nuclear-news

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

In 2017, USA considered plans to attack North Korea using nuclear weapons

September 15, 2020 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. seeks to lower Russian uranium imports to boost U.S. nuclear industry

U.S. seeks to lower Russian uranium imports to boost U.S. nuclear industry. By Valerie Volcovici, WASHINGTON, Sept 14 (Reuters) – The U.S. Commerce Department on Monday inked a draft agreement with Russia’s state

 nuclear energy company to reduce imports of uranium from Russia over the next 20 years in a bid to boost domestic mining and
 nuclear energy.

The Commerce Department and Rosatom initialed the draft amendment to the 1992 Russian Suspension Agreement to prevent

dumping, extending that deal to the year 2040 and gradually reduce the amount of uranium the U.S. imports from Russia for
enrichment from 20% to 15% starting in 2028……… https://af.reuters.com/article/usa-nuclear-russia-idAFL1N2GB1HZ

September 15, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

IAEA and SAudi Arabia in discussions on nuclear security checks

September 15, 2020 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

Russian nuclear submarines ‘hunted’ by NATO forces in the Barents sea

NATO forces organized ‘a hunt’ of a nuclear Russian submarine in the Barents , Military, By Boyko Nikolov On Sep 13, 2020  MOSCOW, (BM) – NATO ships made an attempt to “take the pincers” of the Russian submarine in the waters of the Barents Sea, according to the Nation-news resource on September 12, learned BulgarianMilitary.com.

Several ships from the USA, Great Britain and Sweden, supported by a Danish aircraft, attempted to block the movement of a Russian submarine in the Barents Sea. It is also reported that a silent American submarine Seawolf may be in the provocation zone.

It is noted that the Russian submarine, which was “hunted” by NATO forces, is equipped with nuclear warheads and means of delivering them with Poseidon torpedoes. The American submarine, in turn, has Harpoon torpedoes and Tomahawk cruise missiles in its arsenal.

A similar incident is also reported in May 2020 in waters belonging to the Northern Sea Route. And also about the flight of a group of NATO bombers over the waters of the East Siberian Sea.

Such actions are assessed by the National Center for Defense Management of the Russian Federation as provocative.

US and British Navy maneuvers into Barents Sea are a signal to Moscow

For the first time since the mid-80s, under the supervision of the Russian fleet, four American and one British ship entered the Barents Sea, which indicates a growing intensity of the confrontation between the great powers in the Arctic, writes The Washington Times.

According to the newspaper, the purpose of this operation was to send a signal to Moscow, as well as to check the readiness of the Navy for action in any weather conditions.

Meanwhile, Norwegian officials refused to participate in this British-American operation – which speaks of its “provocative essence.”

According to officials of the US Navy, these exercises are necessary in order for the US armed forces to be ready to operate in various climatic conditions, including in the Arctic. However, the Trump administration does not particularly hide its intentions to repulse other states – mainly Russia, but also assertive China – that are trying to establish control over strategically important Arctic territories.

As expected, Moscow was not happy about the joint British-American operation. Russian media reported that the Northern Fleet is actively monitoring American and British ships in the Barents Sea.

So far, there have been no reports of close contact between Russian and American ships – as well as news of high-profile statements by senior Russian officials. However, as The Washington Times notes, recalling that it carefully monitors what is happening, Moscow sent a clear signal that it considers this Arctic territory to be its own.

According to American officials, on May 1, they notified Russia of an impending operation in order to avoid an “unintentional exacerbation.”According to officials of the US Navy, these exercises are necessary in order for the US armed forces to be ready to operate in various climatic conditions, including in the Arctic. However, the Trump administration does not particularly hide its intentions to repulse other states – mainly Russia, but also assertive China – that are trying to establish control over strategically important Arctic territories.

As expected, Moscow was not happy about the joint British-American operation. Russian media reported that the Northern Fleet is actively monitoring American and British ships in the Barents Sea.

So far, there have been no reports of close contact between Russian and American ships – as well as news of high-profile statements by senior Russian officials. However, as The Washington Times notes, recalling that it carefully monitors what is happening, Moscow sent a clear signal that it considers this Arctic territory to be its own.

According to American officials, on May 1, they notified Russia of an impending operation in order to avoid an “unintentional exacerbation.”………….. https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2020/09/13/nato-forces-organized-a-hunt-of-a-nuclear-russian-submarine-in-the-barents-sea/

September 14, 2020 Posted by | ARCTIC, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UN nuclear ban treaty needs 6 more ratifications

UN nuclear ban treaty needs 6 more ratifications,  https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20200913_21/ An international NGO is stepping up its call for countries to ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Six more ratifications are needed for the treaty to come into force.

The treaty prohibits the development, possession and use of nuclear weapons and was adopted with the support of 122 countries and territories three years ago.

Ireland and three other countries ratified the treaty last month, bringing the total number of ratifications to 44. The latest ratifications coincided with the 75th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN, plans to calls on more countries to ratify the treaty in events at the UN headquarters to mark the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on October 2 and United Nations Day on October 24.

The treaty will come into effect 90 days after the number of ratifications reaches 50.

Nuclear powers, as well as Japan and other countries protected by the US nuclear umbrella, have not signed it.

September 14, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Effective nuclear arms control engagement with China – the View from Beijing

View From Beijing  https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/09/09/view-from-beijing-pub-82525,  Tong Zhao, Senior Fellow
Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy 11 Sept 20, Effective nuclear arms control engagement with China will likely require confidence-building measures by the United States and greater support from the international community.

 
All major powers must recognize that, despite their strategic competition, they have a common interest in pursuing arms control to manage that competition and minimize the risk of military conflicts. Thus, the United States should be able to engage China on arms control if it sets the right goals. But if Washington continues to present arms control as a tool to compete with Beijing, why would Beijing help?
Washington cannot coerce Beijing by threatening to start an arms race and spend China “into oblivion,” especially because Beijing is confident it can outcompete Washington in the long run. Such a threat also reinforces China’s long-standing suspicion that arms control is a concession imposed by the strong and accepted by the weak.

The United States will have to keep its public voice down while offering China concrete proposals to address the two countries’ asymmetric capabilities. If they’re to be taken seriously, these proposals should show a willingness by the United States to limit its own capabilities, particularly in areas of U.S. superiority such as air- and sea-launched missile systems and space-based capabilities.

Appeals to the United States and China by the international community for responsible behavior would also have an impact. As U.S.-China competition intensifies, both countries understand the need to win support from third parties.

Given China’s deep skepticism and outsider status in the arms control arena, engagement will require transparency and time to build confidence. One valuable starting point could be a reset of fundamental terms: China may be more eager to discuss “strategic ability” than “arms control.” Identifying cooperative measures for nuclear risk reduction would be a useful topic for initial discussions.

To proceed with substantive talks, Beijing would need reassurance that Washington accepts a relationship of mutual vulnerability and does not seek to challenge its strategic nuclear deterrence. China’s concern over U.S. missile defense, if left unaddressed, would remain the strongest external driver of its comprehensive nuclear modernization. Perhaps the two parties could agree to a joint study on the technical feasibility of making the U.S. system capable only of defending against North Korean strategic missiles without undermining China’s nuclear retaliation capacity.
In China’s highly centralized political system, in which arms control experts are scattered and do not have a strong voice, the blessing of top political leadership is key to generating momentum for arms control talks. World leaders should engage with President Xi Jinping directly: his support, even a merely symbolic endorsement of the concept of arms control, would help start a much-needed domestic discussion.

September 12, 2020 Posted by | China, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Professor Paul Rogers – a witness explaining how Julian Assange is to be extradited for POLITICAL REASONS

Julian Assange clearly political, says extradition trial witness, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/julian-assange-clearly-political-says-extradition-trial-witness/news-story/735ef7d40551d52f4f7f12d9d6c318d7      JACQUELIN MAGNAY, FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT@jacquelinmagnay, THE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 10, 2020

Julian Assange’s nomination for the Senate during the 2013 federal­ election campaign and the establishment of the WikiLeaks political party the year before­ “clearly shows’’ the WikiLeaks founder has a political view and a libertarian standpoint, a witness has told the Old Bailey.

Professor Paul Rogers, the emeritus professor of peace studies at Bradford University, was called as a witness by Assange’s team to persuade the judge that Assange is being targeted for ­political means, and thus an extraditio­n to the US should not be permitted under the Anglo-US extradition treaty.

In day three of the court hearing where Assange, 49, is objecting to extradition to the US, Professor Rogers said in written testimony that Assange’s expresse­d views, opinions and activities demonstrate very clearly “political opinions”. He cited how Assange had formed the political party to contest­ the Australian general election and “central of this is his view to put far greater attention to human rights’’.

He added: “The clash of those opinions with those of successive US administrations, but in particular­ the present administration which has moved to prosecute him for publications made almost a decade ago, suggest that he is regarded primarily as a polit­ical opponent who must exper­ience the full wrath of government, even with suggestions of punishment by death made by senior officials including the current­ President.’’

But US prosecutor James Lewis QC said: “Assistant US Attorney­ Gordon D. Kromberg explicitly refutes that this is a political prosecution but rather an evidence-based prosecution.’’

In documents to the court, the prosecution says the inves­t­ig­ation into Assange had been ongoing before the Trump admin­istration came into office.

“Assange’s arguments are contradicted by judicial findings, made in the US District Court of the District of Columbia, that the investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified information on the WikiLeaks website remained ongoing when the present administration came into office,” the prosecution says.

Mr Lewis added: “If this was a political prosecution, wouldn’t you expect him to be prosecuted for publishing the collateral murder video?’’https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/julian-assange-clearly-political-says-extradition-trial-witness/news-story/735ef7d40551d52f4f7f12d9d6c318d7

He said Assange was being extradited to face charges relating to complicity in illegal acts to obtain or receive voluminous databases­ of classified inform­ation, his agreement and attempt­ to obtain classified information­ through computer hacking; and publishing certain classified documents that contained the unredacted names of innocent people who risked their safety and freedom to provide information to the United States and its allies, including local Afghan­s and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes.

Professor Rogers told the court the motivation of Assange and WikiLeaks was to achieve greater transparency and was political. The trial continues.

September 10, 2020 Posted by | legal, politics international, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

The United States and its allies must learn how to live safely with a nuclear North Korea

On North Korea, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,Toby Dalton, Co-director and Senior Fellow  Nuclear Policy Program, 9 Sep 20, 

The hard realities of North Korea’s nuclear program require a new approach by the United States.North Korea’s nuclear weapons are a fait accompli. Kim Jong Un is determined to hold on to them to guarantee his survival. Neither unilateral disarmament nor military confrontation is a viable U.S. policy approach, and maximum economic pressure will not change Kim’s calculus. The United States and its allies must learn how to live safely with a nuclear North Korea.

The United States and its allies must learn how to live safely with a nuclear North

Three practical goals should inform a new U.S. policy toward North Korea:

  1. Prevent crises that could lead to war
  2. Cap North Korea’s arsenal of nuclear and long-range missiles and prevent their export
  3. Buffer the alliances with Japan and South Korea against likely North Korean provocations

Additional objectives—for instance, preventing illicit trafficking and improving human rights—are important but ultimately secondary. Though desirable, regime change is too risky and uncertain to pursue, as recent experiences in Iraq and Libya suggest.

Accomplishing these three goals will require new negotiations just to establish rules of the road. North Korean demands are bound to be distasteful, but the costs of a negotiated agreement would be far less than those incurred through war or through increased military deployments in East Asia and the construction of a more extensive missile defense shield.

The costs of a negotiated agreement would be far less than those incurred through war.

Reaching a deal will involve helping North Korea overcome its suspicious, hard-nosed attitude. But an even greater challenge will be changing how Washington thinks about detecting and addressing the Kim regime’s possible cheating on a deal……… https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/09/09/on-north-korea-pub-82524

September 10, 2020 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

India and China both have a nuclear no-first-use policy- nuclear war between them is less likely

India–China border dispute: the curious incident of a nuclear dog that didn’t bark,  Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Ramesh Thakur, Manpreet Sethi, September 7, 2020  On June 15, nuclear-armed China and India fought with fists, rocks, and clubs along the world’s longest un-demarcated and contested boundary. Twenty Indian soldiers were killed; Indian estimates put the Chinese dead at around 40. The two countries remain in a state of military standoff.

Like the case of the dog that didn’t bark, which interested the great fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, the nuclear dimension of the recent border clashes was conspicuous by its invisibility. This may be in part because of the nuclear no-first-use policy expressed in the official nuclear doctrines of both countries. At a time when geopolitical tensions are high in several potential nuclear theaters, the nuclear arms control architecture is crumbling, and a new nuclear arms race is revving, there is a critical need to look for ideas that can prevent potential crises from escalating. Other nuclear powers can learn from China’s and India’s nuclear policies.

The normalization of nuclear threats. Over the last few years, leaders of many of the nuclear weapons states have taken to nuclear bluster. After the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis and annexation of Crimea in 2014, facing hostile Western criticism, Russian President Vladimir Putin pointedly remarked, “Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations”—a subtle but clear nuclear warning to the West. In July 2016, asked in Parliament if she would be prepared to authorize a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 people, British Prime Minister Theresa May unwaveringly answered, “Yes.” And who can forget the tit-for-tat exchange of belligerent rhetoric by US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in 2017 before the blossoming of their bromance in 2018?

In February 2019, after an attack on Indian paramilitary forces at Pulwama led to a clash between the air forces of India and Pakistan, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan warned of the possibility of a nuclear war. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, caught in the heat of an election campaign, responded that India’s nukes were not reserved for celebrating the fireworks festival of Diwali.   After India revoked Kashmir’s autonomous status that August, Khan reiterated that nuclear war was a real risk. His foreign minister repeated the warning in Geneva later that same year.

This rhetoric, besides being dangerous, has given rise to another problem. The more the leaders of the nuclear armed states revalidate the role of nuclear weapons in their national security, the more they embolden calls of nuclear weapons acquisition in other countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea and Australia.

China and India’s nuclear reticence. This is where China and India, in the midst of a military crisis, provide a striking contrast. Neither side has drawn attention to its nuclear weapons in the 2020 border clashes. Nor have many analysts across the globe expressed alarm that the prolonged state of disquiet between the two could spiral out of control into a nuclear exchange……….

China, India, and no first use. An important dimension, however, that has been underestimated in explaining the two countries’ apparent nuclear sobriety is the similarity in their approach to nuclear weapons and deterrence.

They are the only two of the nine nuclear armed states with the stated commitment to a no-first-use policy, and the force postures to match. …….

In 2014, China and India called for negotiations on a no-first-use convention among the world’s nuclear powers. It might be time for the United States and other countries to give it a serious look. Indeed, the China–India border standoff demonstrates the practical utility of a nuclear policy centered on no-first-use and merits wider international attention.  https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/india-china-border-dispute-the-curious-incident-of-a-nuclear-dog-that-didnt-bark/

September 8, 2020 Posted by | China, India, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

IAEA Providing Support for Saudi Arabia as It Plans to Adopt Nuclear Energy

September 8, 2020 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

The hazards of nuclear reactors in the Gulf region, and Saudi Arabia’s ambiguous energy program

September 5, 2020 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

South Korea adviser calls for ‘six-party security summit’ to discuss North Korea nuclear issue

Moon’s adviser calls for ‘six-party security summit’ to discuss N.K. nuclear issue, Korea Herald, By Yonhap, 4 Sept 20, SEOUL (Yonhap) —A special security adviser to President Moon Jae-in on Friday suggested reviving the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program in the form of a six-way summit, saying the issue is not a matter only between Washington and Pyongyang.

Moon Chung-in, special adviser for diplomatic and security affairs, made the remark during a security forum hosted by the Korea Institute for National Unification, stressing the importance of a “top-down approach” in efforts to resolve the issue.

“We need to revise the six-party talks that we failed in the past and we need to hold a ‘six-party security summit’ so that the leaders can discuss the issue of security and come up with an agreement on common security,” he said.

   “This way, we can solve the North Korean nuclear issue and materialize cooperative security,” he added……….  Nuclear negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang remain stalled after the early 2019 summit in Hanoi between the two leaders ended without a deal. The two sides were far apart over how far Pyongyang should denuclearize in order for Washington to offer concessions.
The six-party dialogue — involving the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan — began in 2003, but has not been held since 2008.(Yonhap)  http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200904000802

September 5, 2020 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, South Korea | Leave a comment

Iran Nuclear Deal Parties ‘United in Resolve’ to Preserve Agreement

September 3, 2020 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

North Korea’s nuclear activity still a ‘serious concern’: UN watchdog 

North Korea’s nuclear activity still a ‘serious concern’: UN watchdog  https://nypost.com/2020/09/02/north-koreas-nuclear-activity-still-a-serious-concern-un/-By Ben Feuerherd, September 2, 2020 

Nuclear activities in North Korea remain a cause for “serious concern,” and the rogue totalitarian state continues to enrich uranium, which could be used in an atomic weapon, the UN’s watchdog said in a recent report.

The activities by the country are in “clear violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions,” the International Atomic Energy Agency wrote in the report that was released Tuesday.

The report also notes that what was once the heart of the country’s nuclear program, the Yongbyon site, has likely been shut down since 2018 — and that no plutonium has been produced there in the past year.

Nuclear activities in North Korea remain a cause for “serious concern,” and the rogue totalitarian state continues to enrich uranium, which could be used in an atomic weapon, the UN’s watchdog said in a recent report.

The activities by the country are in “clear violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions,” the International Atomic Energy Agency wrote in the report that was released Tuesday.

The report also notes that what was once the heart of the country’s nuclear program, the Yongbyon site, has likely been shut down since 2018 — and that no plutonium has been produced there in the past year.

Still, the information it’s able to get about the program is “declining” because the agency’s been locked out of the hermit nation.

“Knowledge of the DPRK’s nuclear program is limited and, as further nuclear activities take place in the country, this knowledge is declining,” the report states.

 

September 3, 2020 Posted by | North Korea, politics international | Leave a comment

If the arms treaty with Russia ends USA will spend even more than the planned $1.2 trillion on nuclear weapons

August 27, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »