Majority of Americans support more nuclear power, but future of large-scale nuclear is uncertain

A majority of U.S. adults remain supportive of expanding nuclear power in
the country, according to a Pew Research Center survey from May. Overall,
56% say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. This
share is statistically unchanged from last year. A line chart showing that
a majority of Americans continue to support more nuclear power in the U.S.

But the future of large-scale nuclear power in America is uncertain. While
Congress recently passed a bipartisan act intended to ease the nuclear
energy industry’s financial and regulatory challenges, reactor shutdowns
continue to gradually outpace new construction.

Americans remain more
likely to favor expanding solar power (78%) and wind power (72%) than
nuclear power. Yet while support for solar and wind power has declined by
double digits since 2020 – largely driven by drops in Republican support
– the share who favour nuclear power has grown by 13 percentage points
over that span.

Pew Research 5th Aug 2024

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/05/majority-of-americans-support-more-nuclear-power-in-the-country/

August 8, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

What do Americans really think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Bulletin, By Scott D. Sagan, Gina Sinclair | August 5, 2024

In mid-August 1945, within weeks of the end of World War II, Americans were polled on whether they approved of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An overwhelmingly high percentage of Americans—85 percent—answered “yes.” That level of approval has gone down over the years, with (depending on the precise wording of the question) only a slim majority (57 percent in 2005) or a large minority (46 percent in 2015) voicing approval in more recent polls.

This reduction in atomic bombing approval over time has been cited as evidence of a gradual normative change in public ethical consciousness, the acceptance of a “nuclear taboo” or what Brown University scholar Nina Tannenwald has called “the general delegitimation of nuclear weapons.”

This common interpretation of US public opinion, however, is too simplistic. Disapproval has indeed grown over time, but most Americans remain supportive of the 1945 attacks, albeit wishing that alternative strategies had been explored. These conclusions can be clearly seen in the results of a new, more complex public opinion survey, conducted for this article, that asked a representative sample of Americans about their views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, examined alternative strategies for ending the war, and provided follow-on questions to determine how the public weighs the costs and benefits of different strategies.

Scratch beneath the surface, and the American public today, as in 1945, does not display an ethically based taboo against using nuclear weapons or killing enemy civilians, but rather has a preference for doing whatever was necessary to win the war and save American lives…………………………………………………………………………………………….

US public opinion in 2015 and 2024. A 2015 replication of the 1945 Roper poll found that 14.4 percent of Americans felt the United States should not have used atomic bombs at all, that 31.6 percent thought a bomb should have been dropped in a demonstration strike on an unpopulated area, but that almost no one (less than 3 percent) wanted to use more bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender.

For this article, we replicated the 1945 Roper poll again with a representative sample of 2,000 Americans on June 21, 2024, but then asked follow-on questions to help us determine what the public really meant when answering the survey. Such follow-on questions are necessary to understand the public’s deeper set of commitments and preferences. Did those opposing any use of the atomic bombs really support such a policy even if it meant ending the war without a Japanese government surrender? Or would they support dropping the bomb if Japan did not surrender? Would those who favor a demonstration strike today support bombing cities if the demonstration strike failed to compel Tokyo to surrender, or did they oppose atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki under all circumstances? In short, what do Americans really think, now, about using nuclear weapons in 1945?

Options and alternatives. The percentage of respondents who said that the United States shouldn’t have used any atomic bombs at all increased from 4.3 percent in 1945, to 14.4 percent in 2015, to 36.7 percent in 2024. The percentage of respondents who preferred the demonstration strike option decreased from 31.6 percent to 20.9 percent. Public support for use of the two bombs, as the United States did in 1945, followed the same general trend, decreasing to 19.4 percent. But what do these trends reveal about US opinion? Our follow-on questions were designed to measure the public’s true willingness to use nuclear weapons and kill enemy civilians…………………………………………………

In short, when reminded of the Japanese refusal to surrender, the strong majority (82.33 percent) of those who originally favored the demonstration strike then accepted nuclear or conventional attacks on Japanese cities.

Why these preferences? The basic finding that over 36 percent of Americans said today that the United States should not have used any atomic bombs cannot reasonably be interpreted as an indication of a widespread nuclear taboo. It may be a positive trend, but it is not a robust opinion. Indeed, less than half of those respondents maintained that position after they were reminded (as was the case in 1945) that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender prior to the atomic bomb attacks.

Instead, our 2024 Roper Poll replication provides three valuable insights about American public opinion. First, much of US public is, in fact, still supportive of the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Adding the answers from the different follow-on questions, reveals that 41.3 percent of all respondents were ultimately willing to use a nuclear bomb on one or more cities, and many more Americans (over 25% of all respondents) reported that they didn’t know what their preferences were in this wartime scenario. These findings are inconsistent with the existence of a nuclear taboo and underscore that large hawkish instincts lurk within the U.S. public.

A second novel finding relates to the public’s willingness to attack cities and thereby violate the basic law of armed conflict and the just war principle of non-combatant immunity. While only 41.3 percent of respondents were ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons against cities, many other respondents favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan. Reasons given by respondents who had at first stated that they opposed nuclear attacks, but then favored continued conventional bombing once reminded that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender included: “Because if humane tactics don’t work, then you gotta do what you Gotta do;” “Since they refuse to heed to the warning, then they deserve war;” and “If Japan doesn’t surrender than it’s time to show them what we can do.”

Altogether, adding advocates of conventional bombing with advocates of nuclear attacks, 51.25 percent of all respondents chose to attack Japanese cities and kills civilians on a massive scale. This shows that the non-combatant immunity principle, contrary to the claims of some experts, does not have strong “stopping power” at least among the public. These findings challenge the theories of scholars such as Charli Carpenter, Alexander Montgomery, Steven Pinker, Neta Crawford, and Ward Thomas, who posit that a decrease in willingness to use nuclear weapons is a result of broader acceptance of the just war principle of non-combatant immunity.

………………………………………………….. many responses in the 2024 Roper Poll revealed something else: a notable percentage of respondents (15.92 percent) cited their beliefs on the importance of US isolationism and avoiding any engagement in foreign affairs.

……………………………………………These findings about contemporary views of the 1945 atomic bombing are consistent with previous research demonstrating that large segments of the American public are willing to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran, in order to avoid US military fatalities, or against a terrorist organization planning chemical weapons attacks on the United States. …………………………………

The American public does not hold a strong nuclear taboo and indeed, may be more of a goad than a constraint on any future president who is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons in trying wartime conditions. While the laws of armed conflict and just war doctrine may still be a constraint on nuclear use, their powers are more likely to exercised by the moral compass of individual political leaders or the legal training of senior military officers, not through the deeply problematic instincts of the American public. https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/what-do-americans-really-think-about-the-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=DayNewsletter08052024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_WhatAmericansReallyThink_08052024

August 7, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

US Congressmen Say ‘No War With Iran!’

“Israel’s dramatic escalation is completely compatible with its past efforts to drag the U.S. into another war,” one expert said of the Israeli assassination of a Hamas leader in Iran.

Jessica Corbett, Aug 04, 2024

Amid mounting fears of a regional war in the Middle East, a pair of Democratic congressmen joined the growing chorus warning against the U.S. engaging in an armed conflict with Iran.

In response to U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introducing a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on social media Saturday that “the U.S. must not be dragged into a war with Iran.”

“The Iraq War was the biggest American blunder of the 21st century,” Khanna added. “Every candidate running this cycle must be clear on where they stand on this.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said early Sunday: “I agree with Ro Khanna. No war with Iran! Let’s all get on record with this.”

Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, urged Khanna to introduce a related war powers resolution, arguing that “we really could use a clear vehicle like this to increase the pressure for no U.S. military intervention in a disastrous war with Iran.”

“We’re a miscalculation or a miscue away from an event that could draw the U.S. and Iran into a direct military conflict.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-iran-war

August 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

‘Nuclear weapons money could tackle climate change’- Martha Wardrop, Scottish Greens

It is clear that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons
that have ever been developed. They cause severe environmental damage, as
well as undermine global security, and divert vast public resources away
from climate action.

It was seven years ago when history was made at the
United Nations when the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was
adopted by 122 nations. This was achieved after a global push to finally
and categorically ban nuclear weapons under international law.

Through being a Nuclear Free Local Authority, Glasgow can continue to work with
other local councils to gain support from the UK Government to minimise the
risk from nuclear hazards, increase public safety and support clean energy
projects. We can all send a strong message to the UK Government about the
need to sign up to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Glasgow Times 3rd Aug 2024

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/24495605.martha-wardrop-nuclear-weapons-money-tackle-climate-change/

August 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Kamala: We need a ceasefire and arms embargo NOW!

https://www.codepink.org/kamalastopisrael 2 Aug 24

Over the past weeks, we’ve seen Vice President Kamala Harris’s image being portrayed as more sympathetic to Palestinians in comparison to Joe Biden. But in reality she repeats so many of the same anti-Palestinian talking points and hasn’t done anything to move us towards a ceasefire. It’s time to put pressure on the VP! Sign the petition below!

Vice President Kamala Harris,

As Vice President of the United States, your job is to serve the people, and the majority of Americans want a permanent ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We are disgusted with how our hard-earned money is being used to annihilate innocent people in Palestine!

You have strategically presented yourself as distinct from President Biden, especially with regard to Israel’s genocide campaign in Gaza, though you are part of the same administration. We have not been fooled, and we know you are not powerless. We know you can take significant action to stop Israel’s genocide, and you haven’t.

We will not blindly praise you — as others have — for calling for a ceasefire “for at least six weeks” in March of 2024. At that point, 30,000 Palestinians had already been murdered by Israel and we were five months into the genocide.

In the past, you have had no problem meeting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), taking in hundreds of thousands of Zionist campaign contributions, and speaking at their events. We understand the true purpose of this lobby group is to ensure continued U.S. funding of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and imperialism in the Middle East. We reject the influence of foreign governments in American politics and see your relationship with AIPAC as a stark contradiction to your supposed support of a ceasefire in Gaza.

Most recently, you condemned protests in D.C. opposing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress — the man spearheading the worst genocide we’ve seen in recent history. Policing Americans who are rightfully angry about war crimes and the mass murder of innocent children was a true display of your immorality, and proved your alignment with Biden’s policies on Israel. What’s worse is that you characterized these protests as anti semitic, showing us your complete lack of understanding for what’s really happening.

Sharing stories of how you as a young girl helped plant trees for Israel is a deliberately tone-deaf attempt at greenwashing Israel’s occupation, given the ecological devastation the IOF have waged on the Palestinian people, land, water and vegetation for 76 years, culminating in the utter devastation of Gaza in recent months. How can you be so selfishly blind to the reality on the ground?

Considering your stances, we have no reason to believe you are not following Biden’s policies on Israel. In order to salvage what political credibility you may have left, it is imperative that you use your capacity as Vice President to push for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We demand you release a statement explicitly distancing yourself from Biden’s support for genocide, and call for an arms embargo on Israel.

August 4, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Generic Design Assessment Step 1 of the Holtec SMR: statement of findings

Holtec International’s SMR-300 small modular reactor design has
completed Step 1 of the UK’s generic design assessment (GDA) process and
will now progress to Step 2, which is expected to last for 14 months. The
Environment Agency, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and Natural
Resources Wales announced on 1 August that they are progressing to the next
phase of their assessment of the design.

Holtec has now launched a comments
process, enabling anyone to submit comments and questions about the reactor
design to the company for its response.

Nucnet 1st Aug 2024

https://www.nucnet.org/news/holtec-s-smr-300-nuclear-plant-completes-first-step-of-generic-design-assessment-8-4-2024

August 4, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Trump could win back the nuclear codes. Biden should put guardrails on the nuclear arsenal—now.

By Tom Z. Collina | July 30, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/trump-could-win-back-the-nuclear-codes-biden-should-put-guardrails-on-the-nuclear-arsenal-now/?utm_source=Newsletter+&utm_medium=Email+&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08012024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_GuardrailsNuclearArsenal_07302024

On January 6, 2021, then-President Donald Trump inspired a mob attack on the US Capitol to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration. Not only was this an unprecedented attack on American democracy, but it represented a serious national security threat. Many saw and see this as one of many examples of an unstable President Trump acting in dangerous, irrational ways. And throughout his time in office, Trump—like all presidents in the nuclear age—had the unilateral authority to launch the US nuclear arsenal.

At any moment, Trump could literally have ended the world with a phone call. Congressional approval is not needed, and the secretary of defense cannot stop a presidential order to unleash the US nuclear arsenal. The system is built for speed, not deliberation. The whole process, from presidential order to the launch of one or hundreds of nuclear warheads, would take just minutes.

The danger that Trump would do something catastrophic was so acute that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately looked for ways to prevent the “unstable president from … accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” according to a letter Pelosi wrote in January 2021 to House Democrats in the wake of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley was convinced that Trump had suffered “serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election” and took the extraordinary step of ordering his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from the president. “No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley reportedly told the officers. “You never know what a president’s trigger point is.”

Pelosi and Milley had plenty of reasons to worry that Trump could start a nuclear war. In August 2017, in a thinly veiled nuclear threat, Trump warned North Korea that it would be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” Trump mocked Kim Jong Un, the North’s leader, writing “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” According to then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, Trump privately discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and suggested he could blame a US strike on another country.

Actually, however, Milley was not correct when he told his staff that he was part of the formal procedure to launch nuclear weapons. As former Defense Secretary William J. Perry and I wrote in our 2020 book, The Button, policy established during the Cold War puts decisions about the use of nuclear weapons solely in the hands of the civilian president, not Congress and above all not the military. All the president need do is call the Pentagon’s War Room—using the nuclear “football” or some other means—and identify himself and give the order to launch. The president may choose to consult with senior advisors such as Milley but is not required to.

Milley broke these rules, as others broke them before him. During the Watergate crisis, then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger was so concerned about President Richard Nixon’s mental state and alcohol consumption that he told military commanders that if Nixon ordered a nuclear strike, they should check with him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger first. Sen. Alan Cranston phoned Schlesinger, warning him about “the need for keeping a berserk president from plunging us into a holocaust.”

Should Milley, Schlesinger, or any military leader, let a clearly unstable president start a nuclear war just to follow protocol? Of course not. But officials should not have to break the rules to do the right thing. The United States needs to change the policy that put Milley and Schlesinger in an impossible spot.

With just six months left in office, President Biden can fix the system for himself and all future presidents. To do so, Biden should announce the White House will share authority to use nuclear weapons in any first strike with a select group in Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, not the president. The first use of nuclear weapons is clearly an act of war. In a situation where the United States has already been attacked with nuclear weapons, the president would retain the option to act unilaterally.

President Biden would have to make such a policy change by executive order. Passing congressional legislation would be more durable but is unlikely in the current political environment. If Trump wins the election, he would likely reverse Biden’s order. But if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, the new policy could be strengthened over time with legislation.

Such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A launch could be ordered only if the United States had already been attacked with nuclear weapons or if Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check to executive power. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine.

As an important part of his legacy, President Biden must put guardrails on presidential authority to start nuclear war now before the next dangerous leader gets elected—whomever and whenever that may be. We must never again entrust the fate of the world to just one fallible human. This is not about whose finger should be on the button. This is about making good policy that can keep Americans—and people around the world—alive, regardless of whom US voters happen to put in the White House.

August 3, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Blank Checks for War: Congress Has Abdicated Its Power From Tonkin to Gaza

As the 60th anniversary of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution approaches, it’s time to reflect on how Congress solidified its long-standing deference to the presidency on foreign policy and how the people can make their voices heard.

Christian Appy Aug 01, 2024, Common Dreams

With the U.S.- backed carnage in Gaza continuing and the threat of growing violence looming throughout the region (in Lebanon, Iran, and who knows where else), we need to think more deeply than ever about how the American people have historically been excluded from foreign policy decision-making. An upcoming anniversary should remind us of what sent us down this undemocratic path.

Sixty years ago, on August 7, 1964, U.S. Congress handed President Lyndon B. Johnson the power to wage a major war in Vietnam, solidifying its long-standing deference to the presidency on foreign policy. Not once since World War II has Congress exercised its constitutional responsibility to vote on declarations to decide if, when, and where the United States goes to war.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 flew through Congress, in part because most members trusted the president’s assurance that he sought “no wider war.” Their trust was misplaced. The Johnson administration kept secret and lied about its plans for future military escalation in Vietnam. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Congress, for its part, continues to enable an ever more imperial presidency that decides when and where the U.S. goes to war. It almost never uses the power of the purse to reduce U.S. militarism or to cut funding for unpopular wars. The nearly trillion-dollar Pentagon budget is rubber-stamped every year……………………………………………

We have seen, in the last 10 months, an unprecedented outpouring of American protest in support of Palestinian rights. For good reason. Nearly 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, and many of them children, have been killed by the Israeli military’s indiscriminate and disproportionate response to the Hamas killing of some 1,100 Israelis on October 7, 2023. Around 1.7% of the Gazan population (2.3 million) have been killed and at least 90% displaced from their homes (many have had to flee multiple times). A recent study by the medical journal The Lancet, estimates that the death toll in Gaza could reach 186,000 even if there is a cease-fire today.

For most Americans, this level of suffering is unimaginable. Yet we must try to imagine it. If we were Gaza, at least 5.7 million of us would be dead, the vast majority women, children, and other civilians. Many millions more would be among the uncounted dead and dying—buried, lost, sick, starving. More than 300 million of us would be forced from our homes, on the road seeking shelter, food, and water under ongoing military attacks and perils beyond description.

That is the reality in Gaza.

In the end, only a mass democratic movement has the potential to dramatically change U.S. foreign policy. The first challenge is to overthrow the baseless claim that the United States is the greatest force for good in the world, the “indispensable nation” that stands for the rule of law, freedom, and democracy. Our record does not warrant such a delusion. Only when that ideology and naïve faith is broadly undermined can we hope to chip away at the long-standing infrastructure of U.S. militarism—the over 750 military bases on foreign soil, the annual military exercises in two-thirds of the world’s nations, and the “defense” budget that equals the next nine most militarized nations combined.

Ellsberg and Morse were right. The people must know the truth. But we have long had more than enough evidence to demand fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy. We can’t wait for Congress to represent us faithfully. The people’s voice must be heard. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/congress-blank-checks-war

August 3, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Behind a Nuclear Cooperation Agreement With Washington -Singapore not committed to nuclear power

Energy Intelligence Group Aug 2, 2024. Author,Phil Chaffee, New York

Singapore this week became the fourth Southeast Asian country to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement (NCA) with the US, although Singaporean government ministers emphasized that the wealthy city-state is by no means committed to launching a civil nuclear power program. Singapore is one of a number of countries across the region that are exploring potential moves into nuclear energy, though all face populations wary, at best, of nuclear energy………………………. (Subscribers only) more https://www.energyintel.com/00000191-1022-d8c8-a3d5-3ce2d4890000

August 3, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ASIA, politics | Leave a comment

UK – the Ed Milliband Nuclear Nonsense Show

Great British Nuclear’s life started out as a Boris Johnson publicity stunt to get some cheap headlines, and it’s been downhill since then. It took two years to set up (civil servants at DESNZ kept asking what this particular Bojo wet dream was all about, and are still waiting for an answer), has no proper governance arrangements, is run by a bunch of nuclear non-entities, and so far has had only one task: to run “the competition “to see who will be the recipient of pots of taxpayers’ money to bring forward our “world-beating” Small Modular Reactor programmes.

Jonathon Porritt, Sustainability Campaigner and Writer, 31 July 24

1 I’m loving the Ed Miliband Show! The curtain went up on July 5^th, and it’s been one reveal a day since then………………………………….

On Friday, he brought forward the Bill to establish Great British Energy (GBE), a cornerstone of Labour’s manifesto and its Net Zero ambitions. The one thing that grabbed everyone’s attention was the new partnership between GBE and the Crown Estate to unlock £60 billion of private investment in offshore wind – with a view to securing 30 GW of electricity before 2030 (enough to provide electricity for 20 million homes). To help make this happen, another Bill was introduced to overcome some of the barriers that the Crown Estate currently faces in expediting investment at that scale. Serious stuff!

The GBE Bill also referenced another partnership – with Great British Nuclear, with the emphasis on “exploring how Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear will work together”. And end more of the same kind of meaningless blather!

Let me elaborate a bit by way of contrasting these two strategic partners.

1. The Crown Estate

This is a powerful organisation that knows what it’s doing, does it with a real sense of purpose, and has been leading the charge on offshore wind for the last decade. It has a tried and tested CEO (Dan Labbad), formerly CEO of property developer Lend Lease here in the UK), a proven sustainability champion, deal-maker and job-creator.

Other big players in the energy sector get this kind of proposition and are already coming forward with their “in principle” commitments.

2. Great British Nuclear

It’s struggled with this somewhat limited remit (already nine months behind schedule, with at least another six months to go), even though everybody already knows that the Government’s favoured SMR black hole will be Rolls Royce – there’s nothing worse for ministers than having Tufan Erginbilgic (Rolls Royce’s powerful, whining bully of a CEO) making trouble for you.

So, Ed, where are you going to go with all this? Both the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will, theoretically, help you “de-risk” prospects for critical private sector investors. The Crown Estate will do it for real, reducing the cost of capital, smoothing planning consents, securing supply chains, creating jobs – and, in due course (if not before 2030) – making offshore wind significantly cheaper. Exactly as has happened in Denmark. Great British Nuclear will suck you in, suck you dry, and do none of that…………..

The Treasury has always been less enthusiastic about nuclear power than the rest of government. It won’t object to a few more tens of millions bunged at Rolls Royce or a few more well-paid nuclear wastrels at Culham (emphasising the links with our inconceivably costly nuclear weapons establishment).

But the tens of billions that will be required to de-risk private sector investment in Sizewell C – that’s another matter. This is the time, surely, to let Sizewell C die under the weight of its own monstrous irrelevance.

Sizewell C will obviously make literally zero contribution to the 2030 target that Labour has for decarbonising the grid. As it happens, Ed shouldn’t really be worrying too much about 2030 anyway. This isn’t going to happen (full marks to those sad gits at the Telegraph for spotting this!), but it really doesn’t matter. The key date is 2029, the date of the next election, not 2030.

……………………………..So, Ed, keep your eyes on the prize: making people feel good (and possibly even a bit excited) about the UK’s low-carbon future – in terms of jobs, skills, supply chains, lower bills and so on. Deep down, you must know as well as I do that’s all about prioritising real delivery partners (viz the Crown Estate), not about preposterous pipe-dreaming fantasists in the nuclear industry. https://www.jonathonporritt.com/go-ed-go/

August 1, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Project 2025 – A New Pax Romana

the plan is chiefly concerned with how to put ever greater control of both people and resources in the hands of a small minority of mostly white, mostly male, wealthy Christians.

The wholesale capture of the state is the ultimate goal of its Christian nationalist architects

Tom Dispatch, By Liz Theoharis and Shailly Gupta Barnes. 28 July 24

Roman poet Juvenal coined the phrase “bread and circuses” nearly 2,000 years ago for the extravagant entertainment the Roman Empire used to distract attention from imperial policies that caused widespread discontent. Imagine the lavish banquets, gladiatorial bouts, use and abuse of young men and women for the pleasure of the rich, and so much more that characterized the later years of that empire. And none of it seems that far off from the situation we, in these increasingly dis-United States, find ourselves in today.

Although the Roman Empire described itself as being in favor of life and peace, the various Caesars and their enablers regularly dealt death and destruction in their wake. They spread the Pax Romana (the Roman Peace), including a taxation system that left the poor in debt servitude, a military that caused terror and violence across the then-known world, and a ruling authority that pitted whole communities against each other, while legislating who could associate with whom (passing marriage laws, for instance, that banned gay, inter-racial, or even cross-class marriages). The emperor in power in Jesus’s time, Caesar Augustus, was known for ushering in a Golden Age of Moral Values that went hand in hand with that Pax Romana, and it meant war and death, especially for the poor.

Fast forward millennia and that world bears a strange resemblance to the media distractions, violence, and regressive policies that MAGA and other extremists are pushing forward in our times. Whether it’s Donald Trump’s assertion that “I alone can fix your problems”; Supreme Court and state legislative attacks on reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and trans youth in the name of family values; cuts to welfare, healthcare, worker’s rights and other life-sustaining programs to protect corporate interests; the militarizing of endless communities by allowing guns (especially AR-15 rifles) to proliferate, while offering only thoughts and prayers to the victims of violence, the MAGA movement is promoting culture wars and extremist policies under the banner of Christian nationalism. In doing so, its leaders are perfecting a disdain for the excluded, exploited, and rejected that hurts the poor first and worst, but impacts all of society.

And now, after decades of neoliberal plunder and the coronation of an avowed Christian nationalist — Speaker of the House Mike Johnson — to the third most powerful position in the government, the Christian Right and its wealthy patrons have their eyes set on an even more ambitious power-grab: Project 2025. Articulated through the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project, it’s a sprawling plan to maximize presidential power with hundreds of newly trained and deployed political operatives during Donald Trump’s next presidency.

It was seen in full display recently at the Republican National Convention and made all the more likely by the recent assassination attempt against him with (yes!) an AR-15! The nearly 900-page document outlines a plan to ramp up U.S. military might, slash social welfare programs, and prioritize “traditional marriage.” A reflection of the Republican Party today, including several Christian nationalist organizations and billionaire funders listed among its 100 institutional sponsors, Project 2025 is a roadmap for what could be thought of as a new Pax Romana.

The Formal Project 2025 Takeover

As Project 2025’s official website explains (and doesn’t this sound like it could come directly from the mouth of vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance?): “It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on Day One of the next conservative Administration.” Although its authors unabashedly deploy the language of conservative populism — decrying wokeness and “cultural Marxists” — the plan is chiefly concerned with how to put ever greater control of both people and resources in the hands of a small minority of mostly white, mostly male, wealthy Christians.

The wholesale capture of the state is the ultimate goal of its Christian nationalist architects. Project 2025 simply clarifies just how they plan to implement their drive for power. Each of its sections — from “taking the reins of government” by centralizing executive authority in the office of the President to securing “the common defense” by expanding every branch of the military — is worth reviewing.

The longest section focuses on “general welfare” and it should be no surprise that the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development are subject to significant cutbacks, including:

Imposing yet stricter eligibility standards, work requirements, and asset tests to constrain access to Medicaid, even though more than 23 million Americans have been unenrolled from that program since 2023;

Revisiting how the “Thrifty Food Plan” is formulated to minimize food-stamp allocations, while imposing onerous work requirements on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), even though most of its recipients work and/or are in households with children, elderly people, or people with disabilities;
Ending universal free school meals by removing the “community eligibility provision,” which allows school districts with high poverty rates to provide free breakfast and lunch programs to all children in need;
Eliminating Head Start, which has served 39 million children and families since 1965 and currently serves more than 800,000 poor families with young children, while shuttering the Department of Education;
Ending “Housing First” programs and prohibiting non-citizens, including mixed-status families, from living in low-income public housing; and
Imposing a “life agenda” and a “family agenda” that will restrict access to abortion and reproductive rights, and otherwise curtail LGBTQ+ rights.

Such proposals would undoubtedly be deeply unpopular. In fact, as people learn more about Project 2025, opposition is growing, even across party lines. Most Americans want a government that would provide for the down-and-out, who are a growing segment of the population and the electorate, as well as one that supports abortion rights, voting rights, and the freedom of expression. At least 40% of us — 135-140 million people — are either poor or one emergency away from economic ruin, including 80 million eligible voters. Project 2025’s social welfare cuts would, in fact, push significant numbers of people across the poverty line into financial ruin.

Even Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025 as attention has moved toward its distinctly (di)visionary agenda. However, more than half of the project’s listed authors, editors, or contributors were once part of his administration — and no one doubts that his vice-presidential nominee is 100% pro-Project 2025!

The Informal Takeover Already Underway

Perhaps scarier than either Trump’s or Vance’s connection to this regressive plan, however, is the fact that, despite popular distaste for such policies, it may not take a second Trump presidency to implement significant parts of Project 2025. In this sense, it reflects the ancient world of the Pax Romana. Rather than being dependent on particular emperors, its “peace” was a political and ideological program that punished the poor and marginalized so many, while keeping all its subjects in line.

From its recent rulings, it’s clear that the Supreme Court is hastening Project 2025’s agenda judicially, both in terms of specific future policies and the executive power grab at the heart of that mandate (and now of that court’s rulings). In June, for instance, it ruled in favor of the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, which enacted a law to fine, jail, and ultimately expel its unhoused residents. That precedent will only exacerbate the already hostile terrain confronting unhoused people, seeding firm ground to 2025’s plan to eliminate even more housing projects.

Worse yet, as the Nation’s Elie Mystal recently made clear, in just a few weeks of rulings, the court “legalized bribery of public officials, declared the president of the United States absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for ‘official acts,’ and made the power to issue regulations subject to the court’s unelected approval.” As he warns, “There’s no legislative fix for the problems the court has created… [and] they will continue to do all the things Republicans want that nobody elected them to do.”…………………………………………………………………………………..

in lockstep with Project 2025’s call for military expansion, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker recently released a report proposing that $55 billion be added to the Pentagon’s already humongous budget in fiscal year 2025 while raising military spending by hundreds of billions of dollars in the next five to seven years. The report, “Peace Through Strength,” revives the false idea that spending ever more on war preparations makes us safer. Not only is Wicker distorting Cold War history, but his prescriptions ignore our experience of the past 20 years of military buildup and the disastrous Global War on Terror. According to the Costs of War Project and the National Priorities Project, this country’s post-9/11 wars have cost at least $8 trillion, taken millions of lives, and displaced tens of millions of people globally, while precipitating climate chaos through their polluting emissions. If implemented, Wicker’s plan would only increase the risk of yet more destabilizing conflicts, offering a modern Pax Romana promise for yet more war and death.

Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace

While extremist Republican politicians and appointees are leading the way on Project 2025, both major parties align around building up the war economy. Indeed, bipartisan support for military aid to Israel is contributing to what the United Nations has labeled a genocide in Gaza.

Nor is this new. Every year, the Pentagon budget invariably passes with widespread bipartisan support, even if a few representatives vote otherwise. Since the 9/11 attacks, in fact, $21 trillion has been funneled into war, surveillance, policing, border control, and incarceration. In Fiscal Year 2023, nearly two-thirds of the federal discretionary budget funded the military-industrial complex and militarized spending. This year, a Democratic amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act will automatically register every male citizen and resident aged 18-26 in the selective service database………….

This remarkably bipartisan consensus for a war economy shouldn’t just be considered another “issue,” but an approach to governance that relies on force and violence, rather than consent, to establish social control…………………………

Jobs and Homes, Not Death in the Streets

The greatest violence of the Pax Romana was always borne by the poor, who were often ripped from their families, enslaved in back-breaking labor, and dispossessed of their land and resources. To maintain its authoritarian rule over millions of people, the Roman Empire relied on its military might and the fear inspired by its brutal army. And yet it was from the ranks of the poor that Jesus and his disciples led a non-violent revolution for peace.

Today, tens of millions of poor people in this country are on the front lines of our failing democracy and increasingly militarized society. They are the true canaries in the coal mine, already living through the violence of a society that has prioritized war and profits over addressing the pain and toll of low-wage jobs, crushing debt burdens, polluted water and land, and lives cut short by poverty, the police, and the denial of basic human rights. They can undoubtedly also foresee the drive toward an ever-deeper warfare state and the possible fallout from Project 2025 if Donald Trump and J.D. Vance win this year.

Forged in the crucible of violence, the criminalized and impoverished still call out for a true peace.

On June 29th, Reverend Savina Martin, a military veteran and formerly homeless mother, took to the stage of the Poor People’s Campaign’s Mass Assembly in Washington, D.C., and shared these thoughts:

“I am a US Army veteran and I was impacted by homelessness many years ago. Today, thousands of homeless veterans are fighting for [their] benefits, housing… navigating a complex system while sick and suffering, trying to survive the war waged against the poor. Yesterday, the US Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson permits cities to criminalize homelessness by enforcing bans on sleeping outside when no shelter is available. How can sleeping while homeless be against the law? If you sleep, you get arrested?

This system depends on us to fight their wars, but we can’t depend on [our government] to guarantee housing or healthcare? Instead, [our government] allocates $1.1 trillion to war, weapons, and a system that criminalizes the poor, leading to mass incarceration, deportations, and detentions. We want jobs and homes, not death in the streets.”

Savina was speaking of the war on the poor, the power of the military-industrial complex, and an extremist agenda that will connect her in unsettling ways with 140 million poor and low-income people in this country — and billions more around the world. As in other moments of history, the struggle of the poor for life and dignity in a world that denies them both is a struggle for the best that we can be as a society. In their leadership lies the hope for us all — not in Project 2025, a future Trump administration, or the all-too-devastating version of a Pax Americana that would go with it, but in the peace (and justice) that Savina and so many others are demanding, and will continue to push for, until it is ours. https://tomdispatch.com/project-2025/

July 30, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

Americans! How to make your vote count in November, and save the world in the process.

Substack Scott Ritter: Voting Against Nuclear War, July 29, 2024

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… The 2024 Presidential race, however, does directly impact the existential survival of the United States, the American people, and indeed the entire world, but not because of its outcome. The harsh reality is that regardless of who among the two major candidates wins in November, American policy vis-à-vis Russia, especially when it comes to nuclear posture and arms control, is hard-wired to achieve the same result. And it is this result that seals the fate of all humanity unless a way can be found to prompt a critical re-think of the underlying policies that produce the anticipated outcome.

A future Harris administration is on track to continue a policy which commits to the strategic defeat of Russia, the lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe, the termination of the last remaining arms control treaty (New START) in February 2026, and the re-deployment of intermediate-range missiles into Europe, also in 2026.

No matter who wins among the two major candidates in November, the United States is on track for a major existential crisis with Russia in Europe sometime in 2026. The re-introduction of INF-capable systems by the US will trigger a similar deployment by Russia of nuclear-capable INF systems targeting Europe………………………………………………………………………..

The INF treaty, signed in 1987, removed these destabilizing weapons from Europe. But now that treaty is no more, and the weapons that brought Europe and the world to the brink of destruction in the 1980’s are returning to a European continent where notions of peaceful coexistence with Russia have been replaced with rhetoric promoting the inevitability of conflict.

When one combines the existence of a policy objective (the strategic defeat of Russia) which, when coupled with a policy of supporting a Ukrainian victory over Russia predicated on Ukraine regaining physical control over Crimea and the four territories of New Russia (Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Lugansk), one already has a recipe for disaster, since this policy, if successful, would automatically trigger a Russian nuclear response, since doctrinally nuclear weapons would be used to respond to any non-nuclear scenario where the existential survival of Russia is at stake. (The loss of Crimea and the New Territories is like the United States losing Texas, California, or New York—a literal existential situation.)

Add to this the end of arms control as we know it come February 2026, when the New START treaty expires. The Biden administration has declared that it will seek to add new nuclear weapons “without limitation” once the New START caps on deployed weapons expires—the literal definition of an arms race out of control. One can only imagine that Russia would be compelled to match this rearmament activity.

And finally, the recent agreement by the US and Germany to redeploy intermediate-range missiles on European soil in 2026, and Russia’s decision to match this action by building and deploying its own intermediate-range missiles, recreates the very situational instability which threatened regional and world security back in the 1980’s.

When one examines these factors in their aggregate, the inescapable conclusion is that Europe will be faced with an existential crisis which could come to a head as early as the summer of 2026. The potential for the use of nuclear weapons, either by design or accident, is real, creating a situation that exceeds the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of the risk of a nuclear war by an order of magnitude or more.

While a future nuclear conflict would very likely start in Europe, it will be virtually impossible to contain the use of nuclear weapons on the European continent. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russian soil, or the territory of its ally, Belarus, would trigger a general Russian nuclear response which would lead to a general, global-killing nuclear war.

The question Americans confront today is what to do about this existential threat to their very survival.

The answer put forward here is to empower your vote in the coming presidential election by tying it not to a person or party, but rather a policy.

In short, empower your vote by pledging it to the candidate who will commit to prioritizing peace over war, and who pledges to make the prevention of nuclear war, not the promotion of nuclear weapons, the cornerstone of his or her national security policy.

Don’t give your vote away by committing to a candidate at this early stage—when you do this, you no longer matter, as the candidates will simply turn their attention to those uncommitted voters in an effort to win them over.

Make the candidates earn your vote by linking it to a policy posture that reflects your core values.

And this election, your core value should be exclusively centered on promoting peace and preventing nuclear war.

Such a policy posture would be built upon for basic pillars.

1. Immediately end the current declaratory policy of the United States which articulates the strategic defeat of Russia as a primary US objective and replace it with a policy statement which makes peaceful coexistence with Russia the strategic goal of US foreign and national security policy. Such a policy redirection would include, by necessity, the goal of rethinking European security frameworks which respect the legitimate national security concerns of Russia and Europe, and would incorporate the necessity of a neutral Ukraine.

2. A freeze on the re-deployment of INF-capable weapons systems into Europe, matched by a Russian agreement not to re-introduce INF-capable weapons into its arsenal, with the goal of turning this freeze into a formal agreement that would be finalized in treaty form.

3. A commitment to engage with Russia on the negotiation and implementation of a new strategic arms control treaty which seeks equitable cuts in the strategic nuclear arsenals of both nations, a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons each side can retain in storage, and which incorporates limits on ballistic missile defense.

4. A general commitment to work with Russia to pursue verifiable and sustainable nuclear arms reduction globally using multi-lateral negotiations.

I will be working with Gerald Celente, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Garland Nixon, Wilmur Leon, Max Blumenthal, Anya Parampil, Jeff Norman, Danny Haiphong, and many others to put together an event, Operation DAWN, on September 28, 2024. The goal of this event will be to get as many American citizens as possible to tie their vote to the policy posture spelled out above, and then to leverage these commitments in a way that compels all candidates for the presidency to articulate policies that meet this criterion.

In doing so, the voter would be fighting for a chance to save democracy by making his or her vote count, save America and the world by creating the possibility to avert nuclear conflict, all by making the candidates for presidency earn their vote, as opposed to simply giving it away.

Operation DAWN is still in the preliminary planning stages. More details will be published here as the planning progresses. https://scottritter.substack.com/p/operation-dawn-update-a-vote-earned

July 30, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Controversy in France about future energy policy

Electricite de France SA Chief Executive Officer Luc Remont urged French
policymakers to review subsidies for solar power, saying the measures add
too much generation to the grid and undermine the nuclear giant’s
finances as electricity demand remains subdued.

The comments will fuel controversy among nuclear and renewable opponents as EDF seeks financial backing from the government for the construction of six new atomic plants,
which may cost €67.4 billion.

However, the lack of a clear parliamentary
majority that emerged from legislative elections raises questions about
France’s future energy policy, including support for nuclear projects in
the near term.

FFinancial Post 26th July 2024

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/edf-chief-says-french-solar-power-subsidies-need-scrutiny

July 30, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, politics | Leave a comment

Scottish Greens warn that “Great Britain Energy” could funnel public money into subsidising non-viable nuclear power projects

Patrick Harvie warns of major devolution tests for GB Energy

By Nan Spowart , 28th July

LABOUR’S new flagship energy company will be an important test of the relationship between the new regime in Westminster and the devolved governments, according to Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie.

……………………….. He is now calling for more detail of the remit of GB Energy after it was revealed that the organisation could get involved in planning disputes…………………

“The real worry I have is that it ends up simply as a way of channelling
public money into subsidising otherwise non-viable nuclear developments
like small modular reactors which is a technology that the industry was
pushing very aggressively a few years ago but is failing at a commercial
level in a number of other countries. “We should not be going down that
route and the principal means Scotland has been saying no to new nuclear
has been through the planning system, so we need clarity early doors that
that is not their agenda.”

The National 28th July 2024

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24480590.patrick-harvie-warns-major-devolution-tests-gb-energy/

July 29, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell A Nuclear Site: Direction to Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband), 26 July 24 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-07-26/debates/24072618000010/SizewellANuclearSiteDirectionToNuclearDecommissioningAuthority
I am today laying a new designation direction to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in respect of the Sizewell A nuclear site, which amends the existing direction. The direction has been given in accordance with sections 3 and 5 of the Energy Act 2004, with the consent of Nuclear Restoration Services Ltd, which controls the site.

This direction will end the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s responsibilities under the Energy Act 2004 for specific land and buildings on the Sizewell A nuclear site, so that the land can be sold to EDF and become part of the Sizewell B nuclear site. This will facilitate the development of new nuclear at the Sizewell C nuclear site.