Vatican will continue condemning nuclear weapons
Arch. Gallagher: Holy See will continue opposing nuclear weapons, Vatican News
The Holy See said on Wednesday it will continue to argue against both the possession and the use of nuclear weapons, saying the total elimination of nuclear weapons is not only a security issue, but a moral, humanitarian and environmental imperative.
The Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher made the statement at a high-level meeting at the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly to mark the September 26 International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.
Threat of annihilation
“The world is not safer with nuclear weapons; it is more dangerous,” Archbishop Gallagher said. “A policy that relies on the possession of nuclear weapons,” he said, “is contradictory to the spirit and purpose of the United Nations because nuclear weapons cannot create for us a stable and secure world, and because peace and international stability cannot be founded on mutually assured destruction or on the threat of total annihilation.”
Environmental, humanitarian consequences
Speaking about the environmental disasters and humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, the Holy See official whose portfolio is equivalent to that of foreign minister, encouraged all countries to make the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) a reality by ensuring its entry into force….https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2018-09/holy-see-un-gallagher-nuclear-weapons.html
Scientists study North Korea’s nuclear tests, and the earthquakes
Earthquake Studies Reveal the True Cost of North Korea’s Nuclear Tests Inverse, By Emma Betuel September 26, 2018
On September 3, 2017, North Korea tested a nuclear bomb 17 times larger than the one that leveled Hiroshima, sending ripples of alarm across the world. More than just raise the eyebrows of policy makers, the blast also piqued the interest of experts at Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, who show in a pair of recent papers that last September’s nuclear test may be responsible for many of the aftershocks that occurred in the past year.
While some existing research argues it’s unlikely that a nuclear test could cause a massive earthquake, the two papers identify 13 high-frequency tremors that traveled through North Korea in the months following the September test. More importantly, they confirm which of them were triggered by the explosion, which were unrelated earthquakes, and which — as some have feared — were caused by additional nuclear tests.
“North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests, but the latest one was huge. That’s what we’ve analyzed the signals from,” Woon Young Kim, Ph.D., the lead author of the Seismological Research Letters paper and a professor of seismology geology and tectonophysics, tells Inverse. “The question was: Were they explosions or were they earthquakes?”
The earliest rumblings occurred just eight minutes after the initial nuclear test but were not included in the paper’s aftershock count. But two occurred later that month and another on October 12. In December there were five more. The tremors continued into 2018, with four in February and the final one on April 22.
The issue, explains Kim, is that scientists were aware of these tremors as they occurred but nobody knew why they were happening. At the time, some expertsidentified these tremors as evidence that North Korea was testing more nukes on a smaller scale, but Kim’s new paper, published in conjunction with another studyauthored by his colleague David Schaff, Ph.D., suggests not only that some of those tremors were actually just earthquakes but also that they were tightly grouped along a fault line, where similar events will likely occur in the future.
Bomb or Earthquake?
To find out whether these shakes were organic or the result of nuclear testing, Kim analyzed two major wave types measured after the tests. Whenever the earth shakes (whether it’s due to an explosion or not), the first rumble to roll by is called an “P-wave” or primary wave. It’s typically the first wave to get picked up by monitoring stations and travels around six kilometers per second.
…….. After more analysis, the researchers concluded that “event 8” was actually an earthquake, together with two other suspected explosions.
“There have been about three events at the North Korea test site that we feel were misclassified,” Schaff tells Inverse. “No method is 100 percent certain, but combining the two methods, I was able to say with a very high probably of certainty that these were earthquakes.”
The Real Consequences of September 3, 2017
The good news is that these results suggest that North Korea isn’t testing bombs as frequently as some might fear They do, however, suggest that there could be something going on underneath the surface as a result of the September 3 explosion.
Using the data provided by Kim, Schaff showed that the tremors following the explosion were clustered along a unified path. As it turns out, what had originally looked like a random spattering of explosions and earthquakes over an area spanning five kilometers was actually a cluster of tremors that occurred within about 700 meters of one another near North Korea’s Chinese border.
The activity around this fault line can actually be traced back to that initial explosion in September of last year, explains Kim. “It’s not 100 percent sure, but I think somehow that the nuclear test was so large that it triggered these small seismic events to the north of the area,” he says.
As some have feared, it appears that North Korea’s testing hasaltered the landscape, at least near the surface of the Earth. In April, Kim Jong-Un announced that North Korea would stop testing nukes in its mountainous hideaway beneath Mt. Mantap, a move that Chinese scientists have suggested is due to the fact that a number of underground tunnels have collapsed beneath the mountain. Other studies have also suggested that continued testing has blown bits of Mt. Mantap to smithereens, making it a non-useful test site.
Should North Korea start testing again, says Schaff, he will be eager to continue the project. “It’s nice to be working on something that affects the state of the world we’re living in,” he says. “This is more than just knowledge for knowledge’s sake. https://www.inverse.com/article/49304-north-korea-nuclear-test-caused-earthquakes
Russia and USA will talk about extending New START nuclear weapons treaty
US and Russia to discuss nuclear weapons treaty extension in October https://www.ft.com/content/b26d62fe-c0a1-11e8-95b1-d36dfef1b89a, Henry Foy in Moscow
Russia and the US will hold talks on a potential extension to the New START nuclear weapons treaty in Geneva in October, a Russian official said on Tuesday. The future of bilateral treaties that govern the use of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles is one of the most critical issues in US-Russia relations. Experts have warned that the recent breakdown in relations between Washington and Moscow could jeopardise longstanding agreements on so-called ‘strategic stability’ that were designed to prevent nuclear armageddon.
New START, a 2010 agreement that limits the number of nuclear warheads held by both countries, expires in February 2021. Separately, both capitals have accused the other of breaching the 1987 INF Treaty, which limits the use of long-range missiles. “It is absolutely realistic to reach an agreement on an extension [to New START], if there is political will on the part of the American side. There are readiness from the Russian side,” said Vladimir Yermakov, director of the department of non-proliferation and arms control at the Russian foreign ministry. “We have given suggestions on how to do this, and in a couple of weeks we will meet in Geneva within the framework of a bilateral advisory commission,” he added, in comments reported by local newswires.
The US and Russia possess 13,300 nuclear warheads between them, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 92 per cent of the world’s stockpile. New START’s terms allow for a five-year extension, and experts have suggested that writing a whole new agreement would not be possible before its expiry. Regarding the INF Treaty, Mr Yermakov said Russia was “ready to discuss any issues relating to the treaty with our American partners, in any format.” Mr Yermakov added that there was “not a very big possibility” of Russian signing any brand new arms control agreements in the next few years.
Despite huge delays and cost overruns Britain’s nuclear weapons consortium paid itself £70m of dividends
Sunday Times 23rd Sept 2018 , Aldermaston, The consortium that runs Britain’s nuclear weapons factory paid itself
£70m of dividends last year despite huge delays and cost overruns on a key
project. AWE Management paid the dividends to its shareholders — the
giants Serco, Jacobs and Lockheed Martin — which have a long-term
contract to run the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).
AWE, which develops and builds the nuclear warheads that arm the navy’s Trident submarine
fleet, came under fire from the government’s spending watchdog in May.
The National Audit Office said an upgrade to AWE’s warhead assembly
facility in Berkshire was six years late and costs had spiralled from
£734m in 2011 to £1.8bn.
AWE has also been at loggerheads with the
nuclear safety watchdog, which, in July, prosecuted the company over an
incident last year in which an electrician was injured. At a court hearing
last week, AWE admitted failing to ensure the safety of its staff. It is
due to be sentenced in November.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/navy-nuke-maker-awe-pays-70m-dividend-lvthpcwkj
Suggestions that Europe may develop its own nuclear weapons
Express 23rd Sept 2018 THE European Union may try to adopt its own independent nuclear deterrent
following the apparent breakdown of its relationship with Donald Trump,
experts warned last night. It follows comments by French president Emmanuel
Macron that the EU must be in a position to guarantee its own territorial
security, amid fears that the US has become “Europe-weary” over its
Nato commitment.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1021456/eu-nuclear-power-security-brexit-politics-uk-us-france
Talks to ban nuclear materials need a fresh start
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Paul Meyer, September 25, 2018, If grades in disarmament diplomacy were given out for perseverance, then Canada would surely merit an “A” for its efforts on behalf of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, or FMCT. Forging this treaty, which would ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, has been a supposed goal of the international community for over half a century. In that time, though, negotiations to bring the treaty about never even started, suggesting that the FMCT is one of those worthy goals that are periodically affirmed without any serious effort to realize them. And though Canada has traditionally led efforts to move forward on the treaty, the Canadian-led group most recently charged with supporting future negotiations has submitted a report that deserves a failing grade.
This is unfortunate, because the FMCT, if it ever happens, could have a major impact on reducing nuclear proliferation. The problem is that the 25-member preparatory group asked to facilitate the task of future negotiators has recommended that “the negotiation of a treaty … begin without delay in the Conference on Disarmament.” This is not a realistic solution, as anyone familiar with the Conference on Disarmament knows it does not act “without delay” on anything. It simply does not get things done. To initiate work on the FMCT will require its liberation from this diplomatic dungeon……..
To initiate work on the FMCT will require it to be freed from the constraints of the Conference on Disarmament and granted a fresh start under the authority of a diplomatic body not subject to the veto of any one state. This might be best achieved via a UN General Assembly resolution. Alternatively, a group of concerned states—such as the five official nuclear weapon states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or some other group that possesses fissile material—could undertake ad hoc negotiations.
Until the political will can be generated for such concrete action, the disarmament community should avoid exercises in treading water like the recent FMCT preparatory group. However well-intended, they only provide an illusion of progress, and further erode the credibility of the global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. https://thebulletin.org/2018/09/talks-to-ban-nuclear-materials-need-a-fresh-start/
Exploding Michael Shellenberger’s extraordinary sales pitch for nuclear weapons
Nuclear power’s weapons link: Cause to limit, not boost exports https://thebulletin.org/2018/09/nuclear-powers-weapons-link-cause-to-limit-not-boost-exports/By Victor Gilinsky, Henry Sokolski, September 20, 2018 The criticism that supporters of US nuclear exports have found most difficult to counter has been that their wares give an importing country a big leg up on getting a bomb. For decades the exporters’ response has been to pretend this was not so. Now comes Michael Shellenberger, a prominent nuclear power advocate, who casts all this aside. Yes, he writes, there is a strong link between nuclear electricity and weapons, and in fact most countries that built nuclear power plants did so with weapons at least partly in mind. But this is not so much a confession as a sales pitch. He thinks the weapons potential of nuclear power plants actually prevents war—the weapons shadow cast by nuclear plants itself deters enemies—and that this attribute should be exploited as a sales advantage by US nuclear exporters.
Shellenberger’s assessment of the nuclear power-weapons link is important rhetorically because it comes from the nuclear side of the house. He has been celebrated by the nuclear industry and the conservative
press as one of the new breed, “pro-technology,” environmental activists who joined the nuclear ranks and are not afraid to do battle with their colleagues over nuclear power. So, his admission about the closeness of civilian and military nuclear technology—realistically what lawyers call a declaration against interest—carries a certain weight and may convince people who have up to now resisted the notion.
But Shellenberger goes on. He was always a bit unrestrained in his advocacy of nuclear power, and in speaking of nuclear weapons he surpasses himself. In an earlier piece, he presents an anecdotal case on why nuclear weapons were a cure-all for world conflict.
He said if only “weak” France had nuclear weapons in 1940 then “strong” Germany would not have attacked. But what if Germany was the one with the bomb?
He also points to India and Pakistan: They had three large wars before they armed themselves with nuclear weapons but none afterwards, only “border skirmishes” with relatively low casualties. And if such conflicts got out of hand and led to nuclear weapon use, well, not to worry—Shellenberger cites an academic “expert” who claims that the nuclear conflict would surely be contained at the “tactical” level. In truth, of course, no one has any idea.
That the presence of nuclear weapons has reduced the frequency of war is an arguable proposition. But one only has to consider the experience of the Cuban Missile Crisis to realize it comes at the price of gambling on nuclear war. Most people have forgotten about them, but our nuclear forces are still on alert, and their use is not ruled out. The “experts” speak of deployment for deterrence only, but deterrence is predicated on use in certain circumstances.
All these inescapable uncertainties apparently got swept away in Shellenberger’s mind by the “Eureka” moment he describes in the latest article: Based on a paper by a couple of political science professors, he asserts that a nuclear power program itself provides a significant level of “deterrence-related” benefits—“a bomb isn’t even required.” He says that when he thought of this, he almost fell off his chair. Why, he wondered, was this fact “not being promoted as one of nuclear power’s many benefits?”
One reason is that it’s a ridiculous proposal based on half-baked ideas.
But there is a serious side to this too. Unfortunately, his views, foolish as they are, are not so different from primitive views privately held in high official and semi-official nuclear circles. It is useful to bring them out of hiding, and we have to thank Shellenberger for that.
Take the Bush Administration’s 2005 nuclear deal with India. It tore a gaping hole in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and yet was described as promoting nonproliferation. Is there anyone so foolish as to believe that hypocrisy? Or to doubt that India’s interest in the arrangement was mainly fortifying its nuclear weapons? And wasn’t the notion of supporting India as a strategic foil to China at the core of US interest?
Consider also the current administration’s efforts to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia to facilitate nuclear exports to that country. One doesn’t even have to speculate about the Saudis’ interest in bombs—the Crown Prince famously made that clear. And from the US side, it is also clear that a reason to put nuclear technology in the hands of the Saudis is to frighten Iran.
The immediate nuclear issue now is what controls, if any, our government should impose on the proposed US-Saudi nuclear cooperative agreement. The sensible course from the security point of view, which Secretary of State Pompeo has publicly backed, is to make sure Saudi Arabia will not have the capacity to produce nuclear explosives—a controlling condition called the gold standard. But the Saudis are pushing back on that—for obvious reasons—and their supporters in the administration would like to relax the export controls that would apply, in part to get the business but also to have another stick to shake at Iran.
We should have none of this. It has been settled US policy for decades that we don’t want more countries with nuclear weapons or countries threatening to make them. Where we haven’t been consistent in applying that policy regarding nuclear power exports, we need to make corrections, not by exporting more, but less.
Iran Says Israel Must Be Forced to Join Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
Reacting to Nuclear Violation Claim, Iran Says Israel Must Be Forced to Join NPT, Sputnuk News, 21 Sept 18 Iran’s permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a biting response to his Israeli counterpart’s claim that Iran and Syria posed “significant proliferation threats” to the Middle East and the world.
Iranian IAEA Ambassador Kazem Gharibabadi urged the international community to pressure Israel to sign onto Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), saying that doing so would be the only way to bring peace to the Middle East.
Speaking at the 62nd Annual Session of the ongoing IAEA General Conference in Vienna, Gharibabadi charged Israel with threatening its neighbors, pointed to its possession of nuclear weapons, and chastised the IAEA for giving in to Israeli pressure and not following up on what he said were the country’s “dangerous” nuclear activities.
According to the ambassador, little progress has been made on nuclear disarmament, one of the NPT’s major stated objectives, in the fifty years since the treaty was signed. Gharibabadi also pointed to the Middle East Nuclear Weapon Freeze Zone idea, a UN project dating back to 1970s aimed at prohibiting nuclear weapons in the region, and how this proposal too has suffered from a “lack of political will.”
Gharibabadi’s remarks came on the heels of comments at the conference by Israel Atomic Energy Commission chairman Ze’ev Snir, who also called on the international community to take action against alleged Iranian and Syrian nuclear activities……..
srael, which has a policy of neither admitting or denying the existence of a nuclear weapons program, is presently believed to be the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, with estimates that it has anywhere between 80 and 400 warheads deliverable by a variety of air, sub and missile platforms.
Iran, an NPT signatory under observance by the IAEA over compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, is barred from the creation of nuclear weapons. The fate of the 2015 deal, which was signed by the Iran, the United States, Russia, China, and several European countries, was put into question after Washington withdrew from the deal in May 2018 and vowed to impose unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic…….. https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201809211068234829-iran-responds-to-israeli-nuclear-claims/
UK’s fleet of nuclear submarines: infrastructure supporting it is no longer “fit for purpose”
‘Ticking time bomb!’ UK warning as nuclear bases ‘NOT FIT for purpose’https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1020963/uk-nuclear-submarines-ministry-of-defence-MoD
THE INFRASTRUCTURE for supporting the Royal Navy’s fleet of nuclear submarines is no longer “fit for purpose”, MPs have warned. Sep 21, 2018 The Commons Public Accounts Committee said past decisions to delay maintenance at the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) 13 nuclear sites around the UK had created a “ticking time bomb”.
The warning came after the National Audit Office disclosed earlier this year that the MoD’s “Nuclear Enterprise” programme was facing a £2.9 billion “affordability gap”.
The committee chair Meg Hillier said that with the MoD already facing “challenges” over the delivery of its new aircraft carriers and a potential £20 billion shortfall in its equipment programme, there were “serious questions” over its ability to meet its national security commitments.
Over the next 10 years, the MoD is expected to spend £51 billion on the Nuclear Enterprise – maintaining and replacing the submarine fleet, including the Vanguard submarines which carry the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent…..
he MoD had deferred work on dismantling old submarines which had been taken out of service on “affordability grounds” and there was now a backlog of 20 vessels waiting to be disposed of, including nine which still contained nuclear fuel.
To date, the UK has never completely disposed of an old nuclear submarine and while work has begun on the first, it is not due to be finished until the mid-2020s.
The committee said work on de-fuelling the next submarine was due to begin around the same time, and that the disposals programme was expected to last “at least a couple of decades”.
Ms Hillier said: “I am particularly concerned that the infrastructure available to support the Nuclear Enterprise is not fit for purpose.
“The MoD admits that while it has previously put off dismantling submarines on grounds of cost, this is no longer acceptable on grounds of safety and reputation. The MoD needs to get on top of this quickly.”
Scottish peace campaigners pressing big financial institutions to divest from nuclear weapons
The National 20th Sept 2018 ,PEACE campaigners are urging Scots to force the hand of the country’s biggest institutions in a war against nuclear weapons as a bombshell report
is launched. With data drawn from annual results, official statements and
freedom of information reports, the paper reveals the extent to which major
Scottish bodies help fund the making of nuclear weapons.
Billed as a way to help “eliminate” the big-money devices, the document has been produced by
the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in conjunction with
similar organisations. It calls on bank customers, students and pension
holders to press major institutions into divesting their funds from
companies involved in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
These include Royal Bank of Scotland and the Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme
(SLGPS), the largest fund of its kind in the country. It also claims that
success could help sink Trident, arguing: “If we can persuade Scottish
financial institutions to divest from nuclear weapons producers, this will
incentivise those companies to end their involvement with Trident and other
nuclear weapons programmes.”
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16889880.scots-urged-to-put-pressure-on-institutions-funding-nuclear-arms/
UK Government delayed scrapping potentially unsafe nuclear submarines in bid to cut costs
Independent 21st Sept 2018 Government delayed scrapping potentially unsafe nuclear submarines in bid
to cut costs, MPs told. Influential Commons committee tells Ministry of
Defence to put a stop to postponements after expert admits possible ‘safety
issue’. The government has delayed scrapping potentially unsafe nuclear
submarines because of concerns over costs, a new report from an influential
committee of MPs has revealed. 20 disused submarines are currently awaiting
disposal, according to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), including nine that
still contain nuclear fuel. But despite admitting to potential safety
risks, the government will only begin dismantling the next vessel in the
mid-2020s, while the total work needed to scrap the entire 20 submarines
will not be completed until at least 2045.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-uk-nuclear-submarines-government-cuts-pac-ministry-defence-a8547856.html
Trump to address U.N. on nuclear non proliferation (pardon my mirth)
 Trump to address drugs, nuclear weapons in UN speeches https://www.tampabay.com/ap/national/trump-to-address-drugs-nuclear-weapons-in-un-speeches-ap_nationalccbe0414d24947d09f87eab73e8c236c,, 20Sept 18
· WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump will discuss the global drug trade and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction during two speeches next week at the United Nations General Assembly. · The White House says Thursday that Trump will address the “Global Call to Action on the World Drug Problem” event Monday. He will address the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday and chair Wednesday’s U.N. Security Council meeting on counter-proliferation. · Trump is to hold ‘pull-aside meetings with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Maria Fernanda Espinosa, the General Assembly president. Trump will have longer bilateral meetings with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, French President Emmanuel Macron, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May. |
|
USA Democrats’ Bill to ban new low-yield nuclear weapons
 |
ReplyForward
|
U.N. looks forward to more countries signing and ratifying nuclear ban treaty
UN expects early enforcement of nuclear ban treaty https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180920_12/ The United Nations says another 10 countries will likely move toward ratifying the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in a signing ceremony next week.
The treaty adopted in July last year says nuclear weapons violate international humanitarian law. It prohibits countries from not only using, but also developing and possessing nuclear weapons.
50 countries need to ratify the treaty before it takes effect.
Santiago Villalpando, the Chief of the Treaty Section of the UN Office of Legal Affairs, indicated on Wednesday that as many as 10 countries are expected to sign the treaty or submit ratification documents after having completed domestic procedures.
To date, 15 countries and territories have ratified the treaty.
Villalpando says the number shows many countries promptly responded within one year of its adoption.
He expressed his high hope that the treaty will take effect at an early date.
Among those who will attend the signing ceremony are General Assembly President Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces, and UN Under Secretary General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu.
Beatrice Fihn, the head of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, will also be present.
The non-governmental organization known as ICAN has contributed greatly to the UN approval of the treaty. For its effort, the organization was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
Hypocrisy of UK government on nuclear disarmament
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has held its annual (62nd)
General Conference in Vienna. On 17 September, the junior Foreign Office
minister Sir Alan Duncan, told the conference “We live in an increasingly
uncertain and dangerous world. We have seen the destabilising consequences
when States pursue nuclear weapons. And we have worked together to prevent
terrorists acquiring nuclear material”.
doing in wasting £205,000 m (£205 billion) of tax payers’ money of
replacing the Trident nuclear WMD system, which makes the faux concern over
nuclear weapons pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.
“already contributed £4.1 million this year to the Nuclear Security
Fund,” and urged all to “support the Agency’s work to help Member
States implement robust nuclear security regimes.”
Governments, who want genuine global nuclear disarmament, not shameful
finger-wagging from countries bristling with deadly nuclear weapons like
the UK.
http://drdavidlowry.blogspot.com/2018/09/atomic-hypocrisy-peaks-in-vienna.html
1 This Month
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
-
Archives
- June 2026 (129)
- 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
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- 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
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 