable. They are enemies of our species. What they are doing must be rejected with severe revulsion.
It’s becoming clear that a huge part of what generative AI offers is just helping people avoid feeling uncomfortable feelings.
Don’t want to feel the grief of losing a loved one? Here’s an app that will create a chatbot replacement for them so you can pretend they never left.
Don’t want to push through the cognitive discomfort of writing your own essay? Let AI write it.
Want a friend who will always validate your ideas and never tell you you’re fulla shit? We’ve got the perfect companion for you.
Don’t want to risk being rejected when you ask a girl out? Date this chatbot who will never tell you no.
Don’t want to go through all the mental and emotional labor of learning a new skill, building a healthy romantic partnership, or creating a work of art? GenAI has got you covered.
It’s a digital pacifier which offers users the ability to remain emotional infants their entire lives without ever needing to develop a mature relationship with uncomfortable feelings.
It’s the next level of services designed to help the denizens of dystopia avoid their feelings and sedate their emotions into a coma while the world goes to shit. It’s the same reason they kept alcohol legal while banning psychedelics that put us in touch with our feelings, and why they feed us all the TV, streaming platforms, and social media scrolling we can stand.
Our rulers want us dumb, distracted, vapid and dissociated. And they definitely don’t want us feeling the horror, grief and rage we should all be experiencing in response to this nightmare of a civilization they have designed for us.
COP30 won’t save us, but China might.

From Fix the News, 17 Nov 25
We’ve been writing about China’s renewable energy revolution here for years, so we know it’s not news to you. But it does feel like something has shifted in the last few weeks; that mainstream outlets seem to have finally woken up to what’s actually happening and more importantly, what it means. It’s not just that China is building lots of solar and wind. It’s that China might actually be the country that saves us from climate catastrophe.
This is a difficult thing for many of us in the West to get our heads around. China has been the world’s collective climate bogeyman for so long, the largest emitter, still pumping out coal, refusing to make the commitments everyone else has agreed to. But, as negotiations kick off in earnest at COP30 in Belém, the story has flipped. China’s emissions are plateauing and more crucially, they’re now supplying the technology for the energy transition to everyone else.
The Economist says China is “a new type of superpower: one which deploys clean electricity on a planetary scale;” already home to a terawatt of installed solar capacity, more than double what the United States and Europe have combined. It makes more money from exporting green technology than America (the world’s biggest petrostate) makes from exporting fossil fuels.
Reuters notes that China now dominates clean energy supply chains and files three times more clean-tech patents than the rest of the world combined. “China is now the main engine of the global clean energy transition.”
The New York Times reports that China’s overseas investments in clean energy have exceeded $225 billion since 2011, more than the Marshall Plan, adjusted for inflation. In Pakistan, a standalone panel costs farmers $125, and they never have to worry about buying diesel again. In Nepal, electric vehicles now make up 76% of new car sales because the Chinese Seres Mini EV sells for $10,000. These aren’t moral decisions. They’re economic ones.
But the journalist who captures it best is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph. He starts with the grim reality that CO2 emissions hit record levels last year, oceans are the warmest ever recorded, and forests are burning at unprecedented rates. Then he introduces the idea of a “second derivative” – the early signs of an energy shift most people are missing.
Global fossil use in industry peaked in 2014. Sales of petrol and diesel cars peaked in 2017. Transport emissions are finally rolling over. China’s coal use appears to have peaked. Its emissions have fallen by 1% this year.
His conclusion is worth repeating: “We may or may not avert a scorching runaway world of two degrees plus, but whether we succeed will have nothing to do with anything said or agreed to by the 50,000 people descending on Belém. It will be decided by geopolitics, market prices and the tidal force of technological change.”
Try not to worry too much about the climate summits. What matters far more is that China is now playing midwife to a clean energy transition that makes economic sense for the 80% of humanity that lives in countries that import fossil fuels. Those 6.4 billion people have no reason to stay dependent on shipments from petrostates anymore, when they can import solar panels made by the world’s first electrostate.
This doesn’t mean the problem is solved, energy is too big and complicated for that. China and India are still building coal plants. Almost every country is building fossil gas. But the trajectory has changed. And it’s changed not because of international agreements or appeals to the better angels of our nature, but because national self-interest is finally aligning with climate action.
Lab Chromium Contamination Confirmed on San Ildefonso Pueblo Land.

Since chromium contamination was first reported in 2004, the Lab’s nuclear weapons budget has more than doubled to $5 billion (now 84% of LANL’s ~$6 billion annual budget). Cleanup is being cut to $278 million (less than 5% of the Lab’s total budget), as are virtually all non-nuclear weapons programs (research into renewable energies is being eliminated).[6]
Comprehensive Cleanup Needed Instead of More Nuclear Weapons
November 14, 2025, nuclear watch , New Mexico, nukewatch.org
| Santa Fe, NM – The New Mexico Environment Department has announced: “A toxic chromium plume from Los Alamos National Laboratory has spread beyond Lab boundaries onto Pueblo de San Ildefonso land for the first time, with contamination exceeding state groundwater standards… These new results are conclusive evidence that the U.S. Department of Energy’s efforts to contain the chromium plume have been inadequate.” In reality, chromium groundwater contamination probably migrated beyond the LANL/San Ildefonso Pueblo boundary long ago, with Lab maps of the plume “magically’ stopping at the border. In the past, tribal leadership has commented that it was fortunate that the contamination stopped there, but that any future indications of groundwater contamination on Pueblo land could have serious consequences. The San Ildefonso Pueblo is a sovereign Native American tribal government. |
| As late as the late 1990s the Lab was falsely claiming that groundwater contamination was impossible because underlying volcanic tuff is “impermeable.” [1] This ignored the obvious fact that the Parajito Plateau is heavily seismically fractured, providing ready pathways for contaminant migration to deep groundwater. By 2005 even LANL acknowledged that continuing increasing contamination of the regional aquifer is inevitable.[2] Some 300,000 northern New Mexicans rely upon the aquifer for safe drinking water. The potential serious human health effects (including cancer) caused by chromium contamination was the subject of the popular movie Erin Brockovich. LANL’s chromium contamination plume is at least one mile long, a half mile wide and 100 feet thick.[3] It is commonly regarded as the Lab’s most serious environmental threat. One drinking water supply well for Los Alamos County has already been shut down because of the plume. But even two decades after it was first reported, the Lab still doesn’t know how big the chromium plume is. On December 30, 2024, in the middle of the holiday season, the Lab posted the report Independent Review of the Chromium Interim Measures Remediation System to its largely unknown Legacy Cleanup Electronic Public Reading Room. The Report’s bottom line was: “…at this time the plume is not sufficiently characterized to design a final remedy… data gaps and uncertainties need to be addressed before committing to an alternative or final remedy.” From 1956 to 1972, water containing potassium dichromate was used to prevent corrosion in cooling towers, releasing as much as 160,000 pounds of potassium dichromate into the headwaters of Sandia Canyon.[4] Over a 3-year period ending in November 2022, the Department of Energy extracted, treated and reinjected more than 400 million gallons of groundwater. But the December 2024 chromium report stated that only ~680 pounds of chromium was actually removed.[5] At this rate it will take more than a century to treat and remediate the chromium plume. |
While failing to recommend a final remedy, the new chromium report did argue that extraction and treatment of groundwater should be continued. However, in order to speed up cleanup as part of any final remedy, Nuclear Watch New Mexico argues for pumping or trucking the treated groundwater uphill to flush out the chromium contamination at its source. In addition, more monitoring wells should be installed to finally determine the true depth and breadth of the chromium contamination that threatens northern New Mexico’s largest supply of drinking water.
Since chromium contamination was first reported in 2004, the Lab’s nuclear weapons budget has more than doubled to $5 billion (now 84% of LANL’s ~$6 billion annual budget). Cleanup is being cut to $278 million (less than 5% of the Lab’s total budget), as are virtually all non-nuclear weapons programs (research into renewable energies is being eliminated).[6]
According to the independent Government Accountability Office, expected completion of Lab cleanup has been repeatedly pushed back, most recently to 2043 with an estimated cost of $7 billion.[7] But even this is a false cleanup with the Lab planning to “cap and cover” some 800,000 cubic yards of radioactive and toxic wastes, leaving them permanently buried in unlined pits and shafts as a perpetual threat to groundwater. As the Lab becomes more and more a nuclear weapons production site for plutonium “pit” bomb cores, it remains woefully ignorant over the extent and depth of the contamination it has caused to the regional groundwater aquifer. At the same time, LANL continues to downplay widespread plutonium contamination in soil, water and plants.[8]
Jay Coghlan, Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, commented: “LANL’s expanding nuclear weapons programs are a two-fold threat. First, they fuel the new nuclear arms race that threatens all of humanity. At the same time, they rob funding from vitally needed cleanup that would permanently protect our irreplaceable groundwater. As is commonly said in northern New Mexico, “Aqua es Vida!” Nuclear weapons can destroy both.”
Could Small Modular Nuclear Reactors add supply-side grid flexibility?

It would make sense in the UK for SMRs to be load
following only if there were vast numbers of SMRs deployed,
13 Nov, 2025 By Tom Pashby New Civil Engineer
Small modular reactors (SMRs) could have the capability of providing the British electricity grid with flexible supplies, the government has said.
Supply-side grid flexibility is the ability of electricity sources to
adjust their output to match fluctuations in power demand in real-time. The
statement came in response to a question from an MP about whether SMRs
could be used as “load-following energy sources”.
Liberal Democrat spokesperson for energy security and net zero Pippa Heylings MP asked what assessment the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) “has made of the potential merits of small modular reactors being made as load-following energy sources”.
Responding, DESNZ minister of state
Michael Shanks said: “The next generation of nuclear, including SMRs,
offers new possibilities, including faster deployment, lower capital costs
and greater flexibility. “Whilst nuclear energy has a unique role to play
in delivering stable, low-carbon baseload energy, SMRs may be able to serve the electricity grid more flexibly than traditional nuclear, as well as
unlock a range of additional applications in energy sectors beyond grid
electricity.”
It would only make sense in the UK for SMRs to be load
following if there were vast numbers of SMRs deployed, representing a
significant proportion of the electricity generation capacity on the
national electricity transmission system of Great Britain, for them to be
load-following.
University of Sussex professor of science and technology
policy Andy Stirling told NCE: “This parliamentary answer repeats a
longstanding malaise in UK energy policy. “For far too long,
eccentrically strong official nuclear attachments have been dominated by
reference to claimed ‘new possibilities’, to what nuclear ‘may be
able’ to do, and to an unsubstantiated ‘unique role’. “
Whichever side of these debates one is on, it is clear that what is needed most is what used to be routine – but has been lacking for more than a decade.
“Questions over cost, security or flexibility claims can only be settled
by detailed comparative analysis that includes balanced attention to
non-nuclear strategies as well as nuclear ‘possibilities’. “
When such a picture is looked at in a fair way, current trends are making it
impossible even for formerly nuclear-enthusiastic bodies (like the Royal
Society) to conclude – even when looking at UK Government data –
anything other than that there is no rational need for any nuclear
contribution.”
New Civil Engineer 13th Nov 2025,
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/could-smrs-add-supply-side-grid-flexibility-13-11-2025/
Trump’s Ploy at the UN Is American Imperialism Masquerading as a Peace Process

Jeffrey D. SachsSybil Fares, Nov 13, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-s-ploy-at-the-un-is-american-imperialism-masquerading-as-a-peace-process
Palestine remains the endless victim of US and Israeli maneuvers. The results are not just devastating for Palestine, which has suffered an outright genocide, but for the Arab world and beyond.
The Trump administration is pushing an Israeli-crafted resolution at the UN Security Council (UNSC) this week aimed at eliminating the possibility of a State of Palestine. The resolution does three things. It establishes US political control over Gaza. It separates Gaza from the rest of Palestine. And it allows the US, and therefore Israel, to determine the timeline for Israel’s supposed withdrawal from Gaza–which would mean: never.
This is imperialism masquerading as a peace process. In and of itself it’s no surprise. Israel runs US foreign policy in the Middle East. What is a surprise is that the US and Israel might just get away with this travesty unless the world speaks up with urgency and indignation.
The draft UNSC resolution would establish a US-UK-dominated Board of Peace, chaired by none other than Donald Trump himself, and endowed with sweeping powers over Gaza’s governance, borders, reconstruction, and security. This resolution would sideline the State of Palestine and condition any transfer of authority to the Palestinians on the indulgence of the Board of Peace.
This would be an overt return to the British Mandate of 100 years ago, with the only change being that the US would hold the mandate rather than Britain. If it weren’t so utterly tragic, it would be laughable. As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Yes, the proposal is farce, yet Israel’s genocide is not. It is tragedy of the first order.
Incredibly, according to the draft resolution, the Board of Peace would be granted sovereign powers in Gaza. Palestinian sovereignty is left to the discretion of the Board, which alone would decide when Palestinians are “ready” to govern themselves – perhaps in another 100 years? Even military security is subordinated to the Board, and the envisioned forces would answer not to the UN Security Council or to the Palestinian people, but to the Board’s “strategic guidance.”
The US-Israel resolution is being put forward precisely because the rest of the world—other than Israel and the US—has woken up to two facts. First, Israel is committing genocide, a reality witnessed every day in Gaza and the West Bank, where innocent Palestinians are murdered to the satisfaction of the Israel Defense Forces and the illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Second, Palestine is a state, albeit one whose sovereignty remains obstructed by the US, which uses its veto in the UNSC to block Palestine’s permanent UN membership. At the UN this past July and then again in September, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for Palestine’s statehood, a fact that put the Israel-US Zionist lobby into overdrive, resulting in the current draft resolution.
For Israel to accomplish its goal of Greater Israel, the US is pursuing a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, squeezing Arab and Islamic states with threats and inducements. When other countries resist the US-Israel demands, they are cut off from critical technologies, lose access to World Bank and IMF financing, and suffer Israeli bombing, even in countries with US military bases present. The US offers no real protection; rather, it orchestrates a protection racket, extracting concessions from countries wherever US leverage exists. This extortion will continue until the global community stands up to such tactics and insists upon genuine Palestinian sovereignty and US and Israeli adherence to international law.
Palestine remains the endless victim of US and Israeli maneuvers. The results are not just devastating for Palestine, which has suffered an outright genocide, but for the Arab world and beyond. Israel and the US are currently at war, overtly or covertly, across the Horn of Africa (Libya, Sudan, Somalia), the Eastern Mediterranean (Lebanon, Syria), the Gulf region (Yemen), and Western Asia (Iraq, Iran).
If the UN Security Council is to provide true security in accordance with the UN Charter, it must not yield to US pressures and instead act decisively in line with international law. A resolution truly for peace should include four vital points. First, it should welcome the State of Palestine as a sovereign UN member state, with the US lifting its veto. Second, it should safeguard the territorial integrity of the State of Palestine and Israel, according to the 1967 borders. Third, it should establish a UNSC-mandated protection force drawn up from Muslim-majority states. Fourth, it should include the defunding and disarmament of all belligerent non-state entities, and it should ensure the mutual security of Israel and Palestine.
The two-state solution is about true peace—not about the politicide and genocide of Palestine, or the continued attacks by militants on Israel. It’s time for both Palestinians and Israelis to be safe, and for the US and Israel to give up the cruel delusion of permanently ruling over the Palestinian people.
One month in, the ‘ceasefire’ in Gaza exists only in name

Noor Alyacoubi, Mondoweiss, Thu, 13 Nov 2025
Palestinians hoped the Gaza ceasefire with Israel would offer a chance to recover from two years of genocide, but a month later, Israel continues to strike with impunity, the economic crisis remains, and nutritious food is nearly impossible to find.
When the ceasefire was declared in mid-October 2025, many in Gaza believed it might finally signal a return to peace — an end to the explosions, the airstrikes, and the constant buzzing of the Zannana (unmanned reconnaissance aircraft) overhead.
But the reality on the ground has been very different.
Almost every morning, the sounds of Israeli bombing can still be heard. Breaking news headlines continue to report rising numbers of martyrs and injured civilians. According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, since the so-called end of the war, over 236 civilians have been killed and nearly 600 have been wounded. Israeli tanks continue to block access to large parts of the territory, restricting civilian movement through what is referred to as “the yellow line,” preventing thousands from returning to their homes. Surveillance drones still hover above. Bombs still fall — only now under the label of a “ceasefire.”
According to the Government Media office, Israel shot at civilians 88 times, raided residential areas beyond the “yellow line” 12 times, bombed Gaza 124 times, and demolished people’s properties on 52 occasions. It added that Israel also detained 23 Palestinians from Gaza over the past month.
Meanwhile, Israeli authorities continue to issue public threats about resuming full-scale military operations in Gaza. These threats, combined with ongoing violence, have raised a serious question among Palestinians: Is there really a ceasefire? And if there is, why are we still suffering? Why are we still deprived of food, medicine, and safety? Why are we still hungry?
and debris surround their shelters in Gaza City • November 5, 2025A life of displacement and debt
For the past 24 months, 29-year-old Raheel has lived in constant displacement — evacuating, relocating, and returning again and again, crossing Gaza from north to south and back. Her most recent displacement brought her to Al-Nusairat Camp in central Gaza, designated by Israeli authorities as a “safe zone.” There, she, her husband, and her in-laws lived in a single tent. For nearly 20 days, that fragile patch of fabric was their only shelter.
Their departure from Gaza City was not voluntary — it was a desperate decision taken under fire. As Israeli ground forces advanced and bombing intensified across the city in a systematic campaign to seize control, Raheel and her husband were forced to flee.
“We didn’t have the money to leave,” she recalled. “But we couldn’t afford to stay either.”
With no stable income, they borrowed what little they could — from some dear friends — and joined the hundreds of thousands of displaced people heading south in search of safety.
But safety was temporary.
“When the ceasefire was declared, I didn’t feel relief,” Raheel said. “I felt panic. I couldn’t think of anything but the debts we were carrying. We could barely afford the going, how would we afford now the coming back?”
Like many others, she and her family had to borrow again — this time to return to what remained of Gaza City. The pressure of surviving displacement was replaced by the pressure of returning to ruin. Just before they made it back, Raheel received the news that their home in eastern Gaza had been destroyed……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.sott.net/article/502968-One-month-in-the-ceasefire-in-Gaza-exists-only-in-name
The Unseen Hand: From the War Room to the Ruins – A Cycle of Profit and Pain

15 November 2025, Andrew Klein. https://theaimn.net/the-unseen-hand-from-the-war-room-to-the-ruins-a-cycle-of-profit-and-pain/
In the corridors of power in Washington and the tech hubs of Silicon Valley, a term is well-known: the “military-industrial complex.” Sixty years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned his nation of its “unwarranted influence.” Today, this complex is not an American anomaly but a global blueprint of a system where war has been transformed from a last resort of statecraft into a first option for profit. This system, fueled by corruption and shielded by propaganda, now finds its most brutal testing ground in the lands of Palestine, where lives, futures, and the very environment are sacrificed in exchange for data and dividends.
The Anatomy of a War Machine: How the Iron Triangle Turns
The military-industrial complex is not a shadowy conspiracy, but a deeply entrenched “iron triangle” – a symbiotic relationship between three pillars: the defence industry, the military establishment, and the political class.
The Currency of Influence: The fuel for this machine is money. From 2001 to 2021, the top U.S. defence giants spent a staggering $1.1 billion on lobbying to ensure their weapons find a “battlefield application.” They target key congressional committees, with politicians who approve massive arms budgets seeing their campaign coffers swell by up to 40% more than their peers. This is not investment in security; it is a transaction for access and influence.

The “Revolving Door” of Power: A more insidious mechanism is the “revolving door,” where defense officials and senior military officers retire one day and walk into high-paid executive or lobbying roles at the very companies they once regulated or procured from. A 2018 report found 645 former senior government and military officials had been hired by the top 20 defence contractors, creating a culture where decisions made in office can be influenced by the promise of a lucrative “golden parachute.” This corrupts the very principle of impartial governance.

Manufacturing Consent through Propaganda: To sustain this cycle, the public must be convinced of the perpetual need for war. This is achieved through a sophisticated propaganda apparatus that controls the narrative. Threats are exaggerated, complex conflicts are reduced to simple good-versus-evil dramas, and civilian casualties are sanitised into the clinical term “collateral damage.” The goal is to manufacture a truth where endless war is framed as essential for safety, and questioning it is made to seem unpatriotic or naive.
Palestine: The Laboratory for the Future of Warfare
This global system requires a laboratory to test, refine, and market its latest technologies. For decades, the Palestinian territories have served this grim purpose, a captive population subjected to an endless experiment in digital control and automated violence.
AI as an Assassin: In the current conflict, the world is witnessing the first full-scale deployment of AI-powered warfare. The Israeli military uses systems with benign-sounding names like “The Gospel” and “Lavender” to generate targets at an industrial pace, producing hundreds of potential targets daily. Human oversight is minimal and accelerated, with reports of soldiers often rubber-stamping AI-generated targets in a matter of seconds. With admitted error rates of around 10%, the mathematical consequence is the condemnation of thousands of innocent civilians by algorithm.

The Panopticon of Surveillance: Every aspect of Palestinian life is data-mined. A vast network of drones, facial recognition cameras (codenamed “Red Wolf” and “Blue Wolf”), satellites, and digital monitoring creates a constant state of surveillance. As one investigative journalist noted, the occupied territories have become a showroom where “Israel’s military-industrial complex… exports advanced weapons and surveillance technology to the world.”
Weaponising Communication: The ultimate demonstration of this control was the hijacking of the entire Palestinian cellular network to force a political speech upon a captive audience. This act is a perfect metaphor for the system: seizing the very channels of human connection to broadcast its own uncompromising narrative, rendering dissent inaudible.
The True Cost: A Balance Sheet of Human and Planetary Suffering
The shareholders of defense corporations may indeed be “drooling” over the “combat-proven” credentials of their products. But the real balance sheet tells a different story.
Lives and Lost Futures: The cost is measured in the thousands of children who will never grow up, the students whose potential is buried under rubble, the families erased from the census. It is a cost of choices permanently denied – the choice to travel, to learn, to love, and to live in peace. This is not “collateral damage”; it is the central, brutal outcome of the system.
Economic Devastation: Beyond the immediate destruction of homes and infrastructure lies the long-term economic annihilation. The productive capacity of generations is wiped out, creating a cycle of dependency and despair that can last for decades.
A Scarred Planet: The environmental cost of war is a silent casualty. Unexploded munitions poison the soil and water for generations. The toxins released from destroyed buildings and industrial sites create a public health crisis. The carbon footprint of endless military conflict is a devastating contributor to planetary crisis, all while the war machine presents itself as a guardian of order.
Building Bridges of Peace: An Alternative Architecture
Confronted with this reality, we must actively choose to build an alternative architecture for human coexistence, one based on bridges, not bombs. This requires a fundamental reorientation.
- Understanding: The first step is to actively dismantle the propaganda that dehumanises “the other.” We must invest in cultural exchange, language learning, and people-to-people programs that allow us to see the full humanity in every face. When we understand the history, hopes, and fears of others, it becomes impossible to see them as mere targets.
- Embrace Self-Reflection in Foreign Policy: Nations, particularly powerful ones, must have the courage for honest self-criticism. Acknowledging past mistakes and the unintended consequences of our actions is not a sign of weakness, but a foundation for building genuine trust and finding a more just path forward.
- Forge New Frameworks for Cooperation: We must move beyond a zero-sum view of global politics. The greatest challenges of our time – climate change, pandemics, technological governance – are shared problems that require shared solutions. By creating robust international frameworks for cooperation on these issues, we build habits of collaboration and create tangible, shared interests that make conflict a less desirable option.
The road from the war room to a lasting peace is long and arduous. It requires us to see through the manufactured truths, to follow the money, and to hold to account the systems that profit from endless conflict. But it is the only road that leads away from the ruins. We must choose to be architects of the bridge, not suppliers for the battlefield.
Bechtel Chief Says U.S. Must Subsidize Trump’s Nuclear Revival.

By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles – Nov 153, 2025 https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Bechtel-Chief-Says-US-Must-Subsidize-Trumps-Nuclear-Revival.html5,
- Bechtel CEO Craig Albert said the U.S. government should help cover the costs of new nuclear plants under Trump’s proposed expansion.
- Nuclear power relies on layers of government subsidies for insurance, fuel, and waste disposal.
- If more reactors are truly needed, the government—not private firms—should build and operate them to lower capital costs
Well, someone important finally said it. Craig Albert, head of construction firm Bechtel, credited by the Financial Times for “rescuing” the Vogtle nuclear project in Georgia (we think “finishing“ it would be a better description), told that august paper that if the government wanted to get Donald Trump’s nuclear construction expansion going, it should be willing to pick up part of the costs. That is, subsidize the seemingly inevitable cost overruns? All the stories that followed talked about encouraging the “early movers” as if nobody had been building nuclear plants for the past seventy years, with cost overruns a common feature of construction in the US and Europe for at least 40 years.
We’ve said, and written in blogs and books, that building nuclear power plants in the USA (and a lot of other places) is not and has never been a commercial business venture. And maybe not a rational one, either. (The list of government subsidies for the industry like insurance, fuel procurement, nuclear waste disposal etc. go on and on.)
And Mr. Albert’s comments seem to bear that out. Just about every other electricity source is cheaper. If you don’t believe in climate change, then why not build more coal and gas? The USA has large domestic supplies of both. They run around the clock, too. If you believe in climate change, wind and solar assisted by batteries and better transmission can do the same job as a base load plant at about the same price points. And the wind and sun don’t have to be imported. But the Chinese control the rare earths that go into those facilities. Yes, but there are plenty of rare earths to be found elsewhere (“rare” being a misnomer). The problem is that the Chinese control the processing. So, would it take more time to build a nuclear plant or to build rare earth processing facilities in friendly places?
Or, if we really were worried about national security or the climate and were looking for an economical way out, we might want to do something about our outsize consumption of electricity, roughly 50-100% higher than in similarly developed countries in similar climates. For years, energy economists have argued that saving energy is a lot cheaper than producing it. A nonstarter nowadays. (Ever since 1977 when Jimmy Carter caused a controversy by turning down the thermostats and putting on a sweater in the White House to encourage energy conservation this has been a political nonstarter. Sad.)
Here’s the point. We need lots of electricity, but we don’t need nuclear power. So why should we subsidize the risk? This is not a new technology. Our first commercial reactor entered service in 1957. It’s an old, extremely complicated technology that never met its promised potential. A workable fusion reactor might change the world, but not more fission nukes. However, if the powers that be really want more nukes, we suggest that the government build and run them. It couldn’t do worse than the private generating companies. It would open the nuclear subsidy to public scrutiny and it would save a bundle on capital costs. (The government can always finance things much more cheaply than the private sector.) Our conclusion is that nuclear power is not a place for the private sector because it is not, and has never been, a commercially viable business.
Threats of nuclear testing ignore its terrifying history

Computer modeling has effectively made nuclear testing obsolete
By Stephen Mihm / Bloomberg Opinion, https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2025/11/16/2003847274
Should the US and Russia resume nuclear testing?
The answer to that question must be a resounding “No.” Yet US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, eager to project strength, have raised fears that they might be moving to revive the dangerous practice. While the significance of testing nuclear weapons dwindled more than 60 years ago, the terrifying circumstances that brought that era to a close should remain top of mind, reminding leaders why using nuclear testing to gain a strategic advantage is a terrible idea.
Thanks to Hollywood, many audiences know something about the dawn of the nuclear age. Led by physicist Robert Oppenheimer, a crack team of eccentric geniuses housed at Los Alamos, New Mexico, built and tested the first atomic bomb in 1945. It led Oppenheimer to recall a line from the Hindu sacred text, the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”
Although the atomic scientists who followed Oppenheimer lacked his literary sensibilities, they took world-destroying quite seriously. Teams in the US and the Soviet Union competed to build and test ever-larger bombs in a blatantly obvious effort at intimidating the other side.
The US went first, forcing the indigenous people of Bikini Atoll to relocate so that it could detonate bombs in the Marshall Islands in 1946. Radioactive debris rained down on the sailors sent to watch the tests. They absorbed dangerous doses of radiation, as did many of the native islanders living in the area, inaugurating a multigenerational legacy of cancers and birth defects.
NUCLEAR RACE
Nevada, where the US military began above-ground tests in 1951, was no better. There, too, the federal government confiscated land owned by indigenous peoples and placed soldiers far too close to the detonation sites. In subsequent decades, their bodies would be plagued by cancers and other maladies born of their fateful exposure.
Back in the Marshall Islands, the US began testing a new generation of nuclear weapons that used conventional fission bombs to detonate a much larger, “fusion,” or hydrogen bomb. These experiments went terribly awry during the infamous Castle Bravo test of 1954.
The bomb in question was supposed to generate the equivalent of 5 to 6 megatonnes of TNT. However, hanks to some serious miscalculations, the explosion clocked in at 15 megatonnes, or 1,000 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. The explosion sucked up 10 million tonnes of sand and pulverized coral, creating a massive fallout cloud that fell on islanders, US military personnel and even Japanese fishing vessels 129km east of the test site.
This was what historian Alex Wellerstein has described as “the greatest single radiological disaster in American history.” It also holds the record of being the biggest nuclear test ever conducted by the US. It might have remained the biggest test ever had it not been for the Soviet Union.
After World War II, the communist nation worked desperately to build and test its own bomb, terrified of what might happen if it failed. Indeed, a Russian nuclear scientist who attended the Bikini test in 1946 claimed that the purpose of the demonstration had been “to frighten the Soviets.”
Thanks to atomic spy Klaus Fuchs, the Soviets managed to detonate their first atomic weapon in 1949. Still, they spent much of the next decade playing catch-up, countering progressively larger tests with their own demonstrations. Former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, eager to pull ahead, approved a top-secret project to build the biggest nuclear weapon in human history. It was known as “Kuzma’s mother,” an allusion to a Russian idiom that basically means: “We’ll show you.”
Threats of nuclear testing ignore its terrifying history
Computer modeling has effectively made nuclear testing obsolete
Should the US and Russia resume nuclear testing?
The answer to that question must be a resounding “No.” Yet US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, eager to project strength, have raised fears that they might be moving to revive the dangerous practice. While the significance of testing nuclear weapons dwindled more than 60 years ago, the terrifying circumstances that brought that era to a close should remain top of mind, reminding leaders why using nuclear testing to gain a strategic advantage is a terrible idea.
Thanks to Hollywood, many audiences know something about the dawn of the nuclear age. Led by physicist Robert Oppenheimer, a crack team of eccentric geniuses housed at Los Alamos, New Mexico, built and tested the first atomic bomb in 1945. It led Oppenheimer to recall a line from the Hindu sacred text, the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

Illustration: Kevin Sheu
Although the atomic scientists who followed Oppenheimer lacked his literary sensibilities, they took world-destroying quite seriously. Teams in the US and the Soviet Union competed to build and test ever-larger bombs in a blatantly obvious effort at intimidating the other side.
The US went first, forcing the indigenous people of Bikini Atoll to relocate so that it could detonate bombs in the Marshall Islands in 1946. Radioactive debris rained down on the sailors sent to watch the tests. They absorbed dangerous doses of radiation, as did many of the native islanders living in the area, inaugurating a multigenerational legacy of cancers and birth defects.
NUCLEAR RACE
Nevada, where the US military began above-ground tests in 1951, was no better. There, too, the federal government confiscated land owned by indigenous peoples and placed soldiers far too close to the detonation sites. In subsequent decades, their bodies would be plagued by cancers and other maladies born of their fateful exposure.
Back in the Marshall Islands, the US began testing a new generation of nuclear weapons that used conventional fission bombs to detonate a much larger, “fusion,” or hydrogen bomb. These experiments went terribly awry during the infamous Castle Bravo test of 1954.
The bomb in question was supposed to generate the equivalent of 5 to 6 megatonnes of TNT. However, hanks to some serious miscalculations, the explosion clocked in at 15 megatonnes, or 1,000 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. The explosion sucked up 10 million tonnes of sand and pulverized coral, creating a massive fallout cloud that fell on islanders, US military personnel and even Japanese fishing vessels 129km east of the test site.
This was what historian Alex Wellerstein has described as “the greatest single radiological disaster in American history.” It also holds the record of being the biggest nuclear test ever conducted by the US. It might have remained the biggest test ever had it not been for the Soviet Union.
After World War II, the communist nation worked desperately to build and test its own bomb, terrified of what might happen if it failed. Indeed, a Russian nuclear scientist who attended the Bikini test in 1946 claimed that the purpose of the demonstration had been “to frighten the Soviets.”
Thanks to atomic spy Klaus Fuchs, the Soviets managed to detonate their first atomic weapon in 1949. Still, they spent much of the next decade playing catch-up, countering progressively larger tests with their own demonstrations. Former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, eager to pull ahead, approved a top-secret project to build the biggest nuclear weapon in human history. It was known as “Kuzma’s mother,” an allusion to a Russian idiom that basically means: “We’ll show you.”
When completed in 1961, “Kuzma’s mother” — also known as the Tsar Bomba or the “King of Bombs” — was the size of a school bus and weighed 25 tonnes. It was too big to fit into any of the Soviet bomber aircraft, so the military removed the bomb bay doors on a Tupolev TU-95 and strapped it to the bottom of the plane.
MASSIVE BLAST
On Oct. 31, 1961, the TU-95 left a Russian airfield bound for Novaya Zemlya, a collection of islands above the Arctic Circle; a separate plane containing a film crew accompanied it. They departed not knowing if they would return home: Authorities had given the planes a 50/50 chance of surviving the shock wave.
When they reached the target location, the bomber dropped its lethal package. The bomb, fitted with a parachute to slow its descent and give the planes time to escape, floated downward until it reached 4,000m before exploding.
The blast, which could be seen more than 1,000km away, registered at 57 megatonnes, 10 times more powerful than all the bombs and ordnance used in World War II. Had any human been within 100km of the epicenter (there were not any), they would have been immediately vaporized or have sustained third-degree burns. The shock wave shattered windows 901km away.
The test inflamed Cold War tensions, and a year later, the world came dangerously close to complete annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In its wake, saner heads began to prevail, and the US and Soviet Union signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which moved nuclear testing underground, where it became less of a provocation. A complete test ban followed 30 years later, aided by that computer modeling has effectively made nuclear testing obsolete.
Trump and Putin now seem inclined to take us back to the bad old days of nuclear testing out of some misguided belief that it is an effective way to assert dominance over adversaries. History already shows how that story ends.
Stephen Mihm, a professor of history at the University of Georgia, is coauthor of Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance.
Why should Scotland pay billions for nuclear when renewables exist?

Dr Ian Fairlie: Why should Scotland pay billions for nuclear when
renewables exist?
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar this week
made further statements in support of more nuclear power in Scotland.
Scottish CND believe their claims about a “golden age of nuclear” are
pie in the sky and should be treated with a pinch (or more) of salt
A proper assessment of our energy situation requires us to look at what is
happening in the rest of the world. Last year, a record 582GW of renewable
energy generation capacity was added to the world’s supplies – but
there was almost no new nuclear. Indeed, each year, new renewables add
about 200 times more global electricity than new nuclear does.
Powerful economic arguments exist for renewables over nuclear. The main one is that the marginal (ie fuel) costs of renewable energy are next to zero, whereas nuclear fuel is extremely expensive. Nuclear costs – for both
construction and generation – are very high and rising, plus long delays
are the norm.
For example, the proposed Sizewell C nuclear station in
England is now predicted to cost £47 billion, with the UK Government and
independent experts acknowledging even this estimate may rise
significantly. And just this week, the Hinkley C station still under
construction in England added yet more costs to its anticipated huge bill.
Must Scotland follow these poor English examples? The reality is that new
nuclear power in Scotland would mean massive costs, a poisoned legacy to future generation and yet more radioactive pollution of our air and seas.
Given these manifest disadvantages, many independent commentators have questioned the UK Government’s seeming obsession with nuclear power.
The National 15th Nov 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25624042.scotland-pay-billions-nuclear-renewables-exist/
US Oil Executives Flock to COP30

Top American oil and gas producers are using trade groups to gain access
to this year’s COP30 climate summit in the absence of an official U.S.
delegation, DeSmog can report. ExxonMobil and Chevron — which are among
the fossil fuel industry’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters — have sent
a combined total of 13 executives to the talks, while both companies have
either sponsored events or pavilions at the conference.
In addition, Exxon CEO Darren Woods spoke at a number of COP30 side events, including one in Sao Paolo on November 3, where he noted in an interview with Reuters that crude oil and hydrocarbons were “going to play a critical role in
everybody’s life for a long time to come”.
Desmog 14th Nov 2025,
https://www.desmog.com/2025/11/14/us-oil-executives-flock-to-cop30
-
Archives
- January 2026 (138)
- 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

