nuclear-news

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

NYT: Senior Ukrainian official confirms Ukraine orchestrated truck bomb attack on Crimean Bridge

Chris Menahan, InformationLiberation, Oct. 09, 2022,

The New York Times reported Saturday evening that a “senior Ukrainian official” corroborated Russian reports that Ukraine was behind the truck bomb attack on the Crimean bridge which killed at least three civilians.

From The New York Times, “Blast on Crimean Bridge Deals Blow to Russian War Effort in Ukraine”:

The blast and fire sent part of the 12-mile Kerch Strait Bridge tumbling into the sea and killed at least three people, according to the Russian authorities. A senior Ukrainian official corroborated Russian reports that Ukraine was behind the attack. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a government ban on discussing the blast, added that Ukraine’s intelligence services had orchestrated the explosion, using a bomb loaded onto a truck being driven across the bridge.

[…] It was unclear if the driver of the truck, who died in the blast, was aware there were explosives inside. In video captured by a surveillance camera on the bridge, a huge fireball is seen, seeming to consume several vehicles. A small sedan and a tractor-trailer truck driving side by side appear at the epicenter of the blast. The explosion caused two sections of the bridge to partly collapse.

The truck driver was identified by Russian media as 51-year-old Mahir Yusubov of Azerbaijan.

Yusubov reportedly received an order to transport fertilizer through the internet and may have had his truck wired with explosives by Ukrainian special-ops units who used him as an unwitting suicide bomber.…………………………… more http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63391

October 11, 2022 Posted by | incidents, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US lawmakers propose halting arms sales to Saudi Arabia

Despite promising to make the kingdom a ‘pariah,’ the Biden government has approved billions in weapon sales to Riyadh

The Cradle, By News Desk- October 10 2022,

Lawmakers from the US Democratic party, Richard Blumenthal and Ro Khanna, have proposed legislation to put an end to US arms sales to Saudi Arabia as a response to the decision by OPEC+ to cut production output levels.

According to the two lawmakers, Riyadh’s support for Moscow, as it is seen by Washington, calls for a “far-reaching review of the US-Saudi relationship.”

In an opinion piece co-written by Blumenthal and Khanna, released by US media outlet Politico on 9 October, they wrote: “The Saudi decision was a pointed blow to the US, but the US also has a way to respond: It can promptly pause the massive transfer of American warfare technology into the eager hands of the Saudi.”

Although US President Joe Biden previously vowed to make the kingdom a “pariah,” US arms have continued to make their way into Saudi hands, helping fuel Riyadh’s war against Yemen. Right after taking office, Biden approved $650 million in air-to-air missiles to Saudi Arabia.

On 2 August, Biden approved and notified Congress of a possible multibillion-dollar weapons sale to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, totaling as much as $5.3 billion. If the legislation to halt sales to the kingdom passes, the US stands to lose billions of dollars, making it unlikely that such a decision would be ratified…………………..more https://thecradle.co/Article/news/16681

October 11, 2022 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Belarus has no intention to go to war with neighbors, but it will defend itself — defense minister

TASS, Mon, 10 Oct 2022

Belarus will not go to war with neighboring states provided there are no wrong steps on their part, Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin said on Monday.

“We don’t want to be at war with Lithuanians or Poles, let alone Ukrainians. If you don’t want to and don’t take wrong steps, then there will be no war,” the Defense Ministry’s press-service quotes Khrenin as saying.

He urged Ukraine not to provoke the Belarusian side and to refrain from spreading fake news about an allegedly impending attack by Minsk……………….

more https://www.sott.net/article/473013-Belarus-has-no-intention-to-go-to-war-with-neighbors-but-it-will-defend-itself-%E2%80%94-defense-minister

October 11, 2022 Posted by | Belarus, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Jeffrey Sachs: end Ukraine proxy war or face “armageddon”

October 9, 2022 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Zelensky aide attempts to walk back call for ‘preemptive strike’

It’s not clear what Zelensky meant by a “pre-emptive strike”. He might not have meant that NATO/USA should use a nuclear weapon.

But – he might well have meant that USA/NATO should strike at Russian nuclear sites

And that would indeed mean a Nuclear Pre-emptive Strike

 https://www.rt.com/russia/564204-zelensky-no-nuclear-strike/ 7 Oct 22, The Ukrainian president didn’t urge NATO to attack Russia with nuclear weapons, he pointed out.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s call for a preemptive NATO strike against Russia should not be interpreted as a request to attack the country, his press secretary has insisted.

“Colleagues, you have gone a bit too far with your nuclear hysterics and hear ‘nuclear strikes’ where there are none,” Sergey Nikoforov wrote on Facebook on Thursday, responding to widespread alarm over the president’s words.

The press secretary pledged that Ukraine will never resort to nuclear threats, calling it something only the “terrorist state Russia” would do.

Moscow has denied that its senior officials were threatening anybody when they described the country’s official nuclear posture, in the context of warning NATO members against attacks on Russia.

Hours earlier, Zelensky told the Australian Lowy Institute that NATO should carry out preemptive strikes against Russia so that it “knows what to expect” in the event that it uses atomic weapons.

Such an attack would “eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons,” the Ukrainian leader claimed. He urged the US and its allies to make a show of force, recalling how he appealed to other nations for preemptive measures against Russia before Moscow sent troops into Ukraine in late February.

“I once again appeal to the international community, as it was before February 24: preemptive strikes so that they [Russians] know what will happen to them if they use it, and not the other way around,” he said.

His press secretary also noted that before the hostilities started, “the only measures we talked about were preemptive sanctions”.

Russian officials have accused Zelensky of trying to provoke a global nuclear war. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described him as “a monster, whose hands can destroy the planet,” after being pumped with Western weapons.

The Russian military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict, if Moscow believes that the existence of the country is under threat. Russian officials have repeatedly warned against escalating the crisis in Ukraine, stating that it could spiral out of control and result in a global nuclear exchange.

October 8, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Lavrov explains why Russia sees Ukraine as a threat – Zelensky asked NATO for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

 https://www.rt.com/russia/564206-lavrov-zelensky-preemptive-strike/ 7 Oct 22, President Zelensky did ask NATO for a preemptive nuclear strike, despite claims to the contrary, the Russian foreign minister said.

A call by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky for NATO members to deploy nuclear weapons against Russia is a reminder of why Moscow launched military action against his country, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

“Yesterday, Zelensky called on his Western masters to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia,” Moscow’s top diplomat stated during a media conference on Wednesday

In doing so, the Ukrainian leader “showed to the entire world the latest proof of the threats that come from the Kiev regime.” Lavrov said Russia’s special military operation had been launched to neutralize those threats.

He dismissed as “laughable” an attempt to downplay Zelensky’s words made by his press secretary, Sergey Nikoforov.

We all remember how [Zelensky] declared in January Ukraine’s intention to acquire nuclear weapons. Apparently, this idea has long been stuck in his mind,” the Russian minister said.

On Thursday, Zelensky told the Australian Lowy Institute that NATO must carry out preemptive strikes against Russia so that it “knows what to expect” if it uses its nuclear arsenal. He claimed that such action would “eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons,” before recalling how he urged other nations to preemptively punish Russia before it launched its military action against his country.

“I once again appeal to the international community, as it was before February 24: Preemptive strikes so that [the Russians] know what will happen to them if they use it, and not the other way around,” he said.

His spokesman then claimed that people interpreting Zelensky’s words as a call for a preemptive nuclear strike were wrong, and that Ukraine would never use such rhetoric.

October 8, 2022 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

2022 Nobel Peace Prize award violates the purpose of the prize

2022: Nobel Committee Gets Peace Prize Wrong Yet Again,  https://davidswanson.org/2022-nobel-committee-gets-peace-prize-wrong-yet-again/ 7 Oct 22,

The Nobel Committee has yet again awarded a peace prize that violates the will of Alfred Nobel and the purpose for which the prize was created, selecting recipients who blatantly are not “the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.”

With its eyes on the news of the day, there was no question that the Committee would find some way to focus on Ukraine. But it steered clear of anyone seeking to reduce the risk of that thus-far relatively minor war creating a nuclear apocalypse. It avoided anyone opposing both sides of the war, or anyone advocating for a ceasefire or negotiations or disarmament. It did not even make the choice one might have expected of picking an opponent of Russian warmaking in Russia and an opponent of Ukrainian warmaking in Ukraine.

Instead, the Nobel Committee has chosen advocates for human rights and democracy in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. But the group in Ukraine is recognized for having  “engaged in efforts to identify and document Russian war crimes against the Ukrainian civilian population,” with no mention of war as a crime or of the possibility that the Ukrainian side of the war was committing atrocities. The Nobel Committee may have learned from Amnesty International’s experience of being widely denounced for documenting war crimes by the Ukrainian side.

The fact that all sides of all wars have always failed and always will fail to engage in humane operations is possibly why Alfred Nobel set up a prize to advance the abolition of war.  It’s too bad that prize is so misused. Because of its misuse, World BEYOND War has created instead the War Abolisher Awards.

October 7, 2022 Posted by | Sweden, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Are Putin’s nuclear threats really likely to lead to Armageddon?

The realities underlying the menacing vocabulary are a grey area – it is far from certain that Putin would be prepared to use nuclear weapons

Guardian, by Julian Borger in Washington, Sat 8 Oct 2022

The past week has seen a rapid escalation in nuclear rhetoric, beginning with Vladimir Putin’s threat to use “all forces and means” to defend newly seized territory in Ukraine and ending with Joe Biden’s warning of “Armageddon” if Russia crosses the nuclear Rubicon.

However, the realities underlying the menacing vocabulary are a far greyer area than the bluster suggests. It is far from certain that Putin would be prepared to be the first leader to use nuclear weapons in wartime since 1945, over his territorial ambitions in Ukraine. If his primary goal is to stay in power, that could be exactly the wrong way of going about it.

Even if he did issue the launch order, he has no guarantee it would be carried out. Nor can he be absolutely sure that the weapons and their delivery systems would work.

On the US side, despite the US president’s apocalyptic language at a private fundraiser on Thursday night, it is not at all inevitable that Washington would respond to Putin’s nuclear use with nuclear retaliation. Past wargaming suggests there would be vigorous debate within the administration to say the least.

Like US presidents, Putin is normally accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase with codes used to authorise a nuclear launch. In the US it is called the football, in Russia it is the cheget. In the Russian system, the defence minister and the chief of the general staff have their own chegets but it is believed that Putin can order a launch without them.

However, the cheget is relevant for the strategic nuclear forces, the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) launched from land or sea, or long-range bombers. Because they need to be launched within minutes in case of enemy attack, the warheads need to be deployed, mounted on the delivery systems.

Any nuclear use in Ukraine would be likely to involve non-strategic, or tactical, weapons with shorter-range delivery systems, and which are usually (but not necessarily) less powerful than strategic arms, though on average they are many times more powerful that the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs.

The US only has one kind of tactical weapon, the B61 gravity bomb, of which there are about a hundred in Europe and a similar number in the US, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

FAS estimates Russia has 2,000 tactical weapons, in very many shapes and sizes for use on land, sea and air. The weapons are not deployed on missiles or aircraft, but kept in bunkers in storage sites dotted around Russia. There are 12 national storage sites, known in Russian military parlance as “Object S”, one of which is in Belgorod, right on the Ukrainian border.

There are also 34 “base-level” sites, closer to the delivery systems. In a time of crisis, warheads would be moved from national to base-level sites – and up to now western intelligence agencies say no such movement has been observed.

Any such movement would be carried out by the 12th main directorate of the Russian armed forces, which has the job of storing and maintaining the warheads and then delivering them in specialised trains or trucks to base-level sites, or directly to the unit designated to launch them.

Pavel Baev, a military researcher who worked for the Soviet defence ministry, said that Putin cannot count on these weapons actually working.

“Most of these warheads stored there are very old,” Baev, now a professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo, said. “Without testing it’s really hard to say how suitable they are because many of them are past their expiration date.”

Baev added that it was also far from clear that the Russian can successfully pair old warheads with the much newer delivery systems that would have to be used, possibly 9K720 Iskander or Kinzhal hypersonic missiles……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The key question is more likely to be whether the US and its allies should respond with devastating conventional firepower, as Poland’s foreign minister, Zbigniew Rau, and the former CIA director David Petraeus have suggested. But that would transform the war into one between Russia and Nato, in which escalation to a nuclear exchange could become hard to stop.

According to Eric Schlosser, the author of a book about the nuclear establishment, Command and Control, the Pentagon’s Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) conducted another war game in 2019 focused on Russian nuclear use in Ukraine. That wargame appears to have been updated, suggesting it is in constant use. The results in 2019 are top secret, but as Schlosser wrote in the Atlantic, one of the participants told him: “There were no happy outcomes.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/07/biden-putin-nuclear-threats-tactical-strike-us-response-analysis

October 7, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Poland suggests hosting US nuclear weapons- ‘nuclear sharing’

Poland suggests hosting US nuclear weapons amid growing fears of Putin’s threats,  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nuclear-wars-russia-putin-ukraine Julian Borger in Washington, 6 Oct 22, Andrzej Duda, the Polish president, in September. He said there was ‘a potential opportunity’ for Poland to take part in ‘nuclear sharing’.

Poland says it has asked to have US nuclear weapons based on its territory, amid growing fears that Vladimir Putin could resort to using nuclear arms in Ukraine to stave off a rout of his invading army.

The request from the Polish president, Andrzej Duda, is widely seen as symbolic, as moving nuclear warheads closer to Russia would make them more vulnerable and less militarily useful, according to experts. Furthermore, the White House has said it had not received such a request.

“We’re not aware of this issue being raised and would refer you to the government of Poland,” a US official said.

Duda’s announcement appears to be the latest example of nuclear signalling as the US and its allies seek to deter Putin from the first nuclear use in battle since 1945, while preparing potential responses if deterrence fails that would have maximum punitive impact while containing the risk of escalation to all-out nuclear war.

October 6, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why We Need To Teach Nuclear War

Thoughtful teachers must be willing to educate their students slowly and honestly about the history of our nuclear past.

 https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/09/27/why-we-need-teach-nuclear-war BRIAN GIBBS, September 27, 2022,

We do not teach nuclear war, but we need to.

Make no mistake, the invasion of Ukraine is a nuclear-fueled conflict and students are ill-prepared to understand it. We need to be clear about this. Any military intervention by a nuclear power is a nuclear conflict. Russia threatened a nuclear retaliation if the United States became directly involved in the invasion of Ukraine; Sweden and Norway have asked for and been granted entrance into NATO placing increased pressure on Russia; and the New York Times reported that Russia is advancing on a nuclear reactor in Ukraine. It is a nuclear conflict.

The horror of nuclear war, an analysis of a country’s nuclear strategies and policies, not the immediate and active resistance to the creation, positioning and use of nuclear weapons is taught. Content standards, guidelines and textbooks discuss nuclear weapons little if at all. They typically describe the dropping of the two atomic bombs framing them as the only reasonable conclusion to World War II. Students have little background and understanding of nuclear weapons, their proliferation, or how they are used as threat and bargaining chip in every conflict and war since their introduction to the field of combat. During recent interviews several students indicated they were shocked when North Korea’s leader Kim Jung Un indicated that he was going to hit Guam with a missile strike. They had an assumption that nuclear strike capabilities were something from a time long ago. 

Students were also disturbed when President Trump threatened North Korea with total annihilation from a U.S. missile strike. The students shared that they had a vague sense that other countries had nuclear weapons but indicated that they only time nuclear weaponry, tactics, or strategy were shared was as part of a short lesson focused on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Several students indicated that they were confused as they had thought there was only one atomic bomb dropped not two. 

Though it may not seem like it, the teaching of war is a controversial topic in American classrooms. This is shocking as it is overwhelmingly the main topic in social studies standards, curriculum, and testing. War is often taught as something which occurred, is over, as something bad but necessary and is too often taught as parables of heroics by reluctant Americans. Little time is typically spent on the messy beginnings and endings of wars, examining the morality of them, or discussing the choices and decisions made by leaders and soldiers, and even more rarely, the actions of the always present anti-war movements. As the students suggested, nuclear war is taught even less. Often in a one-day lesson on the actions of the Enola Gay and Boxcar, the planes that dropped the two bombs or as background, almost a white noise to briefly learning about the Cold War.

There are several reasons for this. Teachers report feeling lack of support in the teaching of complex things. Teachers indicate that they feel enormous community pressure to not teach a more thorough, honest, and critical examination of war. Some teachers say that to critique a war in the past is to critique a war in the present and the soldiers involved. If they do this, they fear accusations of indoctrination and anti-American sentiment. This is mostly from more conservative ideological and political spaces, but teachers also report feeling a different form of pressure from schools situated in more left-leaning spaces. These parents do not want their children exposed to the horror of war even in high school. They seem to fear this examination of historical reality could damage or traumatize their children. This pressure to fail to offer robust examinations became ever more exacerbated during the polarization and America First approach of the Trump administration. Things which had not been seen as controversial have become controversial. As Diana Hess has pointed out (2009) things are not controversial on their own, but rather they become controversial because of time and community context and community interpretation of the issues.

Some if not much of our history is disturbing. This is particularly true of war. Much of the anti-Critical Race Theory legislation passing through state legislatures makes the argument that no student should be made to feel bad while learning history or studying literature. This is impossible without shading or obfuscating the truth or just outright lying to children. An authentic examination of our past will lead to students feeling things, likely bad over the enormity of what has been done. In the hands of thoughtful, capable teachers’ students can experience history honestly, have time to thoughtfully discuss, examine documents, and investigate, thinking about what happened and what could have happened. Also understanding that there has been and always will be resistance to the use of and expansion of nuclear weapons. 

Fear of traumatizing students is a concern surfaced by teachers who choose to not teach honestly. This is a legitimate concern. With the rise of our awareness and understanding of trauma and generational trauma and how it affects our youth teachers are right to be concerned. Too often, this concern leads to avoidance which in turn leads to not teaching necessary topics. If we want our children to grow into strong participants in our democracy and thoughtful stewards of our world students need to be made aware of the world-ending disaster that could be just around the corner. As the Los Angeles Times reported American weaponry has been given to Ukraine under the rules that it be used to repel Russian forces in Ukraine, but not to attack Russian forces on Russian soil. The reason for this is clear. Use of American equipment in attacks on Russia would be seen by Russa as aggressive acts directly supported by the United States. Which could in turn lead to direct military involvement in the war by the United States. Though nuclear missiles might not be used if this conflict were to occur it would absolutely be a nuclear war. 


Any conflict or military action by a nuclear power has the potential to quickly escalate and spiral into a nuclear conflict. Our children do not understand this fully and they will not understand it if we continue to avoid the topic. The only way to prevent this is for thoughtful teachers to educate their students slowly and honestly about the history of our nuclear past, including our use of the atomic bombs at the end of World War II. The alienation between the United States and the Soviet Union in the post-War World II era must be studied. So must the history of atomic weapons and the development of more advanced systems that continues to this day.

Students need to understand the aging and deteriorating state of the missiles and safety measures the United States and Russia have and the consequence of an accidental launch. Likewise, students need to understand the litany of nuclear treaties, non-proliferation pacts, and the deep history of citizen resistance groups that have and continue to resist the possession, testing of, and continued development of nuclear weapons. This knowledge, this understanding, when taught well, over time, through discussion and inquiry, in the hands of a thoughtful teacher can help empower rather than overwhelm students. Knowledge and understanding help dispel feelings of fear, more importantly it can help students at a young age begin to develop ways out and solutions for a more peaceful world. 

The mission of most schools includes the creation of active and engaged humans prepared to help guide and change the world. This is as it should be. Part of this is honest and authentic examinations of our past and possible futures. This will allow students to develop into thoughtful adults who can make educated decisions about warfare, foreign policy, and nuclear war. It is absolutely necessary.

October 5, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Education, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nothing’s more important than avoiding nuclear war

Pearls and Irritations, Caitlin Johnstone , 5 Oct 22,

Avoiding nuclear war is the single most important agenda in the world. The single most important agenda in history. It is more important than your political faction. It is more important than how Vladimir Putin makes your feelings feel. It is more important than anything else.

Whenever I say this I always get some liberal saying “Some things are worth dying for” or some shit. Actually, no. Nothing, literally nothing, is worth the obliteration of all life on earth. It’s not worth gambling all terrestrial life to please your dopey egocentric fixations.

People who think nuclear brinkmanship is worth the risk either haven’t thought hard enough about what nuclear war is and what it would mean, or they just hate life and have some sick desire to see the end of everything. Either way they should be dismissed with extreme aggression.

If there’s one thing everyone should be able to come together on, it’s that every measure should be taken to avoid the end of everything. It is only because our civilisation is awash with war propaganda that this isn’t glaringly obvious to everybody.

That necessarily means de-escalation and detente. It means compromise. It means change. It means acknowledging what your side did wrong to bring us this close to the edge and taking drastic measures to change that and make sure it never happens again. It’s not egoically pleasing, but it’s necessary. More so than anything has ever been. Risking the annihilation of all terrestrial life is not worth the egoic gratification we get from our narratives about “winning” and “losing” and “good guys” and “bad guys”. This is infinitely more important than that.

Our civilisation is so backwards and insane that people will act like you’re the worst person in the world for saying we should try to avoid nuclear armageddon. I and many others have been screaming for years that US policy toward Russia is bringing us closer and closer to nuclear war; now we’re on the brink and the people we were screaming at are acting like we’re the assholes.

Two administrations ago the US had a president who mocked the idea that Russia was a primary rival and said Ukraine was a core interest to Russia but not the US, and liberals thought he was awesome. After four years of intelligence agency-driven narratives marrying Russia to Trump, liberals are now braying for World War III.

Before 2016 Democrats saw those who spent energy freaking out about Russia as weird, archaic cold warriors. Now they see anyone who doesn’t want war with Russia as a secret agent of the Kremlin. All because they were trained that Russia = Trump and therefore fighting Russia = fighting Trump.

Everyone’s anti-war until the war propaganda starts.

Real monsters don’t look the way we’re trained to expect. Those who’ll rape and hurt us are usually people we know and trust. The most murderous tyrants don’t look like Hollywood villains; they make jokes and praise freedom and democracy and shake your hand on the campaign trail.

Those who are causing the most death, oppression and misery in our world don’t resemble the Hitler-like monsters we’ve been trained to anticipate. They look friendly. They say things you agree with. Depending on their party, they might even ask you your pronouns. Meanwhile, Marvel supervillains have more depth and complexity than the one-dimensional characters the imperial spin machine concocts to represent its official enemies……………………………………………….. more https://johnmenadue.com/nothings-more-important-than-avoiding-nuclear-war/

October 5, 2022 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear test veterans: Stik sculpture unveiled at Kent army museum

 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-63136372 By Tanya Gupta, 5 Oct 22, BBC News

A model of a soldier ordered to turn his back and cover his face against a nuclear blast has gone on display at the Royal Engineers Museum in Kent.

London street artist Stik spent a year listening to veterans who witnessed nuclear tests in the 1950s to come up with the “terrified, lone figure”.

He said he wanted to show the vulnerability of the soldiers, but also their resilience and strength.

The model will be cast into bronze to create the final sculpture.

In a rare interview, the reclusive artist said he wanted to show human vulnerability, adding: “They were boys when they were sent out to witness an atomic bomb. Some were 16, 17, 18.”

Witnesses have described sitting with their back to the blast but feeling the heat and the force, and being able to see the light through their hands

The sculpture was unveiled at the Gillingham museum during the British Nuclear Test Veterans’ Association’s (BNTVA) annual conference, which is staged in Ashford on the 70th anniversary of Britain’s first weapons test off Western Australia.

For decades, the veterans have fought campaigns for medals, recognition, compensation and an apology from the government, after they witnessed tests with their backs turned to the blast, hands over their eyes, and with no protective clothing.

Many are concerned there is a link between their radiation exposure and ill-health, including cancers.

The Cabinet Office has said it is providing nearly half a million pounds to support veterans. It also said it would hold an oral history project and a commemorative event.

The Ministry of Defence has previously said there was “no valid evidence” linking the nuclear tests to ill-health.

October 5, 2022 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Kremlin steps back from call to use nuclear weapons

Kremlin takes distance from Kadyrov’s call to use nuclear bomb in Ukraine

EURACTIV.com with Reuters, Oct 3, 2022,

The Kremlin on Monday (3 October) said it favoured a “balanced approach” to the issue of nuclear weapons, not based on emotion, after a key ally of President Vladimir Putin called over the weekend for Russia to use a “low-yield nuclear weapon” in Ukraine.

Asked about the comments by Ramzan Kadyrov, leader of the Chechnya region, who also criticised Russia’s military leadership over battlefield setbacks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he had the right to voice his opinion, but that Russia’s military approach should not be driven by emotions.

“This is a very emotional moment. The heads of regions have the right to express their point of view,” Peskov said in a call with reporters on Monday.

“But even in difficult moments, emotions should be kept out of any kind of assessment. So we prefer to stick to balanced, objective assessments.”

Peskov said the basis for any use of nuclear weapons was set down in Russia’s nuclear doctrine.

Those guidelines allow for the use of nuclear weapons if they – or another weapon of mass destruction – are used against Russia, or if the Russian state faces an existential threat from conventional weapons.

“There can be no other considerations when it comes to this,” said Peskov.

The Kremlin has made clear that those nuclear protections extend to the four regions of Ukraine that Moscow is in the process of formally annexing……………………………….  https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/kremlin-takes-distance-from-kadyrovs-call-to-use-nuclear-bomb-in-ukraine/

October 3, 2022 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Truss caves in to Mirror’s demands to mark ‘Plutonium Jubilee’ with gift for nuclear test vet

The heroes of Britain’s Cold War radiation experiments and their families welcomed the news, but said it did not go far enough to address the tests’ legacy of cancers, early death and birth defects

Mirror, By Fleet Street Fox, Columnist, 3 Oct 2022,

Prime Minister Liz Truss has caved to the Mirror’s demands to mark the ‘Plutonium Jubilee’ with a £450,000 gift for nuclear test veterans.

The heroes of Britain’s Cold War radiation experiments and their families welcomed the news, but said it did not go far enough to address the tests’ legacy of cancers, early death and birth defects.

More than half the money – £250,000 – will go to an academic or cultural institution to record oral histories of survivors. The remaining £200,000 will be available for veterans’ charities to bid for.

But that will be equivalent to just £133 a head for the estimated 1,500 ex-servicemen still alive.

The government will also host an event to “celebrate the unique and significant contributions of those involved in testing and developing our nuclear deterrent”.

It was announced on the same day as the 70th anniversary of Operation Hurricane – the Plutonium Jubilee, which marks Britain’s first atomic bomb test.

Alan Owen, of campaign group LABRATS, said: “It’s very welcome news, and a direct result of the meeting we had with Boris Johnson following the Mirror’s Look Me In The Eye campaign.

“In fact, it was the Mirror that asked, in that meeting, for a ceremony of national acknowledgement to allay veterans’ anger, and that will be a huge leap forward if we get it. But this money is a pittance in the grand scheme of things, and there’s still no medal, no apology, no acknowledgement.”

The money won’t be available until April next year – and there are fears some survivors, who are now all in their 80s, may not benefit from it.

Minister for the Armed Forces and Veterans, James Heappey, said the test veterans “played a crucial role in keeping Britain and our NATO allies safe”.

He added: “Their sacrifice contributed to achieving the ultimate guarantee of UK sovereignty and they forever have this nation’s gratitude.

“I look forward to commemorating the incredible service and efforts of our veterans.”  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/truss-caves-mirrors-demands-mark-28145217

October 3, 2022 Posted by | health, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

NATO ‘not obliged’ to assist Ukraine — German ambassador

Rt.com 2 Oct 22, Berlin’s envoy to the military bloc clarifies that NATO won’t actively fight for a non-member state.

Germany’s permanent representative to NATO has explained that the US-led bloc is not obliged to offer direct military assistance to Ukraine. Ruediger Koenig added that its members want to avoid a major war.

He was speaking to Dein Spiegel, the youth version of Der Spiegel magazine, which published the interview on Saturday.

The Ukraine conflict dominated much of the article, with Koenig describing Russia’s decision to launch its offensive against its neighbor in late February as a watershed event…….

Germany’s representative to NATO stressed that the military alliance as a whole, however, has no legal obligation to help Kiev repel Moscow’s attack as Ukraine is not a member state. This means that Article 5 of NATO’s treaty cannot be activated, the official explained. Under it, an attack on one ally is considered to be an attack against the whole of NATO, with all member states having to stick up for the targeted nation.

According to Koenig, the military bloc is anxious to avoid getting actively involved in the conflict at all costs because “this would mean a very big war.

Such a scenario, which would see 30 more nations join the fray, is something “nobody wants,” the diplomat noted…………..

He concluded that the prospect of peace is rather slim as Ukraine and Russia’s positions seem to be irreconcilable. Koenig clarified that Ukraine “rightly” demands that Moscow cede all former Ukrainian regions in the south and east of the country that recently voted to join Russia, as well as Crimea, which joined the country in 2014. The official pointed out that the Kremlin, however, is unlikely to agree to such terms.  https://www.rt.com/news/563942-germany-nato-envoy-ukraine-kids/

October 3, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment