nuclear-news

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

  • Home
  • 1 This Month
  • ACTION !
  • Disclaimer
  • Links
  • PAGES on NUCLEAR ISSUES

Donald Trump’s enthusiasm to sell nuclear technology to the reckless Saudi regime

Why was the Trump administration so eager to give nuclear technology to the reckless Saudi regime? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/why-was-the-trump-administration-so-eager-to-give-nuclear-technology-to-the-reckless-saudi-regime/2019/02/21/e40e38e6-353c-11e9-a400-e481bf264fdc_story.html?utm_term=.cdaa56e24b47, By Editorial Board, February 21 SAUDI ARABIA’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has built a record of reckless aggression against opponents both at home and abroad. He has also declared on at least one occasion that his regime could seek to acquire nuclear weapons. It would seem common-sensical for the United States to avoid transferring any nuclear technology to his regime without ironclad guarantees that it could not be used to build bombs. Yet the Trump administration appears to have persisted in considering proposals to do just that — in part at the urging of senior officials and lobbyists with troubling conflicts of interest.

A report by the Democratic staff of the House Oversight and Reform Committee this week provided new details of how former national security adviser Michael Flynn and other National Security Council officials attempted to rush through a plan for U.S. companies to sell nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia in the early weeks of the Trump administration. Ignoring warnings by career officials that they could violate laws on technology transfers, as well as conflict-of-interest rules, they pushed a scheme drawn up by a firm represented by several well-connected retired generals.

According to the committee report, Mr. Flynn had identified himself as an adviser to the company, and the plan called for President Trump to appoint his close friend Tom Barrack to oversee a deal with the Saudis even though his private business has raised considerable funds from Saudi investors.

Though the NSC initiative appears to have been squelched by H.R. McMaster, who replaced Mr. Flynn, negotiations with the Saudis have quietly continued under Energy Secretary Rick Perry. As recently as last week, Mr. Trump held a meeting with nuclear company executives in the Oval Office to discuss power-plant sales to Saudi Arabia. The session was organized by the firm that previously collaborated with Mr. Flynn, and the shadows of possible conflicts of interest persist. One of the nuclear companies, Westinghouse Electric, is owned by a firm that also bought a stake in a troubled Manhattan skyscraper owned by Jared Kushner’s family company. Mr. Kushner, a key interlocutor with Mohammed bin Salman, is due to visit the kingdom again next week.

There is an argument to be made for U.S. firms selling nuclear plants to Saudi Arabia: If the kingdom is determined to acquire them, then it would be better it do so from U.S. companies than from their Russian or Chinese competitors. But that logic holds only if the administration negotiates a deal with Riyadh imposing strict controls on the technology. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the only responsible accord would be one that prohibited the regime from any enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of spent fuel — techniques that can be used to build nuclear weapons.

Unsurprisingly, the arrogant crown prince is refusing to accept those terms — probably because he wishes to preserve a nuclear-arms option. Though federal law requires the United States to negotiate a protocol on the conditions for supplying nuclear technology and submit that to Congress, it does not mandate those conditions. So Congress must insist that any nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia embrace this gold standard. To do otherwise would only compound the danger posed by Mohammed bin Salman.

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons seen by North Korea as essential to its survival

North Korea sees nuclear weapons as key to its survival, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nukes-not-

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un provides guidance on a nuclear weapons program in this undated photo released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang September 3, 2017. KCNA via REUTERS

alliances-seen-by-north-korea-as-guarantor-of-survival/ BY KATIANA KRAWCHENKO FEBRUARY 22, 2019   CBS NEWSNorth Korean leader Kim Jong Un sees nuclear weapons, not alliances, as the “ultimate guarantor” of survival, according to former top CIA analyst Jung Pak, who joined CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett for lunch on this week’s episode of “The Takeout.”That, she told Garrett, complicates the question of what “denuclearization” ultimately means, particularly ahead of President Trump’s summit with Kim beginning next Wednesday.

“The first summit produced very little in terms of how we were going to move toward North Korea denuclearization,” Pak said, adding that Kim has been “developing all of the ingredients for this recipe of mating the nuclear weapon on top of the ballistic missile that is shown to be able to fly across the world, to hit virtually any spot, frankly.”

Kim has been intent on showing us his capabilities, and he’s also been pretty clear about his intentions. He’s not going to unilaterally disarm, he said — unless the U.S., and frankly, the world give up its nuclear weapons.”

Trump administration officials say they do not know if North Korea has made the choice yet to denuclearize, but they’re engaged in these talks because they believe in the possibility.

President Trump himself has asserted that if North Korea does achieve verifiable “denuclearization,” which he simultaneously said he is now in “no rush” to achieve, the country could become a “tremendous economic power” due to their “unbelievable location” tucked in next to Russia, China and South Korea.

Pak believes “there is something to be said” for that point. But the North also sees its location as a real vulnerability, she told Garrett.

“They’re surrounded by the second, third and eleventh largest economies, and the only thing that sets them apart, and the only thing that makes them relevant is nuclear weapons.”

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | North Korea, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran is sticking to the terms of the nuclear deal

Iran still holding up its end of nuclear deal, IAEA report shows,  Francois Murphy, VIENNA (Reuters) 22 Feb 19, – Iran has remained within the key limits on its nuclear activities imposed by its 2015 deal with major powers despite growing pressure from newly reimposed U.S. sanctions, a report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog showed on Friday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is policing the deal, which lifted sanctions against Tehran in exchange for restrictions on Tehran’s atomic activities aimed at increasing the time Iran would need to make an atom bomb if it chose to.

Iran has stayed within caps on the level to which it can enrich uranium, as well as its stock of enriched uranium, the IAEA said in a confidential quarterly report sent to its member states and obtained by Reuters.

“Not much has changed…, a continuing reporting of the implementation (by Iran),” a senior diplomat said on condition of anonymity, summarising the report.

The IAEA also repeated its usual statement that it carried out so-called complementary access inspections – which are often at short notice – at all locations in Iran that it needed to visit.

President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal last May, reimposing U.S. sanctions on Iran’s economy and lifeblood oil industry that were lifted under the 2015 agreement.

European powers that signed the deal – France, Britain and Germany – have sought to cushion the blow to Iran of those sanctions. They are setting up a new channel for non-dollar trade with Iran but diplomats say it will not be able to handle the big transactions Iran says it needs to keep the deal afloat………https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea/iran-still-holding-up-its-end-of-nuclear-deal-iaea-report-shows-idUSKCN1QB1XC

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Global nuclear arms race – triggered by Trump’s withdrawal from nuclear weapons treaty

Trump Accidentally Just Triggered Global Nuclear Proliferation

CIS:E.1512-2004

Before the United States killed it, the INF Treaty didn’t just stem the arms race with Russia—it stopped the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

FOREIGN POLICY.COM BY SARAH BIDGOOD, FEBRUARY 21, 2019 O n Feb. 1, the Trump administration made good on its threats and began the official withdrawal process from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the United States and Russia. As others have pointed out, this was a short-sighted decision. By withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the Trump administration has eliminated any consequences of Moscow’s alleged noncompliance, leaving it free to deploy as many intermediate-range missiles as it wants. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to throw out the rulebook instead of trying to enforce it greases the wheels for a return to U.S.-Russian nuclear arms racing—with potentially dire consequences for international security.

But there is another outcome of the end of INF Treaty that is less examined and no less dangerous: It will undermine global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that don’t yet have them. As an instrument of arms control, the INF Treaty has done much more than limit the capabilities of the individual parties involved. For over 30 years, it has quietly been a central part of the international nonproliferation regime, too. This collection of treaties, informal agreements, and institutions that keep the spread of nuclear weapons in check is often cast in architectural terms: an edifice held up by pillars built on a weathered but enduring foundation. In reality, the nonproliferation regime is a complex and deeply intertwined network that more resembles a spiderweb: stronger than the sum of its parts but likely to unravel if individual threads start to break.

Perhaps the most important thread in this tapestry is the long-running tradition of close cooperation between Washington and Moscow on nuclear issues. The INF Treaty itself is a product of their joint efforts, as are the 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (commonly known as the NPT), the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, among others. U.S.-Soviet partnership on nonproliferation remained sacrosanct even during the worst moments of the Cold War, in part thanks to regular interaction between Russian and American officials across a host of treaties and other frameworks. As the historical record shows, just talking to one another, almost regardless of outcome, built up trust and personal rapport that kept cooperation going when times got tough.

From this vantage, the INF Treaty’s demise is not just symptomatic of the deep crisis between the two nuclear powers—it is also a contributor to it.Its collapse means the elimination of an official channel for Russian and American interaction at a moment when there are precious few other options. The Special Verification Commission, the pact’s dispute resolution mechanism, convened 30 meetingsthrough the early 2000s but was sorely underutilized in recent years. It would have been the natural setting to address noncompliance allegations—and could have helped to get relations back on track—but this opportunity came off the table when the treaty was scrapped.

The importance of U.S.-Russian relations to nonproliferation means that the end of the INF Treaty will affect other areas of the regime, too. As many experts have observed, New START—now the last bastion of bilateral arms control—is probably the most susceptible to contagion. Set to expire in just two years, this 2010 agreement can be extended for up to five years if both parties agree. Emboldened by its withdrawal from the INF Treaty, however, the Trump administration might pass over this silver bullet for the freedom to pursue maximum flexibility in its military options……… https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/21/trump-accidentally-just-triggered-global-nuclear-proliferation/

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ending The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War

Mutually Agreed Peace: Ending The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War By Ethan Indigo Smith, Contributing Writer for Wake Up World, 22 Feb 19, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” ~ Pericles.

Everything is ultimately political these days, but everything is firstly biological. Yet, ignoring our biology and our humanity, the military-industrial complex, with all its toxic modalities, still claims to operate in our best interests.

The fact is, modern politics has become the imposition of institutional formality where individuals and truth once were. Increasingly favoring institutional privilege over individual rights, politicians on all sides of the game act to reinforce and advance the standing of corporations at the expense of our physical world. They embark on resource wars for profit, destroy our environment for energy, construe zealotry as patriotism, and steer a culture of social competition – not cooperation – all the while hiding behind veils of secrecy and meaningless rhetoric. …..

The Nuclear Energy and Armament Experiments

One of the largest tentacles of the military-industrial complex is the nuclear experimentation facet of their operations. These operations include both energy and armament — programs which are inextricably linked, as I will demonstrate – with negative impacts on all life on earth and, and when disaster strikes, capable of negating life altogether.

Maintaining a deafening silence over the ongoing Fukushima disaster, for example, the world’s political heads show zero regard for our biological wellbeing (much less our social wellbeing) in both the formulation and the execution of policy. Instead of shutting down the deadly reactors at Fukushima, the world’s powers simply shut down any information about the situation.

For example, the Japanese government passed a law through Parliament, called the “States Secret Act” following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown. Under this act, both officials and private citizens who leak “special state secrets” (ie. details of the disaster) face prison terms of up to 10 years, while journalists who publish classified information (ie. all relevant information) face up to five years.[1] Meanwhile, in 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s response to increases in detected radiation levels within the United States was to reduce the use of radiation monitoring while at the same time, raising the official allowable levels of radiation in food, water and soil. [2] Of course, this was not reported by mainstream media.

Nor was the 2014 partial shutdown of the Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point facility in the Miami area, following a steam leak that resulted from the failure of the archaic facility’s cooling system.[3] While mainstream news completely blocked coverage of this potential meltdown situation, the facility remained in operation not because it managed to rectify the cooling problem, but because the corporation lobbied for special permission to violate allowable water temperature safety thresholds from the previous limit of 100’F limit up to 103’F. [4]

The simple reason for the secrecy and suppression of information is that the nuclear experimentation industry is just that — an experiment. Although it is touted as a ‘clean’ technology, the nuclear industry has no mechanism for disposing of the radioactive waste it generates, and no viable plan for such a mechanism in the future. All it has is a plan to contain the mounting radioactive waste it generates each day and store it for the million years it takes for radioactive waste to break down naturally.

o, whether nor not we accept or reject the philosophies of government, it is an inarguable fact that our biology, and that of our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren — is at the complete mercy of those individuals who, hiding behind political formality, have their fingers “on the button”. And, for as long as their priorities are clearly shaped by the objectives of the corporate-military-industrial complex, there is very little mercy involved. Instead our collective future and the future of our planet is heavily influenced by corporate profitability and contrived political hemispheres which, with the support of corporate media, teeter between deliberately limited polarities, never really making progress or improvement or exploring possibilities — such as peaceful solutions, or sustainable energy investment — beyond those which may profit those already in power…….

The rise of the military industrial complex changed the whole dynamic of war and peace, and in the process, steered our society from exploring sustainable energy solutions toward the constant danger of nuclear meltdown. Nuclear power generation is inherently risky of itself; both the waste it stores and the pollution it releases pose a largely unseen but no less dangerous threat to our Earth Mother, and to our biology. But it also creates obvious military strike targets for enemy nations which, if detonated, can destroy entire nations in one sweep. Building nuclear power experiments is akin to building a self-destruct button into your nation’s infrastructure; one false move, be it intentional (military) or accidental (like Fukushima), and it destroys the landscape and all who dwell on and around it for an eternity, with no known remedy……..

“I foolishly once believed the myth that nuclear energy is clean and safe. That myth has completely broken down. Restarting nuclear reactors while we still have no place to dispose of nuclear waste is a criminal act toward future generations.” — Morihiro Hosokawa, 79th Prime Minister of Japan

The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War

One of the best ways to gain and maintain power is to keep the people in constant fear — in fear of wars, of outsiders, and more recently, of “terrorism”. Maintaining a culture of war-minded fear ensures the public consent to the constant funding of the military-industrial-complex, under the guise of security and protection.

If we look at the history of the Presidents of the United States since the end of the Second World War, we see that each administration invented a presidential Doctrine directly pertaining to war – either inviting involvement in or directly inciting conflict………

the most famously barbarous doctrine was the Bush Doctrine, in which President George W. Bush Jr. essentially declared that the United States was adopting a shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy pertaining to perceived terrorist activities, both in other countries and at home. [19] Advocating the illogical notion of “preventive war”, the Bush Doctrine is based on the faulty reasoning that attacking a potential threat before it attacks the United States is the only way to ensure peace and security, rather than — as history has proven — the most effective way to ensure more wars and security threats…..

The fact is, the United States has been at war for 225 years out of the last 242 years. That’s 93% of the time! Since the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the U.S. has actually been at peace (albeit planning for further wars) for a total of only 21 years. [20] Not one U.S. president actually qualifies as a solely peacetime president, and the only time the United States lasted five years without going to war was between 1935 and 1940 — during the period of the Great Depression.

Since U.S. involvement in World War II began in 1940, most of the world’s military operations have been initiated by the U.S., [6] and U.S. military spending today exceeds the rest of the world’s military spending combined. [21]  In addition, the U.S. also supplies in excess of $3 billion each year (over $10 million per day!) in military aid to Israel, funding the continued war in Palestine.[22] ………

Today, the U.S. economy is now so dependent on war, there is no incentive for the U.S. government to strive for peace — it simply isn’t profitable. The U.S. defense industry employs a staggering 3.5 million Americans, while the private companies supporting the military generate in excess of $300 billion in revenue per year. [24]

With the U.S. economy and military operations so intrinsically linked, the American people have over time come to accept its war culture as normal, believing the increasingly ludicrous propaganda that tells us the U.S. is subject to threats from far weaker military nations and that the U.S. is nobly “fighting for peace” — an oxymoron of the highest order. ……….

clearly, the lessons of history and failed Presidential policy have not been learned by those in power in recent years, who claim to have our interests at heart. Barack Obama, for example, despite his (false) doctrine of negotiation and collaboration (“change”) as a contrast to the confrontation and unilateralism of the Bush Jr. era, invested a trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money into the military industry to develop and build more nuclear weaponry [25] This, despite the fact that the U.S. is already the most heavily armed nuclear nation in the world — something current President Trump, who also campaigned on a platform of “change”, has done nothing to wind back.  ……

The institutions of the United States and Russia may have different perpetrators behind them, they may play different melodies and use different instruments, but in fact they sound very much the same. The collectivism of the oligarchy in the U.S.A. is flavored with corporate tones, whereas in Russia it is dominated by state tones. Different name, same game. In the U.S.A. the divine right of corporations rules and in Russia it’s the godhead of the state the leads the symphony. Either way though, it’s a war song of militant, nationalistic not individual concerns.

In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”  ~ Iroquois Maxim

The Indigo Doctrine: Mutually Agreed Peace

We, The People of the World, can supersede institutional war-mongering concerns that belittle individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have no other choice. If we do not act to mandate Mutually Agreed Peace, we are allowing politicians to shrug their shoulders and say, “it’s politics”, as Earth Mother is ravaged and its inhabitants are systematically annihilated by nuclear, war-driven madness.

………History has shown us that preparing for war doesn’t just lead to more war; it makes war an economic necessity. The only way to ensure peace in our world is to adopt a doctrine of Mutually Agreed Peace in theory and practice; to give peace a budget, give peace a mandate, and give peace all our energy, both politically and personally — and to remove from government, through the power of our will and our numbers, any individual who fails to act on it……. https://wakeup-world.com/2015/08/29/mutually-agreed-peace-ending-the-doctrine-of-perpetual-war/ 

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

With escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, could India consider a pre-emptive nuclear strike?

Is a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the table? https://www.livemint.com/news/india/is-a-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike-on-the-table-1550771055043.html  21 Feb 2019,  Arjun SrinivasIndia has had a long-standing policy of nuclear restraint and is believed to pursue a no first use policy

Any escalation of tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours can have massive implications for both South Asian and global security. There has been a considerable escalation of tension between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pulwama attack. While the outbreak of a full-fledged conflict is no more than a distant possibility, a paper by Christopher Clary and Vipin Narang, published in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s journal International Security, considers the likelihood of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by India in response to Pakistan’s continued aggression as a ‘counterforce’ strategy.

India has had a long-standing policy of nuclear restraint and is believed to pursue a no first use policy. However, the authors suggest that, since 2003, India has devoted considerable resources to develop nuclear capabilities far in excess of what is required for mere retaliation. In addition to these enhanced capabilities, there has been a host of public comment from both serving and retired Indian national security officials about the possibilities and strategic importance of a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

These strikes, the authors argue, could potentially limit the capabilities of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

However, this shift in policy, or even a perceived shift, would carry major risks. It could potentially lead to an arms race in the subcontinent, and also create a vicious geo-political environment that would provide incentives for both sides to mobilize nuclear weapons first.

The authors also warn that a pre-emptive strike may not destroy enough Pakistani nuclear weapons on the ground, leaving Indian defence systems vulnerable to a retaliatory nuclear attack from Pakistan. As such, though tensions are running high in the aftermath of the Pulwama attack, there is need for caution in determining the way forward. Any escalation of tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours can have massive implications for both South Asian and global security.

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | India, politics international, South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

If USA US deploys nuclear weapons in Europe RUSSIA and Belarus will consider a joint military response

‘Things will turn NASTY’ Belarus leader issues warning after collapse of nuclear treaty https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1090969/belarus-news-inf-treaty-world-war-3-russia-v-usa-nato

RUSSIA and Belarus will consider a joint military response if the US deploys weapons in Europe after pulling out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

By SIMON OSBORNE, Feb 22, 2019 Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said he fears “things will turn nasty” should the US decision spark a new arms race at a time of increasing global tensions. The US and Soviet Union signed the INF treaty in 1987 in an historic move that effectively removed nuclear weapons from Europe and signalled the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

But Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the accord after accusing Russia of committing repeated violations and Mr Lukashenko fears the security of Belarus could be compromised as a result.

He said: “It is a catastrophe, particularly for us.

“I am afraid the Americans will grab the fleeting opportunity and deploy the missiles in Europe after breaking the treaty. “If they do, things will turn nasty for us, too. Because together with Russia, we will have to think of reciprocal measures.”

He continued: “It would be unavoidable if this happened. It would be even worse if, God forbid, missiles were deployed in Ukraine.

“This is why I am wholeheartedly against dissolving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

“We pursue a peace-loving policy. We don’t need scuffles between major powers, from which, judging from history, we’ve always suffered.

“This is why we don’t need this slaughter, this fight, particularly now around the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.”

Mr Lukashenko said he believes NATO is keen to deploy missiles in Europe.

He said: “It seems to me that although NATO claims they are not going to deploy these missiles in Europe, they are running a bluff.

“Otherwise, why would they withdraw? Why did they have to destroy this treaty?

“They should have come to terms with China and make it part of the treaty if China was the focus of it.”

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Belarus, politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

An end-of-war declaration would be the first step towards denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula

Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula begins with a peace declaration, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By David Kim, February 14, 2019 During his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump announced that he will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at the end of the month to continue a “historic push” for peace on the Korean Peninsula. If one statement stood out from Trump on North Korea, it’s that “much work remains to be done” to achieve complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.

Last year’s summit in Singapore between Trump and Kim was historic not for what it achieved on denuclearization, but for what it signaled to the world: Both countries, through the top-down, personality-driven diplomacy of their leaders, are ready to transform their relationship by seeking permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. The central question moving forward isn’t whether Kim is willing to give up his nuclear weapons; rather it’s whether the United States and North Korea can transform their relationship to a point where Kim and his elites begin to believe their regime can survive without nuclear weapons. More than any other measure, an end-of-war declaration between the two countries would represent the beginning of this transformation. As the State Department’s special representative for North Korea, Stephen Beigun, said in a speechat Stanford University, “President Trump is ready to end this war. It is over. It is done.” Both sides appear ready to make that statement a reality.

Denuclearization is a long-term goal. While some Trump administration officials have suggested otherwise, complete denuclearization isn’t a realistic short- or medium-term goal. After the Singapore summit, President Trump tweeted that North Korea no longer poses a “nuclear threat.” In fact, experts believe that tweet is a decade or more away from being true. It now seems that Trump may have adjusted his views on this point. In a recent tweet, Trump said he looks forward to “advancing the cause of peace” at the next summit in Vietnam, suggesting he accepts that peace and a new relationship should undergird any real denuclearization agreement with North Korea.

Trump should understand that by agreeing to a peace declaration with the North, he won’t necessarily speed up the denuclearization timeline; rather, he’d be laying the foundation for a formal peace regime, an institutional set-up to allow both the United States and North Korea to work toward that goal.  At Stanford, Biegun said the United States is prepared to take parallel steps with North Korea by “simultaneously look[ing] for ways to advance a more stable and peaceful, and ultimately, a more legal peace regime on the Korean Peninsula,” one that can “advance denuclearization.” This is a much more subtle formulation than the previous all-or-nothing approach taken by many US policymakers, the idea that North Korea had to abandon all its weapons first before the United States took any steps such as sanctions relief.

Kim wants an end to the Korean War. Ever since the days of Kim’s grandfather Kim Il Sung’s regime, North Korea has sought a formal peace regime ending the Korean War. The country has repeatedly raised its strong desire for an end-of-war declaration as the next step towards permanent peace. A report on the regime’s state-run news agency, for instance, stated last year “that the issue of the end-of-war declaration should have been resolved a half a century ago.” Trump appears to agree. He reportedly told Kim in Singapore that he’d sign a declaration. Such a peace declaration may serve as a preliminary security guarantee, or litmus test, to see how serious Kim is about denuclearizing.

Unlike a formal peace treaty, an end-of-war declaration, or peace declaration, is a legally non-binding instrument. Getting to a declaration won’t involve difficult negotiations. The document, rather, would represent a symbolic end to a war that has actually been over since 1953. Without abandoning the goal of a peace treaty, Trump could use a declaration to signal to Kim that the United States is serious about negotiating with his regime. As some experts also point out, an end-of-war declaration could be a “game changer” for North Korea because it could help “neutralize the hardliners” within Kim’s regime, creating the breathing space to allow further progress towards denuclearization. It would also counteract the frequent propaganda narrative in North Korea of foreign encroachment………. https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/denuclearization-of-the-korean-peninsula-begins-with-a-peace-declaration/?utm_source=Bulletin%20Newsletter&utm_medium=iContact%20email&utm_campaign=PeaceDeclaration_02152019

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | North Korea, politics international, South Korea | Leave a comment

Loss of trust between USA and Europe brings nuclear risks

The Rift Between the U.S. and Europe Brings Nuclear Risks, TIME,  By SIMON SHUSTER/MUNICH  February 21, 2019

“…………The loss of trust between the U.S. and Europe was especially palpable at this year’s Munich summit, a traditional show of mutual reassurance among NATO allies. In her speech to the summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel complained that the U.S. decision to scrap the INF treaty was made without consulting Europe, even though the treaty concerns Europe’s security most of all. “We sit there in the middle with the result,” Merkel said. Minutes later, when Vice President Mike Pence delivered a greeting from his boss, President Donald Trump, the room full of European diplomats responded with stony silence.
Their chief concern at the summit, at least when it comes to nuclear security, was the U.S. move in May to pull out of the deal with Iran. That deal took nearly a decade to negotiate, and it committed the Islamic Republic in 2015 to halt its nuclear-weapons program. Yet despite U.S. intelligence agencies reporting the deal was working, the Trump Administration scrapped it, imposing new sanctions against Iran and pressuring European allies to do the same. Germany, France and the U.K. have so far refused. ……
without the trust to begin negotiations, the world’s system of nuclear checks and balances will continue unraveling, one treaty at a time.  http://time.com/5534357/us-europe-nuclear-risks/

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Closing down Yongbyon nuclear facility to be up for discussion at US-North Korea summit

Closing nuclear facility on table as US-NKorea summit nears, BY ERIC TALMADGE News and Observer, ASSOCIATED PRESS, FEBRUARY 22, 2019 TOKYO 

The future of a key North Korean nuclear facility is on the table as leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump prepare to meet in Vietnam next week.

The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, the heart of the North’s nuclear development and research, is Kim’s biggest carrot as he tries to win security guarantees and free his country from the U.S.-backed trade sanctions that are hobbling its economy.

The North Korean leader has suggested he’s ready to talk about closing the facility, capping the amount of fissile material it produces or possibly allowing international inspections. Trump, meanwhile, says he is going into the summit in no hurry to push the North to denuclearize, as long as Kim isn’t conducting nuclear or missile tests.

But time may be of the essence.

As talks drag on, North Korea is believed to have produced enough weapons-grade nuclear fuel to make an estimated half a dozen or so more bombs in 2018 alone.

Here’s the latest on what’s going on at Yongbyon and why it’s so important:

HEDGED BETS

The North has taken steps to disable or dismantle some nuclear and missile facilities since the first Trump-Kim summit last June in Singapore but it has also been hedging its bets.

Using open-source satellite imagery of the Yongbyon complex, a team of experts led by Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory who has visited the Yongbyon facility several times, estimate the North made enough weapons-grade material to boost its stockpile from an estimated 30 nuclear weapons at the end of 2017 to 35-37 by the end of last year.

“North Korea unsurprisingly continued to operate and, in some cases, expand the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure,” they wrote in a report published this month by the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation.

The authors note that Kim isn’t violating any agreements with Trump or shocking any military strategists by building up the North’s stockpile — that’s to be expected in an arms negotiation process. But the stepped up activity underscores how important it is for Washington to push for a deal on Yongbyon……..https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article226619924.html

February 23, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | North Korea, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA rushing to transfer sensitive nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia

Donald Trump rushing to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear technology

House launches probe of US nuclear plan in Saudi Arabia, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47296641, 20 February 2019 

The US is rushing to transfer sensitive nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia, according to a new congressional report.

A Democratic-led House panel has launched an inquiry over concerns about the White House plan to build nuclear reactors across the kingdom.

Whistleblowers told the panel it could destabilise the Middle East by boosting nuclear weapons proliferation.

Firms linked to the president have reportedly pushed for these transfers.

The House of Representatives’ Oversight Committee report notes that an inquiry into the matter is “particularly critical because the Administration’s efforts to transfer sensitive US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia appear to be ongoing”.

President Donald Trump met nuclear power developers at the White House on 12 February to discuss building plants in Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia.

And Mr Trump’s son-in-law, White House adviser Jared Kushner, will be touring the Middle East this month to discuss the economics of the Trump administration’s peace plan.

Lawmakers have been critical of the plan as it would violate US laws guarding against the transfer of nuclear technology that could be used to support a weapons programme.

They also believe giving Saudi Arabia access to nuclear technology would spark a dangerous arms race in the volatile region.

Saudi Arabia has said it wants nuclear power in order to diversify its energy sources and help address growing energy needs.

But concerns around rival Iran developing nuclear technology are also at play, according to US media.

Previous negotiations for US nuclear technology ended after Saudi Arabia refused to agree to safeguards against using the tech for weaponry, but the Trump administration may not see these safeguards as mandatory, ProPublica reported.

What does the report say?

The House report is based on whistleblower accounts and documents showing communications between Trump administration officials and nuclear power companies.

It states that “within the US, strong private commercial interests have been pressing aggressively for the transfer of highly sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia”.

These commercial entities could “reap billions of dollars through contracts associated with constructing and operating nuclear facilities in Saudi Arabia”.

Mr Trump is reportedly “directly engaged in the effort”.

The White House has yet to comment on the report.

The report includes a timeline of events and names other administration officials who have been involved with the matter, including Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Mr Kushner, Mr Trump’s inaugural committee chairman Tom Barrack and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Flynn was found guilty of lying to the FBI about Russian contacts as a part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

The commercial entities mentioned in the report are:

  • IP3 International, a private company led by ex-military officers and security officials that organised a group of US companies to build “dozens of nuclear power plants” in Saudi Arabia
  • ACU Strategic Partners, a nuclear power consultancy led by British-American Alex Copson
  • Colony NorthStar, Mr Barrack’s real estate investment firm
  • Flynn Intel Group, a consultancy and lobby set up by Michael Flynn
  • The report states that Flynn had decided to develop IP3’s nuclear initiative, the Middle East Marshall Plan, during his transition, and while he was still serving as an adviser for the company.In January 2017, National Security Council staff began to raise concerns that these plans were inappropriate and possibly illegal, and that Flynn had a potentially criminal conflict of interest.Following Flynn’s dismissal, however, IP3 continued to push for the Middle East Plans to be presented to Mr Trump.

    According to the report, one senior official said the proposal was “a scheme for these generals to make some money”.

    And whistleblowers described the White House working environment as “marked by chaos, dysfunction and backbiting”.

  • What next?

    The report says an investigation will determine whether the administration has been acting “in the national security interests of the United States or, rather, [to] serve those who stand to gain financially” from this policy change.

  • These apparent conflicts of interest among White House advisers may breach federal law, and the report notes that there is bi-partisan concern regarding Saudi Arabia’s access to nuclear technology.The oversight committee is seeking interviews with the companies, “key personnel” who promoted the plan to the White House, as well as the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Defence, State, Treasury, the White House and the CIA.

February 21, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Saudi Arabia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | 2 Comments

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accuses USA of hypocrisy over plannned nuclear technology sales to Saudi Arabia

Zarif decries ‘US hypocrisy’ over planned nuclear sale to Saudis
Neither human rights or a burgeoning nuclear programme are a real concern for the US, Iran’s foreign minister says. Aljazeera, 21 Feb 19, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the US of hypocrisy for allegedly attempting to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia while Washington tries to wreck Iran’s nuclear programme.

Zarif’s comment on Twitter on Wednesday came after reports the administration of President Donald Trump is trying to bypass US Congress to advance the sale of nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia.

“Day by day it becomes clearer to the world what was always clear to us: neither human rights nor a nuclear program have been the real concern of the US,” Zarif wrote.

“First a dismembered journalist; now illicit sale of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia fully expose #USHypocrisy,” Zarif added, referring to the killing of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi agents, and the new report by a US congressional committee on the planned technology sale. …….

Mohammad Ali Shabani, Iran Pulse Editor at Al-Monitor, said he doubted the US would sell uranium-enrichment technology to Saudi Arabia and, therefore, Riyadh would not have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon.

“However, the sidestepping of America’s own laws to facilitate sales of nuclear power plants puts the Trump administration’s broader credibility under question,” Shabani told Al Jazeera.

‘Terrorist attack’

Tensions between Washington and Tehran – bitter foes since Iran’s 1979 revolution – have intensified since  Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal, under which it scaled back its uranium enrichment programme and promised not to pursue nuclear weapons.

In exchange for the deal signed in 2015 in Vienna with six world powers – the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union – international sanctions were lifted allowing Iran to sell its oil and gas worldwide.

Trump reimposed sanctions with the aim of slashing Iranian oil sales and choking its economy in order to curb its ballistic missile programme and activities in the Middle East, especially in the conflicts in Syria and Yemen.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday Iran-US relations are at a new low and sanctions imposed by the Trump administration targeting Tehran’s oil and banking sectors amounted to “a terrorist attack”.

“The struggle between Iran and America is currently at a maximum. America has employed all its power against us,” Rouhani was quoted as saying in a cabinet meeting by the state broadcaster IRIB.

“The US pressures on firms and banks to halt business with Iran is 100 percent a terrorist act,” he said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly confirmed Tehran has been meeting its nuclear commitments fully.

‘Khashoggi cover-up’

The Trump administration has faced additional congressional opposition due to concerns about the role of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi……. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/zarif-decries-hypocrisy-planned-nuclear-sale-saudis-190220100506949.html

February 21, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA | Leave a comment

A hard Brexit is going to be really hard for UK’s nuclear industry

U.K. Nuclear and Military Exporters Told to Prepare for Hard Brexit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/u-k-nuclear-military-exporters-told-to-ready-for-hard-brexit, By Jonathan Tirone,  February 21, 2019,

U.K. makers of nuclear material, weapons and sensitive technologies are being urged by the government to get new export licenses to prepare for a no-deal exit from the European Union.

Companies need to register and to obtain permission under the U.K.’s new “Open General Export License” to continue exporting so-called dual use goods to the EU from March 29, according to a statement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Licenses for dual use items “will not be valid” if the U.K. crashes out of the bloc without a deal. Existing licences issued in the U.K. for the export of so-called Trigger Listitems — which have already been subject to assessment — will remain valid .

BAE Systems Plc and Urenco Ltd. are among U.K. companies that would be most directly impacted by a no-deal Brexit. Thousands of items ranging from computer software and digital converters to fuel cells and robotic arms face trade restrictions without new paperwork.

The U.K. also warned this week that new restrictions could be imposed on shipments of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste under a no-deal scenario. Just as banks have made London a global financial hub, its ties to the EU’s nuclear industry has helped turn the U.K. into a central cog servicing the world’s flow of atomic materials.

February 21, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

USA wants to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, but wants tight controls

US will not open door to Saudi Arabia building nuclear weapons, deputy energy secretary says CNBC David Reid| @cnbcdavy 17 Feb 2019 

  • The Trump administration wants to sell its nuclear energy technology to cash-rich Saudi Arabia.
  • To prevent nuclear arms development, the U.S. wants to place tight controls on how the technology can be used.
  • Saudi Arabia has put the U.S. on a shortlist with China, Russia and others to bid for nuclear power projects in the country.

“………….The Saudis have so far refused to rule out their right to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, pointing to neighboring Iran’s ability to do so under the 2015 nuclear agreement that world powers struck with Tehran.

In an interview in March on CBS’s “60 Minutes” Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said the country wasn’t interested in developing weapons but would develop nuclear capability should Iran ever develop a working nuclear bomb.

On Sunday, Saudi Arabian Prince Turki Al-Faisal responded directly to Brouillette’s words, saying the country had more options than just U.S. technology.

“Well the nuclear energy market is open. It is not just the United States that is providing nuclear technology,” he told CNBC’s Hadley Gamble in Munich.

“We have France, we have Russia, we have China. We have our friends in Pakistan and in other places as well, so if they want to remove themselves from that market, well, that’s up to them.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/16/brouillette-us-wont-give-saudi-arabia-key-to-nuclear-weapon-building.html

February 18, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Saudi Arabia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

South Korea says that Kim Jong Un is ready to accept nuclear-plant inspections

Kim Ready to Accept Nuclear-Plant Inspections, South Korea Says, Bloomberg, By Youkyung Lee, February 16, 2019,

·          South Korea presidential adviser sees Trump path to compromise

·          Trump says ‘I’m in no rush for speed’ in talks with Kim regime

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was ready to accept the dismantlement and inspection of a high-profile nuclear plant, a South Korean presidential adviser said, suggesting a possible point of compromise in upcoming talks with President Donald Trump.

Moon Chung-in, a special adviser for foreign affairs and national security, said in an interview Friday that the verified destruction of the regime’s Yongbyon nuclear complex was an achievable goal during Trump’s planned Feb. 27-28 summit with Kim. Moon said it was his “understanding” that South Korean President Moon Jae-in got Kim’s personal assurance on that when they met in Pyongyang in September.

………..Moon Chung-in said the U.S. should agree to allow economic projects between the two Koreas to proceed in exchange for inspections of Yongbyon — something the U.S. has so far been reluctant to do. Kim has railed against the international sanctions regime choking his moribund economy and called for resuming the projects, including a industrial park and a mountain resort.

“Those will be doable,” Moon Chung-in said. Such an exchange would advance talks, “without undermining the overall sanctions regime by the UN Security Council, yet giving some kind of incentives to North Korea in a way the U.S. can come up with some sort of compromise,” he said.

Moon Chung-in, a strong advocate of South Korea rapprochement with North Korea, said the success of the Hanoi summit hinges on how North Korea proceeds with its nuclear arms program. Satellite-imagery analysis and leaked American intelligence suggest that North Korea has been churning out rockets and warheads as quickly as ever.

If North Korea continues to produce nuclear materials even after the Hanoi summit, I would say that’s the most important indicator that the Hanoi summit failed,” Moon Chung-in said. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-15/kim-ready-to-accept-inspection-of-nuclear-plant-adviser-says

 

February 16, 2019 Posted by Christina Macpherson | North Korea, politics international, South Korea | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

1 This Month

19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing

Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET

Register for the Zoom Event Here

​

Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now

To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com

Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon

Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon

  • Categories

    • 1
      • Arclight's Vision
    • 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
      • business and costs
        • employment
        • marketing
      • climate change
      • culture and arts
      • ENERGY
        • renewable
          • decentralised
          • energy storage
      • environment
        • oceans
        • water
      • health
        • children
        • psychology – mental health
        • radiation
        • social effects
        • women
      • history
      • indigenous issues
      • Legal
        • deaths by radiation
        • legal
      • marketing of nuclear
      • media
        • investigative journalism
        • Wikileaks
      • opposition to nuclear
      • PERSONAL STORIES
      • politics
        • psychology and culture
          • Trump – personality
        • public opinion
        • USA election 2024
        • USA elections 2016
      • politics international
      • Religion and ethics
      • safety
        • incidents
      • secrets,lies and civil liberties
        • civil liberties
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • reprocessing
        • Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
        • space travel
      • Uranium
      • wastes
        • – plutonium
        • decommission reactor
      • weapons and war
        • Atrocities
        • depleted uranium
      • Women
    • 2 WORLD
      • ANTARCTICA
      • ARCTIC
      • ASIA
        • Burma
        • China
        • India
        • Indonesia
        • Japan
          • – Fukushima 2011
          • Fukushima 2012
          • Fukushima 2013
          • Fukushima 2014
          • Fukushima 2015
          • Fukushima 2016
          • Fukushima continuing
        • Malaysia
        • Mongolia
        • North Korea
        • Pakistan
        • South Korea
        • Taiwan
        • Turkey
        • Vietnam
      • EUROPE
        • Belarus
        • Bulgaria
        • Denmark
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Kazakhstan
        • Kyrgyzstan
        • Russia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • UK
        • Ukraine
      • MIDDLE EAST
        • Afghanistan
        • Egypt
        • Gaza
        • Iran
        • Iraq
        • Israel
        • Jordan
        • Libya
        • Saudi Arabia
        • Syria
        • Turkey
        • United Arab Emirates
      • NORTH AMERICA
        • Canada
        • USA
          • election USA 2020
      • OCEANIA
        • New Zealand
        • Philippines
      • SOUTH AMERICA
        • Brazil
    • ACTION
    • AFRICA
      • Kenya
      • Malawi
      • Mali
      • Namibia
      • Niger
      • Nigeria
      • Somalia
      • South 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
      • thorium
    • Reference
      • Reference archives
    • resources – print
    • Resources -audiovicual
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • World
    • World Nuclear
    • YouTube
  • Pages

    • 1 This Month
    • ACTION !
    • Disclaimer
    • Links
    • PAGES on NUCLEAR ISSUES
      • audio-visual news
      • Anti Nuclear, Clean Energy Movement
        • Anti Nuclear movement – a success story
          • – 2013 – the struggle for a nuclear-free, liveable world
          • – 2013: the battle to expose nuclear lies about ionising radiation
            • Speakers at Fukushima Symposium March 2013
            • Symposium 2013 Ian Fairlie
      • Civil Liberties
        • – Civil liberties – China and USA
      • Climate change
      • Climate Change
      • Economics
        • – Employment
        • – Marketing nuclear power
        • – Marketing Nuclear Power Internationally
        • nuclear ‘renaissance’?
        • Nuclear energy – the sick man of the corporate world
      • Energy
        • – Solar energy
      • Environment
        • – Nuclear Power and the Tragedy of the Commons
        • – Water
      • Health
        • Birth Defects in the Chernobyl Radiation Affected Region.
      • History
        • Nuclear History – the forgotten disasters
      • Indigenous issues
      • Ionising radiation
        • – Ionising radiation – medical
        • Fukushima FACT SHEET
      • Media
        • Nuclear Power and Media 2012
      • Nuclear Power and the Consumer Society – theme for December 2012
      • Peace and nuclear disarmament
        • Peace on a Nuclear Free Earth
      • Politics
        • – Politics USA
      • Public opinion
      • Religion and ethics
        • -Ethics of nuclear power
      • Resources – print
      • Safety
      • Secrets and lies
        • – NUCLEAR LIES – theme for January 2012
        • – Nuclear Secrets and Lies
      • Spinbuster
        • 2013 nuclear spin – all about FEAR -theme for June
        • Spinbuster 1
      • Technology
        • TECHNOLOGY Challenges
      • Wastes
        • NUCLEAR WASTES – theme for October 2012
        • – Plutonium
      • Weapons and war
      • Women
  • Archives

    • November 2026 (64)
    • October 2026 (302)
    • September 2026 (339)
    • August 2026 (330)
    • July 2026 (355)
    • June 2026 (287)
    • May 2026 (306)
    • April 2026 (356)
    • March 2026 (251)
    • February 2026 (267)
    • January 2026 (308)
    • December 2025 (358)
  • Categories

    • 1
      • Arclight's Vision
    • 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
      • business and costs
        • employment
        • marketing
      • climate change
      • culture and arts
      • ENERGY
        • renewable
          • decentralised
          • energy storage
      • environment
        • oceans
        • water
      • health
        • children
        • psychology – mental health
        • radiation
        • social effects
        • women
      • history
      • indigenous issues
      • Legal
        • deaths by radiation
        • legal
      • marketing of nuclear
      • media
        • investigative journalism
        • Wikileaks
      • opposition to nuclear
      • PERSONAL STORIES
      • politics
        • psychology and culture
          • Trump – personality
        • public opinion
        • USA election 2024
        • USA elections 2016
      • politics international
      • Religion and ethics
      • safety
        • incidents
      • secrets,lies and civil liberties
        • civil liberties
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • reprocessing
        • Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
        • space travel
      • Uranium
      • wastes
        • – plutonium
        • decommission reactor
      • weapons and war
        • Atrocities
        • depleted uranium
      • Women
    • 2 WORLD
      • ANTARCTICA
      • ARCTIC
      • ASIA
        • Burma
        • China
        • India
        • Indonesia
        • Japan
          • – Fukushima 2011
          • Fukushima 2012
          • Fukushima 2013
          • Fukushima 2014
          • Fukushima 2015
          • Fukushima 2016
          • Fukushima continuing
        • Malaysia
        • Mongolia
        • North Korea
        • Pakistan
        • South Korea
        • Taiwan
        • Turkey
        • Vietnam
      • EUROPE
        • Belarus
        • Bulgaria
        • Denmark
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Kazakhstan
        • Kyrgyzstan
        • Russia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • UK
        • Ukraine
      • MIDDLE EAST
        • Afghanistan
        • Egypt
        • Gaza
        • Iran
        • Iraq
        • Israel
        • Jordan
        • Libya
        • Saudi Arabia
        • Syria
        • Turkey
        • United Arab Emirates
      • NORTH AMERICA
        • Canada
        • USA
          • election USA 2020
      • OCEANIA
        • New Zealand
        • Philippines
      • SOUTH AMERICA
        • Brazil
    • ACTION
    • AFRICA
      • Kenya
      • Malawi
      • Mali
      • Namibia
      • Niger
      • Nigeria
      • Somalia
      • South 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
      • thorium
    • Reference
      • Reference archives
    • resources – print
    • Resources -audiovicual
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • World
    • World Nuclear
    • YouTube
  • RSS

    Entries RSS
    Comments RSS

Site info

nuclear-news
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    nuclear-news
    Join 2,033 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • nuclear-news
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...