A special (nuclear) relationship
Recent US policies have pursued “usable” nukes, for deployment in an increasing range of scenarios, with a bottomless pit of funding available for nuclear modernisation. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.
It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.
By Kate Hudson https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/24/a-special-nuclear-relationship/
A little known US-UK nuclear weapons agreement is up for renewal. It needs to end instead.
The “special relationship” is a longstanding refrain in British politics, used to justify so much that’s bad in UK foreign policy choices.
I recall in 2002 when Tony Blair agreed Britain had to pay a “blood price” to secure its special relationship with the US. We all know how that ended up.
But it wasn’t Blair who paid the blood price – it was 179 British service personnel, killed in an illegal war, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and countless more injured, displaced and traumatised.
Much that feeds war can be notched up to the US/UK special relationship, but it goes far beyond providing diplomatic and military cover and assistance to US enterprises.
That relationship is also responsible for the development of the UK’s nuclear arsenal and its continued possession of these weapons of mass destruction.
The special nuclear relationship is facilitated by the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) – the world’s most extensive nuclear sharing agreement.
Even though it comes up for renewal in parliament every ten years, few seem to know of its existence.
Neither do many know the extent to which it makes us dependent on the US – or indeed that it underpins the wider relationship between the US and UK.
Nuclear weapons
Its full name is the “Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes”.
The agreement initially enabled both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems.
But at the start, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons. However, an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries up to a certain deadline.
This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in 2014 without any parliamentary debate or vote.
The British public and parliamentarians initially found out about that extension and ratification when President Obama informed the US Congress. The next renewal is due in parliament later this year, and we are determined that this time it will not go unchallenged.
Renewing such agreements on the nod, without transparency or accountability is never a good thing. When it ties us so tightly to nuclear cooperation with the White House, at a time of increasing nuclear risk, this is an even greater cause for concern.
Usable nukes
Recent US policies have pursued “usable” nukes, for deployment in an increasing range of scenarios, with a bottomless pit of funding available for nuclear modernisation. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.
It also puts us at odds with our commitments under the international Non-Proliferation Treaty, which seeks to stem the spread of nuclear technology.
The relationship and activities which are enshrined by the MDA confirms an indefinite commitment by the US and UK to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and violates both countries’ obligations as signatories to the NPT.
The NPT states that countries should undertake “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament”. Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating to further advance their respective nuclear arsenals.
Indeed, a 2004 legal advice paper by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded that it is “strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”.
This was so since it implies “continuation and indeed enhancement of the nuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation”.
Independent foreign policy
It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.
The UK government’s claim that its submarine-based Trident nuclear weapons system is independent is false. It is technically and politically dependent on the US, largely due to the MDA.
Due to the MDA, the UK relies on the US for many aspects of Trident. The UK’s nuclear warhead is a copy of the US one, with some components directly bought from the US.
With the UK’s warheads expected to be non-operational by the late 2030s, a decision on their replacement will be intrinsically linked to the work taking place as part of the MDA.
The UK leases from the US the Trident II D5 missiles it uses and British submarines must regularly visit the US base in Kings Bay, Georgia, for the maintenance and replacement of these missiles.
By having such direct involvement in Britain’s nuclear weapons technology, the US exercises significant leverage over the UK’s foreign and defence policy.
Even the most establishment characters must now be able to see that unquestioning allegiance to the US is out of the question.
So with the MDA coming up for renewal again, now is the time to start asking the questions, raising the protest, and making the case for independence.
It’s time for the special nuclear relationship to end. CND will be ensuring that the issue is raised vigorously within parliament, and calling on all our supporters to lobby their elected representatives to that effect.
Kate Hudson is General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK
Israel announces latest major land grab in West Bank
24 Mar 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/490068-Israel-announces-latest-major-land-grab-in-West-Bank
A senior minister has vowed to continue backing the settlement movement, which is illegal under international law
The Israeli government has designated nearly 2,000 acres in the West Bank as state-owned land, in a move described by rights groups as the biggest land grab on occupied Palestinian territories in decades.
The expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is illegal under international law. In 2016, the UN Security Council described them as “a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security.”
Nevertheless, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich argued that the declaration of state-owned land in the Jordan Valley on Friday was “an important and strategic issue.”
While there are those in Israel and the world who seek to undermine our right to Judea and Samaria and the country in general, we promote the settlement movement with hard work and in a strategic manner across the country,” Smotrich said in a statement, as quoted by the Times of Israel.
According to local media, the designation of plots of land as Israeli paves a way for the construction of settler houses, as well as for commercial development.
Israeli settlement watchdog Peace Now described the declaration as the largest since the 1993 Oslo Accords, adding that “the year 2024 marks a peak in the extent of declarations of state land.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government gave the green light to the construction of more than 3,400 new settler homes this month, drawing more criticism from the UN and the Palestinian Authority.
“The West Bank is already in crisis. Yet, settler violence and settlement-related violations have reached shocking new levels, and risk eliminating any practical possibility of establishing a viable Palestinian State,” UN human rights chief Volker Turk said in his report to the Security Council on March 8.
Smotrich said in February that the expansion of settlements was a legitimate response to Palestinian terrorist attacks. “Our enemies know that any harm to us will lead to more construction and more development and more of our hold all over the country,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter)
Comment. It’s not like Israel hasn’t made its goal plain for years.
Gaza is also being carved up
Dozens of countries pledge support for nuclear power, despite lingering concerns.
By Justine Calma, a senior science reporter covering climate change, clean energy, and environmental justice with more than a decade of experience. She is also the host of Hell or High Water: When Disaster Hits Home, a podcast from Vox Media and Audible Originals. https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/22/24108679/nuclear-energy-summit-pledge-30-countries
More than 30 countries have pledged to pursue nuclear energy as one way to meet global climate goals. Even so, nuclear energy is still a controversial energy source that’s bogged down by concerns about radioactive waste, safety, and high costs.
At a nuclear energy summit in Brussels yesterday, the countries pledged “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy by taking measures such as enabling conditions to support and competitively finance the lifetime extension of existing nuclear reactors, the construction of new nuclear power plants and the early deployment of advanced reactors,” The Associated Press reports. The US, China, Japan, France, Britain, and Saudi Arabia were among the 34 countries to sign the pledge.
It’s a bold statement to support a source of energy over which many governments and environmental groups are deeply divided. Nuclear energy doesn’t generate the greenhouse gas emissions heating up the planet, but the environmental footprint of its supply chain and waste creates other problems. And after decades of missteps, the technology still has to prove whether it can be an affordable, safe alternative to the fossil fuels causing climate change.
Nearly every nation on Earth has committed to fighting climate change as part of the Paris agreement. That requires a transition from fossil fuels to clean energy over the next few decades. Fortunately, renewables like solar and wind energy are already cheaper than coal and gas and are forecast to make up a majority of new electricity sources deployed in coming years. The challenge is in finding backup energy sources for times when winds die down and the sun sets.
Proponents of nuclear energy say it’s the perfect complement to renewables since nuclear reactors are able to generate electricity around the clock. “Nuclear energy is indispensable along with renewable energy … We must devise strategy to attract further investment which is necessary to enhance the use of nuclear energy,” Japan’s Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Komura Masahiro said during the Nuclear Energy Summit held yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
It’s a remarkable turnaround from fears stoked more than a decade ago when an earthquake and tsunami triggered a catastrophic meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan. In December, Japan was one of more than 20 countries that agreed to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2050. The country still plans to prioritize renewable energy, Masahiro said, and “at the same time, Japan will continuously reflect upon the lessons from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and ensure that the use of nuclear power places safety as its top priority.”
There’s still skepticism over whether a nuclear renaissance is a good idea. Existing reactors and the radioactive waste they produce still pose risks. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi has tried to broker agreements between Russia and Ukraine to prevent a meltdown at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant amid the ongoing war. In the US, tribes and environmental advocates have fought to stop a resurgence of uranium mining that has a legacy of polluting water sources in the past.
At the summit, John Podesta, US senior adviser to the president for clean energy innovation and implementation, touted the construction of the country’s first completely new power plant in decades. The Vogtle Unit 3 reactor in Georgia finally started operating last year, no less than $17 billion over budget after seven years of delays.
Next-generation nuclear reactors are supposed to be easier and cheaper to build. But they haven’t overcome the radioactive waste problem. They’ll require more highly enriched uranium, of which Russia has been the largest supplier. And a key demonstration project using advanced small modular reactors in Utah was canceled in November after costs soared.
Protesters with the environmental group Greenpeace attempted to block roads leading to the Nuclear Energy Summit yesterday, claiming they were able to delay the arrival of some delegates.
“All the evidence shows that nuclear power is too slow to build, too expensive, and it remains highly polluting and dangerous,” Greenpeace EU senior campaigner Lorelei Limousin said. “We are in a climate emergency, so time is precious, and the governments here today are wasting it with nuclear energy fairy tales.”
UN Chief: Nuclear Risk Highest in Decades, Calls for Disarmament
The United Nations. https://www.miragenews.com/un-chief-nuclear-risk-highest-in-decades-calls-1197216/–– 18 Mar 24
Almost 80 years after the incineration of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons still represent a clear and present danger to global peace and security, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council on Monday.
Calling for disarmament now, he urged States with nuclear arsenals to lead the way across six areas for action that include dialogue and accountability.
“Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons ever invented, capable of eliminating all life on earth. Today, these weapons are growing in power, range and stealth. An accidental launch is one mistake, one miscalculation, one rash act away,” he warned.
Doomsday Clock ticking loudly
The meeting on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was convened by Japan, Security Council president for March and, as Mr. Guterres noted, the only country that knows better than any other “the brutal cost of nuclear carnage.”
It was being held at a time “when geopolitical tensions and mistrust have escalated the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades.”
He said the Doomsday Clock – the symbol for humanity’s proximity to self-destruction – “is ticking loudly enough for all to hear”.
Meanwhile, academics and civil society groups, to Pope Francis, youth, and the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, known as Hibakusha, have been clamouring for peace and an end to the existential threat.
No ‘Oppenheimer’ sequel
Even the Oscar-winning Hollywood film Oppenheimer “brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world,” he said, adding that “humanity cannot survive a sequel”.
Despite these appeals for the world to step back from the brink, “States possessing nuclear weapons are absent from the table of dialogue,” he said, while “investments in the tools of war are outstripping investments in the tools of peace.”
Mr. Guterres stressed that disarmament is the only path to “vanquish this senseless and suicidal shadow, once and for all.”
Dialogue and confidence-building
He appealed to States armed with nuclear weapons to take the lead in six areas, starting with re-engaging in dialogue to develop transparency and confidence-building measures to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon.
“Second, nuclear saber-rattling must stop,” he said. “Threats to use nuclear weapons in any capacity are unacceptable.”
Nuclear weapon States must also re-affirm moratoria on nuclear testing, which includes pledging to avoid actions that would undermine the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), whose entry-into-force must be priority.
From commitment to action
Furthermore, disarmament commitments must become action, together with accountability, under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The landmark accord, signed more than 50 years ago, is the only binding commitment to the goal of disarmament by States which officially stockpile nuclear weapons.
The Secretary-General also highlighted the need for a joint first-use agreement. “Nuclear weapon States must urgently agree that none of them will be the first to use nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, none should use them in any circumstances,” he said.
Reducing stockpiles
Finally, he called for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons. In this regard, he urged the United States and Russia – the world’s largest nuclear weapons holders – to take the lead and also find a way back to negotiations towards the full implementation of the New START Treaty and agree on its successor.
Mr. Guterres also pointed to the responsibility of non-nuclear weapon States to fulfil their own non-proliferation obligations and to support disarmament efforts.
He said the Security Council also has a leadership role, including “to look beyond today’s divisions, and state clearly that living with the existential threat of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.”
A chance to break the nuclear links – Kate Hudson, CND
,
https://labouroutlook.org/2024/03/17/a-chance-to-break-the-nuclear-links-kate-hudson-cnd/
“It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.”
By Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
Whoever is in the White House after the upcoming presidential election, one thing is clear: Britain has to break its ‘special nuclear relationship’ with the US. We’re all familiar with the so-called ‘special relationship’, basically tying Britain into really bad foreign policy decisions. But not so many people know about the US-UK Mutual Defence
Agreement (MDA) – the world’s most extensive nuclear sharing agreement.
Known in full as the ‘Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes’, the treaty initially established an agreement between both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems.
At the start, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons, but an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries up to a certain deadline.
This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in2014 – without any parliamentary debate or vote. The British public and parliamentarians initially found out about that extension and ratification when President Obama informed the United States Congress.
Renewing such agreements on the nod, without transparency or accountability, is never a good thing. When it ties us so tightly to nuclear cooperation with the White House this is an even greater cause for concern. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.
It also puts us at odds with our commitments under the NPT: the MDA confirms an indefinite commitment by the US and UK to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and violates both countries’ obligations as signatories to the NPT. The NPT states that countries should undertake ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament’.
Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating on further advancing their nuclear arsenals. Indeed, a 2004 legal advice paper by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded that it is ‘strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’, as it implies ‘continuation and indeed enhancement of thenuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation’.
On every level the MDA must be challenged. It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme. When the US seems hell-bent on taking us into war after war, unquestioning allegiance from the UK cannot continue.
The MDA is up for renewal again this year. Now is the time to start asking the questions, raising the protest,and making the case for independence. It’s time for the special nuclear relationship to end. Watch this space!
US and Japan seek UN resolution calling on all nations to ban nuclear weapons in outer space
The United States and Japan are sponsoring a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on nations not to deploy or develop nuclear weapons in space
ByEDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press, March 19, 2024,
UNITED NATIONS — The United States and Japan are sponsoring a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all nations not to deploy or develop nuclear weapons in space, the U.S. ambassador announced Monday.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield told a U.N. Security Council meeting that “any placement of nuclear weapons into orbit around the Earth would be unprecedented, dangerous, and unacceptable.”
The announcement that the U.S. and Japan had circulated a resolution follows White House confirmation last month that Russia has obtained a “troubling” anti-satellite weapon capability, although such a weapon is not operational yet.
Russian President Vladimir Putin declared later that Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space, claiming that the country has only developed space capabilities similar to those of the U.S.
The Outer Space Treaty ratified by about 114 countries including the United States and Russia prohibits the deployment of “nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in orbit or the stationing of “weapons in outer space in any other manner.”
Japan’s Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa, who chaired the council meeting, said that even during “the confrontational environment” of the Cold War, the rivals agreed to ensure that outer space remained peaceful. That prohibition on putting any weapons of mass destruction into orbit must be upheld today, she said.
Thomas-Greenfield said all parties to the treaty must commit to the ban on nuclear and other destructive weapons, “and we must urge all member states who are not yet party to it to accede to it without delay.”
She said the United States looks forward to engaging with the other members of the 15-nation Security Council “to forge consensus around this text.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
more https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-japan-seek-resolution-calling-nations-ban-nuclear-108261129
As ‘Oppenheimer’ wins big, we should worry about lowering of nuclear thresholds
Amid rising global volatility and technological uncertainty, it’s imperative for states to explore non-nuclear solutions that emphasize international cooperation, diplomacy and societal resilience. And there’s an opportunity here for the U.K. and the U.S. to lead the way in international law and treaties that respond to non-nuclear strategic threats more effectively.
Just as Oppenheimer challenged Truman on U.S. nuclear strategy, we too must challenge our leaders’ attachment to nukes.
March 18, 2024 By Sophie-Jade Taylor and Graham Stacey Sophie-Jade Taylor is a senior network development and communications manager at the European Leadership Network nonprofit. Retired Air Marshall Sir Graham Stacey is a senior consulting fellow at the European Leadership Network. https://www.politico.eu/article/oppenheimer-win-awards-oscar-bafta-golden-globe-worry-about-lower-nuclear-thresholds/
Last summer, director Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” captivated the global public, making history as the highest ever grossing biopic. And having already won big at the Golden Globes and the BAFTAs, the film closed awards season by sweeping the Oscars last weekend.
The film brought fresh awareness of the unique, destructive power that J. Robert Oppenheimer’s creation unleashed. The first and only nuclear weapons ever used — the “Little Boy” dropped on Hiroshima and the “Fat Man” on Nagasaki — packed the equivalent of 15,000 and 21,000 tons of TNT respectively, killing over 100,000 people and causing long-term health, psychological, economic and environmental damage.
By comparison, the world’s most powerful nukes today yield over 1.2 megatons of TNT — 60 times more than Oppenheimer’s bombs.
And much like Oppenheimer, General Leslie Groves and then U.S. President Harry S. Truman, today’s leaders once again find themselves facing huge moral and strategic choices at the dawn of a new technological age. The full weight of nuclear devastation lies in the hands of just a select few. Their decisions have profound implications for humanity — and this shouldn’t be left to chance.
Recognizing the unimaginable horror a modern nuclear conflict would unleash, as recently as January 2022, all five leaders of the nuclear weapons states reaffirmed that a nuclear war couldn’t be won and must never be fought.
Yet, we have been witnessing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s irresponsible nuclear saber-rattling around Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. There have been worrying reports of rock-bottom thresholds for nuclear use — with enemy incursion into territory, the destruction of strategic weapons delivery systems, and even conventional weapons use deemed as posing an existential threat to Russian statehood.
And though Moscow outwardly rejects the policy, such ambiguity seemingly points toward communicating “first strike” capabilities, which rightly should be condemned and carefully assessed.
On the other hand, China continues to push states for political commitments toward the universalization of a No First Use Policy, while also furthering the development of its own arsenal under a worrying lack of transparency — a dilemma that has added complexity to an already intricate and perilous geopolitical chessboard.
Meanwhile, in the West — seemingly without much public discussion or comment — we’ve seen a worrying trend in declarations that states could use nuclear weapons to deter “non-nuclear threats,” again lowering the so-called nuclear threshold in an attempt to provide a quick fix to nuanced challenges.
At this very critical moment, “Oppenheimer” has brought discussions of nuclear weapons back into the public arena. And while the attention will undoubtedly recede, ongoing public engagement on these issues must not. Civic engagement shapes policymaking, and at a time of rising nuclear risks and growing temptation for states to become more reliant on their nuclear weapons, the public deserves a better understanding of when and why a catastrophic weapon may be deployed.
For example, in 2021, the British government stated that while it wouldn’t use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state, it remained open to reviewing its policy should any threat from “emerging technologies” with “comparable impact” make nuclear weapon use necessary. Similarly, in 2022, the U.S. declared that the aim of its nuclear arsenal was to deter both nuclear and non-nuclear “strategic-level attacks.” Problematically, however, neither the U.K. nor the U.S. have detailed what “comparable impact” or “strategic-level attack” may mean.
These policies not only lower the nuclear-use threshold and increase global nuclear risks, but they may not even be feasib
While it’s near impossible for a nuclear strike to go undetected, the same isn’t true for emerging technologies such as AI and autonomous systems. By their very design, these technologies are largely democratized and untied to a single government. For instance, the challenge of attribution in cyber is well-documented, and while cyber-attacks have been linked to state-sponsored hacking groups, these groups couldn’t be easily deterred by the threat of a nuclear strike.e, given most contemporary threats against states now sit outside the military realm.
Increasing the already harrowing role of nuclear weapons in foreign policy undermines the moral and legal position of nuclear weapons states. The logic and evidence behind the current U.K. and U.S. policies of relying on nuclear weapons as a panacea must be subject to greater public and parliamentary scrutiny — as should be the case with open democracies who say they have transparent nuclear policies.
Amid rising global volatility and technological uncertainty, it’s imperative for states to explore non-nuclear solutions that emphasize international cooperation, diplomacy and societal resilience. And there’s an opportunity here for the U.K. and the U.S. to lead the way in international law and treaties that respond to non-nuclear strategic threats more effectively.
Instead of resorting to old playbooks, both policymakers and the public must appreciate that emerging technologies require a new mindset in their management and new legal constructs to regulate their proliferation, development and control. Recent international efforts like last November’s Bletchley AI Safety Summit and the agreement to begin a dialogue on AI risks by U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are important first steps. But much more needs to be done.
Just as Oppenheimer, haunted by his role in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, challenged Truman on U.S. nuclear strategy, we too must challenge our leaders’ continued attachment to nukes — weapons that can only destroy — and push toward more diplomacy and resilience-based solutions to today’s complex challenges.
Former Prime Minister Turnbull says Australia ‘mugged by reality’ on Aukus deal as US set to halve submarine build
“Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.
We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,”
Former PM says the reality is the US will not make their submarine deficit worse by giving or selling submarines to Australia
Amy Remeikis, Wed 13 Mar 2024 , https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/13/turnbull-says-australia-mugged-by-reality-on-aukus-deal-as-us-set-to-halve-submarine-build
Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.
We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,”
The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said Australia has been “mugged by reality” over the Aukus submarine deal after the US announced it will halve the number of submarines it will build next year, throwing the Australia end of the agreement into doubt.
With the US president, Joe Biden, continuing to face a hostile Congress, the Pentagon budget draft request includes construction of just one Virginia-class nuclear submarine for 2025.
Under the Aukus agreement, production is meant to be ramped up to ensure Australia will have access to at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US in the 2030s. That is to fill a “capability gap” before nuclear-powered submarines to be built in Adelaide enter into service from the 2040s.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, played down the impact of the US budget announcement, insisting that “our plans are very clear”.
“We have an agreement that was reached with the United States and the UK,” Albanese told reporters in Darwin on Wednesday. “That legislation went through the US Congress last year. That was a product of a lot of hard work.”
The defence minister, Richard Marles, said earlier that the US remained committed to the deal.
“As we approach the one-year anniversary of Aukus, Australia, the United States and United Kingdom remain steadfast in our commitment to the pathway announced last March, which will see Australia acquire conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines,” he said.
“All three Aukus partners are working at pace to integrate our industrial bases and to realise this historic initiative between our countries.”
Greens senator David Shoebridge, who has been critical of the Aukus deal from the start, said the US budget announcement was the beginning of the end of Aukus.
“When the US passed the law to set up Aukus, they put in kill switches, one of which allowed the US to not transfer the submarines if doing so would ‘degrade the US undersea capabilities’. Budgeting for one submarine all but guarantees this,” he said on X.
4/ The failure is almost too big to wrap your head around.
We are providing billions of dollars to the US, have given up an independent foreign policy and made Australia a parking lot for US weapons. In exchange, we get nothing.
Nothing but a big target and empty pockets.— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) March 12, 2024
The US budget does include increased spending on the submarine industrial base, which was a key component of the Aukus pillar one deal, as it laid the groundwork to increase production in the coming years.
But Turnbull, an architect of the French submarine deal which was unceremoniously dumped by the Morrison government in favour of the Aukus deal, said Australia was now at the mercy of the United States for a key part of its defence strategy.
He said that the US needed to increase submarine production to meet its own needs before it was able to transfer boats to Australia, but were now only producing about half as many that were needed for the US navy and were struggling to maintain the boats they held, due to labour shortages.
“What does that mean for Australia? It means because the Morrison government, adopted by Albanese, has basically abandoned our sovereignty in terms of submarines, we are completely dependent on what happens in the United States as to whether we get them now,” he told ABC radio.
“The reality is the Americans are not going to make their submarine deficit worse than it is already by giving or selling submarines to Australia and the Aukus legislation actually sets that out quite specifically.skip past newsletter promotion
“So you know, this is really a case of us being mugged by reality. I mean, there’s a lot of Aukus cheerleaders, and anyone that has any criticism of Aukus is almost described as being unpatriotic. We’ve got to be realistic here.”
The ALP grassroots activist group, Labor Against War, want the Albanese government to freeze Aukus payments to the US so as not to “underwrite the US navy industrial shipyards”.
The national convenor of Labor Against War, Marcus Strom, said Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.
We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,” he said.
“This Labor government managed to junk Scott Morrison’s tax plan. Why would it be so stupid to continue with his war plan?”
While the Pentagon has sought to assure Australia its submarine production will be back on track by 2028, the looming threat of Donald Trump returning to the White House has raised further concerns the deal will be scuttled.
“On Aukus pillar 1 we are effectively in conflict with the needs of the US navy, and you know as well as I do the American government, when it comes to a choice between the needs of the US navy and the Australian navy, are always going to back their own,” Turnbull said.
Marles has previously denied Aukus will erode Australia’s sovereignty. In a speech to parliament last year, Marles said Australia would “always make sovereign, independent decisions on how our capabilities are employed”.
Additional reporting by Daniel Hurst
They’re Really Going To Try To Lay All The Blame For Gaza On Netanyahu
They’re really going to try to pin all the blame for the incineration of Gaza on Benjamin Netanyahu so that nothing has to change when this is over. The western empire has chosen a single scapegoat to carry away its sins so the status quo can march on unhindered by guilt or consequence.
They want everyone to pin all the blame for the Gaza genocide on Netanyahu, but this is not all the fault of Netanyahu. It’s the fault of the entire Israeli state. It’s the fault of Joe Biden. It’s the fault of the Democrats. It’s the fault of all the Israel supporters on Capitol Hill. It’s the fault of the western press. It’s the fault of the Israel lobby. It’s the fault of the unelected empire managers in US government agencies. It’s the fault of the entire US empire and all its imperial member states like Australia, the UK, the EU, and Canada.
By trying to make this mass atrocity solely the fault of Netanyahu and not the giant, sprawling network of immensely powerful institutions which made it possible, they’re working to ensure that no changes will need to be made to any of those institutions. It’s just like how they made a scapegoat of Judith Miller for the entire mass media’s war propaganda in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion and let all the blame for the war hang on Bush (before completely rehabilitating Bush’s image during the Trump administration and deciding he’s a pretty great guy after all). No meaningful changes were ever made to ensure that the US power alliance never repeats its horrible crimes after Iraq, which is why it keeps repeating horrible crimes.
The trouble with Israel apologia on Gaza is that at first glance its talking points sound legit if you don’t know much about Israel-Palestine. “Israel has a right to defend itself”, “They need to get rid Hamas because of October 7” etc would sound entirely reasonable if you didn’t know that Israel is a settler-colonialist apartheid state who has been murdering, abusing and stealing from the indigenous population of the land for generations.
The amount of energy needed to see through the talking points is far greater than the amount of energy needed to speak them — it’s one of those “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even gets its pants on” kind of deals. Which is why it’s miraculous that so many people around the world are getting educated enough to see through the lies and support the Palestinians.
How are they getting educated enough? Mostly through online content which sums up the situation quickly and concisely enough for them to understand easily. That’s the only way the truth can move quickly enough to catch up with the lies. And that’s the role TikTok has played here, which is why we’ve seen Israel lobbyists and the ADL shrieking their lungs out about it for months.
It would never have occurred to any American to think TikTok is a five-alarm foreign enemy threat until their government told them to think that, and then when they did the biggest bootlickers in the world started acting like it’s just a common sense fact they’ve always believed.
Americans who’d trust their own government to oversee their communications more than they’d trust China have missed all the most important lessons about the US government that have come out in their lives. Even if China really is getting data from TikTok (and there’s currently no evidence that it is), only a groveling empire simp would object to it.
Saying TikTok must be suppressing pro-Israel content because pro-Palestine content is more popular is like saying they’re suppressing flat earth content because round earth content is more popular. Pro-Israel content is just less popular in general, which is why the gap is the same on Facebook and Instagram.
❖
The US government is like “No no it’s not censorship, we’re just using state power to ensure that popular speech platforms are only allowed to exist if they can be controlled by US government agencies.”
Israel has done so much fucked up shit in the last few days we’ve already forgotten the news that they literally tortured UN staff to extract false statements about UNRWA having Hamas connections.
They. Tortured. UN. Staff. If we had anything remotely like objective news reporting in the western press, this would have been the top story everywhere for days.
❖
Once you see how evil Israel’s actions are you start to understand why its defenders need to resort to just calling anyone who criticizes Israel a Jew-hater.
❖When Israel apologists say “antisemite” it’s just a meaningless noise made to hurt the feelings of the person it’s said to. Once you realize this it starts to land in exactly the same way as any other infantile name-calling from anyone else who’s lost the argument.
Reversing Europe’s and Australia’s slide into irrelevance & insecurity – National Press Club of Australia speech- Yanis Varoufakis
First, Australia must restore a reputation tainted by blindly following America into lethal adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and, today, via its active and crucial complicity in Israel’s deliberate war crimes in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Children are not starving in Gaza today. No, they are being deliberately starved. Without hesitation or remorse. The famine in Gaza is no collateral damage. It is an intentional policy of starving to death thousands until the rest agree to leave their ancestral homeland.
Second, Australia has a duty to de-escalate the New Cold War. To understand that this can only be done if Australia ends its servility to a United States’ actively creating the threats that they then make us pay through the nose to protect us from.
Imagine an Australia that helps bring a just Peace in Ukraine, as opposed to a mindless forever war. A non-aligned Australia that is never neutral in the face of injustice but, also, not automatically aligned with every warmongering adventure decided in Washington.
Imagine an Australia which, having re-established its credentials as a country that thinks and acts for itself, engages with China in the spirit of peaceful cooperation – a far better way of addressing Beijing’s increasing authoritarianism toward its own peoples than buying useless, hyper-expensive submarines that only succeed in forcing China’s political class to close ranks around a more authoritarian core.
Imagine a truly patriotic Australian Prime Minister who tells the American President to cease and desist from the slow murder of Julian Assange for the crime of journalism – for exposing American war crimes perpetrated behind the back of US citizens in their name.
To conclude, if Europe and Australia are to escape gross irrelevance, we need separate but well-coordinated European and Australian Green New Deals.
DiEM25, our paneuropean movement, is working toward this goal.
Yanis Varoufakis – 14/03/2024
Europe and Australia are facing a common existential threat: a creeping irrelevance caused, on the one hand, by our failure properly to invest and, on the other hand, by our ill-considered slide from a strategic dependence on the United States to a non-strategic, self-defeating servility to Washington’s policy agenda.”
Yanis Varoufakis’s address at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday 13 March, 2024
…………………………………. The three post-war phases that shaped Australia’s and Europe’s habitat
Our present moment in Europe and in Australia has been shaped by three distinct postwar phases.
The first was the Bretton Woods system. America exited the war as the only surplus, creditor country. Bretton Woods, a remarkable recycling mechanism, was, in effect, a dollar zone built on fixed exchange rates, sustained by capital controls, and erected on the back of America’s trade surplus. With quasi-free trade as part of the deal, Washington dollarised Europe, Japan and Australia to generate aggregate demand for the products of its factories – whose productivity had skyrocketed during the war. Subsequently, the US trade surplus sucked the exported dollars back into America. The result was twenty years of high growth, low unemployment, blissfully boring banking and dwindling inequality. Alas, once the United States lost its trade surplus, Bretton Woods was dead in the water.
The second phase was marked by the violent reversal of this recycling mechanism. The United States became the first hegemon to enhance its hegemony by boosting its trade deficit. Operating like a powerful vacuum cleaner, the burgeoning US trade deficit hoovered up the world’s net exports. And how did America pay for them? With dollars which it also hoovered up from the rest of the world as German, Japanese and later Chinese capitalists sent to Wall Street 70% of dollar profits made from their net exports to the US. There, in Wall Street, these foreign capitalists recycled their dollar profits into Treasuries, real estate, shares and derivatives.
This audacious inverted recycling system, built on US deficits, required ever increasing American deficits to remain stable. In the process, it gave rise to even higher growth than the Bretton Woods era, but also to macroeconomic and financial imbalances as well as mind-numbing levels of inequality. The new era came complete with an ideology (neoliberalism), a policy of letting finance rip (financialisation), and a false sense of dynamic equilibrium – the infamous Great Moderation built on hugely immoderate imbalances.
Almost inevitably, on the back of the perpetual tsunami of capital rushing in from the rest-of-the-world to Wall Street, financiers fashioned gigantic pyramids of complex wagers – Warren Buffet’s infamous Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction. When these crashed, to deliver the Global Financial Crisis, two things saved Wall Street and Western capitalism:
- The G7 central banks, that printed a total of $35 trillion on behalf of the financiers from 2009 to last year – a peculiar socialism for bankers. And,
- China, which directed half its national income to investment, thus replacing much of the lost aggregate demand not only domestically but also in Germany, Australia and, of course, in the United States.
The third period is more recent. The era of technofeudalism, as I call it, which took root in the mid-2000s but grew strongly after the GFC in conjunction with the rapid technological change that caused capital to mutate into, what I call, cloud capital – the automated means of behavioural modification living inside our phones, apps, tablets and laptops. Consider the six things this cloud capital (which one encounters in Amazon or Alibaba) does all at once:
- It grabs our attention.
- It manufactures our desires.
- It sells to us, directly, outside any actual markets, that which will satiate the desires it made us have.
- It drives and monitors waged labour inside the workplaces.
- It elicits massive free labour from us, its cloud-serfs.
- It provides the potential of blending seamlessly all that with free, digital payments.
Is it any wonder that the owners of this cloud capital – I call them cloudalists – have a hitherto undreamt of power to extract? They are, already, a new ruling class: today, the capitalisation of just seven US cloudalist firms is approximately the same as the capitalisation of all listed corporations in the UK, France, Japan, Canada and China taken together!
Continue readingEuropean Powers Stab Each Other in the Back Over Ukraine Proxy War Defeat
Finian Cunningham, March 13, 2024, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/03/13/european-powers-stab-each-other-in-the-back-over-ukraine-proxy-war-defeat/—
The failure of being vassals for the American empire and the impending disaster of defeat for the NATO proxy war in Ukraine is weighing heavily.
Europe is rife with treachery in the age-old fashion of imperial rivalry. It’s pathetic to watch, but highly instructive about who the real villains of the piece are.
The failure of being abject vassals for the American empire and the impending disaster of defeat for the NATO proxy war in Ukraine is weighing heavily.
Each European power is pushing the other over the abyss to save its own political skin.
France’s Emmanuel Macron has emerged to be a little king rat. He has taken to talking up deploying NATO troops to Ukraine to salvage the proxy war against Russia. Macron struts around like a rat in jackboots too big for his feet calling on other European leaders not to be cowards.
The former Rothschild banker Macron then turns around and cancels yet another trip to the Ukrainian capital Kiev. Maybe the French leader got scared by the Russian air strike on Odessa last week when the Greek premier was touring the city along with Ukraine’s puppet president Zelensky.
Macron sent his Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné to Lithuania last Friday to discuss with the rabid Russophobic Baltic states the idea of sending NATO troops to Ukraine. Given the history of the Baltic states aiding and abetting the Third Reich’s invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa in 1941, we can safely posit the same states are an open door for such French-inspired madness.
However, with classic elite cowardice, Macron obviously doesn’t want to be anywhere near the front line when the action gets hot. Better to hunker down on a comfy armchair in Elysée Palace and bark out your angry poodle orders from there.
Meanwhile, that other bastion of European civility (meaning treacherous deception) the good old British are cajoling Germany to send long-range missiles to Ukraine to strike deep into Russia.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is balking at supplying the Taurus cruise missiles to the Ukrainian regime. The German-made weapon has a range of 500 kilometers. Given the unhinged NeoNazis in Kiev (headed up by a Jewish puppet Zelensky) it is a certainty that the Taurus missiles would be fired at Moscow to kill “Untermenschen Russians”.
That’s why Scholz is worried. His top Luftwaffe commanders have already been caught red-handed planning how the Taurus “super tools” would be used to hit deep Russian targets.
Enter the ever-so-polite British with a helping hand to the Germans. Britain’s Foreign Secretary “Lord” David Cameron visited Berlin last week urging the Germans to supply the Taurus missile to Ukraine.
Cameron said London was ready to help Germany “solve the problem” of its reluctance to provide the long-range weapon.
The British top diplomat offered a swap arrangement whereby London would buy Taurus missiles from Germany while supplying more of its Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine. In that way, Berlin would not be implicated in attacking Russia, according to Cameron.
Laughably, the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said she considered the British offer to be viable.
Her nominal boss, Chancellor Scholz, has officially remained reluctant to the idea of sending Taurus missiles.
Germany would do well to treat any British proposal with deep suspicion. After all, it was the British that inveigled Germany into two world wars. The first one was with the objective of destroying an imperial rival, while the second one was engineered to unleash Hitler’s war machine on the Soviet Union.
The cold facts are that the United States and its European NATO vassals embarked on a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine as the battleground. That war was at least 10 years in the making from the CIA-sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 which brought to power the present NeoNazi regime.
The two-year proxy war has turned out to be a colossal failure for the American empire and its European satellites. The Kyiv regime is collapsing from overwhelmingly superior Russian firepower. The wasting of the Ukrainian military – as many as 500,000 men – as well as up to $200 billion in financial and military aid paid for ultimately by Western taxpayers will rebound with massive political repercussions for the warmongering Western elites.
Each one of these imperialist criminal powers wants to save their own necks as the noose of public anger inevitably tightens.
The French cock-turned-rat Macron would no doubt like to muddy the battlefield with NATO troops – while avoiding any muck splashing on his dainty little boots of course.
The Americans are beginning to realize they can’t win and are finally cutting off the money, leaving the Europeans high and dry to deal with a continental-sized mess. Joe Biden can’t even remember if it was Ukraine or Iraq that he made a fatal mistake in.
Britain, ever the arch Machiavellian maggot, would like to throw Germany into the frontline against Russia. No doubt the City of London could pick up some much-needed capitalist business from war reconstruction contracts.
The proxy war in Ukraine is over and the Western rats are scurrying off the ship.
The Western public needs to hold each one of them to account and not let them blow up a bigger war with Russia as a way to distract from their culpability.
Cold turkeys: The demise of nuclear power
Jim Green, Mar 12, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/cold-turkeys-the-demise-of-nuclear-power-in-australias-aukus-partner-countries/
When announcing the AUKUS agreement in 2021, then Prime Minister (and secret energy minister) Scott Morrison said: “Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish … a civil nuclear capability.” He also said that “a civil nuclear energy industry is not a requirement for us to go through the submarine program.”
However, Coalition Senators argued in a report last year that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”
So, let’s see how nuclear power is faring in our AUKUS partners, the UK and the US.
This is a story about conventional, large reactors. All that needs to be said about ‘small modular reactors’ in the UK and the US is that none exist and none are under construction.
This is a story about conventional, large reactors. All that needs to be said about ‘small modular reactors’ in the UK and the US is that none exist and none are under construction.
The UK
The last power reactor start-up in the UK was 29 years ago — Sizewell B in 1995.
Over the past decade, several proposed new nuclear power plants have been abandoned (Moorside, Wylfa, Oldbury) and the only project to reach the construction stage is Hinkley Point C, comprising two French-designed EPR reactors.
In the late 2000s, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was £2 billion (A$3.9 billion). When construction of two EPR reactors at Hinkley Point commenced in 2018 and 2019, the cost estimate for the two reactors was £19.6 billion.
The current cost estimate for the two reactors has ballooned to £46 billion (A$89 billion) or £23 billion (A$44.5 billion) per reactor. That is 11.5 times higher than the estimate in the late 2000s. Further cost overruns are certain. This is an example of the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: Add a Zero to Nuclear Industry Estimates.
The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for Hinkley Point — primarily in the form of a guaranteed payment of £92.50 (A$180) per megawatt-hour (2012 prices), indexed for inflation, for 35 years — could amount to £30 billion (A$58 billion) while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £48.3 billion (A$94 billion).
Delays
The delays associated with Hinkley Point have been as shocking as the cost overruns. In 2007, French utility EDF boasted that Britons would be using electricity from an EPR reactor at Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys in 2017. In 2008, the UK government said the reactors would be complete “well before 2020”.
But construction of the two reactors didn’t even begin until 2018 and 2019, respectively, at which time completion was expected in 2026. Now, completion is expected in 2030 or 2031.
Undoubtedly there will be further delays and if the reactors are completed, it will be more than a quarter of a century after the 2007 EDF boast that Britons would finally be using electricity from Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys.
Construction will take well over 10 years; planning and construction over 25 years. Yet in Australia, the Coalition argues that Australians could be cooking Christmas turkeys with nuclear power 10 years from now.
‘Something of a crisis’
Nuclear industry lobbyist Tim Yeo said in 2017 that the UK’s nuclear power program faced “something of a crisis”. The following year, Toshiba abandoned the planned Moorside nuclear power project near Sellafield despite generous offers of government support — a “crushing blow” according to Yeo.
Then in 2019, Hitachi abandoned the planned Wylfa reactor project in Wales after the estimated cost of the twin-reactor project had risen by 50 percent.
Hitachi abandoned the project despite an offer from the UK government to take a one-third equity stake in the project; to consider providing all of the required debt financing; and to consider providing a guarantee of a generous minimum payment per unit of electricity.
Long gone was the 2006 assertion from then UK industry secretary Alistair Darling that the private sector would have to “initiate, fund, construct and operate” nuclear power plants.
The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities noted that Hitachi joined a growing list of companies and utilities backing out of the UK nuclear new-build program:
“Let’s not forget that Hitachi are not the first energy utility to come to the conclusion that new nuclear build in the UK is not a particularly viable prospect. The German utilities RWE Npower and E-on previously tried to develop the site before they sold it on Hitachi in order to protect their own vulnerable energy market share in the UK and Germany.
“British Gas owner Centrica pulled out of supporting Hinkley Point C, as did GDF Suez and Iberdrola at Moorside, before Toshiba almost collapsed after unwise new nuclear investments in the United States forced it to pull out of the Sellafield Moorside development just a couple of months ago.”
Sizewell C
The UK government hopes to progress the Sizewell C project in Suffolk, comprising two EPR reactors, and is once again offering very generous support including taking an equity stake in the project and using a ‘regulated asset base‘ model which foists financial risks onto taxpayers and could result in taxpayers paying billions for failed projects — as it has in the US.
If recent experience is any guide, the government will struggle to find corporations or utilities willing to invest in Sizewell regardless of generous government support.
(The same could be said for plans for small modular reactors or mid-sized reactors envisaged by Rolls-Royce — it is doubtful whether private finance can be secured despite generous taxpayer subsidies.)
Many reactors have been permanently shut down in the UK: the IAEA lists 36 such reactors. Since the Sizewell B reactor startup in 1995, there have been 24 permanent reactors shut-downs and zero startups.
Repeat: since the last reactor startup in the UK, there have been 24 shut-downs!
The capacity of the nine remaining reactors (5.9 gigawatts — GW) is less than half of the peak of 13 GW in the late 1990s. Nuclear power’s contribution to electricity supply has fallen from 22 percent in the early 2000s to 14.2 percent.
Meanwhile, the UK government reports that renewable power sources accounted for 44.5 percent of total UK generation in the third quarter of 2023, a higher share than fossil fuels and around three times more than nuclear’s share.
What to make of the conservative UK government’s goal of quadrupling nuclear capacity to 24 GW by 2050? It is deeply implausible. The facts speak for themselves. Two dozen reactor shutdowns and zero startups since 1995.
The Hinkley Point project has been extremely slow and extremely expensive. The Sizewell C project is uncertain. Other proposals — including proposals for small modular reactors — are even more uncertain and distant.
Unsurprisingly, the extraordinary cost overruns and delays associated with Hinkley Point have complicated plans to advance the proposed Sizewell C project.
In 2010, the UK government announced that Sizewell was one of the locations slated for new reactors. Fourteen years later, construction is some years away and it remains uncertain if the project will reach the construction stage. EDF and the UK government are seeking to raise a further £20 billion from new investors. All reasonable offers considered.
France
The Sizewell C project is equally complicated across the channel due to EDF’s massive debts and its plan to replace the EPR design with an EPR2 design, about which little is known except that safety will be sacrificed on the altar of economics. EDF’s debt as of early 2023 was €64.5 billion (A$107 billion) and it was fully nationalised later in 2023 due to its crushing debts.
In addition to its adventures across the channel, EDF has a “colossal maintenance and investment programme to fund” in France as the Financial Times noted in October 2021.
As in the UK, there has not been a single reactor startup in France since the last millennium. The only current reactor construction project is one EPR reactor under construction at Flamanville. The current cost estimate of €19.1 billion (A$31.6 billion) is nearly six times higher than the original estimate of €3.3 billion (A$5.5 billion).
Construction of the Flamanville reactor began in 2007 and it remains incomplete 17 years later. Planning plus construction have taken over a quarter of a century. Yet the Coalition argues that Australians could be cooking Christmas turkeys with nuclear power 10 years from now.
France’s nuclear industry was in its “worst situation ever“, a former EDF director said in 2016 — and the situation has worsened since then. Another former EDF director said in early 2024 that the French nuclear industry is “on a slow descent to hell” and he has “fierce doubts about EDF’s ability to build more reactors.”
The US
The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of around US$9 billion (A$13.6 billion). Construction began in 2013 and the project was abandoned in 2017.
The project was initially estimated to cost US$11.5 billion; when it was abandoned, the estimate was US$25 billion (A$38 billion).
Largely as a result of the V.C. Summer disaster, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and its parent company Toshiba only avoided bankruptcy by selling its most profitable assets. Both companies decided that they would no longer take on the huge risks associated with reactor construction projects. A year earlier, Westinghouse said its goal was to win overseas orders for at least 45 AP1000 reactors by 2030.
Criminal investigations and prosecutions related to the V.C. Summer project are ongoing: the fiasco is known as the ‘nukegate’ scandal.
Vogtle
With the abandonment of the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, the only remaining reactor construction project in the US was the Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors).
Construction of the Vogtle reactors began in 2013 and the expected completion dates of 2016 and 2017 were pushed back seven years to 2023 and 2024. In 2014, Westinghouse claimed a three-year construction schedule for AP1000 reactors but the Vogtle reactors took 10 and 11 years to complete.
The first licence application for the Vogtle project was submitted in 2006 so planning and construction took 17 years in addition to the time spent before the 2006 application.
The latest cost estimate for the Vogtle project is $34 billion (A$51 billion), more than twice the estimate when construction began (US$14–15.5 billion). The project only survived because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts.
In 2006, Westinghouse said it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion (A$2.1 billion) — 12 times lower than the latest Vogtle estimate of US$17 billion (A$25.5 billion) per reactor. Another example of the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: Add a Zero to Nuclear Industry Estimates.
Corruption scandals
In 2005, the US Nuclear Energy Institute claimed that Westinghouse’s estimate of US$1,365 per kilowatt “has a solid analytical basis, has been peer-reviewed, and reflects a rigorous design, engineering and constructability assessment.”
In fact, the estimate was out by an order of magnitude and the Institute’s involvement in a raft of corruption scandals has been exposed. No doubt the Dutton Coalition would happily parrot whatever lies the Institute chose to feed them, and no doubt the Murdoch/Sky/AFR echo-chamber would happily amplify those lies.
During the ill-fated ‘nuclear renaissance’, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission received applications to build 31 reactors, but only the Vogtle and V.C. Summer projects reached the construction stage and only the twin-reactor Vogtle project was completed. Two out of 31 ain’t bad. Well it is, actually.
Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down since 2013 with many more closures in the pipeline. The US has one of the oldest reactor fleets in the world with a mean age of 42.1 years. The mean age of the 29 reactors closed worldwide from 2018‒2022 was 43.5 years.
Around 20 unprofitable, ageing reactors have been saved by nuclear bailout funding but their future is precarious. In addition to the V.C. Summer corruption scandal, nuclear bailout programs are mired in corruption scandals (see here, here, here and here and if you’re still not convinced see here, here, and here).
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
‘We Got To Rein Her In’: Behind The Scenes Of Victoria Nuland’s Early Retirement
BY TYLER DURDEN, SUNDAY, MAR 10, 2024 –https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/we-got-reign-her-behind-scenes-nulands-early-retirement
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern in a new interview has speculated over the reasons behind Victoria Nuland stepping down from her high-ranking position as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the number three top official in the State Department.
Her retirement was announced by her boss Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday. But the question is why now when the administration is attempting to stay the course and present a strong continued stance on Ukraine, also as Biden is still seeking to get tens of billions in defense aid through Republicans in the House.
While there have been rumors that maybe she could be in poor or declining health, McGovern has told Russia’s Sputnik that the notoriously hawkish Nuland was a liability at a moment NATO and Russia are inching closer to direct nuclear-armed confrontation.
“My best guess here is that the CIA and the Defense Department and the NSA got this message around saying, ‘look, Victoria’s got her own agenda here,’” said McGovern.
The former CIA official continued to speculate: “‘The president doesn’t really want to strike these ammo depots in Russia or knock down the [Crimean] Bridge. So we got to rein her in, I guess it’s time for her to go to early retirement.’”
Another theory, though not necessarily contradictory to the above, has been advanced by professor of national security at Bowie State University Dr. Matthew Crosston.
He laid out what “a staunch anti-Putinist Nuland was and how fervently she wanted to continue to utilize Ukraine as a platform in which to continue to weaken and/or slight Russia on the global stage — and perhaps even up the ante in that conflict with her support of sending ballistic missiles into Ukraine.” But she also knows the Ukrainian side is losing.
She may have seen the writing on the wall as Ukraine forces are in retreat, and wanted to bail before potential total defeat:
“She undoubtedly understood that if American support lessons or wanes, Ukraine loses, period,” Crosston pointed out. “Perhaps she did not want to be in the Administration that would be responsible for that outcome.”
But both McGovern and Crosston would agree that with Nuland as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (in this capacity she basically ran all of US foreign policy in Europe), ceasefire talks between Kiev and Moscow remained an extremely distant prospect or even an impossibility.
“One thing is certain: as long as Nuland remained in that chair, there was literally no chance such talk could even be theorized. Now it can,” Crosston concluded.
ournalist Glenn Greenwald also weighed in on Nuland stepping down in an interview with The Hill. Greenwald describes the “singular monstrousness of Victoria Nuland and her bipartisan, blood-stained, ghoulish career“…
Nuland’s temporary replacement for under secretary upon her retirement has been announced as career diplomat John Bass, a former ambassador to Afghanistan. He is currently in the position of the undersecretary of state for management. He oversaw Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, and so it is somewhat ironic that he’ll also oversee Ukraine policy at this critical juncture where Kiev is clearly against the ropes.
Canada, Sweden Restore UNRWA Funds as Report Accuses Israel of Torturing Agency Staff
“The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated,” said Canadian lawmaker Salma Zahid. “It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable.”
JON QUEALLY, Mar 09, 2024 https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/09/canada-sweden-restore-unrwa-funds-as-report-accuses-israel-of-torturing-agency-staff/
The governments of Canada and Sweden have announced they will resume funding for the United Nation’s agency that provides humanitarian aide and protection to Palestinians living in Gaza and elsewhere—a move that other powerful nations, including Israel’s most powerful ally the United States, continue to refuse.
Calling the lack of humanitarian relief inside Gaza “catastrophic,” Canadian Minister of International Development Ahmed Hussen said Friday his nation would restore funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in order to help address the “dire” situation on the ground living.
Sweden made its announcement Saturday and said a $20 million disbursement would be made to help UNRWA regain its financial footing.
The restoration of funds follows weeks of global criticism and protest for the decision by many Western nations to withhold UNRWA funds after Israel claimed, without presenting evidence, that a few members of the agency—the largest employer in the Gaza Strip—had participated in the Hamas-led attacks of October 7.
As a result, UNRWA has said it’s ability to provide aid and services to Gaza—where over 100,000 people have been killed or wounded in five months of constant bombardment and blockade by the Israeli military—has been pushed to the “breaking point” as malnutrition and starvation has been documented among the displaced population of over 2 million people.
“Canada is resuming its funding to UNRWA so more can be done to respond to the urgent needs of Palestinian civilians,” Hussen said. “Canada will continue to take the allegations against some of UNRWA’s staff extremely seriously and we will remain closely engaged with UNRWA and the UN to pursue accountability and reforms.”
“I welcome Canada lifting the pause on funding for UNWRA,” said Canadian MP Salma Zahid, a member of the Liberal party representing Scarborough Centre in the House of Commons. “The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated. It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable.”
Earlier this week, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini told a special meeting of the U.N. General Assembly the agency was “facing a deliberate and concerted campaign” by Israel “to undermine its operations, and ultimately end them.”
On Friday, Reutersreported on an internal UNRWA report that included testimony of employees who said they were tortured by Israeli officers while in detention to make false admissions about involvement in the October 7 attack.
Why the EU could be the biggest loser from the Ukraine conflict
SOTT, Fyodor Lukyanov, RTSat, 09 Mar 2024 , https://www.sott.net/article/489640-Fyodor-Lukyanov-Why-the-EU-could-be-the-biggest-loser-from-the-Ukraine-conflict
As alarms bells ring in the West, Emmanuel Macron’s talk of NATO troops in Ukraine reflects a fear of failure
French President Emmanuel Macron has acknowledged that the Fifth Republic will not send its troops to Ukraine in the near future. Earlier, he had stated that Western leaders had discussed the issue but failed to reach an agreement.
The evolution of the Ukraine crisis has had paradoxical consequences. Two years since the most acute phase began, Western Europe has found itself at the spearhead of the confrontation. Not only in terms of the costs it has incurred – which have been discussed from the very beginning. Now the possibility of a military conflict with Russia is being raised much more loudly in the Old World than on the other side of the Atlantic, and France is the instigator. Macron’s statement on the possibility of sending NATO troops into the war zone seemed spontaneous to many. But a week later, Paris insisted it was deliberate and well thought-out.
…………………………………………It seems that previously the constant incantation was to prevent NATO from being drawn into a direct, nuclear conflict with Russia. And now, suddenly, Paris is talking about “strategic ambiguity,” about a cunning game to confuse Russian President Vladimir Putin and make him afraid to take decisions because of possible irreversible consequences. Let him be afraid of the next steps, not us.
This is not yet being repeated in other major capitals, but a group of countries ready to cross swords with Moscow is beginning to take shape.………………………………
Western European ambiguity is likely to mean stepping up the substantial military assistance to Ukraine without announcing it, but also without hiding the growing signs. The risks are considerable because there is no reason to believe that Russia would somehow refrain from responding if it saw reason to do so.
The fear of Russia is not new in Western Europe, and is in its own way historically very sincere, so we should not write it off. All the more so because, after the Cold War, Europe collectively believed we could forget the previous problems with a clear conscience. But here we are again.
However, we dare to suggest that the current Western European reaction and the escalation of the Russian threat are also linked to another factor: the realisation that it is the EU that could be the main loser in the ongoing conflict. The gap between the demands of the population and the priorities of the political class is widening, according to opinion polls. Added to that, it’s unclear what to expect from the senior partner over in Washington. It turns out that ambiguity is everywhere, and there is nothing left but to make it the core of one’s policy. And insist on it.
On the eve of the Russian presidential election, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov invited EU ambassadors to a meeting, but they refused.
Comment: It appears as if Europe hasn’t learned important lessons of history which seriously puts us all in danger. It is clear though that the European leaders are making these decisions without consulting the people in their countries who are more interested in the domestic problems within EU. As always, war and/or the fear of war in a climate of engineered hysteria works wonders in distracting people towards an enemy ‘out there’ and thus protecting the real enemy ‘inside’.
See also:
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (102)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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 