White House says Donald Trump’s nuclear policy is ‘catastrophic’,
White House says ABC News, 1 Apr 16Key points:
- Trump suggests Asian allies should develop nuclear weapons
- White House says US should focus on preventing nuclear proliferation
- Trump’s team calls abortion comments “simple misspeak”
A major nuclear summit in Washington DC is discussing the threat of terrorism and North Korea.
But it was Mr Trump’s comments raising the prospect of returning fire with a nuke if the Islamic State group was to attack the US that raised concerns.
“I’m afraid this kind of talk in an election is bluntly irresponsible and is detrimental to our and all of our allies’ security posture,” US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said.
The Republican frontrunner also declared that, as president, he would withdraw troops from South Korea and Japan and allow those two countries, as well as others like Saudi Arabia, to develop nukes.
It drew a scathing rebuke from the US deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. The entire premise of American foreign policy as it relates to nuclear weapons for the last 70 years has been focused on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons,” said Mr Rhodes, one of President Barack Obama’s closest aides.
“That has been the position of bipartisan administrations, of everybody who has occupied the Oval Office.
“It would be catastrophic for the United States to shift its position and indicate that we somehow support the proliferation of nuclear weapons.”……….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-01/donald-trump-white-house-says-nuclear-policy-catastrophic/7290854
Donald Trump would contemplate dropping nuclear bomb on Europe
Donald Trump Has Refused To Rule Out Dropping A Nuclear Weapon On Britain‘I’m not taking any cards off the table’ Ned Simons Assistant Political Editor, The Huffington Post UK , 31 Mar 16
Donald Trump has refused to rule out dropping a nuclear weapon on Europe.
In a Town Hall interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Wednesday evening, the frontrunner in the race to become the Republican president said he would be “the last one to use nuclear weapons”.
But when pressed by Matthews if he would attack Europe or the Middle East with nukes if he felt it necessary, Trump said he was “not going to take it off the table”.
Matthews, who was clearly astounded by Trump’s comments, told the Republican: “The trouble is when you said that, the whole world, David Cameron in Britain heard it, the Japanese who we bombed in 1945 heard it, they are hearing a guy running for president of the United States maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.”
Trump asked the MSNBC host in reply: “Then why are we making them?”
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Wednesday Trump was “in over his head” when it came to foreign policy with his “national security ad-libbing”.
Clinton said she did not think Trump “even studies or cares to understand” foreign policy……..http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-has-refused-to-rule-out-dropping-a-nuclear-weapon-on-britain_uk_56fcd9cce4b0c5bd919ab4de
Donald Trump’s terrifyingly dangerous policies on nuclear weapons proliferation
Trump’s nuclear views are terrifying , USA Today, Mira Rapp-Hooper March 29, 2016
He’d ditch ‘predictable’ U.S. policies that have kept nuclear arms races in check for decades. The contours of Donald Trump’s foreign policy are becoming disturbingly clear. Newspapers have labeled his thinking on international affairs “isolationist” and “unabashedly non-interventionist,” yet those terms fail to capture the more alarming elements of his philosophy. Trump apparently is prepared to abandon the United States’ most important alliances, even at the risk of those countries acquiring nuclear weapons. In other words, he is prepared to end the decades-long U.S. policy of extended deterrence — protecting close partners against nuclear attack and thereby limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the presidential candidate gives little indication that he understands the implications of these radical policies for global security and stability.
One theme running through Trump’s foreign policy is his disdain for U.S. alliances and allies. In recent news media interviews, he has called U.S. treaties “one-sided,” labeled NATO “obsolete” and repeatedly called on South Korea and Japan to contribute more to U.S. basing costs overseas. Trump appeared surprised in a New York Times interview to learn that allies do pay a substantial portion of U.S. overseas basing costs, with none more supportive than Japan. Yet he also seemed unmoved by this information, insisting that allies should pay no less than a full 100% of U.S. overseas costs. A refusal to do so would force a President Trump to begin withdrawing troops, he told The Times. When told this might cause South Korea and Japan to acquire their own nuclear weapons, Trump demonstrated a flippant comfort, stating that the U.S. “may very well be better off.”
It hardly bears noting that abandoning U.S. treaty commitments and acquiescing to nuclear proliferation are completely at odds with decades of U.S. foreign policy……..
To understand why Trump’s views on extended deterrence are terrifying, one must examine his other positions on nuclear policy and strategy. In a December GOP debate, the candidate appeared to be unfamiliar with the nuclear triad, made up of the intercontinental ballistic missile, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers that can deliver nuclear weapons to their targets. Just days ago, he refused to rule out the use of a nuclear weapons against the Islamic State terrorist group. ……….
Perhaps most unsettling, Trump repeatedly insists that the United States must be more “unpredictable” in its national security policy — a chilling assertion, particularly when uttered in such close proximity to such irresponsible nuclear policies. Trump’s naiveté about the world’s most dangerous weapons leads one to infer that he might not have considered the fact that a nuclear Japan and South Korea could lead to dangerous arms racing with China and North Korea, proliferation by other states in East Asia and regional instability that invites major crises……..
this prospective commander in chief’s views are not just irresponsible: They are cataclysmically dangerous.
Mira Rapp-Hooper is a senior fellow with the Asia-Pacific Security Program at theCenter for a New American Security. Her Ph.D. dissertation, “Absolute Alliances,” was on the role of extended deterrence in international politics. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/29/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-treaties-nato-terrifying-column/82341964/
Donald Trump says Japan and South Korea could have their own nuclear weapons.
Donald Trump says Japan and South Korea could have their own nuclear weapons The revelation came in perhaps his most extensive interview yet about his foreign policy plans, Independent Andrew Buncombe New York @AndrewBuncomb 27 Mar 16 Donald Trump has said he is open to the idea of both Japan and South Korea developing their own nuclear deterrents and would like to withdraw US troops from their soil.
In perhaps his most detailed explanation yet about his foreign policy plans if he were to be elected president, Mr Trump told a US newspaper that allowing the two countries to do this would reduce pressure on the US to come to their defence every time North Korea acted aggressively. He also said he would consider stopping oil purchases from Saudi Arabia unless the Saudi government provided troops to fight Isis.
“There’ll be a point at which we’re just not going to be able to do it any more. Now, does that mean nuclear? It could mean nuclear,” Mr Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, told the New York Times.
Mr Trump said the US “cannot be the policeman of the world” and suggested that Tokyo and Seoul would move to develop their own weapons regardless, if the US continued along what he described as a path of “weakness”. “Would I rather have North Korea have [nuclear weapons] with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that’s the case,” Mr Trump said. “If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.”…….http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-says-japan-and-south-korea-could-have-their-own-nuclear-weapons-a695466
According to Donald Trump – OK to nuclear bomb Syria?
Donald Trump open to nuclear retaliation after Brussels attack By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS March 24, 2016, Donald Trump is not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the U.S. fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to an interview with the GOP front-runner that aired on Bloomberg TV Wednesday.
Asked if he would consider nuclear retaliation after this week’s terror attacks in Brussels, Trump responded: “Well, I’m never gonna rule anything out. And I wouldn’t wanna say. Even if I felt — it wasn’t going — I wouldn’t wanna tell you that because, at a minimum, I want them to think maybe that we would use it.”
“The fact is that we need unpredictability,” Trump said of his openness to using nuclear weapons. “When you ask a question like that, it’s a very – it is a very sad thing to have to answer it because the enemy is watching and I have a very good chance of winning. I frankly don’t want the enemy to know how I’m thinking. But with that being said, I don’t rule out anything.”
When pressed on whether he would have utilized America’s nuclear capabilities after September 11, Trump said that he would only have used it as a “last resort.”
During his interview, Trump emphasized that terrorists “are winning” and “we don’t do anything about it.”……http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-open-to-nuclear-retaliation-after-brussels-attack/
Why are US media Presidential candidates ignoring $trillion nuclear weapons spending?
Only Bernie Sanders has adopted a position of outright rejection. In May 2015, shortly after declaring his candidacy, Sanders was asked at a public meeting about the trillion dollar nuclear weapons program. He replied: “What all of this is about is our national priorities. Who are we as a people? Does Congress listen to the military-industrial complex” that “has never seen a war that they didn’t like? Or do we listen to the people of this country who are hurting?” In fact, Sanders is one of only three US Senators who support the SANE Act, legislation that would significantly reduce US government spending on nuclear weapons. In addition, on the campaign trail, Sanders has not only called for cuts in spending on nuclear weapons, but has affirmed his support for their total abolition.
The Trillion Dollar Question the Media Have Neglected to Ask Presidential Candidates, Moyers and company The American people will be footing the bill — but, by and large, they haven’t heard much about our country’s planned trillion-dollar nuclear weapons upgrade.BY LAWRENCE WITTNER | MARCH 21, 2016 ISN’T IT RATHER ODD THAT AMERICA’S LARGEST SINGLE PUBLIC EXPENDITURE SCHEDULED FOR THE COMING DECADES HAS RECEIVED NO ATTENTION IN THE 2015-2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES?
The expenditure is for a 30-year program to “modernize” the US nuclear arsenal and production facilities. Although President Obama began his administration with a dramatic public commitment to build a nuclear weapons-free world, that commitment has long ago dwindled and died. It has been replaced by an administration plan to build a new generation of US nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities to last the nation well into the second half of the 21st century. This plan, which has received almost no attention by the mass media, includes redesigned nuclear warheads, as well as new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs and production plants. The estimated cost? $1,000,000,000,000.00 — or, for those readers unfamiliar with such lofty figures, $1 trillion.
Critics charge that the expenditure of this staggering sum will either bankrupt the country or, at the least, require massive cutbacks in funding for other federal government programs. “We’re… wondering how the heck we’re going to pay for it,” admitted Brian McKeon, an undersecretary of defense. And we’re “probably thanking our stars we won’t be here to have to have to answer the question,” he added with a chuckle.
This nuclear “modernization” plan violates the terms of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires the nuclear powers to engage in nuclear disarmament.
The plan is also moving forward despite the fact that the US government already possesses roughly7,000 nuclear weapons that can easily destroy the world. Although climate change might end up accomplishing much the same thing, a nuclear war does have the advantage of terminating life on earth more rapidly.
This trillion-dollar nuclear weapons buildup has yet to inspire any questions about it by the moderators during the numerous presidential debates. Even so, in the course of the campaign, the presidential candidates have begun to reveal their attitudes toward it.
On the Republican side, the candidates — despite their professed distaste for federal expenditures and “big government” — have been enthusiastic supporters of this great leap forward in the nuclear arms race. Donald Trump, the frontrunner, contended in his presidential announcement speech that “our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work,” insisting that it is out of date. Although he didn’t mention the $1 trillion price tag for “modernization,” the program is clearly something he favors, especially given his campaign’s focus on building a US military machine “so big, powerful and strong that no one will mess with us.”
His Republican rivals have adopted a similar approach. ………
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has been more ambiguous about her stance toward a dramatic expansion of the US nuclear arsenal. Asked by a peace activist about the trillion dollar nuclear plan, she replied that she would “look into that,” adding: “It doesn’t make sense to me.” Even so, like other issues that the former secretary of state has promised to “look into,” this one remains unresolved. Moreover, the “National Security” section of her campaign website promises that she will maintain the “strongest military the world has ever known” — not a propitious sign for critics of nuclear weapons.
Only Bernie Sanders has adopted a position of outright rejection. In May 2015, shortly after declaring his candidacy, Sanders was asked at a public meeting about the trillion dollar nuclear weapons program. He replied: “What all of this is about is our national priorities. Who are we as a people? Does Congress listen to the military-industrial complex” that “has never seen a war that they didn’t like? Or do we listen to the people of this country who are hurting?” In fact, Sanders is one of only three US Senators who support the SANE Act, legislation that would significantly reduce US government spending on nuclear weapons. In addition, on the campaign trail, Sanders has not only called for cuts in spending on nuclear weapons, but has affirmed his support for their total abolition…….http://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-the-media-have-neglected-to-ask-presidential-candidates/#.VvGf-fJH-yw.twitter
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton agree on climate change, disagree on nuclear energy
Clinton, Sanders united on global warming, divided on nuclear energy, Idaho Statesman. BY ROCKY BARKER rbarker@idahostatesman.com 20 Mar 16
Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have ambitious plans to shift the nation’s economy away from fossil fuels to clean energy to combat the global warming caused by their burning.
But as the two Democratic presidential candidates campaign and compete in Idaho in the days before the Tuesday caucus, the largest contrast is their views of the role nuclear power will play in the clean-energy future.
Little polling has been done in the state, but the last poll in February by Dan Jones and Associates for Idaho Politics Weekly showed Sanders with a tiny 47-45 percent lead, within the margin of error. That was a rise of 12 points for the Vermont senator from a poll earlier this year.
“It was very close,” said Dan Jones, the Salt Lake City pollster. “My guess is it is still close.”……….
CLIMATE CHANGE, INL AND CLEAN ENERGY
Sanders has made climate change action one of the central platforms of his campaign, helping to energize many of his youthful supporters. He has called for ending leases for coal, oil and gas on public lands and in the Arctic, which could affect leasing for gas drilling in Southwest Idaho.
Sanders also has called for a tax on carbon and an end to subsidies for the oil and gas industry. But his biggest contrast with Clinton is on nuclear energy, the central mission at the Idaho National Laboratory headquartered in Idaho Falls, which employs thousands of Idahoans.
“Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean-energy system for electricity, heating and transportation is not only possible and affordable, it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil,” Sanders said on his website.
Clinton Policy Director Jake Sullivan said the former secretary of state sees it differently.
She believes nuclear energy has an important role to play in our clean-energy future,” Sullivan said. “With that in mind, the Idaho National Laboratory would be an important institution to promote our clean-energy policy.”
Sanders introduced a bill to spend $41 million on clean energy and transition workers out of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, said spokesman Karthik Ganapathy.
“He believes we can run an economy entirely on clean, safe energy,” Ganapathy said. “He’s aware of the risks of nuclear energy.”
Clinton shifted early in the campaign to agree with Sanders on an eventual ban on oil, gas and coal leasing on public lands, an issue important in many western states, although less so here………http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/letters-from-the-west/article67181847.html
MIAMI’S NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IS LEAKING – do the presidential candidates notice?
AHEAD OF FLORIDA’S PRIMARY, MIAMI’S NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IS LEAKING, Newsweek, BY NINA BURLEIGH ON 3/10/16 As Republican presidential primary candidates gather in Miami on Thursday night for their final debate before the Tuesday primary, South Floridians are learning that radioactive material is seeping into Biscayne Bay, the 35-mile lagoon that stretches along the state into the Atlantic Ocean.
A county-ordered report released this week found levels of the radioactive isotope tritium in the bay to be 200 times higher than normal, leading to suspicions that the Turkey Point nuclear power plant in Homestead, Florida, which was built in the 1970s and supplies juice to 900,000 Floridians, is leaking.
While such a level of tritium is not harmful to humans, the problems at the power plant, on wetland that is vulnerable to rising sea levels, evokes the worst-case specter of another seaside nuke plant—Fukushima.
“I think the Fukushima scenario is very reasonable, and it terrifies me,” says Cindy Lerner, mayor of Pinecrest, Florida, which sits 14 miles north of the plant. “I was never anti-nuclear. But when Fukushima happened, the U.S. government issued an alert to all U.S. citizens, that if they were within a 50-mile radius to get outta Dodge.” Lerner says if a Fukushima-type event happened at Turkey Point, she’s concerned because the current evacuation plan is limited to a 10-mile radius.
The Turkey Point plant’s issues are hardly the only environmental concern troubling South Florida residents as they head to the polls next week, in what will be a decisive election for their junior senator, Marco Rubio, who has staked all of his campaign on his home state.
The four-county area around Miami is already seeing signs of the beginning of a nightmare scenario long predicted by climate scientists, in which rising waters increasingly affect roads and other infrastructure. The area’s water problems are only the beginning of a potential six-foot sea level rise by the end of the century. And, as Newsweek reported in January, local governments have been left largely alone by state and federal lawmakers to deal with it……..
Local Miami leaders say the elevated tritium is a sign that the plant’s system of cooling canals is degraded. In addition to tritium in the Bay (which includes a marine national park), warm saltwater from the cooling canals has been found in aquifers four miles west, threatening the already fragile Everglades freshwater system. The heated water is also believed to be harming wildlife.
They are boiling the North American crocodiles,” which nest in the area around the canals, says Lerner.
South Miami Mayor Phillip Stoddard, a biological sciences professor at Florida International University, says the nuclear power plant is simply in the wrong place, especially given higher waters.
“When sea level rises, the islands will be gone and there will be no more barriers to storm surge. It’s just a bad place to put a nuclear plant—between the Everglades and the bay, at the foot of a peninsula that will be very hard to evacuate,” he says.
Stoddard adds that other pollutants, related to the heated water, are going into the aquifer unchecked, and also threaten health and safety, including blooms of dangerous cyanobacteria, which shut down the water system in Toledo, Ohio, a few years ago. He also blamed the power plant for elevated levels of ammonia and phosphate in the bay. Taken together, Stoddard believes the problems represent violations of the federal Clean Water Act.
Lerner met with the EPA’s local government liaison on Wednesday in Washington to brief the agency on the two reports, one by Miami Dade County and another by the University of Miami, that found the problems……..
Rubio’s campaign did not respond to a request by Newsweek for comment. Stoddard and Lerner are among a group of 21 area mayors who have submitted questions about sea level rise and climate change to tonight’s debate moderators. http://www.newsweek.com/biscayne-bay-florida-nuclear-power-plant-leaking-435721
USA Presidential candidates: their policies on nuclear power
Here’s Where The 2016 Candidates Stand On Nuclear Power ANDREW FOLLETT, The Daily Caller 21 Feb 16 Energy and Environmental Reporter “……..Here’s a breakdown of what all the major presidential candidates think about nuclear power:Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: The former Secretary of State claimed to be “agnostic about nuclear power” in the 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate. As a result, she rarely directly discusses nuclear energy, though one of her campaign fact sheet claims she favors “advanced nuclear,” which requires “expand[ing] successful innovation initiatives, like ARPA-e, and cut those that fail to deliver results.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders: The Vermont senator vehemently opposes nuclear power. He opposes the construction of new nuclear reactors “when we do not know how we get rid of the toxic waste from the ones that already exist.” Sanders’ campaign website states “Bernie has called for a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States.”
Donald Trump: The real estate mogul has made strong public statements supporting nuclear power, but tends to favor further development of natural gas.
In the aftermath of the 2011 Japan Fukushima nuclear disaster, Trump told Fox News “nuclear is a way we get what we have to get, which is energy.”
The permitting process for nuclear power needs to be reformed, Trump nuclear is a way we get what we have to get, which is energy.”
The permitting process for nuclear power needs to be reformed, Trump explained. He qualified this statement saying “we have to be careful” because nuclear power “does have issues.” Trump specified that he favored the development of natural gas over nuclear energy in the same interview: “we’re the Saudi Arabia times 100 of natural gas, but we don’t use it.”
Sen. Ted Cruz: The Texas senator has not said much about nuclear power, and also lacks a substantive voting record on the issue.
Cruz’s website states he wants an “all-of-the-above” energy approach that adopts “an energy plan that embraces the Great American Energy Renaissance.” It does not specifically mention nuclear energy. Cruz has also repeatedly stated he opposes all energy subsides.
Cruz’s campaign declined comment to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Sen. Marco Rubio: The Florida senator has received praises for his energy policy. The National Review claimed “Rubio has the best and most serious energy plan” last November. Rubio also has a history of supporting nuclear energy.
Rubio’s campaign website says he will help nuclear power by “modernizing regulations and permitting processes will help develop both traditional and alternative energy sources and encourage energy diversity.”
When Rubio was running for Senate in 2010, his campaign website stated he supported “a comprehensive energy plan that encourages nuclear energy.” The Senator also wrote in a 2006 that “[c]lean, safe nuclear energy is another promising option to diversify Florida’s energy portfolio.”
Gov. John Kasich: As Ohio’s governor, Kasich hasn’t said much on nuclear energy, but is a firm supporter of green energy mandates that benefit solar and wind power.
Kasich has been embroiled in a fight with his own party over Ohio’s green energy mandate. Republican state legislators have threatened to gut a law mandating Ohio get 25 percent of its power from green energy by 2025. Kasich threatened to veto any legislative efforts that tamper with his green energy goals.
The Kasich campaign did not respond to request for comment.
Dr. Ben Carson: Not only is Carson a famed neurosurgeon, but he’s also a strong supporter of nuclear power.
“I think it is a huge mistake that we are not developing the next generation nuclear power plants faster,” Carson wrote in an August Facebook post. ……..
need to figure out how to build them with even more safety and expedite the process to lower the cost of construction. As I have said here before, we need to ignite the fire of the American economy and low-cost power is a critical ingredient to gaining a rebirth of manufacturing jobs in this country.”
Former Gov. Jeb Bush: Florida’s former governor is a strong supporter of nuclear power. Bush authored a pro-nuclear power opinion piece in a Florida newspaper in 2008, and was a member of the pro-nuclear Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. As governor, Bush encouraged the use of federal funds for nuclear cleanup. http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/20/heres-where-the-2016-candidates-stand-on-nuclear-power/#ixzz40pvjfPza
Fossil fuel lobby’s $millions going to USA’s Presidential Candidates
Fossil Fuel Industry Spending Millions On 2016 Presidential Candidates
DeSmogBlog, February 17, 2016 By Alex Kotch
When candidates run for president, they receive a slew of donations from across the business world, from sectors such as finance, insurance and real estate, health, communications and electronics, labor, and energy and natural resources. Some of these donations have come under scrutiny recently, particularly those from Wall Street and those from the fossil fuel industry.
Disturbed by current elected officials’ inaction on climate change at least in part due to the powerful influence the fossil fuel industry has on policy, environmentalists and concerned citizens are pushing the 2016 presidential candidates to reject campaign contributions from industry political action committees (PACs) and people who work in the industry.
Last July, The Nation and 350 Action called on the candidates to sign their pledge to refuse donations from oil, gas or coal companies; however, direct federal contributions from companies are illegal. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who recently dropped out of the presidential contest, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein have signed the pledge.
In December, Greenpeace and 19 other organizations asked the candidates to sign on to their Pledge to Fix Democracy, a pledge to defend voting rights, overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision, and to refuse “money from fossil fuel interests.” These interests, as defined by Greenpeace, mean fossil fuel company PACs, registered lobbyists that work on behalf of such a company, or top executives. Only Sen. Sanders has signed this pledge.
A look into the financial support that the fossil fuel industry has given presidential contenders may shed light on their resistance to these anti-fossil fuel pledges.
Millions of dollars tied to the fossil fuel industry in the form of campaign contributions, bundled campaign donations by lobbyists, donations to super PACs, and details in the candidate’s financial disclosures link many of these candidates to oil, gas, and coal mining companies.
In this presidential election alone, oil, gas and coal mining company PACs and employees have given over $1.8 milliondirectly to the campaigns of the eight remaining Democratic and Republican candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The top beneficiaries of the fossil fuel industry’s largesse this year are GOP Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Republican governor of Florida Jeb Bush, former Secretary of State and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and GOP Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Still more, including GOP governor of Ohio John Kasich and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, a Republican candidate who dropped out last week, have received considerable campaign contributions in past elections tied to oil, gas and coal mining companies…… [excellent tables]
Let’s dig into the candidates’ financial ties to the fossil fuel industry.
TED CRUZ A climate-change denier from oil-rich Texas, GOP Sen. Ted Cruz leads the pack in campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry. ……
HILLARY CLINTON Clinton’s two Senate campaigns and two presidential bids have netted her nearly $810,000 from fossil fuel interests, including close to $228,000 in this year’s race.
She has disclosed her lobbyist bundlers, and Huffington Post’s Paul Blumenthal and Kate Sheppard were the first to report that most of them either currently or formerly worked for the fossil fuel industry……..
JEB BUSH With the legacy of his father George H.W. Bush, who made his fortune from the oil industry in Texas before entering politics, it wasn’t hard for Jeb Bush to cozy up with oil and gas companies…….
MARCO RUBIO In this election, Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio has received more than $218,000 linked to the fossil fuel industry, the third-highest total among presidential contenders…….
JOHN KASICH While his campaign has taken in the fifth-highest amount tied to fossil fuel companies in this year’s race, Republican John Kasich, a long-time member of the House and now governor of Ohio, has racked up a total of nearly $1.2 million in contributions from oil, gas, and coal mining PACs and employees, ……
THE REST OF THE PACK Some other candidates still in the running have received less, but still substantial, dirty energy support……… http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/02/17/fossil-fuel-industry-spending-millions-2016-presidential-candidates
Hillary Clinton might Oppose Obama’s $1 Trillion Nuclear Arms Upgrade
Hillary Clinton Suggests She May Oppose Obama’s $1 Trillion Nuclear Arms Upgrade [includes video] The Intercept, Lee Fang Jan. 8 2016 Hillary Clinton signaled the potential for a major national security policy reversal this week after she told an activist in Iowa that the planned $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program “doesn’t make sense.”
Despite a momentous speech embracing nuclear disarmament in Prague in April 2009, President Barack Obama has stunned critics by embarking on an aggressive effort to upgrade the military’s nuclear weapons program, including requests to buy 12 new missile submarines, up to 100 new bombers, and 400 land-based missiles, along with upgraded storage and development sites.
The decision has been called the greatest expansion of nuclear weapons since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Clinton’s comments came in response to a question after a Des Moines campaign event from Kevin Rutledge, a coordinator with the American Friends Service Committee’s “Governing Under the Influence” project. Staff and volunteers with the project in Iowa and New Hampshire have been peppering presidential candidates with questions about corporate influence over military policy, immigrant detention, and other issues. Continue reading
Are we satisfied to live with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over our heads forever?
Imperial fascism and nuclear realities, delmarva now, MICHAEL O’LOUGHLIN December 31, 2015 Are we satisfied to live with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over our heads forever? The rhetoric of the dominant Republican candidates for president has become imperial fascism.
Fascist because it expresses an enthusiastic embrace of violence as the central instrument of U.S. power in foreign policy. Fascist as well because this entails a cavalier dismissal of basic standards of morality associated with human rights and international law.
Trump, Cruz and Christie recently took turns giving voice to this rhetoric, talking about “carpet bombing,” “killing families of terrorists,” “shooting down Russian planes,” making “the desert glow” and closing our borders to desperate people fleeing war because they are Arab Muslims.
The smell of fascism also rises with Trump’s talk of “energy,” “strength” and “will.”Opponents are cast aside as “weak” and “low energy,” in contrast to Trump’s claims he embodies “strength” and the “will” to “make America Great Again.” Policy content? Irrelevant. Trump’s sheer “will” conquers all problems before him. All we need do is “believe” in our leader…….
The rhetoric is “imperial” because it embraces the idea that the United States alone, indeed the president alone, has a right to engage unilaterally in war without end and no need for Congressional authority, UN Security Council consent or multilateral involvement of European allies.
Arrogant claims become commonplace. The oil resources of Middle Eastern countries are now “ours” and we will just “take it,” according to Trump. Central to the imperial perspective, national sovereignty belongs only to the imperious state. Other nations have no such rights…..
As journalist Walter Pincus recently wrote: “After Sept. 11, 2001, a very wise intelligence officer told me in 2002, ‘we have turned 16 clever al-Qaeda terrorists into a worldwide movement, seemingly more dangerous to Americans than the communist Soviet Union with thousands of nuclear missiles.’”
As of this date, the world has a stockpile of some 15,695 nuclear weapons, with the US and Russia armed with 93% of that stockpile, 7,200 and 7,500, respectively. In this respect, though some nuclear disarmament has been achieved, it remains the case that the greatest danger to the survival of the US, indeed, the world, is the continued existence of Russian warheads and our own.
Much hot air has been expelled on the real and imagined threat of non-state terrorism. Yet, where in the debates thus far have we heard serious discussion of moving faster towards a “nuclear free” world? Or are we satisfied to live with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over our heads forever?
Michael O’Loughlin is a member of the Peace Alliance of the Lower Shore http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/opinion/2015/12/31/column-oloughlin/78150212/
Donald Trump shows abysmal ignorance about USA’s nuclear weapons
TRUMP’S NUCLEAR HOWLER, Powerline, DECEMBER 15, 2015 BY PAUL MIRENGOFFTonight, Donald Trump delivered the biggest howler of the presidential campaign (at least on the GOP side). But don’t worry, the topic was a trivial one — nuclear weapons.
Hugh Hewitt asked Trump which part of our aging triad would be his priority as president. Trump answered, the nuclear side. But the triad, as Marco Rubio explained, is entirely nuclear. It consists of ships that can deliver nukes, planes that can deliver nukes, and silos from which nukes can be launched. In effect, then, Trump answered a question about which part of our nuclear triad is most important by saying the nuclear part.
Tom Elliott provides the text of this exchange at NRO’s Corner. Jonah Goldberg reminds us that Hugh asked Trump about the nuclear triad at great length in August, and he couldn’t answer it then, either. In the August exchange, Hugh told Trump that the “triad” is a nuclear triad. I guess Trump forgot.
The “triad” wasn’t Trump’s only bad moment. He defended his plan to kill the families of terrorists on the grounds that family members know about attacks in advance and that, though terrorists may not care about their own lives, they care about the lives of family members.
Put aside how outrageous Trump’s retaliatory murder idea is; it also displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the kinds of people we’re dealing with…….. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/trumps-nuclear-howler.php
Britons fear Donald Trump might use NATO nuclear weapons, if he becomes President
Britons seek to ban Donald Trump, eliminate nuclear weapons he might use as president,
Oregon Live, Douglas Perry 3 Dec 15 It’s beginning to look like Donald Trump really could win the Republican nomination for president, and the party’s mainstream leaders are starting to panic.
Across the pond, some Britons are way past panic. They’re rallying support to formally ban Trump from the British Isles. And, just in case the businessman/reality-TV star does become the U.S. commander in chief, there’s a separate effort from the Scottish National Party to end Britain’s Trident nuclear-weapon program, noting that the U.S. president is the de facto decider when it comes to NATO countries using nuclear weapons.
“The UK’s independent nuclear deterrent isn’t, I believe, all that independent,” SNP defense spokesman Brendan O’Hara said in Parliament last week. “In reality, it will be an American commander-in-chief who will ultimately decide, and in 18 months time that commander-in-chief could be President Donald Trump.”…….http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/britons_seek_to_ban_donald_tru.html
Hillary Clinton promises, if elected, renewable energy power enough for all homes
Clinton promises ‘enough clean energy to power every home in America’ The Hill, By Bradford Richardson – 11/21/15 If elected president, Democrat Hillary Clinton says she can create enough green energy to power every home in America by the end of her second term.
The Democratic presidential front-runner said her plan to subsidize alternative sources of energy would not entail a middle-class tax hike…….http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261023-clinton-promises-enough-clean-energy-to-power-every-home-in-america
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 