nuclear-news

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

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

The risk of USA – Iran military showdown before Trump leaves office

Are the US and Iran headed for a military showdown before Trump leaves office?  The Conversation Clive Williams
Campus visitor, ANU Centre for Military and Security Law, Australian National University,  January 4, 2021
   Tensions are running high in the Middle East in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Over the weekend, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, claimed Israeli agents were planning to attack US forces in Iraq to provide US President Donald Trump with a pretext for striking Iran.

Just ahead of the one-year anniversary of the US assassination of Iran’s charismatic General Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards also warned his country would respond forcefully to any provocations.

Today, we have no problem, concern or apprehension toward encountering any powers. We will give our final words to our enemies on the battlefield.

Israeli military leaders are likewise preparing for potential Iranian retaliation over the November assassination of senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh — an act Tehran blames on the Jewish state.

Both the US and Israel have reportedly deployed submarines to the Persian Gulf in recent days, while the US has flown nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the region in a show of force.

And in another worrying sign, the acting US defence secretary, Christopher Miller, announced over the weekend the US would not withdraw the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and its strike group from the Middle East — a swift reversal from the Pentagon’s earlier decision to send the ship home.

Israel’s priorities under a new US administration

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would like nothing more than action by Iran that would draw in US forces before Trump leaves office this month and President-elect Joe Biden takes over. It would not only give him the opportunity to become a tough wartime leader, but also help to distract the media from his corruption charges.

Any American military response against Iran would also make it much more difficult for Biden to establish a working relationship with Iran and potentially resurrect the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

It’s likely in any case the Biden administration will have less interest in getting much involved in the Middle East — this is not high on the list of priorities for the incoming administration. However, a restoration of the Iranian nuclear agreement in return for the lifting of US sanctions would be welcomed by Washington’s European allies.

This suggests Israel could be left to run its own agenda in the Middle East during the Biden administration.

Israel sees Iran as its major ongoing security threat because of its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militants in Gaza.

One of Israel’s key strategic policies is also to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state. Israel is the only nuclear weapon power in the Middle East and is determined to keep it that way.

While Iran claims its nuclear program is only intended for peaceful purposes, Tehran probably believes realistically (like North Korea) that its national security can only be safeguarded by possession of a nuclear weapon.

In recent days, Tehran announced it would begin enriching uranium to 20% as quickly as possible, exceeding the limits agreed to in the 2015 nuclear deal.

This is a significant step and could prompt an Israeli strike on Iran’s underground Fordo nuclear facility. Jerusalem contemplated doing so nearly a decade ago when Iran previously began enriching uranium to 20%.

How the Iran nuclear deal fell apart……….. https://theconversation.com/are-the-us-and-iran-headed-for-a-military-showdown-before-trump-leaves-office-152606

 

January 7, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: The Road There and the Road Ahead.

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: The Road There and the Road Ahead.   https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/01/05/treaty-prohibition-nuclear-weapons-road-there-and-road-ahead?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter   For those of us who have been part of the anti-nuclear movement, this moment in history is one filled with possibilities.byMadelyn Hoffman, Ryan Swan,   On January 22, 2021, the world will take a major step toward global nuclear disarmament when the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) enters effect. This is one step closer to realizing the vision the survivors of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Hibakusha) have spoken about all over the world. They have never given up their efforts to prevent another collision between humans and nuclear weapons and end every talk with “No More Hibakusha, No More Hiroshimas and No More Nagasakis.” Their message of preventing further nuclear catastrophe is now recognized and embodied in this groundbreaking new Treaty. Anti-nuclear organizing efforts need to honor the determination, commitment and vision of Hibakusha, even if achieving the end goal of nuclear abolition requires taking just one step at a time.

The Road to the TPNW

An early significant development was the conclusion of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), negotiated throughout the 1960s and entering force in 1970.  Its aims were to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons and commit those states already in possession of such weapons to work toward disarmament.  While the NPT has proved largely effective on the nonproliferation front, its disarmament achievements have been unsatisfactory, as nuclear weapon states (NWS) have continuously failed to pursue “negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race… and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament” as the NPT requires them to do (Article VI).

Non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) frustration with the lack of disarmament progress has grown over the years and finally reached a tipping point after the 2014 Ukraine Crisis and reinvigorated major power nuclear competition.  The Marshall Islands brought an unprecedented case before the International Court of Justice claiming that the nuclear weapon states had failed to live up to their NPT disarmament obligations, which – while dismissed on suspect jurisdictional grounds – gained widespread international attention and support.

Around this same time in 2014, the New Agenda Coalition proposed the idea of a convention banning nuclear weapons to serve as an “effective measure” implementing Article VI..  Negotiations began in 2016 and, in summer 2017, 122 nations came together in support of the historic TPNW.  Garnering its 50th ratification in late October 2020, the TPNW is now set to enter force on January 22, 2021 and will round out the chemical weapons and biological weapons conventions in banning the last outstanding weapon of mass destruction.

The Road Ahead—Obstacles to Overcome

Not unexpectedly, the NWS have maintained firm opposition to the TPNW, with the U.S. casting it as an illegitimate and “dangerous” challenger to the NPT.  It asserts that the TPNW fails to recognize the strategic context in which nuclear weapon states find themselves and that it “is and will remain divisive in the international community,” threatening the global nonproliferation regime by permitting “forum-shopping” opportunities for states seeking to skirt the NPT’s strict International Atomic Energy Agency-overseen (IAEA) verification protocols.

This characterization is clearly suspect and motivated by self-interest.  Countering it is an important first step.  Statements from TPNW drafting states specifically emphasize the mutually-reinforcing relationship between the two treaties.  Far from being in competition with the NPT, the TPNW specifically complements it by legally augmenting Article VI.  The TPNW text also renders dubious the alleged forum-shopping concerns.  TPNW Article 3 specifies that each state party “at a minimum, maintain its [IAEA] safeguards obligations in force at the time of entry into force of this Treaty” and that those states which have “not yet done so shall conclude with the [IAEA] and bring into force a comprehensive safeguards agreement.”

This battle over narrative is particularly important now in the leadup to the next quinquennial NPT Review Conference (RevCon) this coming spring.  A central RevCon issue will be how – and if – RevCon final documents acknowledge the TPNW in the event consensus is reached.  The NWS have been fiercely opposed to any mention of the TPNW and the U.S. has urged states not to accede to (or recognize) it.

Formal acknowledgement in the RevCon process would be a significant step toward overcoming NWS attempts to stymie the TPNW and toward paving the way for ultimate integration of the treaty into the NPT and broader international legal framework.  Such entrenchment would make it more and more difficult for the NWS to continue to belittle the TPNW and perpetually procrastinate on their disarmament obligations.

Carpe Diem

For those of us who have been part of the anti-nuclear movement, this moment in history is one filled with possibilities. When the majority of the world’s peoples feel the need to mobilize and, once and for all, put a sense of urgency behind the need to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons, it feels like a “now or never” moment. We must all take advantage of this moment to push for greater TPNW awareness.  Those of us who live in the NWS have a unique responsibility to move our governments to understand that, once the TPNW becomes law, mere possession of nuclear weapons, let alone “upgrading and modernizing them” to the tune of trillions of dollars, will be understood as illegal by a growing number of the world’s nations.

Everything must be done to apply concerted pressure on NWS governments. In the U.S., calls, e-mails and letters to our Senators should be issued, urging them to acknowledge the Treaty and its validity and value.  Discontent with the allocation of enormous tax-payer dollars to gratuitously dangerous nuclear arsenal modernization should also be emphasized.

At the international level, the NNWS must insist on formal acknowledgement of the TPNW as a condition for their consent to any eventual NPT RevCon final documents.  The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and other NGOs should also continue their public relations campaigns in NWS ally states to pressure domestic governments to recognize the TPNW as valid international law.

Madelyn Hoffman is co-chair of the Green Party USA’s Peace Action Committee and was the Green Party of New Jersey’s candidate for U.S. Senate in 2018 and 2020. She was the director of NJ Peace Action  (formerly NJ SANE founded in 1957) from 2000 to 2018.

Ryan Swan, J.D., M.Phil., is an incoming doctoral student in peace and conflict studies at the University of Bonn.  He has professional experience in security policy analysis and serves on the Green Party USA’s Peace Action Committee.

January 7, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, Legal, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Canada vocal about nuclear disarmament, but silent about the Treaty for Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Canada reaffirms support to advance nuclear disarmament   Mirage News, 5 Jan 21, On behalf of the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rob Oliphant, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, today reaffirmed Canada’s unwavering support for advancing nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament during the third meeting of foreign ministers of the Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament.

Co-hosted by Jordan, Germany and Sweden, the meeting brought together international partners advocating for action-oriented steps on nuclear disarmament. Participants called on all nuclear weapon states to show leadership in advancing nuclear disarmament and to take meaningful steps to implement all commitments under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). ………https://www.miragenews.com/canada-reaffirms-support-to-advance-nuclear-disarmament/

January 7, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

LGBTQ Activists Jump Into the Atlantic to support Treaty banning nuclear weapons

LGBTQ Activists Jump Into the Atlantic to Protest Nuclear Weapons, Gay City News,  By Matt Tracy & Donna Aceto– 3 Jan 2012, LGBTQ activists Brendan Fay and Robert Croonquist huddled with other New York-based members of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and ran into the Atlantic Ocean at Far Rockaway on New Year’s Day as part of a public demonstration against nuclear weapons.

The activists, who plunged into the freezing waters at Rockaway Beach and 92nd Street, are pushing the City Council to move forward with a resolution asking the city comptroller to divest pension funds of public employees from sources of nuclear weapons and a bill creating an advisory committee that would evaluate nuclear disarmament and other issues geared towards making New York City a nuclear weapons-free zone. Those bills were proposed by out gay Councilmember Daniel Dromm of Queens, who has welcomed the support of dozens of co-sponsors in both cases.

The activists are asking out gay City Council Speaker Corey Johnson to advance the measures before the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons becomes international law on January 22. …………

Croonquist, a former public school teacher who is a member of Rise and Resist and the Reclaim Pride Coalition, said he was driven to jump into the ocean when he thought about the high school students he taught at Jamaica High School in Queens.

“This legislation would divert my pension’s investments from weapons of mass destruction and redirect them to things that bring true security — investments in food, housing, climate, infrastructure and healthcare. ………… https://www.gaycitynews.com/lgbtq-activists-jump-into-the-atlantic-to-protest-nuclear-weapons/.

January 4, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Donald Trump left a hawkish nuclear weapons mess, but Joe Bideb can make alot of improvements, on his own

Nuclear Weapons Are Out of Control. But Biden Can Make the World Safer.  https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/2663585/posts/3106810876 –

Six ways that Biden can make the world safer in 2021, January 1, 2021 Joseph Cirincione    The Red Safe held the launch codes and keys, Steven Miller

Donald Trump left Joe Biden with a hot nuclear mess. Trump made every nuclear danger he inherited worse by the hawkish policies he and Republicans pursued.

Iran is accelerating its civilian nuclear program. North Korea is expanding its nuclear military capabilities. They are not alone. Every one of the nine nuclear-armed states is building new weapons. Yet Trump destroyed or abandoned crucial security agreements restraining these dangers and started or accelerated a half-dozen new weapons for missions we don’t need with budgets we can’t afford.

Fortunately, there’s a great deal that Joe Biden can do, on his own, in the first few days and weeks of his presidency..

He can quickly establish his authority over a nuclear weapons complex spiraling out of control. He can reduce the risk of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or madness; stop a new nuclear arms race; shave hundreds of billions of dollars off the military budget; and prevent new states from getting these weapons. By so doing, he can make America and the world more secure.

Reform Command and Control. Nuclear weapons are often called “the president’s weapons.” The commander in chief sets the policy, requirements, and size of the U.S. arsenal. He has sole, unfettered authority to launch one or all of the nation’s almost 4,000 operational nuclear weapons. He need not consult with anyone; no one can counter his command.

Since Trump did not press the button during his four years in the Oval Office, some may think that concerns about a madman destroying all of humanity are overstated. In truth, we dodged a nuclear bullet. As president, Biden should do all he can to ensure we never again come so close to self-annihilation.

Biden does not need the permission of Congress to announce early in his tenure that procedures adopted by past presidents in the fearful days of the Cold War—including the first use of nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict, missiles ready to launch in minutes, and the sole authority of the president to fire these weapons—combine now to present an unacceptable risk of nuclear disaster.

He can direct that U.S. policy is to never start a nuclear war, that we no longer need to keep our weapons on hair-trigger alert, and that henceforth the president will need the concurrence of another senior official, such as the Speaker of the House, to launch nuclear weapons.

Save Arms Control. Biden can take an immediate step to curtail the arms race by quickly agreeing with Russia to extend the New START treaty for five years, due to expire in February 2021. It is the only remaining limitation on U.S. and Russian arsenals, after four years of Trump’s withdrawal from key strategic accords. This will provide the basis for returning to the process of principled dialogue with Russia and other nuclear-armed states, including China, to freeze and reduce global arsenals.

January 4, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear Command and Control: Session 3 of the Congressional Study Group

Nuclear Command and Control

Session 3 of the Congressional Study Group,   Wednesday, December 30, 2020  https://www.brookings.edu/research/nuclear-command-and-control/

Editor’s Note:The following is a summary of the third session of the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security, a program for congressional staff focused on critically engaging the legal and policy factors that define the role that Congress plays in various aspects of U.S. foreign relations and national security policy.

On May 7, 2020, the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security convened online to discuss the question of the command and control of U.S. nuclear weapons. At present, the president has the unilateral authority to choose to use nuclear weapons, and many assume that this is a result of his Article II powers under the Constitution. But is this assumption correct? Are there ways Congress can limit when and how the president uses nuclear weapons?

To discuss this topic, the working group was joined by three outside experts Professor Mary DeRosa of Georgetown University Law Center, a former legal advisor to the National Security Council; Chris Fonzone, a partner at Sidley Austin and another former legal advisor to the National Security Council; and Professor Matt Waxman of Columbia Law School, who is also an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and has previously held senior positions in the National Security Council and U.S. Department of State. Prior to the session, the study group received several written pieces as background reading, including:

  • “The President and Nuclear Weapons: Authorities, Limits, and Process,” a report for the Nuclear Threat Initiative that DeRosa co-authored (and was accompanied by a separate policy proposal by former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and former Senator Sam Nunn);
  • “The President and the Bomb: Reforming the Nuclear Launch Process,” which Waxman co-authored for Foreign Affairs; and
  • “What the Military Law of Obedience Does (and Doesn’t) Do,” an issue brief for the American Constitution Society authored by Fonzone.
In addition, the study group coordinator Scott R. Anderson also circulated a handout (download here) on relevant legal authorities for the attendees to reference.
DeRosa began the conversation with a discussion of the constitutional authorities behind the use of nuclear weapons. While there is some debate about the exact line between congressional and presidential authority, she noted that most scholars agree that Congress could choose to exclude or limit the availability of nuclear weapons and perhaps even set some limits on how nuclear weapons are used. Moreover, congressional authorization is arguably constitutionally required for uses of nuclear weapons that are not in self-defense, particularly where outside the context of an existing armed conflict. Nuclear weapons–and particularly the first use of them–also implicate the United States’s international legal obligations, as their use necessarily raises questions about compliance with principles of distinction and proportionality. That said, while there are strong arguments in support of the conclusion that Congress can set some limits on the use of nuclear weapons–including first use–these limitations are more likely to face  constitutional issues the more they try to micromanage the president’s strategic and tactical decisions regarding the use of the armed forces.

Waxman then shifted focus to ways that Congress might be able to shape the executive branch process for deciding when and how nuclear weapons are used. While few are likely to argue with the president’s ability to use nuclear force in response to a nuclear attack, Waxman identified three problematic scenarios that might emerge in a case of nuclear first use: that the president would pursue such an action without due deliberation; that a president might give such an order, but that it is not obeyed by military personnel who believe it to be unlawful or unwise; and that a third party might try to interfere with the system to inhibit a response or trigger an unauthorized launch.

A better defined process–for example, one that requires that an order to use nuclear weapons be certified as valid by the Secretary of Defense and lawful by the Attorney General–could reduce all three of these risks by putting some limits on the president’s unilateral authority, encouraging a more deliberative and justified process that is less likely to trigger reservations, and creating a process with multiple safeguards less subject to external manipulation. Such a process could be implemented by the president by executive order or by Congress, though the latter may raise constitutional objections in some corners and runs the risk of being disregarded by administrations who maintain it is constitutional. That said, by leaving the decision-making within the executive branch, such approaches are less likely to incur constitutional objections than outright statutory prohibitions, which may make them more effective in the long run.

 

Finally, Fonzone stepped in to discuss the military chain of command, specifically in reference to the oft-discussed possibility that military personnel might disregard an impetuous order to use nuclear weapons as unlawful. The operational chain of command, he noted, runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense down to the military ranks, and is defined in substantial part by statute in addition to executive branch guidelines. While the Secretary of Defense might be removed from office for disobeying a presidential order, members of the military can face criminal sanctions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That said, this duty of obedience does not extend to “patently” or “manifestly” illegal orders, which military personnel are obligated not to follow. This bar, however, is extremely high and requires clear knowledge on the part of the servicemember. As many major policy decisions, including the use of nuclear weapons, occur on contested and complex constitutional and legal terrain, even unlawful orders are not likely to be seen as “patently” or “manifestly” illegal. Hence, one should not rely on the lawfulness exceptions to the chain of command alone as a meaningful safeguard against such conduct.

From there, the study group went into open discussion, where they raised issues and addressed questions relating to: the civilian control of nuclear technology and weapons development; international legal and policy restraints on the use of nuclear weapons; and in what circumstances the use of nuclear weapons should properly be left to the president’s unilateral authority (e.g., self-defense).

 

Visit the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security landing page to access notes and information on other sessions.

January 4, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How a Soviet spy helped to avoid nuclear war

When a Soviet spy helped avert nuclear war    Tim Rowland, HM Media, 2 Jan 2021, 

……..December also marked the passing of George Blake, a spy who kept the Soviets abreast of just about everything the West was doing during the hottest years of the Cold War. ……
In Blake, the KGB knew what they had. As a prisoner in North Korea, he later said he was driven into the arms of the Communists after watching American bombers destroy villages and the civilians who lived in them. ………..
 ……..At a time of high tension, its intelligence showed the West that the Soviets were not interested in launching a first-strike nuclear attack. Blake had showed the Soviets that this aversion to war was shared by the West. It may have been just enough assurance, in times of high tension, to keep everyone’s missiles in their silos. As dysfunctional as the profession at times could seem, the spies had done their job.  https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/opinion/tim_rowland/when-a-soviet-spy-helped-avert-nuclear-war/article_4b527a8b-67f3-5d70-9a71-d5e78743853b.html

January 4, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Turkey’s aspirations to become a nuclear weapons power

Will Turkey become a nuclear weapon power with Pak’s covert support?  The Siasat Daily      By IANS|   3rd January 2021 New Delhi: A rogue nexus involving Pakistan and Turkey, with China looking the other way, maybe taking root to fulfil Ankaras ambition to emerge as the worlds next nuclear weapon power.
Suspicions about Pakistan’s covert support for Turkish nukes has been aroused by a recent meeting of the Turkey-Pakistan High-Level Military Dialogue Group (HLMDG). The assemblage took place on December 22-23, 2020. Pakistan’s Defence Secretary Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Mian Muhammad Hilal Hussain led the delegation from Islamabad, while Deputy Chief of Turkish Army General Selcuk Bayraktaroglu headed the Turkish team, says an article published by the website zeenews.india.com.

There are other indications that collaboration on nuclear delivery systems was the hot topic discussed during the meeting. The visitors from Islamabad met top Turkish Army generals and bureaucrats dealing with missile production and aerial military hardware. The hosts included Professor Ismail Demir head of Presidency of Turkish Defence Industries and Temil Kotil, CEO of Turkish Aerospace Limited (TAI). The Pakistani defence delegation also visited top Turkish defence companies including Bakyar (UAV OEM), TAI, HAVELSAN and ASELSAN.

Staunch strategic allies

Analysts say that the insider meetings in Turkey took place within a rapidly evolving geopolitical context. Islamabad and Ankara have become staunch strategic allies, a partnership sealed by personal bonds between Turkey’s ambitious President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistan’s military backed Prime Minister Imran Khan. It is no secret that Erdogan hopes to emerge as the pre-eminent Islamic leader, marginalising established heavyweights such as Mohamed bin Sultan, the Crown prince of Saudi Arabia………..
On his part, Erdogan has made no secret about his nuclear ambitions—a gateway for the fulfilment of his self-espoused dream of elevating Turkey’s status to the heights of the Ottoman empire.
In September 2019, he said: “Some countries have missiles with nuclear warheads, not one or two. I, however, am not supposed to have missiles with nuclear warheads. This, I cannot accept… And right next to us, there is Israel, right? With everything, it is frightening.”……..   https://www.siasat.com/will-turkey-become-a-nuclear-weapon-power-with-paks-covert-support-2059645/

January 4, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Turkey, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA show of force -flying nuclear bombers over Iran

US flying nuclear bombers over Iran to deter NYE attack, 9 news, By CNN Dec 31, 2020  The US have flown nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the Middle East in the latest show of force meant to deter Iran, as defense officials remain divided over the risk posed by the regime and the Iraq-based militias it supports.

Pentagon officials say the military muscle-flexing is meant to warn Tehran off attacking American interests or personnel in the days surrounding the January 3 anniversary of the Trump administration’s assassination of the powerful Iranian leader General Qasem Soleimani.
At the same time, acting Secretary of Defence Christopher Miller decided yesterday against a push to extend the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz’s deployment to the Persian Gulf, sending it out of the region in an explicit de-escalation signal to Iran, according to a senior defense official.
The conflicting messages could reflect divisions within the Pentagon, where a second senior defence official tells CNN that the current threat level from Iran is the most concerning they have seen since Soleimani’s death.

Officials cite new intelligence that Iran and allied militias in Iraq may be plotting attacks against US forces in the Middle East.
For example, Iran has been moving short range ballistic missiles into Iraq, prompting the US to deploy additional military assets to the region.
Yet others in the Pentagon contend that the threat is being exaggerated, with the first senior defence official – who is directly involved in discussions – telling CNN that there is “not a single piece of corroborating intel” suggesting an attack by Iran may be imminent.
US President Donald Trump has fuelled some of the uncertainty, reportedly asking in a mid-November meeting for military options he could use against Iran.
He then threatened Iran after a December 21 attack on the US embassy in Baghdad that senior US officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, attributed to Iraqi militias affiliated with Tehran.
“Our embassy in Baghdad got hit Sunday by several rockets,” Mr Trump tweeted from aboard Air Force One after a December 23 White House meeting on Iranian threats.
“Three rockets failed to launch. Guess where they were from: IRAN.”
Mr Trump then offered “some friendly health advice to Iran: If one American is killed, I will hold Iran responsible. Think it over.”

……… The B-52 flight was the second time this month the Pentagon has sent the nuclear-capable bombers to the region. It follows the Navy’s rare December 21 announcement that it had sent a nuclear-powered submarine through the Persian Gulf, accompanied by guided-missile cruisers.  ,,,,,,,https://www.9news.com.au/world/donald-trump-us-flying-nuclear-bombers-over-iran-to-deter-nye-attack/f02018ea-2b8f-4d07-9941-e1df3a0a0f4c

January 2, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Joe Biden must end the cover-up of, and the huge money to, Israel’s nuclear weapons

Joe Biden should end the US pretence over Israel’s ‘secret’ nuclear weapons, Guardian, Desmond Tutu, 1 Jan 2021

The cover-up has to stop – and with it, the huge sums in aid for a country with oppressive policies towards Palestinians

Desmond Tutu is a Nobel peace laureate and a former archbishop of Cape Town

Every recent US administration has performed a perverse ritual as it has come into office. All have agreed to undermine US law by signing secret letters stipulating they will not acknowledge something everyone knows: that Israel has a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Part of the reason for this is to stop people focusing on Israel’s capacity to turn dozens of cities to dust. This failure to face up to the threat posed by Israel’s horrific arsenal gives its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a sense of power and impunity, allowing Israel to dictate terms to others.

But one other effect of the US administration’s ostrich approach is that it avoids invoking the US’s own laws, which call for an end to taxpayer largesse for nuclear weapons proliferators.

Israel in fact is a multiple nuclear weapons proliferator. There is overwhelming evidence that it offered to sell the apartheid regime in South Africa nuclear weapons in the 1970s and even conducted a joint nuclear test. The US government tried to cover up these facts. Additionally, it has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Yet the US and Israeli governments pushed for the invasion of Iraq based on lies about coming mushroom clouds. As Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu said: the nuclear weapons were not in Iraq – they are in Israel.

Amendments by former Senators Stuart Symington and John Glenn to the Foreign Assistance Act ban US economic and military assistance to nuclear proliferators and countries that acquire nuclear weapons. While president, Jimmy Carter invoked such provisions against India and Pakistan.

But no president has done so with regard to Israel. Quite the contrary. There has been an oral agreement since President Richard Nixon to accept Israel’s “nuclear ambiguity” – effectively to allow Israel the power that comes with nuclear weapons without the responsibility. And since President Bill Clinton, according to the New Yorker magazine, there have been these secret letters………

This farce should end. The US government should uphold its laws and cut off funding to Israel because of its acquisition and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The incoming Biden administration should forthrightly acknowledge Israel as a leading state sponsor of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and properly implement US law. Other governments – in particular South Africa’s – should insist on the rule of law and for meaningful disarmament, and immediately urge the US government in the strongest possible terms to act……… https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/31/joe-biden-us-pretence-israel-nuclear-weapons

January 2, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

This is the sort of letter that citizens need to be writing – in support of the nuclear weapons ban

Sudbury letter: Council should support banning of nuclear weapons,   https://www.thesudburystar.com/opinion/letters/sudbury-letter-council-should-support-banning-of-nuclear-weaponsAuthor of the article:

Letter to the editor, Jan 01, 2021 To Mayor Brian Bigger and city council:

The United Nations has passed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and it will become international law on Jan. 22, 2021. Some 86 countries have signed this agreement. Unfortunately, Canada is not one of them.

As it is cities that will be targeted by nuclear weapons, Sudbury, a producer of nickel, would likely be a target. The International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICANw) is asking cities to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by passing the following motion (many Canadian cities have already passed this motion including Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver and Victoria):

“Our city of Sudbury, Ont., is deeply concerned about the grave threat that nuclear weapons pose to communities throughout the world. We firmly believe that our residents have a right to live in a world free from this threat. Any use of nuclear weapons, whether deliberate or accidental, would have catastrophic, far-reaching and long-lasting consequences for people and the environment. Therefore, we support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and call on our governments to sign and ratify it.”

The world has about 14,000 nuclear weapons with about 1,500 on hair-trigger alert. The firing of these weapons could happen by accident, miscalculation, terrorism or an unstable government. The catastrophe would be immediate.

I would urge Sudbury city council to pass the motion and support the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Richard Denton

Sudbury

January 2, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, opposition to nuclear, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How the USA and Soviet Union planned to use nuclear radiation as a weapon.

 This was initially seen as a great idea –  you could kill all the people while leaving the omfrastructure intact for your own use.
Death Dust: The Little-Known Story of U.S. and Soviet Pursuit of Radiological Weapons,  Three international security experts chart the rise and fall of radiological weapons programs in the United States and the Soviet Union. The MIT Press Reader

By: Morgan L. Kaplan, 31 Jan 20, 

For decades, the thought of radiological weapons has conjured terrifying images of cities covered in “death dust.” Classified as a weapon of mass destruction — alongside chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons — it has remained a point of mystery as to why these devastatingly indiscriminate weapons were not pursued in earnest by more state and non-state actors alike.

What did early radiological weapons (RW) programs look like? How and why did they arise, and what accounts for their ultimate demise? Aside from a handful of known cases, why have RW programs not proliferated with the same alacrity as other weapons programs?

Thanks to the rigorous and rich historical work of Samuel Meyer, Sarah Bidgood, and William Potter of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, we now have more answers. Focusing on the United States and Soviet Union in the 1940s and 1950s, the authors, in a recent study published in the journal International Security, trace the unique origins of these RW programs, as well as explain why they were subsequently abandoned. Their study, “Death Dust: The Little-Known Story of U.S. and Soviet Pursuit of Radiological Weapons,” reveals a fascinating web of causes, including organizational and bureaucratic politics, international competition, economic and technological constraints, and even the powerful initiatives of well-placed individuals.

While the authors’ work examines the past, it speaks directly to the present and future trajectory of RW programs. If you are interested in military innovation, the history of weapons of mass destruction, the sociology of technology, and science fiction (yes, science fiction!), the exchange featured below is for you.

Morgan Kaplan: First things first, what are radiological weapons? Do any countries or non-state actors have them today?

Samuel Meyer, Sarah Bidgood, and William C. Potter: We define a radiological weapon as one intended to disperse radioactive material in the absence of a nuclear detonation. ……..

……….. May 1941 — the first reference to RW appeared in a U.S. government document: the Report of the Uranium Committee. The report identified three possible military aspects of atomic fission, the first of which was “production of violently radioactive materials … carried by airplanes to be scattered as bombs over enemy territory.” (The other two possible applications noted in the report were “a power source on submarines and other ships” and “violently explosive bombs.”) ………

Technological advances were among the major drivers of RW programs in both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and RW were initially pursued in tandem with nuclear weapons and chemical weapons (CW) programs. The anticipated promise of RW as a weapons innovation, however, never materialized in either country due to a combination of factors, including technical difficulties in the production and maintenance of the weapons, diminution in the perceived military utility of RW relative to both CW and nuclear weapons, and low threat perceptions about adversary RW capabilities. ……..

the parallelism in many respects between the rise and demise of the U.S. and Soviet RW programs; and (5) the serious but ultimately unsuccessful effort by the United States and the Soviet Union to secure a draft convention at the Conference on Disarmament prohibiting radiological weapons.

MK: Are radiological weapons a thing of the past or do they remain an attractive option for some countries and non-state actors today?

The authors: We are encouraged that no country has either used RW in war or has incorporated them into a national military arsenal. We are concerned, however, that the Russian Federation, despite its own unsuccessful history with RW, has shown renewed interest in advanced nuclear weapons that seek to maximize radioactive contamination. We also worry that some countries may conclude that RW serve their perceived national interests, especially in the absence of international legal restraints. It therefore is important, we believe, to revive U.S.-Russian cooperation to ban radiological weapons and strengthen the norm against their use.


Morgan L. Kaplan is the Executive Editor of International Security and Series Editor of the Belfer Center Studies in International Security book series at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/death-dust-the-little-known-story-of-radiological-weapons/

January 2, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | history, radiation, Russia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Never give up! 95 year old Hibakusha welcomes the UN nuclear ban treaty

Hibakusha: A-bomb survivor, 95, never giving up the battle to eliminate nuclear weapons   https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20201229/p2a/00m/0na/032000c

December 30, 2020 (Mainichi Japan)     Following news that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would enter into force early in 2021, some 200 people including atomic-bomb survivors, or hibakusha, gathered in front of the Atomic Bomb Dome in the western Japan city of Hiroshima on Oct. 25, 2020 and shared their joy.

But one “face” of the city bombed during World War II, who four years earlier had smiled as he shook hands with Barack Obama, the first U.S. President to visit Hiroshima while in office, was not able to take part. The following hibakusha report, coming 75 years after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, focuses on the life of this figure, 95-year-old Sunao Tsuboi, who has stood at the forefront of hibakusha activities with an indomitable spirit.

Tsuboi has served as chairman of the Hiroshima Prefectural Confederation of A-bomb Sufferers Organizations (Hiroshima Hidankyo) for the past 16 years. He now spends his days at his home in Hiroshima’s Nishi Ward, where a decorative card bears his creed in calligraphic ink: “Futo Fukutsu — Never give up!”

From around the time the imperial year changed from Heisei to Reiwa in May 2019, Tsuboi’s legs became extremely weak, and he was unable to do without his wheelchair. He has been receiving intravenous drips once a fortnight for cancer, heart disease and anemia. This year he received at least 30 blood transfusions, and it has not been easy for him to get out of bed.

On the day of the atomic bombing on Aug. 6, 1945, Tsuboi suffered burns over his entire body, and he remained unconscious for over 40 days. His sight became impaired in his left eye, and he became critically ill three times. To repay his feeling of indebtedness for being able to live, he became a teacher, and continued to share his experiences with students for over four decades, becoming known as “Pikadon Sensei” — a reference to the flash (pika) and boom (don) of the atomic bomb.

After he retired, he continued to share his experiences both in Japan and overseas, visiting 21 countries including Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea, which possess nuclear weapons.

“The color of our skin doesn’t have to be the same. We don’t need borders. Humankind won’t be happy unless we help each other,” Tsuboi says. With his fist raised high, he has continued to call for a world without nuclear weapons.

Tsuboi released comments expressing his joy after he learned that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would enter in force.

“I am filled with excitement, thinking, ‘At long last. This is great.’ It is a major step toward my long-held, earnest desire for nuclear weapons to be banned and eliminated,” he said. At the same time, he noted that states with nuclear weapons, as well as Japan, had not ratified the treaty and said, “The road hereafter may be rough.”

Still, each time I have met Tsuboi, he has repeatedly stated, “I won’t give up until there are zero nuclear weapons. Never give up!”

(Japanese original by Naohiro Yamada, Osaka Photo Group)

December 31, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Japan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pandemic, climate, nuclear weapons – lessons for survival in 2021

Lessons from pandemic-nuclear weapons nexus for survival in 2021   http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinon/2020/12/197_301593.html   By Peter Hayes, 30 Dec 20,
As Earth hurtled around the Sun at over 100,000km per hour, humans were rudely reminded in 2020 by the COVID-19 pandemic that no-one is in charge ― or rather, nature is in charge.

Humanity faces many intertwined global problems in 2021. The short list includes climate change, habitat loss, biodiversity loss, biochemical pollution, overpopulation, demographic aging, food insecurity, water scarcity, disease and pandemics. These problems are both cause and effect of extreme poverty, inequality, forced migration, and social conflict that leads to war.

Hovering above all these inter-twined global problems is the truly existential threat of nuclear war. Nuclear war is the most immediate and direct extinction trap into which the species could fall.

Even a “small” nuclear war ― for example, between India and Pakistan, or the United States and the DPRK ― could induce a long winter, global famine, and would put pay to any possibility of the global cooperation needed to solve all the other global problems afflicting humanity.

Yet unlike other global problems, nuclear weapons are uniquely and 100 percent human-made. The RECNA Nuclear Warhead Data Monitoring Team at Nagasaki University estimates that as of June 2020, nine nuclear armed states maintain 13,410 nuclear warheads ― enough for about one ton of TNT-equivalent explosive power for every human alive today.

By the same token, the threat of nuclear war is one global problem that can be solved, relatively quickly, and ultimately, forever. Northeast Asia, where the pandemic likely increases the risk of nuclear war, is a case in point. COVID-19 may destabilize nuclear commands and ravage nuclear and conventional forces and, destabilize nuclear-prone conflicts at a time when tension should be reduced, not increased.

To reduce this risk, the Nagasaki 75th Anniversary Pandemic-Nuclear Nexus Scenarios project concluded that leaders in this region must, among many other urgent measures,
― Slow and reverse nuclear force developments and operations in the Northeast Asian region, including through nuclear-weapon-free zones and nonproliferation treaties
― Develop a secure, reliable nuclear hotline network for communicating in a nuclear crisis
― Launch public health security initiatives in the Northeast Asian region to respond to pandemics
― Engage younger generations in the nuclear disarmament movement and mobilize a broader base of potential stakeholders in nuclear issues
― Enlarge existing city networks such as Mayors for Peace and establish new city/regional cooperation networks to play a more direct role in reducing nuclear risk and pushing for nuclear disarmament

There is another more radical view, albeit not one shared widely by national leaders, which holds that the pandemic is forcing the “re-spatialization” of human affairs in all sectors and at every level, from the individual to nation-states.

Rather than merely increasing the velocity of existing change and bringing underlying conflicts to the surface, the pandemic heralds an epochal, global, and systemic transformation that will lead to a new distribution of power capacities in geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geoecological dimensions.

In this permanent pandemic world, the effective governance of global problems in an era of permanent pandemics may rise bottom-up from “first responder” cities, provinces, corporations, and civil society organizations, driven by sheer necessity to create a global mosaic of networked responses and shared solutions.

This is a world that might adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as the foundation of nuclear governance, not the old legal order that approves of the existence and even the use of nuclear weapons.

Cutting across this hopeful image is a darker portrayal of how humans may respond to multiple existential threats in an epoch defined by pandemics. In this 21st century feudalism, great powers are weakened relative to each other, and small and medium powers acquire symmetric and ultra-modern means of military power projection designed to maintain control and keep the other outside borders during protracted pandemics.

Thus, today’s Cold Peace struggling to manage COVID-19 may degenerate into a new Cold War with more states and even non-state actors armed with nuclear weapons.

Although humans can make nuclear weapons to destroy life on a massive scale, they can’t make even a simple life form, let alone a single ant or an ecosystem. Arguably, humanity’s best bet for survival is to reduce its global footprint, anticipate the impacts of global change, and adapt rapidly while nature restores itself.

That task begins with making all humans safe from pandemic infections because no human can be safe while other humans are infected. This is the equivalent of delivering one ton of TNT-equivalent of destructive power in the form of a vial of vaccine ― surely achievable even if revolutionary in principle. From this simple proposition flows a revolution in global governance in all affairs, without which humans will likely face a dire, dark, and bleak future.

As we enter 2021, therefore, states and people must ask themselves whether there are better ways to prepare for the uncertain futures created by the COVID-19 pandemic than to rely on primitive nuclear weapons, and which of these is most robust.

Peter Hayes is honorary professor at the Center for International Security Studies, Sydney University, Australia and director at the Nautilus Institute in Berkeley, California. He is also a research director of the Asia-Pacific Leadership for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (APLN). His article was published in cooperation with the APLN (www.apln.network).

December 31, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Doubtful that aging Los Alamos National Laboratory could safely produce plutonium triggers, no matter how much funding it gets

Los Alamos National Laboratory may get boost in nuclear funding, Santa Fe New Mexico By Scott Wyland swyland@sfnewmexican.com– 30 Dec 20,  

Los Alamos National Laboratory will get a hefty funding boost — including for its work on plutonium pit production — in the military spending bill held up by a presidential veto.

Many predict the veto will be overridden, and if it is, the lab’s budget will increase to $3.3 billion from the $2.3 billion allocated last year.

The bill puts $837 million into the lab’s plutonium operations, more than double the previous year’s $308 million, as Los Alamos pursues production of 30 nuclear bomb cores by 2026 — a goal critics have questioned.

Plans call for the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to make an additional 50 plutonium pits by 2030, so the two facilities will produce a combined 80 pits per year as stated in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review……..

Watchdog groups call the Trump administration’s more aggressive push to bolster the nuclear stockpile hawkish and unsustainable, and expressed uncertainty about how much the incoming Biden administration might pull back. ……

Tom Clements, executive director of SRS Watch, another watchdog group, said the 2021 budget will have to be carried out, and it will take time for President-elect Joe Biden’s administration to draft a new nuclear posture review.

But Biden is likely to examine the nuclear modernization program in the coming months, including whether it’s feasible to convert Savannah River’s unfinished mixed-oxide fuel plant into a pit factory, Clements said.

“There are growing signs that the SRS pit plant is gonna get a thorough review by the new administration,” Clements said………

Mello said he remains doubtful the aging plutonium facility that never produced more than a dozen pits in a year can be upgraded to crank out 30-plus pits yearly, no matter how much money is spent.

“There’s a question of whether Los Alamos will ever be able to do so safely,” Mello said. https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/los-alamos-national-laboratory-may-get-boost-in-nuclear-funding/article_cd55c8a6-49f5-11eb-8718-2333908445b5.html

December 31, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

1 This Month

22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate


Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT

YouTube. Register here

25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES

Thursday, June 25, 2026

7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER

26 June –  Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration

1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity  st July, 7 pm

Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.

Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511

Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State

PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees” 

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

  • Categories

    • 1
      • Arclight's Vision
    • 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
      • business and costs
        • employment
        • marketing
      • climate change
      • culture and arts
      • ENERGY
        • renewable
          • decentralised
          • energy storage
      • environment
        • oceans
        • water
      • health
        • children
        • psychology – mental health
        • radiation
        • social effects
        • women
      • history
      • indigenous issues
      • Legal
        • deaths by radiation
        • legal
      • marketing of nuclear
      • media
        • investigative journalism
        • Wikileaks
      • opposition to nuclear
      • PERSONAL STORIES
      • politics
        • psychology and culture
          • Trump – personality
        • public opinion
        • USA election 2024
        • USA elections 2016
      • politics international
      • Religion and ethics
      • safety
        • incidents
      • secrets,lies and civil liberties
        • civil liberties
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • reprocessing
        • Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
        • space travel
      • Uranium
      • wastes
        • – plutonium
        • decommission reactor
      • weapons and war
        • Atrocities
        • depleted uranium
      • Women
    • 2 WORLD
      • ANTARCTICA
      • ARCTIC
      • ASIA
        • Burma
        • China
        • India
        • Indonesia
        • Japan
          • – Fukushima 2011
          • Fukushima 2012
          • Fukushima 2013
          • Fukushima 2014
          • Fukushima 2015
          • Fukushima 2016
          • Fukushima continuing
        • Malaysia
        • Mongolia
        • North Korea
        • Pakistan
        • South Korea
        • Taiwan
        • Turkey
        • Vietnam
      • EUROPE
        • Belarus
        • Bulgaria
        • Denmark
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Kazakhstan
        • Kyrgyzstan
        • Russia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • UK
        • Ukraine
      • MIDDLE EAST
        • Afghanistan
        • Egypt
        • Gaza
        • Iran
        • Iraq
        • Israel
        • Jordan
        • Libya
        • Saudi Arabia
        • Syria
        • Turkey
        • United Arab Emirates
      • NORTH AMERICA
        • Canada
        • USA
          • election USA 2020
      • OCEANIA
        • New Zealand
        • Philippines
      • SOUTH AMERICA
        • Brazil
    • ACTION
    • AFRICA
      • Kenya
      • Malawi
      • Mali
      • Namibia
      • Niger
      • Nigeria
      • Somalia
      • South Africa
    • Atrocities
    • AUSTRALIA
    • Christina's notes
    • Christina's themes
    • culture and arts
    • Events
    • Fuk 2022
    • Fuk 2023
    • Fukushima 2017
    • Fukushima 2018
    • fukushima 2019
    • Fukushima 2020
    • Fukushima 2021
    • general
    • global warming
    • Humour (God we need it)
    • Nuclear
    • RARE EARTHS
      • thorium
    • Reference
      • Reference archives
    • resources – print
    • Resources -audiovicual
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • World
    • World Nuclear
    • YouTube
  • Pages

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

    • June 2026 (221)
    • May 2026 (306)
    • April 2026 (356)
    • March 2026 (251)
    • February 2026 (268)
    • January 2026 (308)
    • December 2025 (358)
    • November 2025 (359)
    • October 2025 (376)
    • September 2025 (257)
    • August 2025 (319)
    • July 2025 (230)
  • Categories

    • 1
      • Arclight's Vision
    • 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
      • business and costs
        • employment
        • marketing
      • climate change
      • culture and arts
      • ENERGY
        • renewable
          • decentralised
          • energy storage
      • environment
        • oceans
        • water
      • health
        • children
        • psychology – mental health
        • radiation
        • social effects
        • women
      • history
      • indigenous issues
      • Legal
        • deaths by radiation
        • legal
      • marketing of nuclear
      • media
        • investigative journalism
        • Wikileaks
      • opposition to nuclear
      • PERSONAL STORIES
      • politics
        • psychology and culture
          • Trump – personality
        • public opinion
        • USA election 2024
        • USA elections 2016
      • politics international
      • Religion and ethics
      • safety
        • incidents
      • secrets,lies and civil liberties
        • civil liberties
      • spinbuster
        • Education
      • technology
        • reprocessing
        • Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
        • space travel
      • Uranium
      • wastes
        • – plutonium
        • decommission reactor
      • weapons and war
        • Atrocities
        • depleted uranium
      • Women
    • 2 WORLD
      • ANTARCTICA
      • ARCTIC
      • ASIA
        • Burma
        • China
        • India
        • Indonesia
        • Japan
          • – Fukushima 2011
          • Fukushima 2012
          • Fukushima 2013
          • Fukushima 2014
          • Fukushima 2015
          • Fukushima 2016
          • Fukushima continuing
        • Malaysia
        • Mongolia
        • North Korea
        • Pakistan
        • South Korea
        • Taiwan
        • Turkey
        • Vietnam
      • EUROPE
        • Belarus
        • Bulgaria
        • Denmark
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Kazakhstan
        • Kyrgyzstan
        • Russia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • UK
        • Ukraine
      • MIDDLE EAST
        • Afghanistan
        • Egypt
        • Gaza
        • Iran
        • Iraq
        • Israel
        • Jordan
        • Libya
        • Saudi Arabia
        • Syria
        • Turkey
        • United Arab Emirates
      • NORTH AMERICA
        • Canada
        • USA
          • election USA 2020
      • OCEANIA
        • New Zealand
        • Philippines
      • SOUTH AMERICA
        • Brazil
    • ACTION
    • AFRICA
      • Kenya
      • Malawi
      • Mali
      • Namibia
      • Niger
      • Nigeria
      • Somalia
      • South Africa
    • Atrocities
    • AUSTRALIA
    • Christina's notes
    • Christina's themes
    • culture and arts
    • Events
    • Fuk 2022
    • Fuk 2023
    • Fukushima 2017
    • Fukushima 2018
    • fukushima 2019
    • Fukushima 2020
    • Fukushima 2021
    • general
    • global warming
    • Humour (God we need it)
    • Nuclear
    • RARE EARTHS
      • thorium
    • Reference
      • Reference archives
    • resources – print
    • Resources -audiovicual
    • Weekly Newsletter
    • World
    • World Nuclear
    • YouTube
  • RSS

    Entries RSS
    Comments RSS

Site info

nuclear-news
Blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • nuclear-news
    • Join 2,102 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • nuclear-news
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar

Loading Comments...