Democracy Needs Healthy Debates About War And Peace
To top it all, the Pentagon has never passed a financial audit! It’s the only major federal agency that hasn’t passed an audit, despite getting more discretionary dollars than any other. That means that we don’t know where our tax money is going.
Who benefits from this lack of transparency? Exactly who you’d think — contractors who profit off war. Around half of the military budget goes to for-profit contractors who make excessive profits at the expense of taxpayers and peace.
by EDITOR, August 7, 2023 https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/07/democracy-needs-healthy-debates-about-war-and-peace/
Congress spent the last “military spending” debate rehashing the culture wars — not the nearly $1 trillion Pentagon budget itself.
By Jyotsna Naidu / OtherWords
If there’s one thing that should be subject to rigorous debate and the will of the people, it’s decisions about war and peace. Unfortunately, that’s not what we got with the huge military policy bill recently passed by the House and Senate.
Somehow, the annual National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA — which can bring war or peace, and which now costs nearly $1 trillion — never sees much serious debate in Congress about those issues.
Before this year, the NDAA passed easily for 61 years straight. The process is intentionally rushed. Hundreds of amendments are filed and voted at once, leaving little room for serious discourse.
This year was a partial exception. Lawmakers did debate the bill, which passed the House only narrowly. But they debated all the wrong things.
Representatives provoked hate with countless culture war amendments. Ignoring issues of war and peace, far-right members of Congress debated cutting funding for service members’ abortions and diversity programs on military bases.
Here’s what they should have discussed.
In 2021, the Congressional Budget Office published a report detailing three ways to cut military spending by $1 trillion over 10 years without compromising national security. Instead, Congress has given the military even more money each year.
This year, Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) called to shift $100 billion of the defense budget toward urgent domestic needs. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a similar amendment in the Senate, which would have cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent.
An American Friends Service Committee poll released earlier this year showed 56 percent of Americans would support cutting military spending to reinvest in those funds in public programs.
And amendments efforts would have exempted troops’ pay and benefits from any cuts, targeting the bloated military contractorsinstead.
In the House, the amendment was never allowed for debate — and never got a vote. In the Senate, the Sanders amendment got just 11 votes.
To top it all, the Pentagon has never passed a financial audit! It’s the only major federal agency that hasn’t passed an audit, despite getting more discretionary dollars than any other. That means that we don’t know where our tax money is going.
Who benefits from this lack of transparency? Exactly who you’d think — contractors who profit off war. Around half of the military budget goes to for-profit contractors who make excessive profits at the expense of taxpayers and peace.
With these robber baron-like profits, contractors have funded think tanks to produce favorable research and “expert” mediacommentary supporting higher military budgets — while lobbying politicians to keep spending on contractors.
In the House, this year’s NDAA lost its usual broad bipartisan support because of Democrats’ opposition to its far-right culture war amendments, not because there was suddenly political will to address war spending. The Senate simply passed the NDAA without the controversial amendments.
Culture wars aside, we can’t let lawmakers go back to idly voting for pro-war and pro-contractor interests.
I do have hope. People are already winning when they fight. In 2016, for example, activists successfully pressured the Massachusetts company Textron to stop producing cluster munitions, which disproportionately hurt civilians.
And as the congressional opposition to those nasty amendments showed more recently, lawmakers can still respond to public pressure. The onus is now on us to demand our lawmakers have a real democratic debate on war, peace, and the military budget.
Democracy is at stake.
Philippines House panel OKs bill outlining nuclear damage compensation
By: Gabriel Pabico Lalu – Reporter / @GabrielLaluINQ INQUIRER.net August 07, 2023
MANILA, Philippines — A proposed measure that outlines civil liability and compensation in case of nuclear damage was approved by a House of Representatives panel on Monday.
During the hearing of the House Special Committee on nuclear energy, House Bill (HB) No. 8623, or the proposed Philippine Nuclear Liability Act, was approved, subject to discussions on the plenary.
A technical working group was also formed to reconcile differences between the original bill, authored by committee chairman and Pangasinan 2nd District Rep. Mark Cojuango, and the changes that would be made on the floor.
If enacted, the base version of the bill places that operators of nuclear installations would be liable for nuclear damage if there is proof that the incident was caused:
- in such nuclear installation or involving nuclear material coming from or originating in such nuclear installation
- involving nuclear material sent to such nuclear installation
It also specifies what conditions would require a joint liability — or when there is more than one operator handling the installation that caused the damage.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….. In a statement last May, the House of Representatives said IAEA informed lawmakers who hosted a forum on nuclear energy and international legal instruments that the law should contain the following provisions:
- regulatory control
- safe and secure uses
- offenses and penalties
- international cooperation
- peaceful uses
- compensation and liability
The IAEA said this after the House panel invited the Vienna-based organization to help Filipino lawmakers trying to come up with the necessary legal framework and policies for nuclear energy use.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1813407/fwd-panel-oks-bill-outlining-compensation-in-case-of-nuclear-damage#ixzz89luKgXEL
Why is Ontario Government bent on building a new nuclear reactor, at a much greater cost than solar or wind technologies?
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which is 100% owned by the Government of
Ontario, is proposing to build a first of its kind GE-Hitachi 300 megawatt
(MW) boiling water reactor at its Darlington Nuclear Station, east of
Oshawa.
OPG has still not submitted GE-Hitachi’s proposed reactor design
to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for review and potential
approval, despite claiming that construction of the reactor will be
completed by 2028.
According to Lazard, one of the most respected names in
global financial services, the cost of electricity from a new nuclear
reactor is 1.7 times greater than the cost of offshore wind, three times
greater than the cost of solar power, and 3.6 times greater than the cost
of onshore wind.
Clean Air Alliance 3rd Aug 2023
UK government pours yet another lot of tax-payer £millions into Sizewell C nuclear project
The UK Government has announced a further £170 million investment in
Sizewell C, with hopes that it will speed up preparations to enable
construction on the new nuclear power station.
Late last year it was rumoured that Sizewell C could be on the chopping block as the UK
Government scrambled to find cost savings, however now the Government is
looking to spend a further £170 million to ensure construction can begin
as soon as possible. That’s on top of the £700 million that’s already
been pledged towards the construction of Sizewell C by the UK Government.
The additional £170 million is set to be used to prepare the Sizewell C
site for future construction, procure key components from the project’s
supply chain, and expand its workforce.
Electrical Review 3rd Aug 2023
Western Media Has Falsely Presented the Donbas’ Drive For Autonomy as Being Instigated By Moscow
Covert Action Magazine By Ambrose Sylvan, July 13, 2023 [a long, detailed artice, – I recommend that you read the original]
In Reality It Resulted Largely from Kyiv’s Destruction of Eastern Ukraine’s Economy Under Neo-Liberal Economic Policies Pushed by Washington Since the 1990s
The war in Ukraine is commonly seen through one of two lenses. The vision presented by Western, NATO-aligned powers is one of an astro-turfed Donbas separatism created by Moscow to justify the division of Ukraine.
The view of NATO’s critics is that the Donbas republics rebelled against the Euromaidan revolution and the country’s nationalistic, Euro-centric tilt. The reality is that this conflict started much earlier and was merely frozen until the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2013.
Political Economy of the Donbas
Global Security outlines the economic situation in Donbas at the time of the dissolution of the USSR……………………………………………………………………………..
The tension between the central government and the Donbas miners was fueled by the increasing difficulty (and cost) of pulling coal from Donbas mines. Other coal-mining regions of the USSR were less costly but the social unrest in Donbas was placated with increasing state subsidies.
Ukrainian independence ended the Donbas struggle against Moscow but created intractable economic problems. The extensive subsidies for Donbas mines were shifted to the less wealthy government in Kyiv, the economic integration of the Soviet Union’s republics was disrupted, and the shift to a market economy was disastrous.
After the break-up of the Union, the political leaders of the Donbas miners would become known as “red directors,” socialists who put the interconnected economic needs of the Donbas and surrounding regions at the heart of their demands to Kyiv.
One of the earliest separatist organizations in Ukraine was the International Movement of Donbas. The Ukrainian news site DEPO, citing Novosti Donbas, describes the origin of the Intermovement as a project of academics at Donetsk University. The group was created as the “International Front for Donbas” at a meeting held on August 31, 1989.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The Intermovement for Donbas failed to raise support for a renewed USSR, but the separatist movement would grow larger and stronger with every crisis that shook independent Ukraine.
The Shock Year
The act of independence immediately triggered a years-long economic crisis which was the driving force behind Ukraine’s growing separatist and anti-government movements.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Inflation was accelerated by the spike in oil and gas prices as Ukraine lost the preferential rates it had enjoyed in the Soviet Union. Despite warnings from Moscow and the National Bank of Ukraine that the country would have to pay world prices if it exited the “Ruble Zone,” the government decided to drop the ruble as Ukraine’s currency by year-end.
New national borders interrupted the industrial sector, costs soared, demand fell (especially in state-driven industries like defense and science), and production crashed. For the first time in living memory, Ukrainians experienced the terrors of unemployment, price gouging, and starvation in a time of plenty.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ukraine dropped the ruble on November 12, 1992, and had no stable legal currency to use at markets. Wages were worthless and some workers were paid directly in consumer goods like soap instead of money. The economic problems of the working masses had become many times worse than they had been at the end of the Soviet era.
Demands of Donbas
Naturally there were outbursts of popular rage against the government as people lost their livelihoods………………………………………………………………………………………..
A government commission headed by the Finance Minister (who had authored the disastrous economic reforms) arrived in Donetsk on June 8. The striking miners made their demands clear: a no-confidence referendum on the President and parliament, and stronger regional self-government for Donbas. On June 18 the government agreed to schedule the referendum for September and to double miners’ wages. However this wage increase did little in the face of hyperinflation and the referendum was eventually canceled in favor of early elections.
Regional autonomy had already been a project of the Donetsk Regional Council before the 1993 general strike……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A “consultative poll” was held in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts on the same day as the early elections, March 27, 1994. The central government refused to acknowledge it as a legally binding referendum, but the poll results showed that Donbas had a popular mandate to establish an autonomous government.
The poll had four questions: whether the constitution of Ukraine should change from a unitary state to a federal state; whether the Russian language should be constitutionally equal to the Ukrainian language; whether Russian should be an equal language of government and education in Donbas; and whether Ukraine should be a full participant in the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States.
An overwhelming majority of voters said “YES” to all four questions: The federal system received 84% of all valid ballots in Donetsk, and the other three questions received more than 90% of all valid ballots in both regions…………………………………………
Deindustrialization
Tensions between the Donbas miners and the Ukrainian government continued to intensify over economic and political issues, and major labor actions continued through the decade.
………………………………………………………….The government did not follow through and strike action resumed on February 2, 1996, coordinated across Russia and Ukraine from Siberia to Donbas. As many as one million miners and allied workers went on strike in Ukraine.
…………………………………………………………. The central government’s economic warfare against the Donbas has continued unabated for decades………………………………………………………………………………..
Pushed to the Edge
Kyiv’s systematic destruction of the Donbas economy is a much greater driver of separatism than any Russophile nationalism. Sociological surveys conducted in early 2014 show us the most important issues to eastern Ukrainians on the verge of civil war.
Eight southern and eastern oblasts were surveyed by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in April 2014. ……………………………………………………………………………………………
KIIS additionally asked about the state structure of Ukraine. Only 10.6% in Donetsk and 12.4% in Luhansk indicated that they would keep the unitary state with its weak oblasts; 41.1% in Donetsk and 34.2% in Luhansk wanted power to be decentralized with oblasts given greater authority; and 38.4% in Donetsk and 41.9% in Luhansk endorsed a federal system with each region having its own state and the national government becoming a federation of these states. There were clear majorities in Donetsk and Luhansk (79.5% and 76.1%) that desired autonomous local governments.
Another survey was carried out by the Donetsk Institute for Social Research and Political Analysis in April 2014. ………………..In total, 79% of respondents wanted Kyiv to have less power and 48% wanted Donetsk to have its own state formation, whether independent or federated with Ukraine or Russia.
Breakaway
The infamous Donbas independence referendums were held just a few weeks after these surveys had been published. Despite accusations of endemic fraud and fabricated results the outcome was not far from what had been described by scientific opinion polls. The ballots asked not for independence but whether the republics should have “self-rule,” which the Donetsk electoral commissioner said could include autonomous or federal status within Ukraine.
When we consider the souring of public opinion on Kyiv’s “Anti-Terrorist Operation” and its civilian casualties, it is not hard to imagine how the 79% that polled in favor of more self-governance could have become 89% voting in favor of Donetsk self-rule.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. By 2020 the Donetsk Institute’s follow-up survey had found that 45-50% of respondents favored annexation and only 20-25% supported a return to Ukraine; the remaining 25-30% answered that they wanted any resolution that would end the war.
………………………………………………………………………………………. Shut out of power, the Donbas was subjected to decades of ruthless economic policies which suited northern and western Ukraine’s desires to join the European Union. When President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the EU Association Agreement, acting in the interests of the south and east, he was ousted by the Euromaidan protests and riots in the capital. The government which replaced Yanukovych’s Party of Regions immediately signed the agreement, took on colossal debts, and adopted catastrophic austerity measures.
This is how Russian separatists, far-right extremists, and paramilitary bandits were able to find support. Their militant actions burst the tension and made secession a real possibility for the first time. Now a decade of war and blockades has deepened the fissure between Donbas and Ukraine and, with the accession of Donetsk and Luhansk to the Russian Federation, this division may become permanent.
- See David Hoffman, “One Million Miners Go on Strike in Russia, Ukraine,” The Washington Post, February 2, 1996, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/02/02/1-million-miners-go-on-strike-in-russia-ukraine/191f1387-b970-4c0a-971a-e7a30edf07b6/ ↑ https://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/07/13/western-media-has-falsely-presented-the-donbas-drive-for-autonomy-as-being-instigated-by-moscow/?mc_cid=f5762ce44c&mc_eid=65917fb94b—
Ministers diverted £136m from electric car fund to Sizewell C nuclear project despite infrastructure concerns
i’s revelation comes as Rishi Sunak faces criticism for watering down some of the Government’s green policies
inews UK By Ben Gartside, August 2, 2023
The Government diverted £136m away from its electric vehicle (EV) supply chain fund to the UK’s main nuclear reactor project Sizewell C, i can reveal.
The Automotive Transformation Fund, a Government initiative designed to make it easier for car manufacturers to build and develop electric vehicles in the UK, spent just 5 per cent of its initially allocated funding in the year to March 2023, according to Government documents seen by i.
Given an initial budget of £191m, just £7m was spent and 76 per cent of the funding arrangement was transferred to the Sizewell C project, the construction of the UK’s first new nuclear power station in more than 30 years.
i‘s revelation comes amid mounting concerns about whether the UK has sufficient infrastructure for electric cars and as Rishi Sunak has faced criticism for watering down some of the Government’s green policies…….
The documents, published by the now defunct Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, show that £136m was moved for “investment in Sizewell C”, while another £10m was surrendered back to the Government altogether.
A later document from the replacement Department for Business and Trade said the money was reallocated “for a number of reasons” but did not specify why.
……………………………………An energy department spokesperson did not respond to i‘s questions about whether the money went towards buying out the Chinese government stake on the project.
Details on Sizewell C’s spending are closely guarded, but the project is expected to spend £912m this financial year, with construction yet to start.
…………………… some environmental groups argue that the UK’s nuclear projects have been plagued by delays and ballooning costs, and that there are better, less expensive options for delivering electricity more sustainably, including renewables.
The revelation that the Government diverted funding away from its electric vehicle supply fund towards the Sizewell C project may further alarm carmakers, who are already concerned about targets that are being imposed on the industry for the making of EVs and the readiness of Britain’s infrastructure.
………………………….There is concern that there will not be enough EV chargers to meet demand by this deadline unless capacity is significantly ramped up…………………………. more https://inews.co.uk/news/ministers-electric-car-fund-sizewell-c-nuclear-project-infrastructure-concerns-2520848
Sweden’s Nuclear Power Ambitions Quashed
By Julianne Geiger – Aug 01, 2023,
Sweden’s hope to build out its nuclear power capacity was quashed this week, with German utility Uniper SE saying it had no intention of throwing more money on nuclear power.
Uniper currently operates Sweden’s largest nuclear power reactor Oskarshamn-3, and has partial stakes in Ringhals and Forsmark. But Uniper isn’t interested in spending on additional nuclear power beyond its existing plants. It instead intends to focus on natural gas and renewables, according to Bloomberg, in line with its home country’s recent mothballing of its last remaining nuclear reactor.
The subject of nuclear power in Europe has been at the center of controversy. Germany—Europe’s largest economy—has made a point to back away from nuclear power, and has argued that it has no place in Europe’s green future……….
Oil Price 1st Aug 2023
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Swedens-Nuclear-Power-Ambitions-Quashed.html
UK government must come clean, to tax-payers and consumers, on the financial figures before signing up to new nuclear programme
Full report. See in particular paras 41 -44. “The Government should show
how this offers value for money to taxpayers … So far, the Government has
not published financial figures which allow the cost of this risk transfer
to be known. The Government must publish figures, before signing contracts
for new gigawatt-scale nuclear, which allow a proper assessment of value
for money to be made, including setting out the level and potential cost of
construction risk to be borne by the consumer or taxpayer …
The Government should publish details of how the estimated savings from using
the RAB model for funding Sizewell C were calculated, and provide clarity
for the funding structure, by publishing the Heads of Terms for the agreed
RAB funding model for that project.”
Science, Innovation, Technology Committee 31st July 2023
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41092/documents/200069/default/
Another kick in the teeth for UK taxpayers as EDF pockets another £170m of public money for their Sizewell C White Elephant.
In another lame attempt to prop up French adventurism into the UK’s energy sector, the UK
government has handed a further £170m from the public purse (note 1) to
EDF. With the CGN buy-out costing UK plc close to £700m and subsequent
‘encouragements’ to tempt reluctant investors to part with funding for
the doomed development at Sizewell, this brings the total amount of public
money handed over to EDF close to £1bn. East Suffolk residents could be
forgiven for thinking that Sizewell C is ‘shovel ready’: it is not. It
is, in fact, a long way from the Final Investment Decision (FID), the point
at which construction can begin. Even if the UK government and EDF can each
stump up £6bn the project will still be 60% short of the estimated £30bn
– a matter of £18bn to find. But that’s not all: dozens of licences
and permits have yet to be issued by the regulatory authorities, including
the site licence from the Office of Nuclear Regulation, and there is the
small matter of finding 2.2 million litres of mains water every day for 60
years of operation here in the driest county in the country, already
experiencing drought conditions.
TASC 31st July 2023
Past and Future Collide over Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
A History of Accidents and Centuries of Radioactive Waste to Come Dog Diablo Operator PPG&E
By Lauren Hanson and Mary Jones, Sun Jul 30, 2023 https://www.independent.com/2023/07/30/past-and-future-collide-over-diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-plant/
The past and the future collided at a virtual Public Participation Hearing held by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on July 25. The subject: the potential extension of operations at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
Over 100 commenters spoke. The majority of them (by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin) vigorously opposed continued operations at the plant. As Justin LeBlanc of Sustainable Transit El Dorado put it, “The way of the future is not legacy monoliths.”
Diablo Canyon’s two reactors were scheduled to shut in 2024 and 2025 when their operating licenses expire. A surprise, and very energetic, push by Governor Newsom has led to a last-minute governmental scramble to consider continued operations to 2030 or beyond. The State Legislature has already given a conditional go-ahead.
The CPUC is expected to take a position on the matter before the end of this year. That decision could facilitate or block the extension. Of the five appointed members, a single CPUC commissioner, Karen Douglas, attended the hearing.
Proponents and opponents of the extension definitely did not see the future in the same way. They didn’t agree on the past, either.
Supporters of the extension most frequently cited what they said were ongoing low costs and safe, carbon-free nuclear operations. The mayor of Arroyo Grande, Caren Ray Russom, noted jobs and said that her city is “a direct beneficiary” of the plant’s operations. Jeff Luse, of Generation Atomic, a group that describes itself as “the heart of the pro-nuclear movement,” stated that the radioactive waste stored on site is “safely handled.” Several proponents even advocated adding more nuclear reactors to the site and operating them indefinitely.
Administrative Judge Patrick Doherty, who presided at the hearing, twice had to remind participants to refrain from personal attacks on other speakers. This came after two proponents of the extension referred to those with different views as “eco-terrorists,” “superstitious,” and “propaganda peddlers.”
Those opposed to the extension didn’t need to name-call to make their points. The long list of operational problems of PG&E, Diablo’s operator, did not instill confidence. Elizabeth Brooking of San Francisco, who voiced concerns about how the radioactive waste will be handled for the centuries it will exist, commented that PG&E “doesn’t have an exemplary track record for maintenance.” That’s putting it mildly, as others noted. Adding some dark historical context were Scott Rainsford and Bob Rowen, who described their firsthand experiences with PG&E’s Humboldt Bay nuclear reactor #3, which, they said, experienced a nuclear accident in 1970 that contaminated employees and was covered up by PG&E and the regulatory agencies.
As for continuing Diablo operations beyond the ’24 and ’25 shutdown date, the reasons against that were many and varied. Here are a few that were brought up:
• Under-reported earthquake dangers that downplay the seismic risk to the plant.
• The alarming embrittlement of the metalurgical material inside the reactor vessel of Diablo’s Unit 1: Bruce Severance of San Luis Obispo gave a summary of his findings from reviewing 4,000 pages of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission documents.
• The actual unreliability of the plant’s scheduled operations: Donna Gilmore of SanOnofreSafety.org stated that the two reactors at Diablo had been down 40 percent of the time in the past two years.
• The increasing availability of battery storage as an alternative baseline supply of energy that already exceeds what Diablo offers and will likely exceed it by 3x in the coming two years.
• The uranium mining and transporting that endangers communities near it and contributes significantly to the carbon footprint of nuclear power.
• The financial costs of getting Diablo sufficiently ready to operate any longer than the already agreed upon shutdown: A study by the Environmental Working Group was cited, which states the costs could be as high as $45 billion.
• The absurdity of spending so much to prop up Diablo instead of deploying those funds as rapidly as possible for solar, wind and other renewables: Rooftop solar, in particular, was urged by a number of commenters.
• The danger to the ocean and marine creatures from the once-through cooling system that would apparently be allowed to continue, even though it is no longer an approved process.
• And finally, the unthinkable loss that a catastrophic failure at Diablo would cause.
This last item seems to be something that the proponents of extension want to whistle past, while the opponents of extension do what they can to sincerely sound the loudest possible alarm.
Adrianne Davis of Santa Barbara summed up the Diablo problem succinctly, calling the aging plant a “truly lethal dinosaur.”
And Myla Reson of Santa Monica concluded her remarks with this: “Take a moment to think how you’ll feel if there is a meltdown and you didn’t do anything to shut it.”
There is still time to submit written comments online to the CPUC at apps.cpuc.ca.gov/c/R2301007.
Lauren Hanson and Mary Jones live in Santa Barbara.
BRING IT HOME-Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
https://www.kennedy24.com/peace 31 July 23, In the long term, a nation’s strength does not come from its armies. America spends as much on weaponry as the next nine nations combined, yet the country has grown weaker, not stronger, over the last 30 years. Even as its military technology has reigned supreme, America has been hollowing out from the inside. We cannot be a strong or secure nation when our infrastructure, industry, society, and economy are infirm.
A high priority of a Kennedy administration will be to make America strong again. When a body is sick, it withdraws its energy from the extremities in order to nourish the vital organs. It is time to end the imperial project and attend to all that has been neglected: the crumbling cities, the antiquated railways, the failing water systems, the decaying infrastructure, the ailing economy. Annual defense-related spending is close to one trillion dollars. We maintain 800 military bases around the world. The peace dividend that was supposed to come after the Berlin Wall fell was never redeemed. Now we have another chance.
As President, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will start the process of unwinding empire. We will bring the troops home. We will stop racking up unpayable debt to fight one war after another. The military will return to its proper role of defending our country. We will end the proxy wars, bombing campaigns, covert operations, coups, paramilitaries, and everything else that has become so normal most people don’t know it’s happening. But it is happening, a constant drain on our strength. It’s time to come home and restore this country.
In Ukraine, the most important priority is to end the suffering of the Ukrainian people, victims of a brutal Russian invasion, and also victims of American geopolitical machinations going back at least to 2014. We must first get clear: Is our mission to help the brave Ukrainians defend their sovereignty? Or is it to use Ukraine as a pawn to weaken Russia? Robert F. Kennedy will choose the first. He will find a diplomatic solution that brings peace to Ukraine and brings our resources back where they belong. We will offer to withdraw our troops and nuclear-capable missiles from Russia’s borders. Russia will withdraw its troops from Ukraine and guarantee its freedom and independence. UN peacekeepers will guarantee peace to the Russian-speaking eastern regions. We will put an end to this war. We will put an end to the suffering of the Ukranian people. That will be the start of a broader program of demilitarization of all countries.
We have to stop seeing the world in terms of enemies and adversaries. As John Quincy Adams wrote, “Americans go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Robert F. Kennedy will revive a lost thread of American foreign policy thinking, the one championed by his uncle, John F. Kennedy who, over his 1000 days in office, had become a firm anti-imperialist. He wanted to exit Vietnam. He defied the Joint Chiefs of Staff and refused to bomb Cuba, thus saving us from nuclear Armageddon. He wanted to reverse the imperialistic policies of Truman and Eisenhower, rein in the CIA, and support freedom movements around the world. He wanted to revive Roosevelt’s impulse to dissolve the British empire rather than take it over.
John F. Kennedy’s vision was tragically cut short by an assassin’s bullet. But now we have another chance. The country is ailing, yes, but underneath there is vitality still. America is a land rich in resources, creativity, and intelligence. We just need to get serious about healing our society, to become strong again from the inside.
America was once an inspiration to the world, a beacon of freedom and democracy. Our priority will be nothing less than to restore our moral leadership. We will lead by example. When a warlike imperial nation disarms of its own accord, it sets a template for peace everywhere. It is not too late for us to voluntarily let go of empire and serve peace instead, as a strong and healthy nation.
UK has no coherent plan to develop nuclear energy
In a major report, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee calls
on the Government to develop and publish a Nuclear Strategic Plan to turn
high level aspirations into concrete steps to deliver new nuclear. The
Committee says that the Government is right to look to nuclear power to
meet our future electricity needs and that this requires a substantial
programme of nuclear new build.
But the Report warns that the Government
target of 24 GW of nuclear generating capacity by 2050 and the aspiration
to deploy a new nuclear reactor every year are more of a ‘wish list’
than the comprehensive detailed and specific strategy that is required to
ensure such capacity is built.
The Government’s stated aim of 24 GW of
nuclear capacity is ambitious: it is almost double the highest installed
nuclear capacity the UK has ever achieved. It could involve new
gigawatt-scale nuclear power, small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced
modular reactors (AMRs), and further development of nuclear fusion. It
would require substantial progress on technologies, financing, skills,
regulation, decommissioning and waste management.
Science, Innovation, Technology Committee 31st July 2023
Ambition alone will not build UK nuclear power
Greg Clark, former energy minister, writes that the absence of policy continuity has undermined strategy on this issue. The current government claims to be all-in for new
nuclear. Its Energy Security Strategy, published last year, set a target of
24 gigawatts of nuclear energy generating capacity by 2050.
That is highly ambitious. To put it in context, it is three times our current capacity and
nearly twice the highest nuclear capacity that the UK has ever achieved,
even before Magnox plants were retired from service.
Today the cross-party House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee, which I chair, will publish a report endorsing the government’s decision to
look to nuclear power to meet our future electricity needs — especially
if we are to achieve the legal requirement of net zero carbon emissions by
2050. At a time when imported supplies of energy leave us vulnerable to
price spikes at best, and shortages at worst, there is an energy security
case for nuclear power under our own control.
However, we will also warn
that expansive ambition will not get nuclear power built. Much more than
with other energy technologies, the scale, financial demands, workforce
planning and — in the case of advanced nuclear technologies — research
and development needed for new nuclear requires a dependable strategic plan
if hopes are to have any chance of being turned into reality.
Witness after witness who appeared before our inquiry told us that such a strategic plan
for nuclear is missing. For example, there is no indication from the
government on what proportion of the 24GW is intended to be met by
gigawatt-scale plants like Hinkley Point C, or smaller, more distributed
nuclear reactors such as small modular reactors.
The government’s stated
aim to deploy a nuclear reactor a year is not grounded in any explanatory
detail. The role of the new organisation, Great British Nuclear, is obscure
beyond running a competition between potential developers of small modular
reactors. Britain has an opportunity to break out of 70 years of on-off
policy towards nuclear power, with the twin imperatives of energy security
and net zero favouring a substantial future contribution of nuclear to our
electricity needs. But this will not happen without a clear and deliberate
plan on which very long-term investors can rely. If Britain is to have
substantial new nuclear capacity, there is an urgent need to turn hopes
into action.
FT 31st July 2023
https://www.ft.com/content/7499350a-2a4c-430d-a23f-415f3780e0aa
What would George Washington do? He would have audacity to end nuclear weapons
Bert Crain, 30 July 23 https://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/2023/07/30/opinion-what-would-george-washington-do-end-use-of-nuclear-weapons/70455731007
Our first president in his farewell address warned us about three things: debt, political parties and foreign entanglements. Few now would doubt the prescient wisdom of the first two warnings, but we have also become entrapped in the third. Most notably we are forced by a declining Russia and a rising China to engage in a dangerous game of nuclear deterrence.
George Washington likely could not have envisioned a world in which his country was threatened with destruction either intentionally or accidentally by ballistic missiles launched from a foreign country thousands of miles away. Despite the new nature of the threats there may still be a measure of wisdom to be distilled from his advice. It is unlikely he would engage China in a destructive war over Taiwan although he might well provide them with the weapons to defend themselves. The problem with nuclear weapons would be more complicated and the only thing we can know for sure is that Washington would do what he perceived to be in his country’s best interest.
What is his country’s best interest? As we near the 78th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in the instant death of 150,000 people, we should take pause. United Nations general secretary Antonio Guterres warned us over a year ago that that we are one accident or miscalculation away from disaster.
The Power 5 nuclear weapon states: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States jointly stated over a year ago that “a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” Yet all the nuclear weapon states are renewing and trying to enhance their weapons in an ever-increasing cycle of ratcheting up that undermines stability and benefits no one. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said after the Cuban Missile Crisis “we lucked out.” Only good luck prevented a nuclear war and to depend on continued good luck, as the risks increase, is magical thinking better suited for children’s books of fairy tales, than as part of national defense policy.
We must tear down the metaphorical wall between the soothing idea of security through nuclear deterrence and the reality of the cataclysmic threat that nuclear weapons pose. The U.S. must lead the way and work with the authoritarian states, convincing them that it is in everyone’s best interest to maintain security without the ever-present threat of global annihilation.
The United Nations’ Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, TPNW, in force since January 2021, is the best hope to begin the multi-generational trust building that will allow the required rigid verification regimes. Pursuing the path to global elimination of nuclear weapons is the only way to free ourselves from this dreadful foreign entanglement.
Although the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the ultimate solution there are things that can be done right now to reduce the risk of catastrophe. There is a grassroots movement endorsed by hundreds of nongovernmental organizations and municipal and state governments. Back from the Brink — preventnuclearwar.org — has four additional actions that can reduce risk and encourage our adversaries to follow.
The U.S. should have a No First Use policy. Using nuclear weapons first against a nonnuclear weapon state would merit world condemnation; using them against a nuclear weapon state would bring devastating retaliation. The second and third actions are linked. The U.S. should take nukes off high alert status and eliminate sole presidential authority to launch. Only Congress can declare war and loitering nuclear-armed submarines virtually undetectable allow that option. Finally, many former military leaders including former Secretary of Defense William Perry have spoken against replacing the entire U.S. arsenal. The ground-based ICBMs are “sitting ducks” virtually inviting a first strike by a deranged tyrant.
It is also important to remember that the military industrial political complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about is often disingenuous touting weapon systems for profit that do not make us safer. U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 77 introduced by Representative McGovern endorses the Back from the Brink campaign and already has 34 cosponsors. A companion bill should be introduced in the senate. The grace of public pressure by “we the people” can force our government to adopt a less insane nuclear policy.
I feel that a real leader, like Washington, would have the audacity, like presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, who made great progress ending the cold war, to pursue this path.
1 This Month
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (288)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 