nuclear-news

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

No North Korea nuclear, ICBM tests for the time being


Unification minister predicts no North Korea nuclear, ICBM test ‘for time being’South Korea’s Lee In-young also frames end-of-war declaration as starting point for denuclearization, NK news Jeongmin Kim November 17, 2021   North Korea is unlikely to test any nuclear weapons or long-range missiles in the immediate future, South Korea’s Minister of Unification Lee In-young said on Wednesday, as the country’s March 2022 presidential election fast approaches.

Speaking at an international symposium in Busan, South Korea’s second-largest city, Lee also once again pitched the idea of formally ending the Korean War, an initiative that the Moon Jae-in administration continues to push in its last months in office.

“North Korea is testing short-range missiles [these days] but it appears that there is a high possibility that it won’t test nuclear weapons or long-range missiles — as known as ‘strategic provocation’ — for the time being,” Lee said, without providing further explanation.

North Korea last tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in Nov. 2017, and its sixth and last nuclear test was in September that year. Leader Kim Jong Un announced a self-imposed moratorium on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) tests the following year, but he has made ambiguous remarks about whether to continue the test ban over the past two years.

Lee on Wednesday remained hopeful that inter-Korean relations will improve, alluding to “possibilities of step-by-step, simultaneous corresponding measures” by Washington should North Korea make progress in denuclearization steps……..

“Denuclearization and the completion of a peace regime [on the Korean Peninsula] will need a lot of time … but the end-of-war declaration could become a formal starting point for such a process,” he said.   https://www.nknews.org/2021/11/unification-minister-predicts-no-north-korea-nuclear-icbm-test-for-time-being/

November 18, 2021 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Targeting Trident: how divestment is impacting the nuclear weapons industry

 investors are adhering to the international norm against nuclear weapons that was established by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, despite that the fact that the UK is not party to the treaty.

More than 100 financial institutions have divested from the nuclear weapon industry since the treaty entered into force in January this year.

 
Targeting Trident: how divestment is impacting the nuclear weapons industry, https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2021/11/15/targeting-trident-how-divestment-is-impacting-the-nuclear-weapons-industry/  Every year, the Don’t Bank on the Bomb report profiles the world’s largest nuclear weapons producers and reveals the financial institutions that invest in them. The latest report, published on Thursday, shows that investors around the world made a total of £510 billion available to nuclear weapons companies between January 2019 and July 2021.

UK-headquartered financial institutions account for £23 billion of this total. Scotland’s largest bank, NatWest Group (RBS), provided financing worth £2.2 billion to eight major nuclear arms manufacturers during the period, including BAE Systems, General Dynamics and Raytheon.

The DBOTB report is published by PAX, a Netherlands-based organisation that works to persuade financial institutions to divest from the nuclear weapons industry. Here, the campaign is led by Don’t Bank on the Bomb Scotland. The group focus on Scottish local authority pension funds and universities, as well as financial institutions.

Every year, the Don’t Bank on the Bomb report profiles the world’s largest nuclear weapons producers and reveals the financial institutions that invest in them. The latest report, published on Thursday, shows that investors around the world made a total of £510 billion available to nuclear weapons companies between January 2019 and July 2021.

UK-headquartered financial institutions account for £23 billion of this total. Scotland’s largest bank, NatWest Group (RBS), provided financing worth £2.2 billion to eight major nuclear arms manufacturers during the period, including BAE Systems, General Dynamics and Raytheon.

The DBOTB report is published by PAX, a Netherlands-based organisation that works to persuade financial institutions to divest from the nuclear weapons industry. Here, the campaign is led by Don’t Bank on the Bomb Scotland. The group focus on Scottish local authority pension funds and universities, as well as financial institutions.

Fund managers warned Serco that “working with nuclear weapons might force them to dump Serco shares as a result of non-compliance with Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Standards”, the Telegraph says. The fund managers are not named, but Serco has increasingly appeared on investor blacklists in recent years due to its role in the consortium.
Impact of the nuclear ban treaty

The article reports that fund managers rejected Serco’s argument that investing in a Trident contractor is “ethically no different to owning UK sovereign debt, as both are functions of a democratically elected government”. This detail is significant, as it suggests that investors are adhering to the international norm against nuclear weapons that was established by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, despite that the fact that the UK is not party to the treaty.

The ban treaty has made investors increasingly wary of nuclear weapons producers, as the new Don’t Bank on the Bomb Report explains: “[nuclear weapons] are now comprehensively outlawed, as is any assistance with producing, manufacturing or developing them. Financial institutions that continue investing in companies building nuclear weapons face regulatory risks as more countries join the treaty. They also face an increased reputational risk as clients learn of their support for weapons of mass destruction and terminate their relationships.”

More than 100 financial institutions have divested from the nuclear weapon industry since the treaty entered into force in January this year. This includes Bank of Ireland and AIB (Ireland), and South African firm, Investec. The total amount of financing made available to nuclear weapons producing companies has dropped by £47 billion since 2019.

More trouble for Trident

It appears that the prospect of losing investors was enough to persuade Serco – which previously held long-term nuclear weapons contracts as part of AWE Management Ltd – to pull out of the competition for future nuclear-weapons related work. This provides a clear example of how divestment, or the threat of divestment, can change company behaviour.

Furthermore, the story shows how investor action has the potential to undermine the viability of Britain’s nuclear weapons programme. The Telegraph notes that Serco’s decision “leaves defences chiefs with fewer options as they seek to restructure the management of Britain’s nuclear stockpile”. This could hinder the MoD’s ability to complete the Trident renewal project, which is already in serious trouble.

Join the movement

As the Serco story illustrates, divestment is a powerful tool that we can use to advance the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world. Don’t Bank on the Bomb Scotland is encouraging individuals to contact NatWest Group about its investment policy, as well as their own bank and pension fund. The group has also created a model resolution targeting local authority pension funds that can be sent to local councillors.
The more financial institutions that divest, the more companies will be forced to withdraw from nuclear weapons work like Serco. This will make it harder for nuclear-armed nations to maintain their nuclear arsenals in the long-run.

November 16, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

N. Korea replaces, punishes 14 cadres and technicians working on nuclear-powered submarine programThe Central Committee criticized the technicians for failing to follow party policy to “localize” production 


N. Korea replaces, punishes 14 cadres and technicians working on nuclear-powered submarine program
The Central Committee criticized the technicians for failing to follow party policy to “localize” production   https://www.dailynk.com/english/north-korea-replaces-punishes-14-cadres-and-technicians-working-on-nuclear-powered-submarine-program/ By Jeong Tae Joo – 2021.11.15

North Korea recently replaced or punished 14 cadres and technicians tasked with designing small nuclear reactors for nuclear-powered submarines, apparently for failing to meet party criterion. The authorities will likely now face difficulties in their plan to acquire the capability of stealthily striking enemies.

According to multiple Daily NK sources in North Korea on Thursday, the Central Committee’s Military Industries Department began screening designs for nuclear-powered submarines on Nov. 5.

Work on the designs has been ongoing since October of last year.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said during the Eighth Party Congress in January that “new planning research for a nuclear-powered submarine has been completed and is to enter the final examination process.”

Nuclear-powered submarines are highly stealthy as they need not surface for long periods of time, making them the most likely weapon to survive an enemy’s preemptive strike.

Focusing on advancing the country’s arsenal of asymmetrical strategic weapons, North Korea has assigned its top researchers to the project.

In particular, the authorities reportedly put experts on the task of producing small nuclear reactors, the key to building the submarines, imploring them to “exercise their top abilities, given their rich experience built up over six nuclear tests.”

However, the Central Committee apparently criticized the screening report, which included analysis of design flaws.

Firstly, the Central Committee reportedly said it would “take 10 more years” to build nuclear-powered submarines according to current designs, even though the goal is to complete them by 2025.

The Central Committee also criticized the designs for failing to meet three criteria put forth by the party to achieve its goals.

Though party leadership had stressed 1) improving the capabilities of conventionally powered mini-submarines that are currently deployed, 2) building a new class of submarines capable of carrying North Korea’s existing SLBMs and 3) building nuclear-powered submarines capable of carrying several nuclear launch systems, the Central Committee reportedly judged that these criteria had not been met on the ground.

The Central Committee also criticized technicians for failing to follow party policy to “localize” production. That is to say, the committee took serious issue with designers handing over for final screening a complete comprehensive blueprint that called for large-scale imports of foreign technology and parts during the entire shipbuilding process.

Several basic errors were discovered as well, including a failure by designers to make the technical descriptions in the partial plans and assembly plans match when they drew the blueprints for the small nuclear reactors.

The Central Committee responded by excluding from the research team 14 cadres, researchers and technicians who took part in drawing up the plan. Six of them were kicked out of the party or disciplined.

One of the sources said the six who took responsibility for the failure were exiled with their families to remote areas. He added that the authorities now face snags in their plans, including the need to completely revise the designs for nuclear-powered submarines.

November 16, 2021 Posted by | employment, North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Japan’s PM Kishida resolved to achieve nuclear-free world

Kishida resolved to achieve nuclear-free world, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/11/15/national/kishida-un-disarmament-chief/ Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Monday voiced his commitment to leading efforts to realize a world free of nuclear weapons in a meeting with the U.N. disarmament chief, ahead of next year’s U.N. conference on nuclear nonproliferation.

In a 15-minute meeting in Tokyo with Izumi Nakamitsu, U.N. undersecretary general and high representative for disarmament affairs, the two agreed on the importance of meaningful results at the review conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to be held in New York from Jan. 4 to 28, according to the Foreign Ministry.

As the leader of the only country to have suffered atomic bombings, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Kishida voiced his “determination to lead international efforts to realize a world without nuclear weapons” during the meeting, the ministry said. The prime minister’s family hails from Hiroshima Prefecture and he represents a constituency in the prefecture.

Nakamitsu expressed hope Japan will play a proactive role as a bridge between nations with differing stances.

Nakamitsu also met with Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi later in the day and invited him to attend the NPT review conference. Hayashi told her that “as the only country in the world to have suffered wartime atomic bombings, Japan has a very important responsibility” to push forward nuclear disarmament.

November 16, 2021 Posted by | Japan, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Industrial action from Tuesday could ‘cripple’ Clyde nuclear base.


Industrial action from Tuesday could ‘cripple’ Clyde nuclear base, The Herald, By Martin Williams  @Martin1Williams, Senior News Reporter, 15 Nov 21,   SPECIALIST staff are to down tools on Tuesday in an industrial dispute a union says is expected to “cripple” the effective running of UK’s nuclear submarine base on the Clyde.

The Unite Scotland union has confirmed that around 70 of its members who provide specialist services for the UK’s nuclear deterrent submarines will start an overtime at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot (RNAD) Coulport.

The union has severely criticised the “delay tactics” employed by the ABL Alliance after the workers voted to take industrial action in September in what was then described as a “final warning shot” to ABL Alliance, a joint venture which won a 15-year contract from the Ministry of Defence in 2013 to maintain the weapons systems at Coulport.

Unite Scotland said the specialist staff who provide care and maintenance services for the weapons systems on the Royal Navy nuclear armed submarine fleet took the “historic” decision in a dispute over pay that it says will leave the base severely debilitated.

Since then, the union say the ABL Alliance refused to meet over what it called an RPI inflation annual pay claim of 3.8%.

Some 90.5% of Unite members at RNAD Coulport voted in support of strike action, and 95.3% supporting action short of a strike.

The ABL Alliance, made up of AWE plc, Babcock Marine (Clyde) Ltd, and Lockheed Martin UK Strategic Systems Ltd, previously state it was “disappointed” at the industrial action vote………………….

The union is concerned that all the companies could afford the pay rise as they were profitable. AWE Plc had an after tax profit of £17.7m in the year to December, 2020, Babcock Marine (Clyde) Ltd turned a £7.3m profit in 2019/20, while Lockheed Martin UK Strategic Systems Ltd was £41m in the black in 2019.

Babcock have been approached for comment.  https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19716968.industrial-action-tuesday-cripple-clyde-nuclear-base/

November 16, 2021 Posted by | employment, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Gorbachev: claims that nuclear weapons guarantee peace are a delusion

Gorbachev: claims that nuclear weapons guarantee peace are a delusion  https://tass.com/world/1361675Mikhail Gorbachev expressed the hope for “real results” of the Geneva talks, where the Russian and US presidents discussed nuclear affairs

MOSCOW, November 15. /TASS/. The Soviet Union’s first president, Mikhail Gorbachev, has called for demilitarization of world politics. He dismissed as a myth all speculations to the effect nuclear weapons are a safeguard of peace and security. Gorbachev reiterated his opinion in a message of greeting to Kazakhstan’s first president, Nursultan Nazarbayev and participants in the conference of the Global Alliance of Leaders for Nuclear Security and a Nuclear Weapons Free World, uploaded to the website of the Gorbachev Foundation on Monday.

The Global Alliance’s conference opened in Kazakhstan’s capital on Monday. Nazarbayev’s initiative has received wide support from political leaders in many countries.

As he dwelt on the global threats (pandemic, poverty, water shortages and global warming) Gorbachev suggested fundamentally reconsidering the understanding of security, which has so far been confined to the military aspect. He said that all efforts to give people better security would be doomed, if governments continue to “throw mammoth amounts of cash into the furnace of the arms race, in the first place, nuclear arms race.”

“The proponents of nuclear deterrence argue that it is a safeguard of peace and security. I reply to them: to say that nuclear weapons saved peace is tantamount to repeating a dangerous myth in a dangerous world,” Gorbachev said. He recalled that nuclear weapons were the root cause of the Caribbean crisis in 1962.


In his message Gorbachev expressed the certainty that “there should be demilitarization of world politics, international relations and political thinking in order to save them from the nuclear sword of Damocles.”

Also, Gorbachev expressed the hope for “real results” of the Geneva talks, where the Russian and US presidents discussed nuclear affairs.

November 16, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

EU Council stresses the need to fully implement and universalise the NPT treaty

Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons: Council stresses the need to fully implement and universalise the NPT treaty

European Council, The Council today approved conclusions welcoming the upcoming tenth review conference of the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), that will take place in New York on 4 – 28 January 2022.

The conclusions reaffirm the EU’s unequivocal support for the NPT as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and an important element in the development of nuclear energy applications for peaceful purposes. The conclusions also stress the importance of universalising the NPT, and call on all states that have not yet done so to join the treaty as non-nuclear-weapon states and, pending their accession, to adhere to its terms.

The Council strongly supports all three pillars of the NPT and will continue to promote comprehensive, balanced and substantive full implementation of the 2010 Review Conference Action Plan. The Council underlines the importance of securing a positive and substantive outcome from the Tenth NPT Review Conference. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/11/15/non-proliferation-of-nuclear-weapons-council-stresses-the-need-to-fully-implement-and-universalise-the-npt-treaty/

November 16, 2021 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

President Biden is marginalised by the Pentagon

The nuclear bureaucracy is adamant about not upsetting the programs and
polices forged during the Cold War. “There’s no points of debate” in
the internal discussions, a former Pentagon official said recently. Rather
than working to implement President Joe Biden’s long-held views on
restraining the massive destructive power of the nuclear arsenal, the
Pentagon has rigged the system to marginalize the president.

 Responsible Statecraft 9th Nov 2021

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/11/09/how-the-nuclear-game-is-rigged-to-maintain-the-status-quo/

November 15, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

“Perilous Profiteering: The companies building nuclear arsenals and their financial backers”

Table on original lists the top 10 investors in nuclear weapons –Vanguard, State street, Capital Group, Blaxk Rock, Bank of America, Citigroup, J P Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley

$63 billion drop in investments: New report shows impact of nuclear weapons ban treaty on nuclear weapons business, ICAN, 


Anew report released by ICAN and PAX today, has found that the number of banks, pension funds, asset managers and insurance companies investing in the production of nuclear weapons has gone down in 2021, and shows significant drops in the shareholder values of investments in the 25 companies involved in nuclear weapon production around the world. There is also an early but visible impact of the entry into force of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), with many institutions citing the treaty’s entry into force and the risk of a negative public perception as reasons for the change in their investment policies.

The 2021 report “Perilous Profiteering: The companies building nuclear arsenals and their financial backers” exposes the banks, pension funds, asset managers and insurance companies investing in the production of nuclear weapons and examines the companies involved in producing, manufacturing, or developing nuclear weapons for six of the nine nuclear armed countries for which data was available between January 2019 and July 2021. 

Download the Executive Summary

Download the full report

Key findings from the report:

  • While $685,184 million was made available to the 25 nuclear weapons producing companies during this period, this actually marks a $63 billion drop from the 2019 “Shorting our security”report, a trend that is affecting the producing companies’ stock holdings. There is also a marked shift in how the nuclear industry is raising funds to off-set debt, from significant loans to issuances, and underwriting of bond issuances rose by $80 billion.
  • Northrop Grumman is the biggest nuclear weapons profiteer, with at least $24 billion in outstanding contracts, not including the consortium and joint venture revenues. Raytheon Technologies and Lockheed Martin also hold multi-billion-dollar contracts to produce new nuclear weapon systems. 

Table on original lists the top 10 investors in nuclear weapons –Vanguard, State street, Capital Group, Blaxk Rock, Bank of America, Citigroup, J P Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley

The Good news:

  • In 2021,127 financial institutions stopped investing in companies producing nuclear weapons, valued at $31 billion. .
  • Several of these institutions are from states that joined the TPNW, including the Bank of Ireland and AIB (Ireland), and Investec (South Africa), but they are not the only ones. Exclusions by financial institutions based in nuclear-armed states or allied countries are worth billions, such as Longview Asset Management (U.S.) which divested $5.7 billion from General Dynamics or Nomura (Japan) which divested $273 million from Larsen & Toubro.
  • The nuclear weapons industry itself is getting smaller, with companies acquiring or merging together, which in turn makes it easier for financial institutions and other investors to exclude them from investments. Instead of tracking down hundreds, or even thousands of contributors to catastrophic threats, it’s simply a matter of exiting a few relationships

November 13, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

ICAN and PAX show how despite $billions still going to nuclear weapons, – $63 billion has moved away from this funding

Perilous Profiteering: The companies building nuclear arsenals and their financial backers

The 2021 report “Perilous Profiteering: The companies building nuclear arsenals and their financial backers” is a joint publication of ICAN and it’s partner PAX. The report details how 338 financial institutions made $685 billion available to 25 nuclear weapon producing companies from China, France, India, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.

This report looks at those with vested interests to keep a nuclear arms race going. The companies that want to get contracts to build weapons of mass destruction, and the private sector financiers and investors that want to generate a profit without apparent concern for the devastating potential consequences of any use of the products they support. It is only by knowing those who seek to maintain the status quo that we can engage and shift their behaviour……….https://www.icanw.org/perilous_profiteering_companies_building_nuclear_weapons_and_financial_backers?utm_campaign=perilous_profiteers_launch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ican

ICAN – If you only take one thing away from this, it is that we moved $63 billion in funds away from the companies producing nuclear weapons in the last 2 years. 

Today, PAX and ICAN are releasing the latest Don’t Bank on the Bomb report “Perilous Profiteering: The companies building nuclear arsenals and their financial backers”, which names the 338 investors backing 25 nuclear weapon producing companies and the size of their investments. This report is also the first time we were able to find information on Russian and Chinese investments.

But that’s not the most interesting part. The report also found three clear signs that financial institutions are starting to see nuclear weapons as risky business, and are leaving them behind:


• From 2019 to 2021, the total amount made available for nuclear weapons producing companies dropped by an impressive $63 billion, and the total number of financial institutions willing to invest in nuclear weapons producing companies went down too.

• Nuclear weapons producing companies, despite billion dollar contracts, have debt. But investors are moving away. So instead, they’re borrowing from wherever they can to raise cash. In other words: producing weapons of mass destruction has become extremely unattractive.

• 127 financial institutions stopped investing in companies producing nuclear weapons this year!

Of course, we still have a lot of work to do to hold these profiteers accountable. Banks, insurers, asset managers and pension funds still made $685 billion available for the companies producing nuclear weapons (like Northrop Grumman, which has $24 billion in outstanding contracts).

Our banks, insurers, and pension funds have no business investing in companies that choose to be involved in illegal weapons of mass destruction, and we need to tell them. Can you start today by reading and sharing the key findings of the report?

November 13, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

FW de Klerk, who ended South African apartheid, leaves another legacy: nuclear disarmament


FW de Klerk, who ended South African apartheid, leaves another legacy: nuclear disarmament, Bulletin 

By Robin Ephraim Möser | November 12, 2021 Almost nothing suggested that former South African president Frederik Willem de Klerk would be the one to dismantle apartheid. He was born into a family of politicians of the nascent apartheid state, became a member of Parliament in 1972, and was complicit in—even supportive of—all the evil committed under apartheid during numerous ministerial posts. But while serving as president, de Klerk stunned the world in February 1990 when he removed the ban on opposition political movements, including the African National Congress, and released political prisoners, including the individual with whom he would later share the Nobel Peace Prize—Nelson Mandela.

De Klerk’s death at the age of 85 this week has been widely reported in the New York Times, the BBC, der Spiegel, the Daily Maverick, and other international media. Yet none mention that, under his leadership in 1991, South Africa joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and fully dismantled the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal.

De Klerk believed that nuclear weapons, having lost their deterrence value following the end of the regional conflicts, would subsequently burden his government. Two weeks after assuming the presidency, he held a top-secret meeting of advisors in which he requested a plan to rid the country of nuclear weapons. Those who attended agreed, though some rather grudgingly, as he recounted in my 2017 interview with him………..

Almost three decades later, in my 2017 interview with him, de Klerk revealed that his distaste for nuclear weapons preceded his presidency. He had decided that if ever he became president, he would review South Africa’s nuclear weapons program. He had that chance by 1990—and seized the denuclearization opportunity.

De Klerk’s nuclear rollback was complete and verifiable. Not only was South Africa free of nuclear weapons, but the development served as a catalyst for Africa as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. In 1995, President Nelson Mandela and other African heads of state signed the Treaty of Pelindaba, which forbade atomic bomb testing and banned nuclear weapons from the African continent.

South Africa remains the only country to have gone full circle on nuclear weapons. The South African National Party politicians initiated a nuclear weapons program during the 1970s and de Klerk ended it in 1989. De Klerk expressed the hope that South Africa’s example might inspire the nine leaders of other nuclear weapons states—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—to eliminate their arsenals. The world can only hope that, over time, they do. https://thebulletin.org/2021/11/fw-de-klerk-who-ended-south-african-apartheid-leaves-another-legacy-nuclear-disarmament/

November 13, 2021 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES, South Africa, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear War and Climate Change: The Urgency for Action — The Center for Climate & Security

Christine Parthemore speaks on nuclear war and climate change at a COP26 side event hosted by the International Forum for Understanding, Nov 1, 2021. Source: International Forum for Understanding By Christine Parthemore I had the honor of delivering a keynote speech at a COP26 side event hosted by the International Forum for Understanding on November…

Nuclear War and Climate Change: The Urgency for Action — The Center for Climate & Security

EXPLORING THE SECURITY RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE   Nuclear War and Climate Change: The Urgency for Action By Christine Parthemore
–There is urgency in this Conference’s proceedings. The urgency is greater because the world’s leaders, to date, have not yet taken the climate crisis seriously enough. Not even close. Yet this echoes a shared challenge: across the most catastrophic risks facing humanity, whether climate change, biological risks, or the risk of nuclear war, we have historically underestimated these threats. 

Nuclear weapons  – shared history of underestimating effects

What happens when our policies and plans do not fully account for the damage they may cause to the world?

Just as we are witnessing the answers to this question unfolding regarding the climate crisis, there is a similar and in many ways shared history of underestimatingthe catastrophic effects that could come from nuclear weapons. 

During World War II, in the surge by the United States to ready nuclear weapons for potential use in the war, most estimates of damage focused on immediate blast effects of the use of these weapons — not secondary or enduring damage that may come after. And our knowledge of those effects was not robust. 

Those who created nuclear weapons largely seemed to believe that everyone within the area hit by these weapons would die from the nuclear blast itself — that everything would be obliterated quickly. That, it would be learned, was not necessarily the case. 

The first evidence came from the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The full human toll will never truly be known — estimates are between 110,000 and 210,000 people killed. 

Yet those who lost their lives directly from the attacks were just one aspect. The degree to which the use of atomic bombs in conflict caused serious, lasting, devastating injuries was underestimated. For those who were not immediately lost, thousands suffered ghastly burns, loss of skin, and shrapnel embedded in their bodies that caused excruciating pain for as long as they lived. This is in addition to extreme suffering beyond injuries and sickness, in years and in some cases lifetimes of economic hardship, social stigma, and psychological damage.

Under-estimating the damage of nuclear weapons contributed to the United States and Soviet Union producing astronomical numbers of them — tens of thousands — in part driven by the belief that they needed tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in order to effectively deter one another from war—or to effectively wipe out the other nation.

Along with these growing nuclear arsenals came increasing nuclear tests. Soviet and U.S. citizens  – and those of other nations – were subject to radiation effects from the detonation sites. 

Some of the early U.S. nuclear tests were carried out in the Marshall Islands. Others, in the desert of the U.S. southwest. 

Almost one quarter of all nuclear tests in history were conducted at one test site in what is now Kazakhstan from 1949 to 1989. The citizens of nearby villages that were exposed now tell the story of the radiation damage caused, including significant genetic effects that crossed generations. 

 On these terrible legacies of nuclear weapons tests was built significant knowledge of their effects. Before the international community united to ban them, mostly ending the practice, this included more than 2,000 nuclear tests. 

Though results were classified in their earliest decades, extensive data from these tests revealed that the use of nuclear weapons could cause major disruptions to temperature patterns, sunlight, and precipitation. Into the 1970s and 80s, it became clearer that such nuclear weapons effects could cause more geographically dispersed and longer-enduring harm than previously realized. 

With such data, the world was able to create mathematical and computer models of ever-increasing sophistication. 

mportantly, the results of modeling potential effects of nuclear war started becoming public in the last decades of the 20th Century. Citizens of the world began to learn more about how the use of nuclear weapons could cause dramatic changes in weather patterns, and how this could drive severe changes in the availability of food and water, and how it would affect peoples’ health and their ability to care for their families. One such initiative labeled the potential damages of nuclear war as a “nuclear winter” that would befall the planet in some scenarios.  ………..

Arms race today / Inflection Point

Unfortunately, this momentum has not been sustained. In the earliest decades of this Century, we have begun moving back in the wrong direction. 

During this time, the risk of nuclear war has begun rising again. Most nuclear-armed nations are trying to expand the types of nuclear capabilities they possess, adding even more scenarios for how these weapons might be used in conflict. 

Unfortunately, several nations — including my own — are reigniting interest in types of nuclear weapons that are envisioned to be more usable in conflict. These include increasing focus on the horrifically mis-labeled, so-called low-yield nuclear weapon options. 

Even more dangerous than the mere presence of such weapons is the mindset that, in the heat of a conflict, it may be feasible to use one nuclear weapon without it being reciprocated. This is a fallacy, and we should not accept it as an assumption steering policy. 

While this wasn’t the case early in the Cold War, this time, under-estimating the effects of using such nuclear weapons is not an excuse. We have to assume that the use of even one nuclear weapon would be followed by another, and potentially lead to a broader nuclear exchange and the catastrophic damage that would follow. Today, we know in great detail what that could look like…………..

Convergence

If the intersection of nuclear weapons use and climate change is rooted in work to understand how our atmosphere and our world may be altered by both, today we have an even more daunting task. We have to consider how these threats may actually manifest together. 

Some effects of climate change are reigniting attention to past nuclear weapons damages. The Marshall Islands are a central case: at one atoll where the United States conducted nuclear weapon tests, a concrete dome that was designed to encase debris contaminated by these tests is now being inundated by rising seas. We don’t have to model this damage — it has been measured, and we have drone footage recording this occurring………………..

We know that in addition to the immediate death and destruction, such a nuclear conflict also risks significant damage to agricultural production through contamination or disruptions in weather patterns. Now combine this with a scenario in which such conflict occurs when extreme weather exacerbated by climate change has already spent years devastating the world’s food supplies. 

How many more millions of people could starve? How many millions of people will try to move in order to save themselves and their families, and how many communities could descend into instability or internal conflict if pressure is not relieved any other way? 

This is the reality of the world that we live in today — in which several catastrophic risks to humanity are occurring simultaneously, and they are not isolated from one another in time or space. ………….

 I urge the leaders of our nations to commit to serious progress in addressing the climate crisis in the days ahead. We must then also act with urgency, expanding those efforts to rally similar momentum to reduce the risks of nuclear war as well. https://climateandsecurity.org/2021/11/nuclear-war-and-climate-change-the-urgency-for-action/#more-29718

November 13, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The environmental dimension of the use of nuclear weapons

The environmental dimension of the use of nuclear weapons, AT TOP https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-environmental-dimension-of-the-use-of-nuclear-weapons/ European Leadership Network, Carlo Trezza |Former Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, Former Chairman of the Missile Technology Control Regime, 12 Nov 21,  In 2010, Jakob Kellenberger, the then President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, demonstrated extraordinary courage when he gathered all the accredited ambassadors in Geneva and made it clear that his organisation would not be able to ensure the required international standards of humanitarian assistance to civilian populations in the case of the use of nuclear weapons. In his words, “The mere assumption that atomic weapons may be used, for whatever reason, is enough to make illusory any attempt to protect non-combatants.”

That statement was made on the eve of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in New York, and was instrumental to the adoption by that conference of the concept of the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”, which nuclear-armed states had traditionally been reluctant to accept. One year earlier, with his historic speech in Prague (in which he promised to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”), President Obama had already prepared the ground for the inclusion of the “catastrophic consequences” principle in the final document of the New York conference. During three international conferences subsequently convened by Norway, Mexico and Austria, the “humanitarian catastrophic” nature of any use of atomic weapons was further confirmed. This concept should be reiterated during the upcoming NPT Review Conference, scheduled for January 2022.

As the world’s leaders gather to discuss how to tackle climate change, it is also necessary to add that the use of nuclear weapons would have dangerous consequences for the environment. The environmental impact of nuclear weapons has been amply evidenced by the over 2000 nuclear tests carried out in deserted and uninhabited areas, while the dangers of radiation have also been demonstrated by the major accidents at the civilian nuclear power plants of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Today the environmental impact of a nuclear attack on inhabited centres and industrial areas can only be calculated through simulations. The deadly environmental effects of the

 two bombs that annihilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki can hardly be considered a precedent since they would pale in comparison to what would happen if only part of the 13,000 nuclear devices currently possessed by the nuclear powers were to be detonated today. Studies on the environmental side of the nuclear coin have intensified in parallel with the growing nightmare of climate change and the increase of nuclear risks. While there are debates over the precise modelling (such as a controversy between scientists over whether an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange would be enough to cause a global nuclear winter), multiple studies raise alarming prospects that in the event of a nuclear conflict, there would be shocks akin to climate change, but on a much faster timescale and with an exponential impact.            

Nonetheless, the international community and the nuclear-armed states have not yet drawn political conclusions from the anticipated environmental impacts of the use of nuclear weapons. This concept has so far only been mentioned in some official texts (the Partial Test Ban Treaty, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons), while the ENMOD (Environmental Modification Convention) Treaty adopted in 1978 is mostly focused on prohibiting the hostile use of environmental weather modification techniques but does not address the nuclear threat.

In his memorable statement on 11th November 2017 at the Vatican, Pope Francis expressed his “genuine concern” for the “catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects of any employment of nuclear devices”.   More recently, on 28th October of this year, an event chaired by World Future Council and Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament was dedicated to the Climate /Nuclear Disarmament Nexus. Climate protection and nuclear risk reduction were the core subjects debated during the meeting which was called in preparation for the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26) and the incoming NPT RevCon.

This is the first step. A process similar to the 2010 humanitarian initiative should be launched during next year’s NPT conference, leading to the recognition of the “catastrophic environmental consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”. Hopefully, on the occasion of that conference, one or more international leaders will have the vision to promote this topic as Jakob Kellenberger did in 2010. The tragic consequences of climate change will be dramatically amplified if the Damocles sword of a nuclear disaster continues hanging over humanity. 

November 13, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, environment, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Risks of Nuclear Modernization

The Risks of Nuclear Modernization  AntiWar.com, by Starté Butone November 12, 2021

The US military establishment seems set to start a new Cold War with China, Russia, and every other country it can paint as an enemy. As with the first Cold War, it will not be complete without an arms race. This is exactly what is happening right now with various programs being implemented by the US government. Currently, the US has not produced any new nuclear warheads since 1991, and the assembly lines at the Pantex plant (where almost all US nuclear weapons are assembled) have laid dormant for decades. This may soon change, however. Congress and the President have already approved research for the new B-21 bomber and Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III, as well as building new tactical nuclear warheads, the W93 and W76-2, a small number of which have already been created.

In addition, more components of nuclear modernization are included in this year’s National “Defense” Authorization Act (NDAA). These include the Columbia class of ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio class and the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) air-launch cruise missile (ALCM). The modernization plan also includes upgrading existing W87-0 warheads (yield of 300 Kilotons of TNT) to their W87-1 variant (yield 475 KT), among other things.

There are 6 designs of nuclear weapons currently deployed in the US nuclear arsenal. These include the W76 (SLBM warhead, mostly 76-1 variant, yield 90 KT), W78 (ICBM warhead, yield 475 KT), W80 (ALCM warhead, yield 5-150 KT), B83 (Strategic bomber weapon, yield 1.2 MT), W87 (ICBM warhead, yield 300 KT), and W88 (SLBM warhead, yield 475 KT). W93 (in development, unknown yield and type) and most W76-2 (SLBM warhead, yield 5-7 KT) have not yet been deployed to delivery devices. The W76-2 is also created by re-purposing other W76s, thus not requiring new warheads to be manufactured. W76s make up the majority of the 1750 deployed nuclear weapons currently in the US arsenal. Up to 12 of them (limited to 8 by treaty) can be placed on Trident II Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), of which there are 240 assigned to carry nuclear warheads………………………

  the human costs of such weapons being produced make any financial costs infinitesimal by comparison. ICBMs are a particularly high risk, as they are not equipped with self-destruct systems (unlike virtually every other weapons system in the US military), due to them increasing rocket weight, thus decreasing payloads. This causes an accidental launch of these weapons to be irreversible. However, nuclear planners in the early Cold War period saw hundreds of millions of unintentional deaths as an acceptable risk for increasing missile payloads. This has not changed in the last 65 years, as educational and media coverage have desensitized the public to such existential threats.  https://original.antiwar.com/butone/2021/11/11/the-risks-of-nuclear-modernization/

November 13, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers on patrol over Belarus for second day amid migration crisis’


Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers on patrol over Belarus for second day amid migration crisis, ABC12 Nov 21,  Russia sent two nuclear-capable strategic bombers on a training mission over Belarus for the second day in a row, in support for its ally amid a dispute over migration at EU borders with Poland and Lithuania .

Key points:Russia backed Belarus as thousands of migrants try to enter the EU at its border
Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said the patrols were a necessary response to the migration crisis at the border 

Thousands of migrants are currently stranded at the Belarus/Poland border as they try to enter the EUTwo Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers practised bombing runs at the Ruzany firing range, about 60 kilometres east of Belarus’ border with Poland on Wednesday and Thursday. The Belarusian Defence Ministry said such Russian flights will now be conducted on a regular basis as part of joint training missions and that Belarusian fighter jets simulated an intercept. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said he needed the bombers to help him navigate what has become a tense border stand-off, as thousands of migrants and refugees gather on the Belarusian side of the Poland border in the hope of crossing into Western Europe. …………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-12/russia-sends-nuclear-capable-bombers-on-patrol-over-belarus/100614600

November 13, 2021 Posted by | Belarus, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »