nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

  Labour and SNP clash over nuclear power for Scotland amid Holyrood campaign. 

 Labour touts “stability” while SNP blasts “misguided” nuclear
plan. Torness power station — could nuclear become a key battleground
ahead of the May poll?

The SNP and Scottish Labour have traded barbs over
energy policy as the debate on new nuclear power in Scotland took centre
stage on the Holyrood campaign trail. It comes as the Scottish Greens
pledged to deliver 40,000 new green energy jobs in Scotland by the end of
the next Holyrood term in 2031. In a statement, Scottish Labour leader Anas
Sarwar vowed to end what he called the SNP’s “ideological and
anti-science” prohibition on new nuclear power.

Opposition to nuclear
energy has a long history in Scotland, beginning in the 1970s with the
construction of the Torness Point reactor in East Lothian. Sarwar said the
SNP stance against nuclear power is costing Scotland high-quality jobs,
investment, and energy security. Scottish Labour said it would immediately
end a ban on new nuclear in office, and begin the process of securing sites
for next-generation technologies such as small modular reactors (SMRs).
Sarwar said the SNP’s nuclear policy leaves Scots “vulnerable to
tyrants abroad”. The SNP have chosen misinformation and scaremongering on
nuclear power — leaving Scotland with less energy security, higher bills
and fewer jobs,” he said.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have also backed
new nuclear in Scotland ahead of the May elections, with the party open to
supporting projects at Hunterston and Torness.

SNP warns of high costs from
nuclear In response, the SNP said Scottish Labour’s nuclear plans would
“hammer Scottish bill payers”. The party pointed to North Sea neighbour
Norway, where a government-appointed commission this week recommended
against investing in nuclear power at present. SNP depute leader Keith
Brown said Scottish families “already pay a ‘nuclear tax’ to fund the
two most expensive nuclear plants in the world”, referring to Hinkley
Point C and Sizewell C. “Why on earth does Anas Sarwar want to inflict
more of this on Scotland?” Brown questioned.

 Energy Voice 9th April 2026,
https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/595535/labour-and-snp-clash-over-nuclear-power-for-scotland-amid-holyrood-campaign/

April 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to Washington: The World Cannot Afford Silence

7 April 2026 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/an-open-letter-to-washington-the-world-cannot-afford-silence/

To Members of the United States Congress and the Vice President,

I write to you as an observer from outside the United States, but not outside the reach of its power. What happens in Washington does not stay in Washington. It reverberates across the globe.

A recent public statement by President Donald Trump, circulated widely from his Truth Social account, contains language and threats relating to Iran that are alarming in both tone and substance. The message invokes destruction of infrastructure, uses inflammatory and profane language, and concludes with a phrase that appears to praise a religious figure in a context that is, at best, deeply incongruous and, at worst, dangerously provocative.

Taken together, this is not normal rhetoric for the holder of the most powerful office in the world.

Many across the world are beginning to ask a question that would once have seemed unthinkable: whether the behaviour being displayed is that of a rational leader, or something far more dangerous. In blunt terms – terms now increasingly heard in public discourse – there is a growing fear that the President is acting like a madman.

The concern here is not political disagreement. It is the apparent abandonment of restraint, clarity, and responsibility in matters that could have immediate and catastrophic international consequences. Words at this level are not symbolic – they can signal intent, trigger reactions, and escalate conflict.

If such rhetoric is not constrained by the institutions designed to provide oversight, the consequences could be severe. Miscalculation or escalation in relation to Iran risks drawing multiple nations into conflict, destabilising an already fragile region, and placing countless civilian lives in jeopardy. It risks disrupting global energy markets, triggering economic shocks far beyond the United States, and increasing the likelihood of direct military confrontation between major powers. In the worst case, it opens the door to a broader and more devastating war whose impacts would be felt worldwide.

The United States Constitution anticipates moments when the conduct of a President raises serious questions about their fitness to discharge the duties of the office. It provides lawful mechanisms to respond: the power of impeachment vested in Congress, and the provisions of the 25th Amendment, which empower the Vice President and Cabinet to act where incapacity or inability is evident.

These are not partisan tools. They are safeguards.

No one outside your system can invoke them. Only you can.

History will not judge this moment solely by what was said, but by what was done – or not done – in response. Silence or inaction in the face of credible concern carries its own consequences.

The world is watching the United States not for perfection, but for proof that its institutions still function as intended: that power is checked, that accountability exists, and that no individual is beyond the reach of the law.

I urge you to consider, with the utmost seriousness, whether this moment calls for the use of those constitutional safeguards.

Respectfully,

Michael Taylor

April 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Faced with new energy shock, Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer

Katya AdlerEurope Editor, BBC 5 Apr 26

“…………………….nuclear energy seems to be back in fashion as part of a home-grown European energy mix – in the UK as well as the EU. But how quick a fix can nuclear be – and how safe and reliable is it really?

…………………………A renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power is palpable in Europe:

………………………………………….Italyis preparing draft laws to repeal its longstanding ban

Belgium seems to be making a complete U-turn after years of reluctance about investing in nuclear energy

Greece, historically cautious because of seismic concerns, has opened a public debate on advanced reactor designs

Sweden reversed a four-decade old decision to abandon nuclear technology

In the UK, Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently announced streamlining regulation to help advance nuclear projects.

“To build national resilience, drive energy security and deliver economic growth, we need nuclear,” said Reeves.

………………………..No prizes for guessing that France is the loudest nuclear cheerleader. President Emmanuel Macron is ever eager to point to the industry’s credentials as a low carbon-emitter, potentially helping the EU towards its net zero goals.

He told Europe’s nuclear summit that “nuclear power is key to reconciling both independence, and thus energy sovereignty, with decarbonisation, and thus carbon neutrality”.

He also emphasised the increased energy demand from AI and his belief that nuclear power could give Europe a competitive edge or “the ability to open data centres, to build computing capacity and to be at the heart of the artificial intelligence challenge.”

But Berlin has since agreed to the removal of anti-nuclear bias. A cynic might say that could have something to do with defence and security concerns, provoked by deteriorating relations with the Trump administration.

Germany has asked France to extend its independent nuclear deterrent to European partners, something France agreed to this month.

But beware of viewing nuclear as an energy panacea.

Nuclear development is a long-term project, not a short-term fix to current energy insecurity.

Building nuclear reactors can be subject to extremely long delays, as recent examples in France and the UK have illustrated, at Flamanville-3 and Hinkley Point C.

Waste management and public concerns regarding the safety of nuclear energy persist.

Environmental groups warn investment in nuclear energy can divert funds and political attention from speeding up the development of renewables, and an added layer of strategic risk is that a number of Central European countries, especially Hungary and Slovakia, still depend on Russian nuclear technology and uranium.

“You’re ignoring the history of nuclear in Europe if you think it can just slot in [as an easy energy crisis solution],” Chris Aylett told me. He’s a Research Fellow at the Environment and Society Centre, Chatham House.

Nuclear energy is part of the solution, he believes, but many European nuclear reactors are old and governments need to invest considerably just to maintain or extend their working life.

“The main challenge is maintaining existing share [of nuclear power]. If governments really want to increase the share, they need a lot of time and a lot of money.”

But many of Europe’s governments are indebted, cash-strapped and faced with numerous, competing priorities – such as how to maintain welfare and boost defence spending to the levels promised to US President Donald Trump.

Nuclear is also being beaten on price as the costs of wind and solar have gone down, Aylett points out.

So, with price and practicality in mind, the European Commission has rushed to embrace the concept of small modular reactors (SMRs).

………………………….The focus on SMRs is international. Last week, the US and Japan announced a $40bn project to develop SMRs in Tennessee and Alabama, while last month Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, published the regulatory justification for Rolls-Royce’s plan to become the first company to try to build SMRs in the UK.

But as attractive as they sound, SMRs are viewed as unproven at commercial scale. As of early 2026, no construction licences had been granted anywhere in the EU…………………..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8k8vq8gno

April 11, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Statement Condemning Trump

Marjorie Taylor Green’s Statement from X: April 5, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/05/marjorie-taylor-greenes-statement-condemning-trump/

On Easter morning, this is what President Trump posted. Everyone in his administration that claims to be a Christian needs to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness from God and stop worshipping the President and intervene in Trump’s madness. I know all of you and him and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit. I’m not defending Iran but let’s be honest about all of this. The Strait is closed because the US and Israel started the unprovoked war against Iran based on the same nuclear lies they’ve been telling for decades, that any moment Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

You know who has nuclear weapons? Israel. They are more than capable of defending themselves without the US having to fight their wars, kill innocent people and children, and pay for it. Trump threatening to bomb power plants and bridges hurts the Iranian people, the very people Trump claimed he was freeing. On Easter, of all days, we as Christians should be reminded that the son of God died and rose from the grave so that we can be forgiven once and for all of our sins. Jesus commanded us to love one another and forgive one another. Even our enemies. Our President is not a Christian and his words and actions should not be supported by Christians. Christians in the administration should be pursuing peace. Urging the President to make peace. Not escalating war that is hurting people. This NOT what we promised the American people when they overwhelmingly voted in 2024, I know, I was there more than most. This is not making America great again, this is evil.

April 10, 2026 Posted by | politics, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

War front updates: America opposes war on Iran

Wednesday, April 01, 2026, Organizing Notes, Bruce Gagnon

Americans have little appetite for sending troops to Iran, polls show


Only 14% of Americans favor sending ground troops into Iran, while 62% oppose this. Almost all Democrats and 66% of Independents oppose sending in ground troops, while Republicans are divided, with 30% in favor and 37% opposed. 

In the DC mental asylum, they dreamt up the concept of “Greater North America”. In addition to the USA, it includes Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and the Caribbean countries. US Defence Secretary and professional drunkard, Pete Hegseth, displayed a map on which these regions are unified. Hegseth did not explain how these countries are supposed to be united, but emphasized: “Trump has drawn a new strategic map”. ……………………………………………………. https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/04/war-front-updates-america-opposes-war.html

April 8, 2026 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

UK Government reviewing fallout report after nuclear test concerns

By Craig Langford, UK Defence Journal 5th April 2026,
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/government-reviewing-fallout-report-after-nuclear-test-concerns/

The government has said it will examine the implications of a previously restricted report into nuclear fallout contamination, following renewed scrutiny over its handling and potential impact on past legal cases involving veterans.

Responding to two written questions from Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, Defence Minister Lord Coaker did not directly address whether the report calls into question evidence presented in earlier litigation, but confirmed that further work is underway.

“We remain committed to listening to their concerns and working collaboratively to address them,” he said, referring to nuclear test veterans.

The questions relate to a 2014 report, disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, which has prompted claims about the suppression of evidence and its possible relevance to historic court proceedings, including the Supreme Court case Ministry of Defence v AB and others.

Coaker pointed instead to a recent Commons statement, noting that ministers have committed to reviewing both the contents of the report and how it was handled.

“The Minister for Veterans and People reiterated the government’s commitment to maximum transparency and made a commitment to undertake work to fully understand the implications of the 2014 report and its handling, and to take action if necessary,” he said.

April 8, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

New US war team needed to end Iran war on Iran’s sensible terms

Walt Zlotow   West Suburban Peace Coalition, 4 April 26, https://theaimn.net/new-us-war-team-needed-to-end-iran-war-on-irans-sensible-terms/

At day 35 of America’s lost war on Iran choking the entire world economy of Middle East oil, it’s time for a change. No, not regime change in Iran. Regime change in America.

President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio should resign. They are so committed to winning a war that cannot be won on their terms, their continued involvement will produce endless death in the Middle East and worldwide economic catastrophe.

They know the US has no chance of winning on any of their shifting war goals. But they are loathe to admit a single negative reality regarding the disaster they’ve unleashed upon the Middle East and world economy.

Their public statements are 100% US propaganda. They ignore the devastating damage to every US base in the region. They provide virtually no information regarding over 500 US casualties. They totally ignore the devastating Iran retaliation degrading every aspect of life in Israel. They pretend Iran has no offensive capability left when Iran is positioned for long term retaliation. They make up imaginary negotiations with Iranian leaders who will never negotiate with the most duplicitous negotiators on earth. They say they don’t care the Strait of Hormuz is closed when they know it is creating economic ruin worldwide. They’ve alienated every country on earth except Israel, the nation that goaded them into this military disaster.

J.D. Vance should replace Trump and appoint Defense and State Secretaries not wedded to catastrophe. The war must stop immediately. The US should prepare to leave the Middle East as no Gulf State being bombed from America’s perfidy, will ever allow America to rebuild its damaged bases. They should agree to reparations for the colossal damage they senselessly inflicted upon Iran. They should end all sanctions while reestablishing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s nuclear development.

Most importantly, Vance and his new team must make any further military aid to Israel contingent upon ending its wars on Gaza, West Bank Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Israel must commit to creation of a Palestinian state, something Israel has vowed never to do.

Trump and his war council will never resign on their own. But if all 535 Congresspersons demand their resignation and refuse to govern till they do, they may face the music of their foul deeds fouling up the world.

If Congress takes up the challenge of forcing the war’s end thru peaceful regime change, they will not only be reclaiming their constitutional war powers duty, they may prevent impending worldwide catastrophe.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Does the Trump administration understand how ‘enriched’ uranium is made into weapons?

Harmeet Kaur, CNN, 2 April 2026

For the US to reach a deal with Iran or to end its war in the country, President Trump has said he wants Iran to surrender its “enriched” uranium.

“We want no enrichment, but we also want the enriched uranium,” he told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins last week.

The president has at times cited Iran’s “enriched” uranium stores as part of his ever-changing rationale for the war, and in recent days, he’s reportedly considered sending US troops in to seize them. But nuclear arms experts say the way Trump and his lead negotiator have talked about uranium enrichment raises doubts about how well they understand the technicalities.

For one, Trump keeps referring to “nuclear dust,” which is not a known term in the nuclear energy industry. And since the February 26 US-Iran nuclear talks, Steve Witkoff, a former real estate developer who has been leading US negotiations with Iran along with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, has made claims that experts say betray a similarly weak expertise………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Uranium that has been enriched above the natural 0.7% level of uranium-235 and up to a 20% concentration is considered low-enriched uranium, used for civilian purposes. Commercial reactors typically require uranium enriched to less than 5%, while research reactors used for testing or medicine generally require uranium enriched to up to 20%.

Uranium enriched beyond 20% is considered highly enriched uranium, and uranium enriched above 90% is considered weapons-grade.

The higher the enrichment level, the more quickly uranium can be enriched to weapons-grade, Diaz-Maurin says. Once uranium has been enriched to 20%, a vast majority of the work required to enrich it to weapons-grade levels has been completed. It becomes exponentially easier to enrich 20% uranium to 60%; enriching from 60% to 90% is even easier, he says.

The higher the enrichment level, the lower the minimum mass of enriched uranium required to produce a bomb, says Diaz-Maurin. For example, uranium that’s been enriched above 20% can technically be used to produce a crude weapon, but you would need about 400 kilograms of it, making it inefficient and impractical. When the enrichment level goes up to 60%, the critical mass drops down to about 42 kilograms. Uranium enriched to weapons-grade requires about 28 kilograms, which can fit into a missile warhead, he says.

Since Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal in his first term, Iran has been enriching its uranium closer and closer to weapons-grade, though it officially proclaimed a religious prohibition against building a nuclear weapon. Now, given that the US and Israel have attacked the country as negotiations were ongoing, Iran’s hardliners in parliament are calling on the regime to advance to full nuclear armament.

Western nations, as well as the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have long expressed concerns about Iran’s production and stockpiling of highly enriched uranium. On June 12 last year, the IAEA estimated that Iran’s stockpile included 440 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60%, Diaz-Maurin wrote in a recent analysis. The next day, Israel attacked Iran, killing prominent nuclear scientists and significantly damaging Iran’s main enrichment site.

Enrichment level is an important indicator of risk, but there are a host of other factors that should be considered in assessing how quickly Iran could produce weapons-grade enriched uranium, says Kelsey Davenport, director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association. Those other considerations include the amount of enriched uranium a country has, its capacity to enrich it and whether the uranium is being held in solid fuel rods or in gas form.

“Witkoff had a poor grasp of the details,” she says.

For example, Davenport says comments that Witkoff made in the aftermath of February 26 negotiations with Iran indicated some confusion between nuclear reactors, which use enriched uranium for power, and the centrifuge facilities where the enrichment process takes place. Witkoff seemed particularly concerned about a research reactor in Tehran that he claimed was being used to stockpile highly enriched uranium. Reports from the UN’s nuclear watchdog estimate that Iran had about 45 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium stored in fuel assemblies at the reactor, which Davenport says “is not even enough for one bomb.”

To be developed into a nuclear weapon, she says the uranium at the reactor would need to be converted back to gas form and then be further enriched to weapons-grade. Before Israel’s strike on Iran’s main conversion facility last June, that might not have been difficult. Now, the situation has changed. “Could Iran convert that material back to gas form? Yes,” she says. “Could they do it quickly and easily at this point? No.”

Davenport says Witkoff was also reportedly surprised by how much enriched uranium was in Iran’s stockpile, even though this information was well documented by international inspectors. “I think he was focused on the wrong details and did not have the nuclear expertise or the expert team available to him to assess how the Iranian proposal would have impacted risk overall,” Davenport says.

Iran also said that it made an offer to dilute its 60% enriched uranium to a lower percentage, which Diaz-Maurin calls “a sound one from a non-proliferation perspective.” But he says it doesn’t appear that US negotiators took the proposal seriously. “I suspect that they did not really understand what the meaning was,” he adds. “And here we are.”

Less than two days after Witkoff and Kushner met with Iran to discuss its nuclear program, the US and Israel attacked the country. Some experts suggest that the decision was informed, at least partially, by a shallow understanding of Iran’s nuclear program and positions.

“It certainly seems as though there was a gap, and that’s a huge problem on something like this, especially when it seems like potentially a military decision was made based on things that were happening in that room,” says Connor Murray, a research analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

A month on, the US is engaged in an intense war that experts argue could potentially have been avoided with another word: Diplomacy. US and Israeli strikes have indeed severely diminished Iran’s capacities to enrich uranium, Diaz-Maurin says. But he says Iran’s know-how and political will to build nuclear weapons probably won’t be destroyed so easily.

“​​You can’t really bomb away an idea, a program and knowledge. So there will always be a suspicion that Iran is doing something,” he says. “And one could argue that now more than ever, they have incentive to accelerate whatever program they have.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/01/us/word-of-week-enriched-cec

April 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Manchester Professor appointed expert reviewer for Government nuclear decommissioning review

 A University of Manchester Professor has been appointed by Lord Vallance,
Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, as an
Expert Reviewer for an independent assessment of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA); an executive non-departmental public body
that is charged with, on behalf of government, the mission to clean-up the
UK’s earliest nuclear sites safely, securely and cost effectively.


Professor Zara Hodgson FREng is an internationally recognised expert in
nuclear energy policy and research, and Director of the University’s
Dalton Nuclear Institute. She has been appointed to support the NDA 2026
Review, which has been commissioned by the Government to provide assurance
on the NDA’s performance and governance, and to make recommendations on
improvements.

The Review is led by Dr Tim Stone CBE, a senior expert
adviser to five previous Secretaries of State in two successive UK
governments and the Chair of Nuclear Risk Insurers. Professor Hodgson will
join a team of three other independent experts to support Dr Stone. The
review will focus on the NDA’s strategic planning and management, project
and programme delivery, and financial management. It will assess how
effectively the NDA delivers value for money for the taxpayer while
maintaining the highest standards of safety, transparency and governance
across the UK’s civil nuclear legacy. Reviewers will challenge current
practices, propose bold value-for-money recommendations, and highlight good
practice while identifying areas for improvement.

 Manchester University 1st April 2026, https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/manchester-professor-appointed-expert-reviewer-for-government-nuclear-decommissioning-review/

April 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Israeli nuclear city emerges as focal point in escalating Iran–Israel confrontation

March 30, 2026, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260330-israeli-nuclear-city-emerges-as-focal-point-in-escalating-iran-israel-confrontation/

The city of Dimona has moved to the center of the escalating confrontation between Iran and Israel, following reports of an Iranian strike targeting its vicinity on 21st March.

Located deep in the Negev desert, Dimona is widely regarded as one of the most sensitive nodes in Israeli strategic infrastructure, largely due to its association with the country’s nuclear programme. Established in 1955, the city has since evolved into a key military and strategic site.

Researchers note that the area surrounding Dimona was historically inhabited by tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouin Arabs prior to the 1948 Nakba. According to political analyst Muhammad Mustafa Shahin, the Negev region was home to between 90,000 and 95,000 Palestinians from tribes including the Tayyah, Azazmeh, and Jabarat, who relied on agriculture and herding.

Shahin highlights the geological significance of the region, noting that the Negev contains phosphate deposits rich in uranium in areas such as Aron, Zein, and Arad, alongside industrial facilities like the Rotem Amfert plants. These resources, he argues, contributed to the foundations of Israel’s nuclear development.

At the heart of Dimona’s strategic importance is the Negev Nuclear Research Center, commonly referred to as the Dimona reactor. Constructed with French assistance in the late 1950s and becoming operational in the early 1960s, the facility is widely believed to have played a central role in producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Shahin describes the reactor as part of what is known as Israel’s “Samson Option” — a doctrine of ultimate deterrence — which continues to fuel regional tensions, particularly in light of Israel’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The reported strike near Dimona marks a significant moment in the current escalation, drawing renewed attention to the risks surrounding nuclear-related infrastructure in an increasingly volatile regional conflict.

April 2, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics | Leave a comment

Scotland won’t pursue ‘unproven’ SMRs and ‘experimental’ fusion as focus remains renewables

30 Mar, 2026 By Thomas Johnson, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/scotland-wont-pursue-unproven-smrs-and-experimental-fusion-as-focus-remains-renewables-30-03-2026/

Scotland plans to focus on investing in renewables as nuclear fusion and small modular reactors (SMRs) remain “unproven technology”, a Scottish Minister has said.

The Scottish National Party (SNP), the ruling party in Scotland, has banned the development of any new nuclear in the country – and seems set to maintain this even as promising new technologies emerge.

Speaking in Scottish Parliament last week, MSP for Aberdeenshire East and cabinet secretary for climate action and energy Gillian Martin outlined how even with the buzz around fusion at the moment, the Scottish government will not be pursuing new opportunities within the nuclear sector.


“The Scottish Government recognises the increasing interest in fusion energy. However, fusion remains experimental, with no commercial deployment and uncertainties around cost, safety and timescales,” she said.

“The UK Government’s prototype fusion plant is not expected to be operational until 2040, but the climate emergency demands proven, deployable solutions now.”

Martin explained how this policy extends to the deployment of SMRs.

“We do not plan to build small nuclear reactors, which are unproven technology that has not been deployed,” she said.

“The Scottish Government has a policy against new nuclear fission.”

The topic arose in Scottish Parliament after MSP for South Scotland Martin Whitfield quizzed Martin regarding any impact on Scottish energy policy could expect in light of plans Torness nuclear power station will close by 2030.

Torness, the East Lothian‑based nuclear power plant operated by EDF, is one of the UK’s four remaining advanced gas‑cooled reactor (AGR) stations. It was due to close in 2028 but EDF announced in 2024 it would be extending its life for a further two years.

April 2, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Doomsday Double Standard: U.S. Silent on Israel, Loud on Rivals

March 27, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/03/27/doomsday-double-standard-u-s-silent-on-israel-loud-on-rivals/

Silence in Congress: When Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal Becomes an Unaskable Question

At a moment when nuclear facilities are being openly discussed as military targets in the escalating confrontation between Joaquin Castro and the Trump administration’s Middle East war posture, one exchange in Congress exposed just how rigid Washington’s political boundaries remain when the subject turns to Israel’s undeclared atomic arsenal.

During questioning before Congress, Castro asked Thomas DiNanno a direct question: does Israel possess nuclear capability?

The answer never came.

DiNanno, the senior U.S. official responsible for arms control and international security policy, declined to acknowledge publicly what has long been treated internationally as established fact: Israel is widely understood to possess a significant nuclear weapons stockpile, developed around the Negev Nuclear Research Center at Dimona.

Instead, DiNanno replied that he could not comment and suggested the question be directed to the Israeli government.

That answer was not merely evasive—it underscored one of the most enduring contradictions in U.S. foreign policy: Washington routinely frames nuclear proliferation in adversarial states as an existential threat while maintaining formal silence on Israel’s own strategic arsenal.

A Nuclear Question Washington Refuses to Touch

Castro’s line of questioning was not theoretical. It came amid growing alarm over attacks near nuclear-related infrastructure in both Israel and Iran, where military escalation has raised fears of accidental radioactive release, regional fallout, or broader strategic miscalculation.

His concern was simple: if military strikes approach nuclear sites, what are the risks to civilians, to the region, and potentially to Americans?

Yet even in that context, the administration’s top arms control official would not publicly acknowledge the existence of Israel’s deterrent capacity.

That silence reflects decades of diplomatic ambiguity. Israel has never formally admitted possessing nuclear weapons, despite extensive international assessments estimating an arsenal ranging from dozens to hundreds of warheads, supported by air, sea, and missile delivery systems.

The policy is often described as “nuclear opacity”—a deliberate refusal to confirm what nearly every major intelligence service already assumes.

Strategic Ambiguity, Political Obedience

The deeper issue exposed in the hearing is not whether Israel has nuclear weapons. Few serious analysts dispute that point.

The issue is why U.S. officials remain unwilling—even in congressional testimony—to speak plainly about it.

For critics of Washington’s Middle East policy, the answer lies in the political architecture surrounding the U.S.-Israel relationship: long-standing strategic alignment, domestic lobbying pressure, donor influence, and bipartisan reluctance to challenge core Israeli security narratives.

That has produced a diplomatic culture where nuclear transparency is demanded from adversaries but treated as politically untouchable when applied to allies.

The Contradiction at the Center of U.S. Policy

The United States has justified sanctions, covert operations, military threats, and diplomatic pressure for decades over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, even while its own officials avoid discussing the only actual nuclear weapons state in the region outside formal treaty structures.

For lawmakers like Castro, that contradiction becomes impossible to ignore during wartime.

As military escalation widens and nuclear-adjacent facilities enter targeting calculations, the refusal even to acknowledge known realities begins to look less like strategy and more like institutional denial.

The Meaning of the “Special Relationship”

The hearing ultimately captured something larger than one unanswered question.

It revealed how, even in matters involving potential nuclear risk, congressional oversight can hit an invisible boundary when Israel is involved.

As regional conflict carries consequences far beyond the Middle East, silence itself becomes policy—and policy becomes dangerous.

At the same time, earlier last month, this same official appeared perfectly willing to speak with certainty about other nations’ nuclear activity—declaring that “the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons.” Yet when the subject turned to Israel’s nuclear program, he suddenly could not open his mouth.

That contradiction says everything.

Washington can publicly accuse rivals, speculate about adversaries, and issue warnings across the globe, but when it comes to Israel’s long-known nuclear arsenal, silence becomes policy.

Historically, however uncomfortable it may be to admit, countries that developed nuclear deterrence—such as North Korea and Pakistan—have in many cases insulated themselves from the kind of sustained military pressure, regime threats, and strategic harassment that non-nuclear states continue to face. That reality helps explain why nuclear capability remains so central to global power calculations, even as it pushes humanity closer to catastrophe.

And catastrophe no longer feels abstract.

As of January 2026, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock at 85 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to symbolic global disaster. The warning reflects converging threats: nuclear confrontation, climate breakdown, and rapidly destabilizing technologies including artificial intelligence.

Nuclear winter is no longer the language of distant Cold War nightmares. It is again being discussed in real strategic terms, while governments continue to speak selectively about who may possess the weapons capable of ending civilization.

Good luck, everyone.

April 1, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

The Deafening Abdication of Four Ex-Presidents on Trump.

By Ralph Nader
March 27, 2026
What should the American people, especially the hundreds of millions of their voters, expect Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden to do against the vicious, serial law-violating, violent, corrupt, agency-dismantling Donald Trump and the crony Trumpsters who are wrecking our government and our economy?

These former Presidents should mobilize the citizenry from the grassroots to the Capitol and take on the unpopular Tyrant Trump. Having sworn to uphold the Constitution and “…take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” they should strongly uphold their patriotic duty to resist tyranny and save our Republic and our besieged democratic institutions, and stop the assault on our civil liberties and civil rights.

Our former presidents all get along with each other. They have the stature to: (1) get mass media; (2) raise immediately large amounts of funds for strong IMPEACH TRUMP citizen groups in every Congressional district to increase and expand the present majority of Americans wanting to FIRE TRUMP; (3) stay the course as Trump keeps worsening his criminal dictatorship and destruction of our democracy; and (4) highlight the many programs they initiated that Trump has illegally destroyed or is dismantling.
Instead, they are living luxurious lives and are largely AWOL from connecting with the existing but overwhelmed civic opposition to Trump. Bush is painting landscapes as Trump has destroyed his AIDS program in Africa, and the Bush wing of the Republican Party. Obama has campaigned for Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill as governors of Virginia and New Jersey, satirizing Trump in some of his speeches. His present passion, however, is the March Madness basketball championships. Clinton has left it up to Hillary, who wrote a guarded New York Times op-ed back on March 28, 2025, taking Trump to task for jeopardizing our national security and not “preparing for real fights with America’s adversaries.”
Then there is Joe Biden, who received then President-elect Trump and Melania on the morning of January 20, 2025, with the gracious “welcome home.” In return, Biden got that afternoon and every day since hundreds of foul epithets from Trump, scapegoating him for almost everything he could fabricate, including solar energy and wind power projects. Delaware Joe managed a few critical replies at a Democratic Party dinner in Nebraska on November 7, 2025. “Trump has taken a wrecking ball not only to the people’s house but to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to our very democracy.” Unfortunately, Biden has mostly been silent.
Credit these retired Presidents with knowing the historic dangers and existing damages of the TRUMP DUMP in Washington and around the country. They also know their supporters would be very receptive to their organized, persistent leadership from them to send Trump back to Mar-a-Lago. Why are they AWOL?
First, they fear Trump’s retaliation, upsetting their comfortable lives. Trump is now deep in the QUICKSAND of the Middle East. He is being pilloried by a million stickers at gas pumps picturing Trump pointing to the booming price per gallon and saying, “I did that.” He is openly declaring there should be no elections in November and continues to send or keep his stormtroopers in America’s cities. An expanding police state is not exactly a credible perch for effective profanity. Show a modest bit of moxie!
A second excuse is that they have done some of what Trump is doing:
*Bush’s mass murder in the illegal war on Iraq.*Clinton’s distracting raids abroad against innocents and his womanizing.
*Obama’s “signature strikes,” killing over three thousand mostly young men in places like Yemen.
*Biden’s illegal co-belligerence with Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza, which has taken over 600,000 civilian lives.
True enough. But people live in the present and are most worried about what Dangerous Donald is doing NOW to their livelihoods, freedoms, health and safety, and the consequences in casualties and their tax dollars of another endless war.
Our former Presidents have no excuses. They simply lack a modicum of courage. Remember Aristotle declared, “Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.”
The current political climate demands the powerful emergence of the four previous presidents of our country. The federal district courts are ruling heavily against Trump’s “Injustice Department,” though Trump retains a slightly weakening claim on six Supreme Court Injustices. People of all backgrounds are marching and demonstrating in huge numbers. This weekend, the “No Kings” rallies (he’s already a dictator) anticipate 10 million people nationwide.

The business community, particularly small businesses, are feeling serious harm from Trump’s tariffs, wars, cancelled contracts, and inflationary policies. The labor unions have never been under such attack (notably the federal employees’ union members whose contracts he has torn up), and they are simmering with anger. The universities are also under His illegal, shakedown attacks.

What explains the mainstream media’s virtual ignoring of this ABDICATION by these ex-presidents? The reporters mostly despise Trump, who has slandered them (calling them “deranged and demented” for starters) and has extortionately sued news organizations and journalists for millions of dollars and coerced settlements.
The media have reported that some ex-agency officials under the former presidents have excoriated Trump, such as Samantha Power, for closing the major lifesaving Agency for International Development. The formidable Rohit Chopra, who directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Biden, is not reticent to verbally defend his nearly closed-down agency, which had saved consumers many billions of dollars.

However, they are not covering the abdication by BIG GUYS – our former Presidents. I have tried in vain to find out why by calling reporters and editors. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Try calling these numbers: The Washington Post: 202-334-6000; The New York Times: 800-698-4637; Associated Press: 212-621-1500; NPR: 202-513-2000; The Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2000.

March 31, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Republican Lawmakers Led By Nancy Mace Begin To Break With Trump On Iran War: ‘We Were Misled’

by Tyler Durden, Mar 27, 2026, https://www.zerohedge.com/political/republican-lawmakers-led-nancy-mace-begin-break-trump-iran-war-we-were-misled

Republican lawmakers are belatedly starting to wake up to the potential for the United States to once again get bogged down in yet another Middle East quagmire, but this time with a country double the size of Iraq (both in geography and population).

GOP Rep. Nancy Mace has led the charge this week, blasting any potential Trump admin move to put American boots on the ground, warning she will vehemently oppose new war funding if American troops are deployed in Iran. “I’ll be voting against the funding if we’re putting troops on the ground,” Mace told a reporter outside the Capitol earlier in the week. “I’m not going to fund that.”

The comments came after the Pentagon days prior unveiled a massive $200 billion supplemental request in order to fund the war, which was at first previewed by White House officials as lasting a mere ‘days’ or a few ‘weeks’ and not months (or years).

Mace soon followed her verbal comments with a Tuesday post on X pushing back against getting sucked into a ground war. “If a single boot of a single American soldier sets foot on Iranian soil, I will vote against this,” Mace wrote. “I will not vote to fund sending South Carolina’s sons and daughters to die in a ground war in Iran.”

War Secretary Pete Hegseth had framed the supplemental request as essential given it “takes money to kill the bad guys” – as he said, echoing a view that President Trump has been supportive of while claiming “we won”.

Axios is newly reporting on Thursday that Mace is not going to back down if another War Powers resolution is pushed before the House:

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) told Axios she will “most likely” vote for House Democrats’ resolution to constrain President Trump from waging war with Iran the next time it comes up for a vote.

Why it matters: The vote is symbolic — even if the measure passed both chambers, Trump could veto it — but Mace’s support puts the House one step closer to a major rebuke of the administration’s Middle East operations.

At the moment there’s some 7,000 US ground forces en route to the Middle East – including from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and the Marines, amid speculation Trump could be eyeing some kind of high risk Kharg Island operation, in order to force open the Strait of Hormuz.

This particular ‘final blow’ plan – which would be contingent on putting boots on the ground in a Kharg takeover – has really gotten Republicans’ attention. Daily Mail on Thursday reports that “Furious Republicans stormed out of a classified briefing on Iran on Wednesday amid fears the US is preparing to invade the country as Tehran refuses Donald Trump’s peace overtures.”

According to more details in the report:

Nancy Mace walked out early, venting that ‘we were misled,’ while pro-Trump committee chair Mike Rogers warned ‘we’re not getting answers’ as Pentagon chiefs briefed the House Armed Services Committee, sparking fireworks on Capitol Hill. 

Now, a Daily Mail source inside the room has revealed stark new details, including a new set of objectives which may suggest that America is moving toward boots on the ground as Iran continues to strangle the Strait of Hormuz. 

The lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said members were presented with three military objectives: Kharg Island, Iran’s crucial oil export hub; its nuclear material; and regime change. It marks a stark shift from the four goals the White House has publicly stated: destroying Iran’s missiles, navy, armed proxies, and nuclear capabilities.  

The lawmaker said that the White House must answer for its plans, particularly regarding Kharg Island and troops on the ground. The answers are ‘jaw-dropping’ and ‘will blow your brains out,’ the lawmaker said. 

Quagmire by midterms? Some MAGA influencers have increasingly said they are tired about hearing Israel-centric justifications for Trump’s newest war of choice.

GOP members are getting much more vocal alongside Democrats:

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers was uncharacteristically agitated after leaving the briefing, stating that he had few details about the direction the war is heading. 

‘We want to know more about what’s going on,’ Rogers, an Alabama Republican, said. ‘We’re just not getting enough answers.’ Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi felt the same after his own briefing. ‘I can see why he might have said that,’ Wicker told Politico of Rogers’ comments. 

A week ago Responsible Statecraft began documenting fissures among the generally war-supporting GOP, and it’s been more than just the expected Libertarian firebrands Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. For example, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado has told reporters: “I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I’m tired of the Industrial War Complex getting our hard-earned tax dollars. I’ve got folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America First policies right now.”

March 31, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Sizewell C Inquiry

House of Commons 23rd March 2026,
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9713/sizewell-c/

Sizewell C is a planned large-scale nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Funded by the government in partnership with the energy provider EDF, as well as private finance, the project is projected to cost £40.5bn to £47.7bn. When constructed, it will have a generating capacity of 3.2GW, meaning it will be able to generate around 7% of the UK’s current electricity demand. 

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) previously reported on the government’s deal with EDF to construct a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, the site with Sizewell C will be based on. The PAC were concerned that that government’s negotiations were not championing the interests of consumers, who might be locked into an expensive deal for decades, and warned that the poorest would likely be the hardest hit. In its response, the Government accepted all of the PAC’s recommendations and stated the actions it planned to take in response. 

The National Audit Office (NAO) will publish its report on Sizewell C in spring 2026. Following the NAO’s investigation, which is likely to examine the government’s current spend, as well as the potential risks to achieving value for taxpayer’s money, the PAC will hear from senior officials at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Sizewell C on the reports key findings. 

If you have evidence on these issues, please submit here by 23.59 on Monday 18 May 2026.

Please note that the Committee’s inquiry cannot assist with individual cases.  If you need help with an individual problem you are having, you may wish to read the information on Parliament’s website about who you can contact with different issues. 

March 27, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »