If the arms treaty with Russia ends USA will spend even more than the planned $1.2 trillion on nuclear weapons

US nuclear weapons budget could skyrocket if Russia treaty ends, Defense News, 27 Aug 20

By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― The New START nuclear pact’s demise could cost the Department of Defense as much as $439 billion for modernization, plus $28 billion in annual maintenance costs, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report published Tuesday.

That price estimate, as the United States and Russia remain at odds over the treaty, reflects a threefold increase in weapons production costs. With Washington and Moscow’s responses to the expiration of New START unclear, CBO explored several possible paths, including other less expensive options.

“If the New START treaty expired, the United States could choose to make no changes to its current plans for nuclear forces, in which case it would incur no additional costs,” the CBO study found. “If the United States chose to increase its forces in response to the expiration of the treaty, modest expansions could be relatively inexpensive and could be done quickly. Larger expansions could be quite costly, however, and could take several decades to accomplish.”

The New START treaty limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers. Signed in 2010 by then-U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the pact would expire Feb. 5, but includes an option to extend it for another five years without needing the approval of either country’s legislature.

The analysis comes amid predictions of flattening defense budgets and as the United States and Russia concluded two days of arms control talks in Vienna last week with some signs of a possible willingness to extend the existing New START deal. A key sticking point is the U.S. demand to include China in any new treaty, even as China has repeatedly refused……..

Russia has offered an extension without any conditions. U.S. negotiator Marshall Billingslea indicated the U.S. was willing to talk about an extension but only if there were a politically binding framework for making changes to New START, which he called “deeply flawed.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., said a failure to renew would drive the U.S. toward a dangerous and unaffordable arms race, as Russia would use a U.S. exit to “quickly expand its arsenal.”

“Extending the New START Treaty for a full five years is clearly the right financial and national security choice,” they said in a joint statement. “America cannot afford a costly and dangerous nuclear arms race, particularly in the middle of our current financial, political, and health crises. We again call on the Trump Administration to extend the New START Treaty today.”

Arms control advocates have likewise warned against the U.S. allowing the treaty to lapse with no limits on their nuclear arsenals, after both Moscow and Washington withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty last year.

“Ever-increasing spending on nuclear weapons without an arms control framework that bounds U.S. and Russian nuclear forces is a recipe for budget chaos, undermining strategic stability, and damaging the health of the global nonproliferation regime,” said the Arms Control Association’s director for disarmament and threat reduction policy, Kingston Reif.

“Such an approach also flies in the face of longstanding bipartisan Congressional support for the pursuit of modernization and arms control in tandem.”

An expansion in nuclear weapons spending would likely place pressure on other parts of the national defense budget. CBO previously concluded the U.S. will spend $1.2 trillion over the next three decades on nuclear-weapons. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is not budgeting for New START’s expiration, according to a recent GAO report.

U.S. lawmakers of both parties are pressuring the White House to extend the pact. ………. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/08/25/cbo-us-nuclear-weapons-budget-could-skyrocket-if-russia-treaty-ends/

August 27, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics international, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Australia entangled in America’s military-industrial-intelligence-security complex

The military-industrial-intelligence-security complex https://johnmenadue.com/alison-broinowski-the-three-slash-complex/ By ALISON BROINOWSKI | On 25 August 2020

In 1961 President Eisenhower warned that a vast and permanent ‘military-industrial complex’ could produce ‘the disastrous rise of misplaced power’. Earlier, US Senators Robert La Follette and J. William Fulbright also foresaw the dangers of militarisation. Now we have a military/industrial/security/intelligence complex, and it is dangerous.

Let’s start with ‘security’, which sounds harmless and desirable. Who welcomes insecurity? Our ‘safety and security’, various authorities assure us (never explaining the difference) are their prime concern, particularly after some egregious security failure on their part.

Security abroad used to mean the First World remaining in control of opportunities, in its own interests. Security now additionally means controlling people euphemistically called ‘those who would do us harm’. Since 2001, national security has become an exponential, unassailable, growth area. Proliferating Australian laws criminalise knowing, revealing, or even asking anything about it. Despite some academics arguing that it includes food, health, social, economic, and environmental security, ‘hard-headed’ national security is the dominant growth area in universities and government.

From there to intelligence. We lavishly fund the ‘community’ of ten security agencies which demand ever more power and resources. Several heads of ASIO, ASIS, ASD, and DFAT have followed each other in revolving door fashion. Some emerge occasionally to warn us of the new, dire, and continuing dangers we face. They can’t give details, of course, before WikiLeaks or the American media do, or until a tip-off to a Five Eyes partner inspires an ‘open source’ report. But they assure us of their best efforts – with a lot more staff – to keep us safe and secure. Their colleague from the American community, Mike Green, former Asia Director of the National Security Agency (the equivalent of ASIO), used to joke that the NSA’s job was to keep people frightened ‘so they’ll go on funding us’.

From the community came the intelligence that government misused, or didn’t use, before the Bali bombing and the Lindt Café siege in Sydney. They provided intelligence that government used, or misused, to justify Australian forces’ illegal invasions of Iraq and Syria, to benefit Woodside Petroleum and disadvantage East Timor. Government is currently making an example of David McBride, a military lawyer who said what he saw Australian troops doing in Afghanistan, of Witness K, a former ASIS officer who said what he did in Dili, and of his former solicitor Bernard Collaery, who’s not allowed to say much, but who was raided in 2013 under anti-terrorism laws. The Attorney-General wants charges and court proceedings against them in the ACT to be secret, as in the Kafkaesque case of another, Witness J. The same applies in Britain, a common-law country, where a judge is likely in September to allow the extradition of Julian Assange to the US, whose CIA paid to have him spied on. Rule of law? The Australian government and opposition say nothing.

To industry then. Canberra airport has become a hall of mirrors for American, British, and French arms producers. So has the Kerry Stokes-chaired Australian War Memorial, whose expansion is to cost $500 million. Less than a decade after the ‘Australia in the Asian Century’ report, Asian languages and the arts languish, and the National Library closes its Asian collection. Defence expenditure is exempt from the efficiency dividend, and much cannot be accounted for. Yet a government that criticised its predecessors for running up ‘debt and deficit’ tries to please the Americans by exceeding 2 percent of GDP, even for aircraft that are not delivered and are denied the technologies the US allows Israel, and for submarines that will lack crew and be obsolete and over budget before they hit the water. Diversification of suppliers is commendable, and local manufacture too, but value for money? Japan would have undercut the French price and delivery date for the submarines, and might not have dangled the option of nuclear power.

By 1967 the US was ‘the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today’, said Martin Luther King. Now the war industry (let’s call it by its name) has proliferated in Australia, as in the US and UK. Its promises of local employment ̶ often more jobs than are delivered ̶ attract votes, particularly in South Australia. The merchants of death are to be joined by Australia as the tenth largest arms exporter. And we won’t ban nuclear weapons. So why bother searching for a vaccine to stop millions dying in the pandemic?

Fourth, military. In most democracies, elected civilians debate where the armed forces should go, what they should do, what they need to do it, and when they should return. Some constitutions even require reports on progress, and independent inquiries afterwards. That worked before the undeclared, endless war. Now potential conflicts are planned years in advance, the security state identifies the priorities, the war industry gears up, and inter-operable allied forces that are not already embedded get their American orders on a given date. So the Australian military tail in effect wags the government dog.

Moreover, inviting US military bases to proliferate in northern Australia, and expanding our war-games, not only makes Australia a bigger target but inevitably America’s endless wars become Australia’s. The putative enemies China, Russia, and Iran need not be Australia’s enemies. The risk grows of Australia being used as an example by China of what it could do to the US, to its real enemy. If Australia is not to be dragged into war against China or Iran by the US, our Ministers while in quarantine might reflect on the invertebrate performance they gave at the AUSMin talks in July. Bipartisan Sinophobia was recently demonstrated against NSW parliamentarian Shaoquett Moselmane. Australian security would benefit if the opposition didn’t try to outdo the government’s ‘Communist China’ McCarthyism.

Trump aimed to drain the Washington swamp by filling top White House positions with ex-military people. Most have departed, but this proto-fascist tendency continues in Australia where the governor-general, governors, politicians, and even academics with military backgrounds are conspicuous. Of these former fighters, only a few have the courage, as retired General Peter Leahy did in 2016, to deplore Australia’s lack of independent military strategy and the way we go to war. If the ADF is called out to enforce the law in Australia, fascism will be next.

Dr Alison Broinowski AM is a former diplomat, academic, and author, and is Vice-President of Australians for War Powers Reform.

August 27, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Frank Barnaby, nuclear weapons scientist and global hero

he gave evidence in Japan against the used of mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuel, known as MOX, in a reactor at Fukushima. “Frank’s testimony was so impressive and read by the governor of the region that it stopped the loading of MOX fuel for more than 10 years,” said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. In 2011, the reactor was overwhelmed by a devastating tsunami, but because of this intervention Japan was spared the release of many hundreds of tons of fission products – “in other words the evacuation of 50 million plus and the end of central Japan as a functioning society.

Frank Barnaby obituary Radiation physicist at Aldermaston who went on to warn of the dangers posed by the civil and military uses of nuclear energy, Guardian, Tim Radford, 25 Aug 20,

The nuclear weapons scientist Frank Barnaby, who has died aged 92, became one of the most effective critics of the international arms race. As the cold war superpowers competed with ever more advanced weaponry to wage a war that could never be won, Barnaby helped amass an arsenal of reliable information and informed argument to keep an anxious public aware of the deadly devices being developed supposedly to keep the world safe.

By the close of the cold war and the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 he and others had assembled an informal international bureaucracy of peace and provided the intellectual ammunition to persuade politicians, military and public to accept a dramatic reduction in the nuclear weaponry.

He contributed dozens of articles to New Scientist and the Guardian, all of them highlighting the rapid advance in technologies of mass destruction and the mechanisms that could spark global thermonuclear war. His persuasive arguments used only the information to hand, and calm reasoning.

In the early years of Margaret Thatcher’s government in Britain, and Ronald Reagan’s in the US, global investment in the military was huge. Even before a sharp rise in US spending in 1980, military activities worldwide consumed $1m every minute. US forces already used 10% of all the aluminium, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, molybdenum, tin, chromium, iron and manganese in the US each year. The military consumption of oil alone, Barnaby argued, was about two-thirds that of the whole of Africa at the time.

The defence industry had become the world’s second biggest business – after oil – and 40% of the world’s research scientists were funded out of military budgets; while military and defence establishments employed at least 27 million civilians. Soviet and US governments put a military satellite into orbit ever four days on average for two decades……….

in 1946 was conscripted into the RAF, leaving after two years to begin a science degree and then a doctorate in nuclear physics through the University of London, before joining the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire – the laboratory that was to become the focus of marches and demonstrations by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

As a radiation physicist, he twice monitored nuclear weapons tests at a site in Maralinga, South Australia, in 1956 and 1957. …..

He quit Aldermaston in 1957 to become a lecturer at University College London, and joined the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, a Nobel peace prizewinning group founded by the mathematician philosopher Bertrand Russell. This organisation of distinguished scientists from both sides of the iron curtain served, at the height of the cold war, as almost the only informal contact between two mutually hostile power blocs.

In 1967 he became its executive secretary. Then from 1971 to 1981 he was director of the influential Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, known as Sipri, and began writing books and articles on the accelerating advance of nuclear weaponry, its proliferation, and its possible uses.

And in those years, and from his later platform as a professor of peace studies at the Free University of Amsterdam (1981-85), he warned of the developments that made the world an increasingly dangerous place. Cruise missiles and other technologies effectively ended the deterrent strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction because they offered the possibility of a nuclear contest that could be “winnable”, but only with a pre-emptive all out first strike. He predicted the coming of the automated battlefield, and of the potential for plutonium as a terror weapon: with a planetary stockpile in 1989 of 2,000 metric tons, who would miss a few kilograms?

……… Working with Greenpeace International in 2001, he gave evidence in Japan against the used of mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuel, known as MOX, in a reactor at Fukushima. “Frank’s testimony was so impressive and read by the governor of the region that it stopped the loading of MOX fuel for more than 10 years,” said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. In 2011, the reactor was overwhelmed by a devastating tsunami, but because of this intervention Japan was spared the release of many hundreds of tons of fission products – “in other words the evacuation of 50 million plus and the end of central Japan as a functioning society. That was Frank.”

While in Stockholm, he met Wendy Field, a young diplomat from Adelaide working in the Australian Embassy. They married in 1972. He is survived by Wendy, their two children, Sophie and Benjamin, and five grandchildren.

• Charles Frank Barnaby, physicist and nuclear disarmament expert, born 27 September 1927; died 1 August 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/24/frank-barnaby-obituary

August 25, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, PERSONAL STORIES, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia releases previously classified film of “Tsar Bomba” the most powerful nuclear bomb blast E\eve

Russia Releases “Tsar Bomba” Test Footage Of The Most Powerful Nuclear Bomb Blast Ever This previously classified film provides a new and fascinating glimpse into the 50-megaton Cold War nuclear test that occurred nearly six decades ago. The Drive BY THOMAS NEWDICK, AUGUST 24, 2020 The nuclear bomb, codenamed “Ivan,” that was dropped by the Soviet Union over Novaya Zemlya in the Arctic Ocean on October 30, 1961, was the largest device of its kind ever detonated. The monstrous weapon had a yield of around 50 megatons — equivalent to 50 million tons of TNT. Until now, the available imagery of that test has been strictly limited, consisting of short, grainy clips and poor-quality stills.

The colossal Ivan device was developed under a program known as izdeliye 202 (meaning “product 202”, otherwise known simply as “V”). Years later, when more details became known about it in the West, the weapon would be dubbed “Tsar Bomba.”

On August 20, 2020, the Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation — the Russian state concern responsible for nuclear enterprises, including nuclear weapons — released a 30-minute documentary film on its official YouTube channel showing the test in unprecedented detail, from the initial transport of the device itself to the mushroom cloud that later rose some 6.2 miles over the Arctic archipelago. The release of the film coincides with the 75th anniversary of Russia’s nuclear industry — although a thermonuclear bomb popularly described in the West as a “doomsday weapon” was perhaps an unusual choice for the commemoration. ………..

According to the video, the Tu-95V was 28 miles away from the release point, and the detonation produced a fireball visible 621 miles away, despite cloudy conditions. “The explosion was accompanied by a bright flash of unusual strength,” the narrator explains. Within seconds, a column of dust had risen to a height of around 6 miles. ………

for “dozens of kilometers” in every direction, the earth has been scorched, most of the snow vaporized, and the few structures that existed above the surface have been obliterated.

……….. the largest nuclear device ever detonated by the United States was the one it set off during the Castle Bravo test at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific on March 1, 1954.

……… Ivan’s detonation was destined to be a high watermark in atmospheric nuclear testing. Amid mounting concern about the fallout generated by above-ground tests, the Partial Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963 by the governments of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Thereafter, all tests were required to be conducted underground.

The Ivan bomb was ultimately too large to be of practical military use — both in terms of delivery and finding targets that warranted its use. However, the Soviet Union remained heavily engaged in developing freefall nuclear bombs alongside missiles and other delivery systems.

……… The release of this Cold War-era documentary is a sobering reminder of the lingering presence of these weapons and their awesome destructive power.

Contact the author: thomas@thedrive.com https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35953/russia-releases-tsar-bomba-test-footage-of-the-most-powerful-nuclear-bomb-blast-ever

August 25, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Chinese viewpoint on nuclear deterrence and cyberattacks

Nuclear deterrence needed to prevent cyberattacks from paralyzing China’s nuclear response https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1198665.shtml

By Qin An Source: Global Times 2020/8/24 The US’ maximum pressure campaign against China now has extended to cyberspace. After the Trump administration’s ban of TikTok and the Clean Network program that aims at Chinese companies, news on Sunday said that TikTok plans to sue the Trump administration over its executive order banning the app. As the game goes viral, there are concerns about whether the US will launch a cyberattack against China. Will China and the US actually cut off the network connection between them?

Such concerns do not come from nowhere. In 2019 alone, there were three major cyberattacks related to the US. In March 2019, Venezuela’s national power grid collapsed. The country’s president denounced the attack as a well planned cyberattack by the US. This indicates that cyberwarfare has become a new mode of undeclared warfare – an invisible invasion of sorts.

In June 2019, Trump announced retaliation against Iran with a cyberattack too. This showed that cyberwarfare has moved from the backstage to the front lines, from covert warfare to a declaration of war, and from auxiliary fighting to mainstream combat.

On November 4, 2019, the US invited a number of countries to hold the first ever joint cyberattack and defense exercise with the island of Taiwan. It undertook cyberattack scenarios as a new approach to go beyond beach landings and targeting financial systems. It focused on persistent and chaotic destructive attacks on key infrastructure and economic systems. This indicates that the US has crossed the bottom line of the one-China principle in cyberspace.

From late June to mid-July this year, some “mysterious explosions” occurred in Iran’s strategic facilities causing more than 100 casualties at power plants, nuclear facilities, chemical plants and ammunition depots. Cyber sabotage from Israel and the US were believed to be involved.

This series of actions and events show that the US has not only the ability to paralyze a society through cyberattacks but also the proven will to do so. Will the US use this ability against China? It’s completely possible. But the two countries might not disconnect their network.

Although US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has listed the “clean networks,” the US’ are the ones who are the most unclean. At present, the Chinese enterprises subject to unilateral sanctions by the US are innocent, and their technologies and products are safe as well. The US is fully aware of this. Besides for the US, disconnecting the network with China will actually cut off the easy path to attack China.

However, China must consider how to deal with “disconnection” and take primary precautions mainly in three aspects.

First, it must strengthen the awareness of network crisis. With the advent of the internet age, the international structure is experiencing subversive changes. Sovereign states have entered into an era of “stabilizing and governing with big data.” The network’s characteristics have increasingly made this concept more prominent: The internet can be used to kill people and overthrow a country.

Second, we must optimize the power structure. Cyberspace has become the fifth dimensional battlefield besides land, sea, sky and space. Although ordinary users form the frontline of defense in cyberspace, cyberwarfare cannot mainly rely on “militia.” The sustainable development of a “regular cyber army” has become an important option for the construction of a country powerful in cyberspace.

Third, cyber deterrence needs to be showcased. China not only needs to be capable of launching counterattacks in cyberspace, but also must consider special situations in which other countries’ cyberattacks might affect our ability of a nuclear counterattack. We must keep nuclear deterrence to the cyberattacks that aim to paralyze our network.

Russia’s latest updated nuclear deterrence strategy lists four conditions that would trigger its implementation of nuclear strikes. In one situation, if the attack undermines its nuclear force response actions, Russia would contemplate using nuclear weapons. Cyberattacks may lead to such situation, therefore Russia’s nuclear deterrence takes cyberattacks into consideration.

The author is head of the Beijing-based Institute of China Cyberspace Strategy. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

August 25, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Senators Warn Trump Saudi-Chinese Uranium Plant Risks Spread of Nuclear Weapons

Senators Warn Trump Saudi-Chinese Uranium Plant Risks Spread of Nuclear Weapons, WSJGroup of Democratic and Republican lawmakers request briefings on the matter, in letter to the president, By Warren P. Strobel, Aug. 19, 2020 , WASHINGTON—A bipartisan group of U.S. senators warned President Trump on Wednesday that Saudi Arabia’s undeclared nuclear and missile programs pose a serious threat to efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the region and requested briefings on the subject.

The letter follows a Wall Street Journal report earlier this month that the Saudis, with Chinese help, had constructed a facility for extracting uranium yellowcake from uranium ore, an advance in the oil-rich kingdom’s drive to master nuclear technology, according to Western officials.

“Saudi Arabia is positioning itself to develop the front-end of the [nuclear] fuel cycle. These technologies, if unchecked, would give Riyadh a latent capacity to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), along with two other Democratic and three Republican senators, wrote in a letter to the president.

The Saudi Energy Ministry earlier this month categorically denied having built a uranium ore facility in the area of northwest Saudi Arabia described by some of the Western officials. It said that extraction of minerals—including uranium—is a key part of the country’s economic diversification strategy.

Manufacturing uranium yellowcake, a milled form of uranium ore, is a relatively early step in the nuclear cycle. It takes multiple additional steps and technology to process and enrich uranium sufficiently for it to power a civil nuclear energy plant. At very high enrichment levels, uranium can fuel a nuclear weapon……. (subscribers only) https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-warn-trump-saudi-chinese-uranium-plant-risks-spread-of-nuclear-weapons-11597860000

August 22, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A Pakistan threat of nuclear war with India

Pakistan minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed threatens India with nuclear war, Scroll, Ahmed said Pakistan would opt for a nuclear conflict because the Indian Army was far superior in conventional weapons. Scroll In 21 Aug 20

Pakistan Railway Minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed on Thursday threatened India with nuclear war. Speaking to Samaa TV, he said if India attacks Pakistan, it will descend into an “atomic war”.

Ahmed said the Pakistan Army was far inferior to India’s in conventional weaponry, and would therefore have to use a nuclear bomb. “This will be a bloody, last and atomic war,” he said. “Our [nuclear] weapon will be very calculated, miniature and perfect, and will target India while protecting the lives of Muslims.”

Ahmed claimed that Pakistan now has nuclear weapons that can reach Assam. “Pakistan does not possess enough conventional weapons, so India knows that [in a war], whatever will happen, will happen.” ……….

The Pakistani minister’s views are a departure from Prime Minister Imran Khan’s opinion about a war between New Delhi and Islamabad. Khan has stated on two separate occasions that a war between the two nuclear-armed countries would not end well. https://scroll.in/latest/971015/pakistan-minister-sheikh-rasheed-ahmed-threatens-india-with-nuclear-war

August 22, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | India, South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bikini Atoll – food grown there is radioactive – but, it’s “technically habitable”!

Technically Habitable The background radiation of the island has been found to be at normal levels, and even lower than that of some major US cities. While you could walk around on the island and suffer no real ill effects, living there is an entirely different story because of the aforementioned soil and subsequent food contamination.

Ironically for the islanders of Bikini Atoll, the word ‘bikini’ likely comes from ‘pikinni’ which, in the Marshallese language means ‘coconut place

The Radioactive Coconuts of Bikini Atoll, Beginning in 1946, a series of Atomic bombs were tested on and around the Marshall islands, of which Bikini Atoll is one, as both a means of testing and refining the incredibly destructive power demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki just a year earlier, as well as making a clear statement of US atomic superiority over the Russians. Medium 21 Aug 20, Danny Kane

For those that don’t know, Bikini Atoll was the US’ test site during the 1940s and 1950s for 23 separate Nuclear bombs.

Beginning in 1946, a series of Atomic bombs were tested on and around the Marshall islands, of which Bikini Atoll is one, as both a means of testing and refining the incredibly destructive power demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki just a year earlier, as well as making a clear statement of US atomic superiority over the Soviet Union.

The Micronesian inhabitants of Bikini Atoll were approached in 1946 by the US government and asked to re-locate while the tests were being carried out. They would be transported to Rongerik Atoll, which is about 6 times smaller than Bikini Atoll — it also has insufficient food and water supplies and was uninhabited at the time………..

The islanders on Rongerik Atoll were starving, the land their being far less fertile than their native Bikini. They were then moved to Kili Island. It was little improvement for the islanders. Relying on fishing for a large part of their diet, they found Kili, which has no lagoons and rough seas most of the year particularly difficult to survive on.

But on March 1st, 1954, the fate of Bikini Atoll was about to take a destructive turn. Ironically, the bomb that was detonated was one of the few not detonated on the Atoll, instead it was detonated on an artificial island 900m from Namu island. This was the infamous Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb. It exploded that day with the force of 15mt , far more than the 6mt that was expected. It was 750 times more powerful that the Fat Man bomb that levelled Nagasaki. It denoted with 2.5 times the expected yield and remains the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated by the US, equivalent to 15 million tonnes of TNT.

Appropriate precautions hadn’t been taken for such a large detonation, and so nuclear fallout rained down on Bikini Atoll, Rongelap Atoll and Rongerik Atoll. 20,000 people were affected by the Castle Bravo detonation and 15 islands and atolls were contaminated. People showed signs of acute radiation sickness, and, on Rongelap, 2 cm of nuclear ash blanketed the entire island. Children, unaware of the fallouts affects, began playing with the falling ash like snow.

Returning Home

Another 19 atomic bombs would be detonated on and around Bikini Atoll, the last one Juniper on July 22nd, 1954, almost 12 years to the day since the Baker detonation. Now, the fight to return to Bikini Atoll really began. Struggling to survive on Kili Island, the islanders were eager to return home.

In spite of all we’d put it through Bikini Atoll had recovered from its years of abuse at the hands of the US. Having been bounced between various islands and atolls since the testing began, Kili had become their permeant home since 1948, but the islands desperately wanted to return home. It wouldn’t be until 1968 until they got the chance. President Lyndon B Johnson promised that the islanders could return, but an investigation by the Atomic Energy Commission found that the radiation levels in the coconut crab, an essential food source for the islanders, were far above normal and acceptable limits. As such, the islanders were forced to remain on Kili island.

Three families did move back in 1972, followed by others in 1987 despite later advice. Issues continued to plague the islanders though, with a boy who’d been born on Bikini Atoll dying from cancer caused by the radiation. In 1982, those that had returned would be evacuated for a second time when it was found that the top 15 inches of soil contained high concentrations of Caesium 137, which would then make its way into the various plants and fruits the islanders ate — and yes, even the coconuts were affected. This resulted in a high number of stillbirths, miscarriages and genetic abnormalities in the children born from those affected by the atomic tests conducted in and around Bikini Atoll. What’s more men were four times as likely to develop lung cancer on the island, women 60 times more likely develop cervical cancer

Over $150 million has been paid to the Bikini islanders as compensation and to reconstruct homes, facilities and institutions for the islanders, many of whom now live on Kili Island. The call to return to Bikini Atoll is still strong though and many point to the fact that the island is still technically habitable.

Technically Habitable

The background radiation of the island has been found to be at normal levels, and even lower than that of some major US cities. While you could walk around on the island and suffer no real ill effects, living there is an entirely different story because of the aforementioned soil and subsequent food contamination.

One proposed solution, and the one favoured by the islanders themselves, is to scrap the topsoil. The top 15 inches of Caesium 137 contaminated soil would be removed and replaced with potassium rich soil. The plants, preferring the potassium over the caesium, would quickly switch to that. While Caesium 137 would still be present in the earth, it would be absent from the food.

There are unfortunately a number of issues with this. Removing the topsoil would have a devasting effect on the ecology of the island and scientists have argued that it would effectively turn Bikini Atoll into a wasteland. This is to say nothing of the expense and the fact that the scraping of the topsoil would likely have to be repeated on occasion to ensure that Caesium 137 didn’t return to the food supply.

Right now, the islanders live on a majority imported food supply and it’s likely that they could continue to do this on Bikini Atoll. It is hardly a return to normal life on the home island though and if the islanders are forced into the same food import practices they’ve had since the 40s, many argue why return to the island at all. Many islanders seem willing to take the risk of destroying the island if it means that they can return their a potentially grow food once more like their ancestors of old.

And so, it remains to this day. The Bikini islanders have never returned home, instead being forced into limbo. Most live on Kili Island today and there are as many as 2,400 Bikini islanders, with fewer than 40 of them having been alive to witness the fires of nuclear fission all those years ago. A great many of them have never even visited their home island, which in recent years has become a tourist attraction. A great many diving tours are offered, especially of the sunken USS Arkansas and the USS Saratoga aircraft carrier, two of the many ships sunk in the testing, as well as the colossal crater left by Castle Bravo…………..

Ironically for the islanders of Bikini Atoll, the word ‘bikini’ likely comes from ‘pikinni’ which, in the Marshallese language means ‘coconut place’………https://medium.com/@dannykane97/the-radioactive-coconuts-of-bikini-atoll-9bfb568b8b07

August 22, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, radiation, Reference, weapons and war | 1 Comment

The Prospects of Nuclear Disarmament in the New Nuclear Architecture,

The Prospects of Nuclear Disarmament in the New Nuclear Architecture, Modern Diplomacy August 21, 2020, By Hamzah Taoqeer

“………………………………Conclusion

The debate for arms control and nuclear disarmament has been unfortunately for long has been played as self-serving and hollow pledges by the major NWS which have failed to deliver upon them. The withdrawal from the INF would lead to further lowering of the nuclear threshold as the US would actively develop and deploy tactical nuclear weapons in regions of interest including Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe. The new nuclear architecture developed by the actions of major powers further weaken and deteriorate the efficacy of institutional norms. The efficacy and credibility of new initiatives such as CEND among other remains questionable as the P5 have failed to deliver measurable progress upon the existing arms control and disarmament initiatives.

The emerging nuclear architecture blur the legitimacy of the arms control initiatives and further encourage NNWS to pursue for alternative measures including nuclear weapons program to secure their interests. Thus, resulting in proliferation of nuclear weapons which threaten world peace and security. The major powers should for once initiate a robust implementation upon their aforementioned commitments in good faith rather than devising frameworks for achieving their limited interests……………. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/08/21/the-prospects-of-nuclear-disarmament-in-the-new-nuclear-architecture/

August 22, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Report: Israel ‘deeply concerned’ by Saudi Arabia, China alleged nuclear cooperation,

Report: Israel ‘deeply concerned’ by Saudi Arabia, China alleged nuclear cooperation, MEMO, Middle East Monitor, August 21, 2020 Israel’s Walla news website revealed that Tel Aviv has informed the United States that it was “gravely” concerned by alleged nuclear cooperation between Saudi Arabia and China.The website said senior Israeli intelligence officials had called their American counterparts to express their “grave concern” about the cooperation between Riyadh and Beijing.

According to the site, “unnamed” Israeli officials said there was a secret factory of primitive materials used in uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia near the capital, Riyadh, explaining that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times were the first to report on it, including satellite images of the factory.

The officials pointed out that the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deals with the file as “very sensitive” politically since Israel considers Saudi Arabia an important ally in the face of Iran.

The officials added that the Israeli intelligence services, the ministries of foreign affairs, intelligence and defence, and the Atomic Energy Commission are following the developments of the Saudi nuclear program……….

According to Israeli officials, Saudi Arabia has cooperated with China, because the Chinese did not ask for guarantees that the programme would be purely civilian, which is what the United States always demands. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200821-report-israel-deeply-concerned-by-saudi-arabia-china-alleged-nuclear-cooperation/

August 22, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. Air Force mulls getting hypersonic nuclear weapons

US Air Force may have accidentally revealed interest in hypersonic nuke, Defense News By: Valerie Insinna 19 Aug 20, WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has issued, and quietly revoked, a solicitation to industry seeking technologies that would support a hypersonic glide vehicle capable of traversing intercontinental ranges, potentially signaling the military’s interest in a hypersonic nuclear weapon.

According to an Aug. 12 request for information first reported by Aviation Week, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center sought ideas for potential upgrades to intercontinental ballistic missiles, including a “thermal protection system that can support [a] hypersonic glide to ICBM ranges.”

The items listed as potential ICBM upgrades were all marked “unclassified/for official use only,” which notes information that — while not secret — is not normally released to the public. The RFI was then withdrawn after Aviation Week began inquiring about it, the report noted.

Asked about the RFI on Wednesday, Lt. Gen. Richard Clark, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said the service’s next-generation ICBMs — known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent — will not be available as a hypersonic variant when it is fielded in the late 2020s…………

As the sole bidder in the GBSD competition, Northrop Grumman is expected to win an estimated $85 billion over the life of the program. A contract award is slated to occur by September, although Northrop CEO Kathy Warden said in April that she expected a decision this month. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2020/08/19/the-air-force-might-be-eyeing-a-hypersonic-nuclear-weapon/

August 20, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Artificial Intelligence brings a new worry into nuclear weaponry

Artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons: Bringer of hope or harbinger of doom? https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/bringer-of-hope-or-harbinger-of-doom-artificial-intelligence-and-nuclear-weapons/ Jennifer Spindel |Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire, 17 Aug, 20

In 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin said whichever country leads in the development of artificial intelligence will be “the ruler of the world.” Artificial intelligence is not unlike electricity: it is a general-purpose enabling technology with multiple applications. Russia hopes to develop an artificial intelligence capable of operations that approximate human brain function. China is working to become the world leader in AI by 2030, and the United States declared in 2019 that it would maintain its world leadership on artificial intelligence. Will the world’s major powers seek to use AI with their nuclear weapons and command and control systems? Pairing nuclear weapons – arguably the previous ruler of the world – with this new technology could give states an even greater edge over potential competitors. But the marriage between nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence carries significant risks, risks that currently outweigh potential benefits. At best, using AI with nuclear weapons systems could increase time efficiencies. At worst, it could undermine the foundations of nuclear deterrence by changing leaders’ incentives to use nuclear weapons.

Opportunities in data analysis and time efficiencies

Artificial intelligence could be a boon for drudgery type tasks such as data analysis. AI could monitor and interpret geospatial or sensor data, and flag changes or anomalies for human review. Applied to the nuclear realm, this use of AI could be used to track reactors, inventories, and nuclear materials movement, among other things. Human experts would thus be free to spend more of their time investigating change, rather than looking at data of the status quo.

Incorporating artificial intelligence into early warning systems could create time efficiencies in nuclear crises. Similar to the boon for data analysis, AI could improve the speed and quality of information processing, giving decision-makers more time to react. Time is the commodity in a nuclear crisis, since nuclear-armed missiles can often reach their target in as little as eight minutes. Widening the window of decision could be key in deescalating a nuclear crisis.

Challenges posed by risks, accidents, and nuclear deterrence

Incorporating artificial intelligence into nuclear systems presents a number of risks. AI systems need data, and lots of it, to learn and to update their world model. Google’s AI brain simulator required 10 million images to teach itself to recognize cats. Data on scenarios involving nuclear weapons are, thankfully, not as bountiful as internet cat videos. However, much of the empirical record on nuclear weapons would teach an AI the wrong lesson. Consider the number of almost-launches and near-accidents that occurred during the Cold War; both U.S. and Soviet early warning systems mistakenly reported nuclear launches. Although simulated data could be used to train an AI, the stakes of getting it wrong in the nuclear realm are much higher than in other domains. It’s also hard to teach an AI to feel the doubts and suspicions that human operators relied on to detect false alarms and to change their minds.

Accidents are also amplified in the nuclear realm. There are already examples of accidents involving automated conventional weapons systems: in March 2003, U.S. Patriot missile batteries shot down a British fighter plane and a U.S. fighter jet while operating in “automated mode,” killing the crews of both planes. Accidents are likely to increase as AI systems become more complex and harder for humans to understand or explain. Accidents like these, which carry high costs, decrease overall trust in automated and AI systems, and will increase fears about what will happen if nuclear weapons systems being to rely on AI.

Beyond accidents and risks, using AI in nuclear weapons systems poses challenges to the foundations of nuclear deterrence. Data collection and analysis conducted by AI systems could enable precision strikes to destroy key command, control, and communication assets for nuclear forces. This would be a significant shift from Cold War nuclear strategy, which avoided this type of counterforce targeting. If states’ can target each other’s nuclear weapons and command infrastructure, then second-strike capabilities will be at risk, ultimately jeopardizing mutually assured destruction. For example, AI could identify a nuclear submarine on patrol in the ocean, or could interfere with nuclear command and control, thus jeopardizing one, or more, legs of the nuclear triad. This creates pressure for leaders to use their nuclear weapons now, rather than risk losing them (or control over them) in the future.

Even if states somehow agree not to use AI for counterforce purposes, the possibility that it could one day be used that way is destabilizing. States need a way to credibly signal how they will – and won’t – use artificial intelligence in their nuclear systems.

The future of AI and nuclear stability

The opportunities and risks posed by the development of artificial intelligence is less about the technology and more about how we decide to make use of it. As the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute noted, “geopolitical tensions, lack of communication and inadequate signalling of intentions” all might matter more than AI technology during a crisis or conflict. Steps to manage and understand the risks and benefits posed by artificial intelligence should include confidence-building measures (CBMs) and stakeholder dialogue.

CBMs are crucial because they reduce mistrust and misunderstanding, and can help actors signal both their resolve and their restraint. As with conventional weapons, transparency about when and how a state plans to use artificial intelligence systems is one type of CBM. Lines of communication, which are particularly useful in crisis environments, are another type that should be explored.

Continued dialogue with stakeholders including governments, corporations, and civil society will be key to developing and spreading norms about the uses of artificial intelligence. Existing workshops and dialogues about the militarization of artificial intelligence, and artificial intelligence and international security show that such dialogues are possible and productive. The international community can consider building on existing cooperative efforts concerning cyberspace, such as the U.N.’s work on norms and behaviour in cyberspace, the Cybersecurity Tech Accords, and Microsoft, Hewlett, and Mastercard’s CyberPeace Institute. This dialogue will help us understand the scope of potential change and should give us incentives to move slowly and to push for greater transparency to reduce misperception and misunderstanding.

August 18, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, technology, weapons and war | 1 Comment

USA’s nuclear weapons – not the best way to protect Taiwan

Do US Nuclear Weapons Help Protect Taiwan?, Union of Concerned Scientists

GREGORY KULACKI, CHINA PROJECT MANAGER AND SENIOR ANALYST | AUGUST 17, 2020, In an earlier post I explained there is a risk the United States and China could go to war over Taiwan. The United States is prepared to use nuclear weapons to win that war. Some believe that helps protect Taiwan. But does it?

Shall we play a game?

At the end of the 1983 movie War Games, a massive US Department of Defense computer plays out every possible nuclear war scenario looking for a way to win. All of them lead to the same dismal end; a global nuclear holocaust. The computer concludes nuclear war is “a strange game” where “the only winning move is not to play.”

Six months after the movie was released, US President Ronald Reagan told a joint session of Congress, “A nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” He repeated it many times afterwards, including in a speech at Fudan University in Shanghai. Unfortunately, US war gamers never let go of the idea that a nuclear war can be won, especially if the adversary is China.

I can understand why. China has a few hundred nuclear weapons. The United States has thousands. The United States also has what are called tactical, non-strategic or low-yield nuclear weapons that China does not have. Some US officials argue if the United States used these low-yield nuclear weapons it would be difficult for China to retaliate without risking escalation to a full scale nuclear war: a war China would lose because its arsenal is so small. They seem to believe China would be unwilling to take that risk even though China has promised to retaliate if attacked with any type of nuclear weapon.

Limited nuclear war

The reason the US war planners think about using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan war is because the United States might lose a conventional fight. They worry China’s conventional forces cannot be stopped without nuclear weapons. This isn’t a new concern. President Eisenhower faced a similar choice during the Taiwan Strait Crisis of the 1950s. …….

Past and prologue

Today, the rapid deterioration of US-China relations, disturbing changes in Chinese policy towards Hong Kong and a provocative visit of a US official to Taiwan suggest a new crisis is brewing. As talk of a new Cold War with China increases, a careful look back at the old one may be helpful. ……..

history suggests more nations may be willing to support a US military effort to defend Taiwan if the United States took the option to start a nuclear war off the table. It may seem counterintuitive, but canceling plans to reintroduce US tactical nuclear weapons into Asia and declaring the United States would never use nuclear weapons first, under any circumstances, may be the best way to strengthen Taiwan’s defense. https://allthingsnuclear.org/gkulacki/do-us-nuclear-weapons-help-protect-taiwan

August 18, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pressure the 9 nuclear States – steps to a nuclear weapons-free world

We must commit to a nuclear-free world, Guardian, Frank Jackson, 16 Aug 20“………….. For 75 years we have lived under the threat of a nuclear holocaust, avoided more by luck than by judgement. The longer nuclear weapons continue to exist, the greater the probability of that self-inflicted catastrophe happening, by accident, miscalculation or design. With the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (not the Union of Concerned Scientists, as I mistakenly said) set at 100 seconds to midnight, closer than even at the height of the Cold War, it is more urgent than ever that mankind must be freed from this scourge.

Surprisingly, of the two major existential threats (now exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic) that led the Atomic Scientists to this calculation, the nuclear one is the easier, in principle, to remove. It requires the political will of the leaders of just nine states. Of course, the lack of that political will is precisely the problem. They must be pressured to implement the following, as urgent first steps towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:

1. Individually and jointly reaffirm the Reagan-Gorbachev declaration of 1987-88, that ‘A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’.

2. Adopt a “no first use” policy, as China has done.

3. Take all nuclear weapons off instant alert. This could be done almost overnight.

4. Physically separate warheads from their delivery systems, removing any possibility of accidental detonation.

5. Implement their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to “pursue negotiations… to nuclear disarmament”.

6. Develop a phased programme to dismantle nuclear infrastructure and safely dispose of all fissile material.

The UK could and should take a lead in all these and more. https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/18651212.letter-must-commit-nuclear-free-world/

August 17, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Japan sabotaging nuclear disarmament – ICAN chief

ICAN chief: Japan sabotaging nuclear disarmament, NHK World, Aug. 15, 2020. Nishikawa Mitsuko NHK World Correspondent …….. Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN, spoke to NHK about the possible game changers in the drive to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction.

Fihn’s organization won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 for its efforts to bring people to the negotiating table to pledge to work toward nuclear disarmament. The adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the United Nations was a step forward, in which ICAN played a major role.

Fihn says the next few months are crucial, as her team has given itself until the end of the year to get enough signatures to put the treaty into effect. Just this month, Ireland, Nigeria, Niue, and Saint Kitts and Nevis have signed up, bringing the total number on board to 44.

“We always aimed that we would be getting 50 in 2020.” She says. “And obviously COVID-19 has slowed down some processes, but we still think that there’s a really good chance that we can get the 50 ratifications needed this year. So we’re working very very hard on this.”

What about Japan?

But Japan remains one of the countries that’s yet to sign the treaty. Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has said every year at the memorial ceremonies that it’s Japan’s mission to, “realize a world without nuclear weapons.”

But Fihn wonders why the commitment hasn’t been backed up by action. “There is no leadership right now on nuclear disarmament from Japan’s side — rather the opposite,” she says. “Japan is going backwards as well and undermining its own resolutions that it’s supported for a long time ago, weakening language and documents.”

“That’s very serious. And I think that’s an insult to the survivors — to the hibakusha,” Fihn says. “We really know the Japanese people want the government to sign the treaty.”

“It’s very often that we look at nuclear armed states as the problem, but we have to recognize that the nuclear-allied states, like Japan for example, are protecting them. They are standing in a circle around them and protecting nuclear weapons. Until those countries stop doing that, it’s going to be very hard to convince the nuclear armed states.”

“How am I going to convince North Korea, the United States and Russia to disarm, if Japan cannot say that nuclear weapons should be illegal?”

Nuclear war ‘like the coronavirus’

Fihn says the coronavirus pandemic is proof that a global emergency could happen anytime. “Health experts have warned about this, and they have been preparing, thinking about it,” she says. “Yet people have been surprised that it happened. It’s the same thing with nuclear weapons. We don’t know when, we don’t know how exactly, but experts say it’s going to happen.”

She warns that nuclear weapons will be far more lethal than the coronavirus. “What we have to do with nuclear weapons — there’s no mitigating it once it happens.” she says. “When we feel the consequences, when the bombs are starting to fall on cities again, then it’s going to be too late to prevent it.”

Nuclear weapons don’t protect us

Fihn says the ongoing pandemic further highlights why governments should be investing in people, not weapons. “This pandemic has shown us where the threats to our security are and how we can’t absorb these things with nuclear weapons,” she says. “Nuclear armed states spend 73 billion dollars on nuclear weapons. Just imagine how many ventilators, doctors, nurses ICU, beds we can have… how many vaccinations we could develop.” …….. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/1251/

August 17, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Japan, 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

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

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

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

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
    - 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

nuclear-news

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