The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors
The neglected factor is the military dependence on civil nuclear industries.
By funding civil nuclear projects, taxpayers and consumers cover military uses of nuclear power in subsidies and higher bills – without the added spending appearing in defence budgets
October 28, 2025, Phil Johnstone, Visiting Fellow, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex; University of Tartu; Utrecht University, Andy Stirling, Professor of Science & Technology Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex
Donald Trump’s recent visit to the UK saw a so-called “landmark partnership” on nuclear energy. London and Washington announced plans to build 20 small modular reactors and also develop microreactor technology – despite the fact no such plants have yet been built commercially anywhere in the world.
The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, promised these plans will deliver a “golden age” of nuclear energy that will also “drive down bills”. Yet the history of nuclear power has been decades of overhype, soaring costs and constant delays. Around the world, the trends point the wrong way.
So why the renewed excitement about going nuclear? The real reasons have less to do with energy security, or climate change – and far more to do with military power.
At first sight, the case may seem obvious. Nuclear supporters frame small modular reactors, or SMRs, as vital for cutting emissions, meeting rising demand for electricity from cars and data centres. With large nuclear plants now prohibitively expensive, smaller reactors are billed as an exciting new alternative.
But these days even the most optimistic industry analyses concede that nuclear – even SMRs – is unlikely to compete with renewables. One analysis in New Civil Engineer published earlier this year concluded that SMRs are “the most expensive source per kilowatt of electricity generated when compared with natural gas, traditional nuclear and renewables”.
Independent assessments – for instance by the formerly pro-nuclear Royal Society – find that 100% renewable systems outperform any energy system including nuclear on cost, flexibility and security. This helps explain why worldwide statistical analysis shows nuclear power is not generally linked to carbon emissions reductions, while renewables are.
Partly, the enthusiasm for SMRs can be explained by the loudest institutional voices tending to have formal pro-nuclear remits or interests: they include the industry itself and its suppliers, nuclear agencies, and governments with entrenched military nuclear programmes. For these interests, the only question is which kinds of nuclear reactors to develop, and how fast. They don’t wonder if we should build reactors in the first place: the need is seen as self-evident.
At least big nuclear reactors have benefited from economies of scale and decades of technological optimisation. Many SMR designs are just “powerpoint reactors”, existing only in slides and feasibility studies. Claims these unbuilt designs “will cost less” are speculative at best.
Investment markets know this. While financiers see SMR hype as a way to profit from billions in government subsidies, their own analyses are less enthusiastic about the technology itself.
So why then, all this attention to nuclear in general and smaller reactors in particular? There is clearly more to this than meets the eye.
The hidden link
The neglected factor is the military dependence on civil nuclear industries. Maintaining a nuclear armed navy or weapons programme requires constant access to generic reactor technologies, skilled workers and special materials. Without a civilian nuclear industry, military nuclear capabilities are significantly more challenging and costly to sustain.
Nuclear submarines are especially important here as they would very likely require national reactor industries and their supply chains even if there was no civil nuclear power. Barely affordable even vessel by vessel, nuclear submarines become even more expensive when the costs of this “submarine industrial base” is factored in.
Rolls-Royce is an important link here, as it already builds the UK’s submarine reactors and is set to build the newly announced civil SMRs. The company said openly in 2017 that a civil SMR programme would “relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability”.
Here, as emphasised by Nuclear Intelligence Weekly in 2020, the Rolls-Royce SMR programme has an important “symbiosis with UK military needs”. It is this dependency that allows military costs (in the words of a former executive with submarine builders BAE Systems), to be “masked” behind civilian programmes.
By funding civil nuclear projects, taxpayers and consumers cover military uses of nuclear power in subsidies and higher bills – without the added spending appearing in defence budgets.
When the UK government funded us to investigate the value of this transfer, we put it at around £5 billion per year in the UK alone. These costs are masked from public view, covered by revenues from higher electricity prices and the budgets of supposedly civilian government agencies.
This is not a conspiracy but a kind of political gravitational field. Once governments see nuclear weapons as a marker of global status, the funding and political support becomes self-perpetuating.
The result is a strange sort of circularity: nuclear power is justified by energy security and cost arguments that don’t stand up, but is in reality sustained for strategic reasons that remain unacknowledged.
A global pattern
The UK is not unique, though other nuclear powers are much more candid. US energy secretary Chris Wright described the US-UK nuclear deal as important for “securing nuclear supply chains across the Atlantic”. Around US$25 billion a year (£18.7 billion) flows from civil to military nuclear activity in the US.
Russia and China are both quite open about their own inseparable civil-military links. French president Emmanuel Macron put it clearly: “Without civilian nuclear, no military nuclear, without military nuclear, no civilian nuclear.”
Across these states, military nuclear capabilities are seen as a way to stay at the world’s “top table”. An end to their civilian programme would threaten not just jobs and energy, but their great power status.
The next frontier
Beyond submarines, the development of “microreactors” is opening up new military uses for nuclear power. Microreactors are even smaller and more experimental than SMRs. Though they can make profits by milking military procurement budgets, they make no sense from a commercial energy standpoint.
However, microreactors are seen as essential in US plans for battlefield power, space infrastructure and new “high energy” anti-drone and missile weaponry. Prepare to see them become ever more prominent in “civil” debates – precisely because they serve military goals.
Whatever view is taken of these military developments, it makes no sense to pretend they are unrelated to the civil nuclear sector. The real drivers of the recent US-UK nuclear agreement lie in military projection of force, not civilian power production. Yet this remains absent from most discussions of energy policy.
It is a crucial matter of democracy that there be honesty about what is really going on.
Roll up, roll up for your free plutonium.
The 19-25 metric tons of plutonium Trump would be redirecting into the civil nuclear sector had previously been slated for permanent disposal as nuclear waste left over from the Cold War era. Disposing of it is far cheaper than reprocessing it — $20 billion versus $49 billion according to the senators’ letter — and also isolates it from potentially falling into the wrong hands.
Trump is preparing a dangerous giveaway to struggling commercial nuclear startups, writes Linda Pentz Gunter
Imagine you are a commercial nuclear reactor startup company but you just can’t quite start up because there’s one little problem. Your “new” reactor design needs a special kind of fuel. And that fuel requires a particular ingredient: plutonium.
Plutonium is the trigger component of a nuclear bomb. The countries that developed nuclear weapons — as well as those that have reprocessed irradiated reactor fuel in order to separate the plutonium from uranium — have massive surplus piles of plutonium left over, an ever-present security threat.
Now imagine that a former board member of one of those struggling startup companies, Oklo, is Chris Wright, the current US Secretary of Energy in the Trump government. Lo and behold, all of a sudden, that same carnival barker who passes for a US president is offering your former company plutonium for free from a stockpile of close to 20 metric tons or more.
The White House has announced that it will begin revealing its lucky free plutonium recipients on December 31 based on applications received by the US Department of Energy by November 21, according to Reuters. The news agency put the plutonium surplus amount at 19.7 metric tons, although the Trump administration has suggested it has 25 tons to spare.
That amount, according to a letter sent to the Trump administration by one senator — Ed Markey — and two representatives— Don Beyer, John Garamendi — all Democrats — is enough for at least 2,000 nuclear bombs.
Dishing out plutonium “to private industry for commercial energy use,” the trio wrote in their September 10 letter, “goes against long-standing, bipartisan US nuclear security policy. It raises serious weapons proliferation concerns, makes little economic sense, and may adversely affect the nation’s defense posture.”
Markey wrote to Trump again on September 23, specifically enquiring whether it was more than just a peculiar coincidence that Wright’s former company, Oklo, would be the beneficiary of the plutonium handout.
Earlier, with his colleagues, Markey had expressed concern that “the transfer of weapons-usable plutonium to private industry would increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, including to rogue states or terrorists.”
Markey now wanted to know whether “a serious conflict of interest may exist within your Administration on this issue because the plutonium transfer will benefit Secretary of Energy Chris Wright’s former company.”
Saying that he had “questions about the propriety of the transaction,” Markey noted that in addition to the free plutonium, Trump’s Department of Energy was also supporting Oklo to build a $1.7 billion reprocessing plant in Tennessee that would enable Oklo to further extract the plutonium needed for its as yet unlicensed micro-reactors.
Markey went on to question whether the administration even cared whether or not a new Oklo-owned reprocessing plant made any sense but was instead backing the project with taxpayer money “because Oklo stands to benefit financially and Secretary Wright is acting in his former company’s interest.”
Among the eager corporations already lined up for their plutonium handouts are not only Oklo but also a foreign corporation, the now French-based but originally British nuclear company, newcleo, as well as US-based Valar Atomics, which has been criticized for developing a reactor that would not only consume but also produce plutonium.
Perhaps to celebrate the impending largesse, newcleo announced on October 20 that it has entered into a partnership with Oklo and will invest $2 billion to develop advanced nuclear fuel fabrication and manufacturing facilities.
On the very day — May 23rd —that Trump released his executive orders fast-tracking nuclear power expansion, Valar Atomics put out its own statement celebrating the news. (Do you think they’d seen the EOs in advance, or maybe even written parts of them themselves?)
Echoing the identical language repeatedly used by Trump officials, the Valar Atomics statement said: “There’s a new arm to national nuclear security: Dominance. Dominance in civilian nuclear technology development, dominance in nuclear energy infrastructure deployment, dominance in shaping global development.”
We should note here that the word “dominance” appears 35 times in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 guide to autocracy, which contains an entire section called American Energy and Science Dominance and another called Restoring American Energy Dominance.
Accordingly, we now have something called the National Energy Dominance Council, headed by Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. Burgum heralded the newcleo-Oklo deal, saying: “This agreement to implement newcleo’s advanced fuel expertise into Oklo’s powerhouses and invest $2 billion into American infrastructure and advanced fuel solutions is yet another win for President Donald J. Trump’s American Energy Dominance Agenda.”
Standing in the way of such dominance, according to Valar Atomics and others, remains the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In April, Valar Atomics had joined the states of Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Florida, and Arizona, as well as fellow reactor companies Last Energy and Deep Fission, to sue the NRC. Their beef is that, going back to the days of NRC predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, there has been an annoying insistence “to require licenses even for reactors that use small amounts of special nuclear material that have no effect on US defense and security or public health and that the NRC itself has stated do not pose public health and safety risks.”
Innovation, complains Valar Atomics, is made “virtually impossible,” by the NRC. “Their rules — created in the overreaction to the Three Mile Island incident — shuttered the nuclear industry. Simply testing a reactor prototype takes five to seven years, at best. This is not the way to foster innovation! To regain our dominance in nuclear energy, the status quo must change, quickly.”
The suit is currently under discussion for a possible resolution, given that the Trump DOE is moving fast to rein in any excessive safety oversight by the newly downsized NRC, where the mission statement now extolls the “benefits” of nuclear energy for the US public.
The 19-25 metric tons of plutonium Trump would be redirecting into the civil nuclear sector had previously been slated for permanent disposal as nuclear waste left over from the Cold War era. Disposing of it is far cheaper than reprocessing it — $20 billion versus $49 billion according to the senators’ letter — and also isolates it from potentially falling into the wrong hands. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Plutonium has no place in the civil nuclear sector. But it should have no place in our lives, period, if we really want to avoid nuclear proliferation or worse.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the founder of Beyond Nuclear and serves as its international specialist. Her book, No To Nuclear. Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War, can be pre-ordered now from Pluto Press. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/10/26/roll-up-roll-up-for-your-free-plutonium/
ATOMIC BLACKMAIL? The Weaponisation of Nuclear Facilities During the Russia-Ukraine War.
a protagonist could use long-range munitions to turn a NPP into a dirty bomb that would spread radioactive contamination over a wide area, dispersing or diverting army formations, rendering civilian infrastructure and farmland unusable, contaminating groundwater and creating a radioactive cloud that would – if the wind was blowing in a convenient direction – cause transborder harms.
Simon Ashley Bennett, https://www.libripublishing.co.uk/Products/CatID/16/ProdID=292
In Atomic Blackmail? Simon Bennett examines the very real possibility of the ‘weaponisation’ of nuclear facilities during the Russia-Ukraine War. The Russia-Ukraine War has several unique aspects, the most striking of which is that it is being fought in proximity to nuclear facilities and working nuclear power stations, including the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), Europe’s largest, and the decommissioned four-reactor Chernobyl NPP that, in 1986, suffered a catastrophic failure that released radioactive contamination across much of Europe. Some experts claim the contamination caused several thousand excess cancer deaths.
In 1985, foreign affairs and nuclear expert Bennett Ramberg published Nuclear Power Plants: An Unrecognised Military Peril, with a second edition of the book published in 1992. In his visionary discourse, Ramberg posited that in future wars, regional or global, nuclear facilities and powerplants might be weaponised, to gain political traction over an opponent and/or neutralise opposing forces’ capacity for battlefield manoeuvre.
In one scenario, Ramberg described how a protagonist could use long-range munitions to turn a NPP into a dirty bomb that would spread radioactive contamination over a wide area, dispersing or diverting army formations, rendering civilian infrastructure and farmland unusable, contaminating groundwater and creating a radioactive cloud that would – if the wind was blowing in a convenient direction – cause transborder harms. As demonstrated by the Chernobyl disaster, a reactor malfunction can generate serious and long-lasting environmental impacts. Radioactive particles released from Chernobyl’s devastated Reactor Number Four were deposited as far afield as the Cumbrian hills in north-west England.
While, at the time of writing, none of Ukraine’s fifteen reactors had been damaged in an exchange of fire, the possibility remains that this could happen during Ukraine’s 2023, and subsequent, offensives to expel Russian forces from sovereign Ukrainian territory. Much to the consternation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there have been several near-misses, with weapons fired in and around both the decommissioned Chernobyl NPP and working Zaporizhzhia NPP. Further, Russian long-range precision munitions (cruise missiles) have been tracked flying either close to, or over Ukraine’s NPPs. The Pivdennoukrainsk (South Ukraine) NPP has been overflown. On 20 September, 2022, a missile landed some 300 metres from the NPP.
While Ramberg’s nightmare vision of destroyed NPPs rendering a country uninhabitable has not, yet, been realised in the Russia-Ukraine War, the longer and more intense the conflict, the greater the likelihood that one or more of Ukraine’s NPPs will be damaged or, via a credible sabotage threat, used to leverage tactical or strategic advantage. Atomic blackmail finally exampled.
Trump’s ‘peace plan’ traps Gaza in limbo
Gaza is now trapped in the limbo of the uncertainty surrounding the Trump plan. The U.S. might prevent Netanyahu from resuming Israel’s genocide, but unless Palestinians gain full control over Gaza’s future, it’s just a slower form of killing.
Mondoweiss, By Mitchell Plitnick October 25, 2025
On Tuesday, Israeli military sources announced that, in their estimation, Hamas still has some 20-25,000 fighters, although many of them are new recruits who are not well trained. They also said Hamas still has “hundreds” of rockets, although the majority of Hamas’ arsenal is said to have been destroyed.
Retired General Giora Eiland, who still has a significant position in Israel’s military hierarchy, added that the tunnel network in Gaza is still some 80% intact.
If these estimates are true, and that is far from clear, it’s either an admission of grave failure by Israel or an admission that destroying Hamas was never the point of the genocide that Israel has committed over the past two years. Or, possibly, both.
These statements are meant to arouse a feeling in Washington and in Israel that the “job” is not yet finished and Israel must be allowed to resume its genocide.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been squirming under the weight of President Donald Trump’s imposed ceasefire since it began, even while he has been forced to present a smiling public face about it.
Netanyahu’s immediate strategy is to require Trump to keep full pressure on Israel to maintain the “ceasefire.” He is doing this with a steady stream of provocative and deadly actions. He is allowing some aid into Gaza, but not nearly enough. Israel continues to work at provoking Palestinian responses with targeted attacks and provocative actions.
On Sunday, Israel suffered losses in the Rafah area under disputed circumstances. The United States allowed some response, but sharply limited it, preventing Israel from using the incident as an excuse for abandoning the ceasefire deal.
Lest anyone mistake the Trump administration’s actions for beneficence, there was complete silence from Washington the previous day, when Israeli forces fired on a Palestinian civilian vehicle near Gaza City, wiping out a family of eleven, including seven children.
Trump has continued to accuse Hamas of breaching the ceasefire, while ignoring Israel’s actions, which have thus far led to over 100 Palestinian deaths in Gaza since the ceasefire began.
But even while Trump has continued to issue empty threats against Hamas, his administration’s actions have been aimed at restraining Israel. The dispatch of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, followed by Vice President JD Vance, and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio has had the effect of making sure that Israel is aware that the U.S. is watching and is not prepared to see this ceasefire collapse.
In a very telling episode, the Knesset voted to annex major chunks of the West Bank while Vance was in the country. This drew a sharp rebuke from the Vice President and a panicked response from Netanyahu. It is a stark contrast to Joe Biden’s meek response more than a decade ago when he visited Israel and the government announced a major new settlement while he was there. President Barack Obama was quite upset by the incident, but Biden wanted to ignore it.
Trump on Thursday warned Israel that the U.S. would no longer support Israel if it annexed the West Bank. But for Gaza, this isn’t a sustainable position. Trump is not going to maintain this kind of pressure indefinitely. He has put the annexation question to bed for some time (which just means that Israel will simply go on with its gradual annexation of the West Bank rather than the dramatic move of a formal annexation), but Gaza will require much longer-term engagement. More importantly, Trump’s “20-Point Plan” faces serious obstacles, and they are of a type that is very likely to result in the U.S. administration becoming frustrated with Hamas more than with Israel.
The danger of Hamas’ “Yes, but…”
Hamas made it clear when it agreed to the ceasefire that it was not agreeing to all of Trump’s plan. All parties understood that. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Trump has a vested interest in seeing the ceasefire endure, but what does that mean in practice?
Neither Trump nor Netanyahu is going to be willing to allow Palestinians to govern themselves, even as technocrats. Without that, there will continue to be resistance. It’s that simple
Some limited rebuilding might be contemplated, but right now, that is being used as a tool to force Hamas to comply with Trump’s demands for their disarmament and disbandment. Jared Kushner made that clear, explicitly stating that any reconstruction efforts would be concentrated in the area of Gaza that remains under Israeli control.
Yet as much as Netanyahu would like to return to the all-out slaughter, he is not going to risk Trump’s wrath to do it. But in the meantime Gaza is likely to be trapped in a nightmarish middle ground between genocide and a functioning future.
Israel will not tolerate any security role in Gaza for Türkiye, as Trump has floated. They’d much prefer that both security and governing forces in Gaza be led by the U.S. or, short of that, more pliant Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is perhaps Israel’s closest, if one of its quietest, allies in the Muslim world. Trump has already secured the participation of Indonesia and is working on Azerbaijan. ………………………………….
Gaza is now caught in the netherworld of the uncertainty of the Trump plan. While Vice President Vance says the ceasefire is “going better than expected,” it is not going anywhere for the people of Gaza.
Vance was remarking on how Israel is “complying” with Trump’s directives. That is, they are not killing so many Palestinians or doing so much shooting that the ostensible ceasefire would collapse.
But autumn is soon going to turn to winter in Gaza. There are insufficient shelters for most of the people, inadequate supplies of food and water, few heat sources, and limited means to address these issues in the short time allotted…………………………………………
The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion, issued on Wednesday, provoked an hysterical response from Washington, as it ordered Israel to cooperate with all UN agencies, including the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which Israel has falsely accused of supporting Hamas and encouraging attacks on Israel……………………….
All of this leaves the people of Gaza facing a different kind of hardship. There doesn’t seem to be any immediate rush to deploy an international force that would lead to a further Israeli withdrawal and enhanced efforts to clear the massive amounts of rubble. Without that necessary first step, reconstruction cannot truly begin in a sustainable way.
The population is cold, hungry, and facing unprecedented health crises that will go on for many years, according to the World Health Organization. While diplomats bicker, those conditions worsen……………………
Trump might prevent Netanyahu from returning to the full force of Israel’s two-year genocide, and that is still a real positive. But what the people of Gaza are facing now, with so many unanswered questions about how the Strip is to be managed, fed, supplied, and secured, carries with it its own set of threats.
It’s better than the genocide that was, but unless Palestinians are given full access to their own decisions and the tools they need to rebuild and survive until Gaza is rebuilt, it’s just a slower kind of killing. https://mondoweiss.net/2025/10/trumps-peace-plan-traps-gaza-in-limbo/
We should never have agreed to AUKUS
Albanese may come to regret his meeting with Trump, the deal and the endorsement by Trump. He may have underestimated the risk in kissing the ring of the Confidence Man.
but now he was a man of compromise, the politician who has exchanged principles for politics.
Australia should have put AUKUS on hold to let the people decide whether it should proceed. After all, we will pay for AUKUS, and we pay the salaries of the representatives of the people
By Kim Sawyer | 27 October 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-should-never-have-agreed-to-aukus,20307
Australia is paying for America’s submarines, striking a deal with a President we still have to fact-check. Dr Kim Sawyer reports.
HE IS THE MASTER showman. He knows where to position the actors, where to position the cameras, where to position the lights. He knows how to spray on his make-up and the make-up of others. Every press conference, every Cabinet meeting is the reality show of the showman.
U.S. President Donald Trump is the puppet master pulling the strings of the apprentices. He knows how to play them. Maggie Haberman’s The Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and The Breaking of America tells of the actor who conned the world.
“Young Donald Trump had been an athlete as a teenager, and he aspired to a career in Hollywood. He ultimately fulfilled his father’s desire for a successor in the family business in real estate. But what the son really always wanted was to be a star.”
The reality show The Apprentice made him a star. The Apprentice was his apprenticeship. Trump knows who is willing to be conned; he knows their price or how to determine their price. He thinks he knows the price of everything and everyone, but really knows the value of nothing. He is the confidence man.
Trump is the confidence man of fiction best understood by reading Ibsen’s Master Builder or by viewing the 1958 episode ‘The End of the World’ of the CBS series Trackdown that featured a character who wanted to build a wall, and who had all the confidence of the confidence man. Sound familiar? The fictitious character was called Trump. He was finally exposed as a fraud. The fictitious Trump was finally arrested.
The meeting of Trump and Albanese was his latest reality show, the Master and the Apprentice. The Master got what we wanted. He got the deference he craved. He got the deal he wanted. The Apprentice got what he wanted. He got the endorsement of power of the Confidence Man.
The art of the deal.
Perforce, the deal is a con. Turnbull and Keating understand. Morrison and Albanese do not. We should never have agreed to AUKUS. It’s not just the cost of $368 billion over 30 years that includes $123bn as a contingency for the risk of a cost blowout. The risks are everywhere.
We have already paid more than $3 billion, the premium for a very uncertain insurance policy. As Turnbull has noted, the submarines are currently being produced at a rate of 1.1 per year.
“They need to get to two by 2028 to be able to meet their own requirements, and to 2.33 to meet their own, plus Australia’s. And they have not been able to lift production rates despite expenditure of over $10 billion over the last six or seven years. So, they’ve got a real problem.”
We’ve got a bigger problem.
Governments are like portfolio managers. The government needs to understand diversification, that you do not put all your eggs in a basket of submarines. The defence budget is so tied up in submarines, we don’t have room to invest in emerging defence technologies, in patrol boats, frigates or the amphibious landing craft we need for immediate problems like evacuations. The budget is being skewed towards submarines that will not be supplied until the early 2030s, away from writing off the $70 billion of student debt that three million young Australians face. The cost of the deal.
We have become so inured to the lies of the conman, we have to fact-check everything he says. When Trump said he had been to Australia, I thought it was another porky, but no, he had visited Australia, not as the President but as a spruiker to the National Achievement Congress in 2011. The conman spruiked the message of the grifter as to how to get everyone else to pay his debts. It wasn’t Trump’s first visit to the antipodes. In August 1993, Trump visited Auckland as part of a consortium bidding for a casino operator’s licence. At the time, Trump was mired in debt. The bid was unsuccessful.
Truth and falsity are transactional for Trump. He has always used the mantra. “If you say something often enough, it becomes true.” Interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald in 2011, Trump criticised Obama’s job plan as doomed and unlikely to have any impact. At the time, the unemployment rate was nine per cent, at the end of Obama’s term, unemployment was 4.9 per cent. Trump was always anti-Obama. Trump was always false.
The other leading actor in the show that we watched last Monday was our own Prime Minister. Albanese had a lot to thank Trump for; perhaps that’s why he had wanted so much to meet him. The polls in February 2025 had the coalition leading 51–49, and then the Trump-Dutton factor came into play. Dutton was Albo’s trump card. No wonder he wanted the selfie with Trump. He invited Trump to visit, perhaps to spruik why Australia is paying for America’s submarines.
Albanese wore a lot of make-up to the meeting. The real Albo shared his confidences in private, perhaps with the other actor who sat opposite Trump, the Ambassador who Trump did not like. Albanese may come to regret his meeting with Trump, the deal and the endorsement by Trump. He may have underestimated the risk in kissing the ring of the Confidence Man.
The risk was everywhere to be seen. Two days before, 7 million joined the No Kings’ protests. Thirty years ago, when Albo was a man of principle, he may have joined those same protests, but now he was a man of compromise, the politician who has exchanged principles for politics.
On the day that Albo met Trump in the Whitehouse, the East Room was being demolished. In 1984, on a tour of the Whitehouse, we were asked to stand still, as the President appeared. Reagan had just left the East Room, where he had given a speech, where Carter, Obama, and FDR gave speeches. The East Room was built by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902.
Apparently, there was no heritage overlay, at least for Trump. Betty Ford reflected on its significance. “If the West Wing is the mind of the nation, then the East Wing is the heart.” Confirmation that Trump is heartless.
Australia should have put AUKUS on hold to let the people decide whether it should proceed. After all, we will pay for AUKUS, and we pay the salaries of the representatives of the people. However, most will never get to see the submarines, not like the HECS debt on their tax bill. Australia has been too subservient, too sycophantic, too risk-averse in our dealings with Trump. There is a cost to being risk-averse just as there is a cost to being a risk-taker.
The Democrats paid the price for not dealing with Trump as they should have dealt with him. Dealing with Trump is like dealing with the devil; you must deal on your terms, not his terms. He is a convicted felon, a fraudster, a showman, the confidence man who became President.
The No Kings protests showed the divergence between the people and the institutions, between those who will not defer to Trump and those who will defer to him; between right and wrong. History may rewrite some of the story, but not the story of the Master and the Apprentice.
The threat of nuclear Armageddon.
The risk of nuclear conflict is higher today than ever before. The time is now to revive stalled efforts towards disarmament and arms control
IPS Journal, 27 Oct 25
Rolf Mützenich, Berlin, Rolf Mützenich has been a member of the German Bundestag since 2002. He was the Chairman of the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag from 2019 to 2025.
EN
Foreign and security policy 27.10.2025 | Rolf Mützenich
The threat of nuclear ArmageddonThe risk of nuclear conflict is higher today than ever before. The time is now to revive stalled efforts towards disarmament and arms control
The recently released thriller ‘A House of Dynamite’, now showing in cinemas and on Netflix, takes a powerful look at a topic that had long been considered a thing of the past following the end of the Cold War: the threat of nuclear Armageddon. In Kathryn Bigelow’s film, the US military suddenly discovers an intercontinental ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean that could reach the US mainland within minutes. From different perspectives, the film tells how political and military decision-makers attempt to respond to the crisis. It becomes clear how vulnerable we are despite sophisticated defence systems and strategic war games, and how quickly a single attack using a nuclear weapon could escalate into a global catastrophe within minutes.The film is not a distant fantasy, but reflects an increasingly realistic scenario of our present. The days when former US President Barack Obama promoted the vision of a nuclear-free world in Prague back in 2009 now seem like a thing of the distant past. In their place, we are witnessing the return of open threats of nuclear war, tactical nuclear strikes being discussed as a serious military option in the strategic considerations of the major powers, disarmament and arms control treaties expiring or being terminated, nuclear arsenals being modernised and new delivery systems being developed. The bitter truth is that the risk of nuclear conflict is probably higher today than ever before. We are on the threshold of a new nuclear age that is even more complex, unpredictable and uncertain than the so-called ‘balance of terror’ during the Cold War…………………………………………………….
A broader global trend
The world is currently moving towards a new tri- or even multipolar nuclear age. At present, nine countries possess nuclear weapons, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. However, in view of growing global uncertainties and geopolitical tensions, more and more countries are considering developing their own nuclear capabilities. ……………………………………………………………………..
The existing system of disarmament and arms control is already on the brink of collapse. In recent years, both Russia and the United States have terminated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and the Open Skies Treaty. With the expiry of the New START Treaty in February 2026, there is a threat that the last remaining arms control agreement between the two largest nuclear powers will be lost………………………………………………….
Counting on others and working together
It is therefore high time to breathe new life into the stalled efforts towards disarmament and arms control. The focus should be on limiting strategic nuclear arsenals and preserving the existing treaties…………………………………………………………. https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/foreign-and-security-policy/the-threat-of-nuclear-armageddon-8642/
Google joins Microsoft in plans to restart US nuclear plants to power AI infrastructure
ABC News, 28 Oct 25
In short:
Google has unveiled a plan to restart a nuclear facility in the US in order to help power the company’s AI infrastructure.
It comes more than a year after another company announced it was restarting Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania following a power purchase agreement with Microsoft.
What’s next?
Google’s plant, which originally shut in 2020, is scheduled to return to service in 2029.
Google has unveiled a plan to restart a US nuclear facility in Iowa to power the company’s artificial intelligence infrastructure.
It made the announcement to reopen the Duane Arnold Energy Center in collaboration with electric power company NextEra Energy.
The facility, which was shuttered in 2020, would return to service in 2029 “to help power Google’s growing cloud and AI infrastructure in Iowa”, the companies said in a joint statement.
Google signed off on a 25-year agreement to purchase power from the facility once it restarted…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Google has announced other initiatives to secure additional power capacity, including a venture with Elementl Power to develop three advanced nuclear power plants in the United States. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-28/google-microsoft-restarting-nuclear-plants-for-ai-power/105941378
Israel and US Scorn ICJ Ruling Against Starving Civilians as Method of Warfare
The World Court says Israel has a duty as the occupying power to cooperate with UN relief efforts, not impede them.
By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout. October 24, 2025
World Court) told Israel what seems obvious to any reasonable person — that it cannot starve civilians as a method of warfare. But Israel does not act in accordance with international law, as evidenced by its two-year campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, during which it has killed over 68,000 Gazans (more likely 680,000, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese said on September 15).
In its 71-page advisory opinion, issued on October 22, the ICJ reiterated that Israel is illegally occupying the Gaza Strip. The court unanimously held that as the occupying power, Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure that the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Gaza, has essential supplies of everyday life, including water, food, shelter, clothing, bedding, and fuel, as well as medical equipment and services. The court also held that Israel must respect and protect all medical and relief personnel and facilities.
The ICJ ruled 10-1 in its advisory opinion that Israel has an obligation to facilitate humanitarian relief by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and other international organizations and third states, and must refrain from impeding that relief.
And the court unanimously held that Israel must respect the prohibition on deportation and forcible transfer in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the right of the Palestinian prisoners held in Israel to be visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The court noted that transfer is forcible not just when it is achieved by physical force, but also when people have no choice but to leave because the occupying power has inflicted conditions of life that are intolerable.
The ICJ rejected Israel’s bogus defense that its national security trumped its obligations under international humanitarian law, saying that the protection of security interests is not a “free-standing exception” allowing a state to violate its international humanitarian law obligations………………………………………………………………………….
Impacts of ICJ Advisory Opinions
Although advisory opinions of the ICJ are nonbinding, they carry great moral, political, and diplomatic weight with third states. On July 19, 2024, the ICJ held that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal and all states have an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation. As a result of that ruling (and domestic pressure), several states have now recognized Palestine as an independent state…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that it “categorically rejects” the ICJ’s October 22 advisory opinion, stating that the court ignored the “extensive evidence” Israel provided of what it claimed was UNRWA’s “infiltration” by Hamas and UNRWA’s complicity in terrorist activities. “This is yet another political attempt to impose political measures against Israel under the guise of ‘International Law,’” the ministry alleged.
Likewise, the U.S. State Department called the advisory opinion “corrupt,” claiming that it “unfairly bashes Israel and gives UNRWA a free pass for its deep entanglement with and material support for Hamas terrorism.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Current Situation
Before the October 10 ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas took effect, UN-supported global experts warned that over 640,000 Palestinians were facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity and that there was an “entirely man-made” famine in Gaza City.
Since the ceasefire began, Israel has started allowing some aid into Gaza, but nowhere near enough to meet its legal obligations and assist the starving Gazans. The UN World Food Program is getting about 750 tons of food aid into Gaza daily, still far below its target of 2,000 tons per day. Although the ceasefire agreement requires 600 trucks per day of food and other humanitarian supplies, only 263 trucks entered Gaza on October 20, and 281 trucks entered Gaza on October 22, less than half of the agreed-upon number.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has suspended operations, as it runs out of money and faces leadership problems and logistical obstacles to a resumption of its work.
Meanwhile, the ICJ is considering the merits of South Africa’s case against Israel that alleges Israel breached the Genocide Convention. Arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity — for intentionally and knowingly depriving the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival and intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population — are pending in the International Criminal Court.
During the past two years, millions of people globally have demonstrated in solidarity with the Palestinian people, and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement has achieved widespread popular support.
The new advisory opinion issued by the ICJ will continue to shame Israel in the eyes of the world. https://truthout.org/articles/israel-and-us-scorn-icj-ruling-against-starving-civilians-as-method-of-warfare/
Nuclear waste plan turns neighbor against neighbor in a struggling Japanese fishing village
A huge underground vault could hold highly radioactive waste for thousands of years — but only if the government can overcome local opposition
Leslie Liang Science Line, • October 25, 2025
Nobuka Miki was flustered by the television reporter’s question. She was happily spending the day with her daughter, enjoying a Buddhist festival on the main street of her village in northern Japan, when the question came.
What did she think about the proposal to build an underground storage site for Japan’s high-level radioactive waste in Suttsu, the struggling fishing town where she lives? “As long as it’s not dangerous, then it should be OK?” Nobuka briefly answered before fleeing the uncomfortable exchange.
Until that 2020 interview, Nobuka, who owns a local beauty salon, had no idea the Japanese government was considering her village as the site for a huge underground vault capable of holding all of Japan’s high-level nuclear waste for thousands of years.
As soon as the television news clip was broadcast and calls from her worried friends started lighting up her phone, Nobuka had second thoughts.
“Everything was lovely and suddenly, I heard ‘nuclear waste’,” remembered Nobuka, who has since changed her mind and is now helping to voice the local opposition against the waste proposal. “I felt surprised.”
The bigger surprise came when Nobuka learned that years earlier, Suttsu’s own leadership had volunteered to be considered for the site, in an attempt to revitalize a community whose primary industry, herring fishing, has been declining for years.
Suttsu’s mayor, Kataoka Haruo, applied for the survey in 2020 to investigate if the village can be a permanent site for Japan’s high-level radioactive nuclear waste after a subsidy incentive was promised. The subsidies for the first stage of the survey were up-to-2 billion yen ($19.4 million), and seven billion yen ($48.6 million) for the second stage.
Five years later, the proposal remains highly divisive in Suttsu, which has a population of less than 3,000. Neighbors who know each other through generations of friendship have stopped talking. Their kids no longer play together……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The situation has gotten slightly less heated recently after a series of community meetings, Nobuka says, but nothing is resolved yet. Suttsu remains one of three candidates for the waste disposal site — the other is another isolated northern town 60 kilometers farther up the coast — despite growing opposition centered on safety concerns, including the possibility of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Japan needs to have a nationwide discussion about the waste issue, which has not attracted much attention beyond the potentially affected communities, said Takumi Saito, a professor who studies nuclear power at the University of Tokyo. He believes that for energy security, a natural resource-deprived country like Japan needs nuclear power.
The conflict in Suttsu is a small manifestation of a worldwide debate over what to do with highly radioactive waste products of nuclear power, especially spent fuel rods. As of 2023, Japan has generated more than 19,000 tons of used rods and other highly radioactive waste since it opened its first commercial nuclear reactor in 1966. Currently that waste is in temporary storage on the grounds of Japan’s 15 nuclear power plants, a situation experts say is risky considering that the waste will remain dangerous for more than 10,000 years.
Many other countries are in the same boat. More than a dozen nations are trying to develop underground storage facilities for high-level nuclear waste, but none are open yet, and many are mired in controversy. In the United States, the federal government has been pushing for the construction of a high-level waste storage facility at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain since 1987, but the proposal is now moribund after intense opposition from lawmakers and the public.
At a time when many countries are talking about building a new generation of nuclear power plants to reduce dependence on fossil fuels that drive global climate change, the lack of approved long-term waste storage facilities has been a critical hurdle — both in countries with long-established nuclear power programs and in many smaller nations that would like to develop their own………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Like many other countries with nuclear power, Japan is also trying to make progress on building a plant to reprocess and ultimately reuse spent nuclear fuel. France and Russia have been operating similar plants for years. In Japan’s case, reprocessing is crucial because the country is determined to reuse as much material as possible before it is shipped to the long-term storage site.
Critics are skeptical. The reprocessing facility in the town of Rokkasho “has been under construction for 30 years. [It was] supposed to be finished by September 2024. But it’s delayed again [until 2027],” said Satoshi Takano, a researcher from Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, an anti-nuclear group in Japan. “The policy is not working. We need to reconsider it.”
Plans to build the long-term storage site have been under consideration for almost as long. Suttsu’s leaders had volunteered their town for consideration more than 20 years ago, in response to a nationwide call from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan. The government promised billions in financial subsidies to the chosen community, but ultimately only three put themselves forward, including Suttsu.
In 2020, the government disclosed the names of the three communities. That was news to many local Suttsu residents, including Nobuka.
At the time, she didn’t even know what nuclear waste was. Even the devastating 2011 accident at Fukushima felt like a distant issue, 800 kilometers to the south. She and others quickly learned otherwise, not only because of the waste site proposal but also because of a plan to reopen the nuclear plant at Tomari, just 50 kilometers up the coast.
Their anxiety grew last November, when the government announced that a long-awaited review of the scientific literature on local geology showed that Suttsu and another northern coastal town, Kamoenai, were potentially suitable sites.
There are still numerous other steps, however, including drilling surveys and test tunnels — work that could take another 18 years, the government estimates.
The government’s plan is to build an underground storage site 1 to 2 kilometers wide and a depth of 300 to 500 meters, according to Satoshi. “If the site were to be built, it would be enough for the current waste in Japan,” he said
Nobuka, though, is one of many locals who say they are determined to stop it. She has made nuclear waste her second career, joining the Town Residents’ Association to speak out in opposition.
“People who are interested in this issue are quite doubtful about the decision” to name Suttsu as one of the finalists, Satoshi said. “The safety is not clear.”
Nobuka’s biggest concern is that nuclear accidents caused either by a natural disaster or man made malfunction will destroy Suttsu. But she worries that the project may already have too much momentum to stop, especially with the government’s drive to expand nuclear power.
She feels excluded from the government’s decision-making process. “Nobody showed up and asked about our concerns,” Nobuka said. “We’re not getting enough attention and I feel less and less hopeful.”…………………………………………..https://scienceline.org/2025/10/nuclear-waste-plan-turns-neighbor-against-neighbor/
Capitalism Is Shoving AI Down Our Throats Because It Can’t Give Us What We Actually Want.
Caitlin Johnstone, Oct 26, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/capitalism-is-shoving-ai-down-our?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=177138322&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
At some point capitalism lost the ability to give us new things that we need and started giving us new things we don’t need, and now it’s giving us new things we never needed and don’t even really want.
Nobody needs all this generative AI crap. We were doing fine with online search functions and the ability to write and make art for ourselves. Only the most shallow and vapid of individuals find any appeal in the idea of talking to a chatbot like a companion, consuming “art” generated by a computer program, or letting the technology of some plutocratic megacorporation do their thinking, researching and expressing for them.
The economy is now balancing on a giant bubble of a fledgeling industry that is already underperforming expectations and hitting points of diminishing returns on multiple fronts, all while being really bad for the environment. And it doesn’t improve anyone’s life in any meaningful way.
Nobody asked for this.
And it’s not like people aren’t asking for things; capitalism just doesn’t have the ability to give them the things they are asking for. World peace. Affordable housing. Good health. Fast and efficient public transportation systems. Solutions to the various environmental catastrophes that status quo human behavior is driving us toward. The ability to have our needs met without spending all our time at work. Care for the needful. General human thriving. These are not demands that a system driven by the pursuit of profit for its own sake can supply.
When capitalism first showed up it delivered plenty of new things which people had a need and a desire for that weren’t available under previous systems like feudalism. The greatly increased material abundance and explosions of scientific and technological innovation ushered in with the dawn of capitalism caused human quality of life to improve by leaps and bounds.
But now we’re at a point where that just isn’t happening anymore. Things have stagnated, and we’re starting to backslide. People are getting dumber, sicker, lonelier, and more and more miserable. And the profit-driven systems we live under have no answers, besides throwing increasingly shitbrained technology at us so we can distract ourselves from how fucked up everything has gotten.
We are being driven into dystopia and annihilation by systems of our own making. We’re meant to be the smartest species on earth, but we locked ourselves in our invention — a self-reinforcing labor camp that makes us miserable — and then we get all huffy when people dare to question if it’s the only way of doing things. Literally every other species is smarter than us. Amoebas are having a better time of it.
This will change when humanity replaces capitalism with something better, in the same way we replaced feudalism with the superior system of capitalism. I don’t know what that system is going to look like, but it’s going to have to involve a move from a model that is driven by competition to one that is driven by collaboration. That’s the only way humanity will be able to channel all its brilliance toward the immense project of overcoming all the obstacles we now face as a species, along with all terrestrial organisms.
Until then, all we can do is try to help awaken as many of our fellow humans as possible to the reality of our circumstances. Use every means at our disposal to teach people how dire our plight is, how deceived we’ve been by the propaganda and indoctrination of the empire we live under, how sorely change is needed, and that a better world is possible. Once we get enough eyes open, we’ll have the numbers to force things to change.
Israel’s AI use in Gaza potentially normalizes civilian killings, obscures blame, exposes Big Tech complicity: Expert
Israel is using AI systems with known inaccuracy risks at ‘almost every stage’ of its military operations, says Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at AI Now Institute
Mevlut Ozkan 07.04.2025, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/artificial-intelligence/israel-s-ai-use-in-gaza-potentially-normalizes-civilian-killings-obscures-blame-exposes-big-tech-complicity-expert/3526518
– The sheer scale and complexity of AI models makes it ‘impossible to trace their decisions that can hold any individual or military accountable,’ warns Khlaaf, a former systems safety engineer at OpenAI
– ‘Amazon, Google and Microsoft are explicitly working with the IDF to develop or allow them to use their technologies … despite being aware of the risks of AI’s low accuracy rates … and how the IDF intends to use their systems for targeting,’ says expert
ISTANBUL
Israel’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) in its ongoing assault on the Gaza Strip – aided by tech giants such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon – is fueling concerns over the normalization of mass civilian casualties and raising serious questions about the complicity of these firms in potential war crimes, according to a leading AI expert.
Multiple reports have confirmed that Israel has deployed AI models such as Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy? to conduct mass surveillance, identify targets, and direct strikes against tens of thousands of individuals in Gaza – often in their own homes – all with minimal human oversight.
Rights groups and experts say these systems have played a critical role in Israel’s incessant and apparently indiscriminate attacks, which have laid to waste massive swaths of the besieged enclave and killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.
“With the explicit use of AI models that we know lack precision accuracy, we are only going to see the normalization of mass civilian casualties, as we have kind of seen with Gaza,” Heidy Khlaaf, a former systems safety engineer at OpenAI, told Anadolu.
Khlaaf, who is currently a chief AI scientist at AI Now Institute, warned that this trend could establish a dangerous precedent in warfare where military forces deflect responsibility for potential war crimes onto AI systems, while benefiting from the lack of a robust international mechanism to intervene or hold actors accountable.
“This is really a dangerous combination that can lead to military entities not being held accountable for potential war crimes, where they can simply point to an AI system and say, ‘Hey, it’s this algorithm that decided this. It wasn’t me,’” she said.
She stressed that Israel is using AI systems at “almost every stage” of its military operations – from intelligence collection and planning to final target selection.
The AI models, she explained, are trained on a variety of data sources, including satellite imagery, intercepted communications, drone surveillance, and the tracking of individuals or groups.
“They develop multiple AI algorithms that use a statistical or probabilistic calculation from this historical data that they’ve been trained on to predict where future targets may be,” she elaborated.
However, she emphasized that these predictions “do not necessarily reflect reality.”
Khlaaf pointed to recent revelations that commercial large language models (LLMs) like Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s GPT-4 were used by the Israeli military to translate and transcribe intercepted Palestinian communications, automatically adding individuals to target lists “purely based on keywords.”
She noted that various investigations have confirmed that one of the Israeli military’s operational strategies involves generating large numbers of targets through AI without verifying their accuracy.
The expert underlined that AI models are fundamentally unreliable for tasks requiring high precision, such as targeting in military operations, because they rely on statistical probabilities rather than verified intelligence.
“Unfortunately, assessments have shown that AI models used for targeting can have an accuracy rate as low as 25%,” Khlaaf said.
“So, given this track record of AI’s high error rates, with a force like the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), who is willing to accept a large amount of civilian casualties to take one target out … then this sort of inaccurate automation of target selection is really not far from indiscriminate bombing at scale.”
Automation without accountability
Khlaaf further emphasized that the increasing use of AI in war is setting a dangerous precedent, where accountability is obscured.
“AI is setting this precedent that normalizes inaccurate targeting practices, and because of the sheer scale and complexity of these models, it then becomes impossible to trace their decisions that can hold any individual or military accountable,” she asserted.
Even the so-called “human in the loop” safeguard, often promoted as a fail-safe against AI errors, appears insufficient in the case of the IDF, she added.
Investigations revealed that the humans overseeing Israel’s AI-generated targets operated under “very loose guidance,” casting doubt on whether efforts were even made to minimize civilian casualties, according to Khlaaf.
She warned that the current trajectory could enable militaries to shield themselves from war crime allegations by blaming AI for erroneous targeting.
“If it’s hard to trace … why an AI may have contributed to civilian casualties, then you can very well imagine a case where it’s used heavily exactly to avoid accountability for killing a large amount of civilians,” she said.
‘Amazon, Google and Microsoft explicitly working with IDF’
Khlaaf confirmed that major US-based tech firms are directly involved in supplying AI and cloud computing capabilities to the Israeli military.
“This is not a new trend,” she noted, recalling that Google has been providing AI and cloud services to the Israeli military since 2021 through its $1.2 billion Project Nimbus, alongside Amazon.
Microsoft’s involvement also deepened after October 2023, as Israel relied more on its cloud computing services, AI models, and technical support, she said.
Other companies, including Palantir, have also been linked to Israeli military operations, although details of their roles remain sparse, she added.
Crucially, Khlaaf argued that these partnerships went beyond the sale of general-purpose AI tools.
“It’s important to point out that the IDF isn’t just using off-the-shelf cloud or AI services and taking them and just putting them in military applications,” she explained.
“Amazon, Google and Microsoft are explicitly working with the IDF to develop or allow them to use their technologies for intelligence and targeting, despite being aware of the risks of AI’s low accuracy rates, their failure modes, and how the IDF intends to use their systems for targeting.”
The implications suggest that tech companies were “complicit and directly enabling” Israeli actions, including those that “would be categorized or ruled as unlawful or that amount to war crimes,” Khlaaf said.
“If it has been determined that the IDF is committing specific war crimes, and the tech companies have guided them in committing those war crimes, then yes, that makes them very much complicit,” she added.
‘An enormous gap’
Khlaaf warned that the world is witnessing “the full embrace of automated targeting without due process or accountability,” a phenomenon backed by increasing investments from Israel, the US Department of Defense, and the EU.
“Our legal and technical frameworks are not prepared for this type of AI-based warfare,” she said.
Although existing international law, such as Article 36 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, mandates legal reviews for new weapons, there are currently no binding international regulations specific to AI-driven military technologies.
Additionally, while the US maintains export controls on specific AI-enabling technologies such as GPUs and certain datasets, there is no “wholesale ban on AI military technology specifically,” she noted.
“There’s an enormous gap there that hasn’t really been addressed as of yet,” Khlaaf said.
South Carolina’s state utility says private firm set to restart abandoned $9 billion nuclear project.
After eight years in the elements, all the equipment and the structure of the plant, which was less than halfway finished, will need to be carefully inspected before it can be used. The permits to build and the licenses to operate the nuclear plants will need to be renewed, likely starting from scratch.
The permits to build and the licenses to operate the nuclear plants will need to be renewed, likely starting from scratch,
the agreement appears to let Brookfield walk away if it decide it’s not feasible.
By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 25 October 2025, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-15225007/South-Carolinas-state-utility-says-private-firm-set-restart-abandoned-9-billion-nuclear-project.html
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – South Carolina’s state-owned utility is looking to a private company to revive a project to build two nuclear power plants that was abandoned eight years ago, losing more than $9 billion without generating a watt of power.
Santee Cooper’s board agreed Friday to start six weeks of negotiations with Brookfield Asset Management that they hope will lead to a deal that lets the private company build the nuclear plants at the V.C. Summer site near Jenkinsville at their own risk to generate power that they could mostly sell to whom they want, such as energy-gobbling data centers.
Santee Cooper said Brookfield preliminarily agreed to provide the utility with some of the power generated. But that and probably thousands of other details will have to be negotiated. In a twist, Brookfield took over the assets of Westinghouse Electric Co., which had to declare bankruptcy because of difficulties building new nuclear reactors.
Utility officials said the agreement gives hope the state can get something out of a debacle that led to four executives going to prison or home confinement for lying to regulators, shareholders, ratepayers and investigators and left millions of people paying for decades for a project that never produced electricity.
“The risk to the ratepayer is nil. The risk to the taxpayer is nil,” Santee Cooper Board Chairman Peter McCoy said.
There are still too many hurdles for the project to get past to consider this a win right now, said Tom Clements, executive director of the nuclear watchdog group Savannah River Site Watch.
After eight years in the elements, all the equipment and the structure of the plant, which was less than halfway finished, will need to be carefully inspected before it can be used. The permits to build and the licenses to operate the nuclear plants will need to be renewed, likely starting from scratch, Clements said.
“I still believe that the cost, technical and regulatory hurdles are too big to lead to completion of the project,” Clements said, adding the agreement appears to let Brookfield walk away if it decide it’s not feasible.
Santee Cooper heard from 70 bidders and received 15 formal proposals to restart construction of the reactors. Interest in the project has grown as power demand in the U.S. surges with the increase in data centers as artificial intelligence technology develops.
Santee Cooper executives credited President Donald Trump’s executive order in May calling for the U.S. to quadruple the amount of power generated by nuclear plants over the next 25 years for opening the door to the potential agreement.
“You have placed South Carolina in the epicenter of the resurgence of nuclear power in the United States,” Santee Cooper CEO Jimmy Staton said.
Santee Cooper was the minority partner with what was then South Carolina Electric and Gas when construction on the two new nuclear plants started in 2013 at the V.C. Summer site – about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northeast of Columbia – where SCE&G was already operating a reactor.
The project needed to be finished in seven years to get tax credits to keep the project’s cost from overwhelming the utilities, but it ended up behind schedule almost immediately.
Executives lied about the problems to keep money coming in. Taxpayers and ratepayers ended up on the hook because of a state law that allowed the utilities to charge for costs before any power was generated.
Two nuclear reactors built in a similar way in Georgia went $17 billion over budget before they were fully operational in 2023.
Dounreay waste particle ‘most radioactive’ find for three years
Steven McKenzie, Highlands and Islands reporter and Rachel Grant, BBC Scotland. 23 Oct 25
A fragment of waste found near the decommissioned experimental nuclear power facility in Dounreay in April was the most radioactive to be detected in the past three years, the Highland site’s operator has said.
The fragment, categorised as “significant”, was discovered during monitoring work around the nuclear power plant near Thurso. It is the latest in a long line of particle discoveries in the area.
Dounreay was built in the 1950s as the UK’s centre of fast reactor research, but during the 1960s and 1970s sand-sized particles of irradiated nuclear fuel got into the drainage system.
Work to clear the pollution began in the 1980s, after particles were found washed up on the nearby foreshore.
The facility closed in 1994. The multi-billion pound decommissioning process involves hundreds of workers and is expected to last into the 2070s.
The full decontamination of the site is expected to take more than 300 years.
A Dounreay spokesperson said: “Particles are a legacy of industrial practices dating back to the early 1960s and our commitment today to environmental protection includes their monitoring and removal from the marine environment and transparent reporting of our activities.”
A group of independent experts, who advise the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) and Dounreay, classify particles by the radioactivity of their caesium-137 content.
The categories are minor, relevant and significant.
Significant means a reading greater than one million becquerels of CS-137.
A becquerel is the standard unit of radioactivity.
The particle was found on the western part of Dounreay’s foreshore on 7 April. Eight other finds reported since then have been categorised as “minor” or “relevant”.
A significant-category particle was last discovered in March 2022.
Thousands of particles of different categories have been removed from beaches, foreshore and seabed at Dounreay.
The site’s operator said monitoring on the site on the north Caithness coast continued to be done on a fortnightly basis.
On occasions it said the scheduled work could be interrupted by bad weather or the presence of protected species of ground-nesting birds……………………………………………………..
What risk is there to the public?
According to official reports, risk to people on local beaches is very low.
Guidance issued by the UK government’s Nuclear Restoration Services says the most at-risk area is not accessible to the public.
The particles found along the coast vary in size and radioactivity with smaller and less active particles generally found on beaches used by the public.
Larger particles have only been found only on the foreshore at Dounreay, which is not used by the public.
The particles found on beaches are believed to come from the disintegration of larger fragments in the seabed near Dounreay. The area is continuously monitored for traces of radioactive materials.
Harvesting of seafood is prohibited within a 2km (1.2 mile) radius of a point near Dounreay. This is where the largest and most hazardous fragments have been detected.
Dounreay’s radioactive history
- 1954 – A remote site on the north coast of Scotland is chosen as the site of a new type of nuclear reactor. Modern homes were built in Caithness to attract workers to the sparsely populated area.
- 1957 – A chain reaction which provided sustained and controlled nuclear energy is achieved for the first time.
- 1959 – A new disposal site for radioactive waste called the Shaft opens. It drops 65.4m (214.5ft) below ground.
- 1962 – The fast reactor inside the dome is the first in the world to provide electricity to a national grid.
- 1977 – The original “golf ball” reactor is shut down and waste disposal in the Shaft ends after an explosion.
- 1994 – Dounreay nuclear power generating facility closes.
- 1998 – Decommissioning programme is announced.
- 2008 – Operation to scour the seabed for hazardous material begins and the Shaft shaft is encircled in a boot-shaped ring of grout to prevent contamination.
- 2020 – Clean-up begins of the highly contaminated Shaft – a three decades-long project.
- 2333 – Decontamination expected to be complete, making the 148-acre site available for other uses. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz91nx0lv59o
Bannon Says Trump Will Run for an Illegal 3rd Term Because ‘He’s a Vehicle of Divine Providence’
Journalist Mehdi Hasan said Trump and his allies “plan to overturn the Constitution and democracy. They’re not hiding it. They’re bragging about it.”
Stephen Prager, Oct 24, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/bannon-trump-third-term-plan
In a frightening interview, one of President Donald Trump’s top allies said there is a “plan” for the president to remain in power after 2028, despite constitutional limits.
Speaking to a pair of interviewers at The Economist, Steve Bannon—Trump’s former chief strategist and one of the most influential voices in the MAGA movement—described a third Trump term as a divinely ordained fait accompli that people must simply accept.
“Well, he’s gonna get a third term, so Trump ‘28,” Bannon said. “Trump is gonna be president in 2028, and people ought to just get accommodated with that.”
Asked about the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which plainly forbids a president from serving more than two terms in office, Bannon proclaimed that “there are many different alternatives” to get around it.
“At the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is,” he said. “But there’s a plan. And President Trump will be president in ’28.”
Bannon continued: “We have to finish what we started… I know this will drive you guys crazy, but [Trump] is a vehicle of divine providence. He’s an instrument. He’s very imperfect. He’s not churchy. But he is an instrument of divine will.”
“We need him for at least one more term,” Bannon reiterated, “and he’ll get that in ‘28.”
In recent days, Trump has increasingly signaled his intent to run for a third term, selling “Trump 2028” merchandise on his website and displaying it in the Oval Office during negotiations with Democrats over the government shutdown.
His recent demolition of the White House’s East Wing to build a luxury ballroom has also raised alarms that Trump increasingly views himself as its permanent resident rather than a temporary steward.
Bannon was adamant that Trump would not only serve a third term, but that his staying in office would be “by the will of the American people.”
This assumption is out of line with what polls would seem to predict: Trump’s support recently hit a new low in his second term, with just 37% of voters approving of his job performance in the latest Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, compared to 61% who disapprove.
Bannon’s comments came days after the New York Times reported that Trump’s handpicked election officials have called for him to declare a “national emergency” ahead of the 2026 midterm election, which they say would allow him to assert more control over election laws and impose new rules on state and local elections without approval from Congress.
Max Flugrath of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, who warned earlier this week of Trump’s plans to “hijack” the next elections, said that by pushing for a third term for the president, “Bannon is basically saying, ’Let’s light the Constitution on fire.‘”
Author and activist Jim Stewartson noted that Bannon “uses the same alchemy as [House Speaker] Mike Johnson and [Defense Secretary] Pete Hegseth to rationalize destroying the Constitution: ’spiritual war.‘”
Johnson has argued that the US government “must be biblically sanctioned” and that the Founders’ idea of the separation of church and state was “a misnomer.” Hegseth, meanwhile, has endorsed a video of a far-right pastor discussing the need to repeal the 19th Amendment, which enshrined the right of women to vote.
Some pointed out that Bannon often manages to create a stir in the media by saying provocative things and claiming to have privileged knowledge about the machinations of Trump’s inner circle. It’s not the first time Bannon has raised the possibility of a third Trump term.
“A question that I’ve never seen fully resolved is to what degree Bannon is just trying to get attention as a media figure and to what degree he’s actually clued in to what’s going on in the White House,” said HeatMap News correspondent Matthew Zeitlin.
However, Bannon was in the know about Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election well before it happened. Days before the vote, he was recorded telling right-wing allies that “What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory… He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”
Others said that Bannon’s prognosis about a third Trump term is gravely serious, especially given Trump’s other actions during his second term.
“I would love to be wrong, but they keep saying this in public,” said writer John DiLillo. “He’s selling Trump 2028 merch. He’s massively remodeling the White House as if it were his personal residence. I don’t really see why the idea shouldn’t be taken seriously just because it’s ’unconstitutional.‘”
Mehdi Hasan, founder of the media outlet Zeteo, meanwhile, said: “They’re literally shouting it out loud! Their plan to overturn the Constitution and democracy. They’re not hiding it. They’re bragging about it. And the media are just ignoring it, or worse, normalizing it; the biggest story perhaps in modern American history.”
Germany destroys two nuclear plant cooling towers as part of nuclear phaseout plan.
Euronews, 25/10/2025,https://www.euronews.com/2025/10/25/germany-destroys-two-nuclear-plant-cooling-towers-as-part-of-nuclear-phaseout-plan
The two towers, equivalent to roughly 56,000 tonnes of concrete, collapsed in a controlled demolition on Saturday. It comes as part of Germany’s nuclear phaseout.
Two cooling towers of the former nuclear power plant in Germay’s Bavarian town of Gundremmingen were brought down in a controlled demolition at noon on Saturday.
The plant had served as an important landmark in the town for nearly six decades, bringing numerous new jobs and boosting the local economy.
As part of the country’s nuclear phaseout and under Germany’s energy transition policy, the Gundremmingen, as well as the Brokdorf, and Grohnde nuclear power plants, had already been decommissioned in December 2021.
The municipality, who had prepared for a large crowd of onlookers, set up a restricted zone around the power plant.
According to energy company RWE, the demolition could be observed from various watch points in the region. Some pubs also offered public “demolition viewing parties”
How the towers will be blown up
There were three explosions in total. The first was carried out to chase away nearby animals and wildlife. The second brought down the first tower, and the third caused the second tower to collapse.
Roughly 56,000 tonnes of concrete collapsed in a matter of seconds. Following Saturday’s demolition, the dismantling of the plant will further continue, local media report, with completion expected by 2040.
1 This Month
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (148)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 