nuclear-news

Trump Killed Public War Research. Stargate Will Make It Secret—and Far More Dangerous

By Kit Klarenberg / MintPress News, 26 Mar 25

ays after a Pentagon spokesperson celebrated the work of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, the Minerva Initiative—a little-known but influential research program—was killed without fanfare. No mainstream outlet covered it. But the reasons behind its demise reveal the next frontier of American war planning: AI, surveillance, and full-spectrum social control.

On March 4, chief Department of Defence spokesperson Sean Parnell took to ‘X’ to announce that Elon Musk’s notorious Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was hard at work identifying tens of millions of dollars in savings to make the U.S. military “more lethal.” In addition to various DEI programs, several grants provided to universities to investigate climate change-related issues were listed for the chop. Unstated by Parnell, these efforts were funded by Minerva Initiative, a little-known Pentagon project founded in 2008.

Under its auspices, the Department of Defense gave grants to researchers at U.S. universities to investigate particular topics, emphasizing social and behavioral sciences. In addition to helping D.C. military apparatchiks better understand foreign cultures and societies in their crosshairs, recent topics of interest have included climate change and “disinformation.” Minerva Initiative was launched with much initial fanfare as a public mechanism for connecting academia and government, but despite operating in the open, its activities typically generated little mainstream interest.

Accordingly, no major news outlet reported when, mere days later, the Minerva Initiative was permanently axed in its entirety. It fell to the academic journal Science to break the news, its report quoting several academics—including recipients of Minerva grants—harshly condemning the move as “harmful to U.S. national security.” One warned, “Any savings will be outweighed by new gaps and blind spots in our knowledge about current and emerging threats.”

Minerva Initiative’s budget was modest by Pentagon standards – in August 2024, under its last funding round, $46.8 million was granted to 19 research projects. Yet, its impact was evidently seismic. “The initiative has helped build up a generation of social science researchers engaged with national security,” Science previously reported, with “many” academics in the field having “cut [their] teeth” with Minerva support. While beneficiaries may mourn its passing, Aaron Goode, host of the political podcast “American Exception” and a critic of U.S. foreign policy, offers MintPress News a less glowing appraisal:

Minerva Initiative was yet another example of the U.S. national security state corrupting civil society and academia in order to maintain U.S. global dominance. It was a way to weaponize social science to evolve US battlefield tactics – all in service of the grand imperial strategy of ‘full-spectrum dominance.’ This strategy has created the wealthiest and most powerful set of oligarchs in human history, killing untold millions around the world in the process.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

‘Algorithmic Personalization’

A February 7 MintPress News investigation delved into the little-acknowledged profusion of individuals and organizations in intimate proximity to the President, including members of his cabinet, with extensive financial, ideological and political interests in artificial intelligence. The Trump administration’s AI fixation is manifested publicly in Stargate, a $500 billion initiative to construct 20 large AI data centers across the U.S. by 2029, managed by a consortium of major tech firms and financial institutions.

Oddly, the project dropped off the radar entirely after an initial surge of media and tech sector excitement about Stargate. Details on its progress are stubbornly unforthcoming, and the purposes for which the vast forecast investment will be put remain sketchy. Nonetheless, in a January press release hailing Stargate’s launch, consortium member OpenAI boasted the endeavor would “provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies.”

Notably, the Minerva Initiative awarded sizable grants to study AI and its applications. On their surface, some of these efforts seem mundane. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison was given $2.1 million to develop AI tools to bolster the Pentagon’s “role as a science funder.” Meanwhile, Utah State received $1.49 million to assess the impact of AI surveillance technology on governance systems.

Other Minerva-financed AI research appears considerably more sinister. In July 2020, the University of Iowa’s Initiative for Artificial Intelligence was granted an undisclosed sum over three years to investigate “the relationship between algorithmic personalization and online radicalization” and “uncover the technological, psychological, and cultural factors” that can lead individuals to adopt “extremist ideologies.” If the effort concerned public safety, this would be all well and good – but its proposal document points to a far darker set of objectives.

Iowa researchers surveyed politically engaged U.S. adults for a year, tracking their views on social, cultural, and political topics—and their susceptibility to conspiracy theories. This was intended to determine “psychological factors that make an individual more or less vulnerable to radicalization” and whether “algorithmic personalization” could play a role either way. “Communities vulnerable to future exposure to extremist ideologies” would also be identified.

The proposal’s reference to “conspiracy theories” is ominous. The term is nebulous and highly contested – so too are “extremist” and “radical.” Critics reasonably charge that these phrases are routinely employed in the mainstream to delegitimize dissenting opinions, inconvenient truths, awkward questions, and those voicing them. The U.S. government has long sought to infiltrate and subvert online spaces in the name of battling “conspiracy theories” and “extremists,” replicating historic covert state attacks on civil society and independent activists such as COINTELPRO in the process.

“Minerva Initiative research projects studying the phenomenon of ‘extremism’ in and around conflict zones is ironic,” Patrick Hennigsen believes……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Was the Minerva Initiative shut down to push Pentagon AI research further into secrecy—and profitability—via Stargate? That’s one theory. Another is that the administration wanted to remove external oversight completely. Jeffrey Kaye, an investigative journalist who has extensively documented U.S. psychological warfare operations, tells MintPress News the Initiative’s closure does not spell the end of the abuse of academia by the Department of Defense or other U.S. government agencies:

Last I heard, DARPA and RAND Corporation were not shuttered. And CIA and Fort Detrick certainly still engage U.S. universities and professors for a multitude of research projects for the war industry. Minerva’s closure may send a chill through the social science portion of the academic community that supports Washington’s war drive in China and elsewhere, but I expect long-term, there will be very little change in relations between the U.S. national security state and academic world.” https://www.mintpressnews.com/trump-killed-minerva-stargate-make-secret-more-dangerous/289313/

March 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

More lies from British nuclear power advocate Zion Lights

 Jim Green: Zion Lights claims that a Friends of the Earth (FoE) webpage
responding to her nuclear nonsense is a “hit piece”. Judge for
yourself: https://nuclear.foe.org.au/zion-lights/ Lights claims I have
“relentlessly hounded” her ever since. That’s a lie. Lights didn’t
like me fact-checking her nuclear nonsense so blocked me on social media
and on substack shortly after I began fact-checking her nonsense. I’ve
written just four substack posts responding to her nonsense over 18 months
(five including this one):

 Jim Green’s Blog 25th March 2025 https://jimkgreen1.substack.com/p/more-lies-from-zion-lights

March 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

They won’t tell you these truths about nuclear energy 

by Cindy Folkers and Amanda M. Nichols, opinion contributors  – 02/02/25 ,  https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/5118792-nuclear-power-industry-radiation-debunk/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIOldhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfrKakROFL169LYfifqZe6YoIrO_jAtv23bm6hkyL0zF7neIUesv9XURpw_aem_ocJM3kdP_FV_AlGdyUVxdg

Scientists have been arguing about the health risks from radiation since the end of the 19th century, when radioactivity was first discovered. Today, with electricity demand soaring and AI companies clamoring for their own nuclear power plants, from small modular reactor projects to giant new nuclear builds, that century-old argument is ongoing.  

But now it’s mostly a battle between scientists on the one hand and the nuclear industry, the politicians it lobbies and gullible media on the other. 

Currently, scientists are being drowned out. The Biden administration proposed to triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050, and President Trump is perceived as favoring nuclear expansion as well. Despite reams of peer-reviewed studies and books showing radiation’s harmful effects, there is persistent denialism that seems impervious to fact-checking. 

It took until this century for the U.S. government to finally admit that radiation had killed workers at nuclear weapons plants. For Congress, compensating them remains politically radioactive: lawmakers failed to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act that expired in 2024. Media coverage increasingly and uncritically repeats the talking points of nuclear industry spokespeople, who preposterously claim you would have to stand next to nuclear waste for a year to get as much radiation as having an X-ray, or that eating a banana gives you as much radiation exposure as living next to a nuclear plant. 

This is dangerous disinformation in a long line of dangerous disinformation.  

After the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan, the director of the Manhattan Project, Gen. Leslie R. Groves, debunked reports of radiation sickness as Japanese “propaganda.” Later, when he had to admit its existence, Groves misled Congress and the public by saying it was “a very pleasant way to die.”  

Spreading such lies is bad enough. What is even worse is that the truth of the matter has been actively and deliberately suppressed.  

Scientists who first dared to expose radiation’s harms — cancer, birth defects, disproportionate impacts on females — had their funding and data seized and suffered professional ostracism and vilification.  

Spreading such lies is bad enough. What is even worse is that the truth of the matter has been actively and deliberately suppressed.  

Scientists who first dared to expose radiation’s harms — cancer, birth defects, disproportionate impacts on females — had their funding and data seized and suffered professional ostracism and vilification.  Yet their early scientific findings were largely vindicated. It’s now well established that exposure to ionizing radiation has adverse health impacts, affecting the heart, lungs, thyroid, brain and immune system, causing blood disorders, cataracts, malignant tumors, keloids and other chronic conditions. It wreaks genetic havoc that can result in cancer, organ dysfunction and immune and metabolic disorders. Children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable. 

It’s also proven that ionizing radiation disproportionately impacts women and girls, with the youngest worst affected. Ethnicity and other factors beyond biological sex and age may be contributing or compounding factors. There is also a growing body of evidence that radiation has transgenerational impacts. 

Meanwhile, regulators set dose limits for radiation exposure that fly in the face of the evidence. These limits purport to set a “safe” level of radiation exposure, ignoring radiation researchers who have long stressed there is no such thing as a safe level, since any exposure can contribute to adverse health impacts.  

In fact, nuclear technologies, including civilian power reactors, have poisoned large swaths of land — and not only the areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima, whose radioactive cesium contaminated Tokyo. The U.S. nuclear industry has left a lasting legacy of radiation in our environment, including in our water and food, which U.S. regulators are hardly able to effectively track, let alone remediate.  

Uranium mining and nuclear weapons testing particularly and disproportionately affect Indigenous land and Native Americans, compounding the harms of colonization, exploitation and marginalization on already overburdened communities. Nuclear technologies have done and will continue to do long, slow violence, especially to the poor and marginalized, leaving long-lasting ecological, human-health and genetic impacts.  

We seem unable to keep these inconvenient truths in our heads, the more so since well-financed nuclear lobbyists and their government targets have misdirected our attention by reframing nuclear power as key to fighting climate change.

This is a fallacy. There’s actually plenty of evidence showing the opposite — that relying on nuclear power actually makes climate change worse, and undercuts the true climate solution of renewables and efficiency. Even the Government Accountability Office called out the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its nonsensical refusal to consider the growing dangers of operating nuclear plants amid climate change. But none of that has prevented countenancing the myth of nuclear as a climate strategy and other big lies about it

Perhaps the biggest lies about nuclear stem from Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech, a carefully crafted bid to recast nuclear technology as peaceful after the atrocious 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Atoms for Peace promised to make electricity “too cheap to meter” and “make the deserts bloom,” while deliberately concealing the truth that nuclear was utterly uncompetitive and not remotely economically viable as a power source. Civilian nuclear power was misdirection away from the real agenda of building nuclear power plants, which was to help supply the nuclear weapons complex, producing enriched plutonium as feedstocks for nuclear bombs in the burgeoning arms race.

Today, nuclear weapons are still the hidden agenda and secret rationale behind the otherwise nonsensical nuclear power industry. The resurgent nuclear arms race is the real reason why many tens of billions in federal subsidies ($53.5 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act alone, plus billions more in state subsidies) are propping up the utterly uncompetitive nuclear power industry, and why many billions more of taxpayers’ money is now getting thrown at corporations pushing chimerical “advanced” nuclear and uneconomical, dirty, failing small modular reactors (SMRs). 

But some are pushing back, like Indigenous nations and public interest advocates in southwest Washington, where Amazon is pushing to build SMRs to power its AI business, heedless of their negative impacts and prohibitive costs.  

Of all the dangers of reckless nuclear boosterism, the most insidious is disinformation concealing and denying nuclear’s past, present and future harms while wildly exaggerating its benefits. These are the perennial tactics of the nuclear industry. They litter its history, and they’re again getting traction today.  

But they can be countered with sunshine — both the kind that powers real renewables with which nuclear can’t compete, and the kind that exposes its prevarications and lies with scientific evidence and public scrutiny.  
 
Cindy Folkers is the radiation and health hazard specialist at the NGO Beyond Nuclear, and co-author with Ian Fairlie of the new book “The Scientists who Alerted us to the Dangers of Radiation.” Amanda M. Nichols, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral research fellow at University of California Santa Barbara’s Environmental Studies Program, and managing editor of the peer-reviewed Journal of Religion, Nature and Culture. 

February 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment