EnergySolutions wants exemption from Utah law restricting import of depleted uranium
|
Now’s the time for Utahns to comment on EnergySolutions’ dangerous exemption request, https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2018/09/20/letter-nows-time-utahns/ By Benjamin Silberman | The Public Forum
·EnergySolutions is requesting exemption from a law that prohibits the amount of depleted uranium (DU) that can come into Utah. When laws governing the disposal of nuclear waste were developed in the 1980s, byproducts like DU weren’t yet considered. So how can EnergySolutions ensure the safety of future generations from hazards like DU?
Currently, there are limits on DU concentrations and masses allowed in Utah, and any shipments above the limit require safety evaluations. EnergySolutions hopes to exceed these limits by bringing in DU munitions. While EnergySolutions insists that DU is less of a hazard in this form, advocacy groups like HEAL Utah and Utah Sierra Club have raised legitimate concerns. There is a public comment period Sept. 6-Oct. 6 regarding EnergySolutions’ exemption request. |
|
|
$13 billion space military force for USA?
Air Force: Space Force would cost $13 billion over 5 years, SF Chronicle, Sep. 17, 2018 WASHINGTON (AP) — Creating a Space Force as a separate military service, as proposed by President Donald Trump, would cost an estimated $12.9 billion in its first five years, according to a detailed Air Force plan for how to go about it.
This is the first publicly available cost estimate. When the White House announced plans to establish a Space Force in August, Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan declined to give a figure but said it would be in “the billions.”
The Air Force’s estimate is contained in a Sept. 14 memo from Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, who proposed that the Pentagon ask Congress for the authority and money to establish a Space Force headquarters in 2020……..
In an indication of the complexities of creating a new military service, the Air Force says the proposed U.S. Space Force would be a separate department organized under a civilian secretary appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, along with an undersecretary, four assistant secretaries, a chief lawyer, an inspector general and a legislative liaison. A four-star general would serve as chief of staff.
The proposal said the missions of Space Force would include missile defense. More broadly, it would be “responsible for the preparation of forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war.”
In June, Trump directed the Pentagon to create a “separate but equal” space force. In August, Vice President Mike Pence announced that the administration will work with Congress to come up with a workable approach. The last time the U.S. created a new military service was in 1947 when the Air Force was established as an independent service. https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Air-Force-Space-Force-Would-Cost-13-Billion-13236410.php?utm_campaign=twitter-premium&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&
Civil and military nuclear industries locked in dependence on each other
questions arise over many well-documented military entanglements of nuclear power
the “reliable provision of Russia’s defense capability is the main priority of the nuclear industry” – Rosatom
a host of other defense policy discussions are very clear that the UK nuclear ‘submarine industrial base’ would not be sustainable, if a decision were taken to discontinue civil nuclear power…statements from UK submarine industry sources note incentives to “mask” the costs of this military programme behind the related civilian industrial infrastructure…. a programme of submarine-derived small modular reactors should be adopted in UK energy policy in order to “relieve the Ministry of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability” on the military side. – Rolls Royce
focused on facilitating ‘mobility’ between the civil and defense nuclear workforce – UK
In the USA, powerful imperatives have recently been openly declared in high level policy debate, to maintain support for otherwise-uncompetitive nuclear power in order to sustain a continuing nuclear navy.
How much of the costs of these shared underpinnings for military nuclear ambitions, are being concealed by otherwise uneconomic joint civil-military nuclear infrastructures?
A Global Picture of Industrial Interdependencies Between Civil and Military Nuclear Infrastructures https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2018-13-swps-stirling-and-johnstone.pdf&site=25 (this paper is richly supplied with comprehensive footnotes and references. Andy Stirling, Phil Johnstone, SPRU, August 2018 (This is an extended, updated and more fully referenced version of a chapter appearing in M. Schneider, A. Froggatt, J. Hazemann, T. Katsuta, M.V. Ramana, A. Stirling, P. Johnstone, C. von Hirschhausen, B. Wealer, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2018, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris, 2018)
Abstract
Noting the increasingly unfavourable economic and operational position of nuclear power around the world, this paper reviews evidence for a hitherto neglected connection between international commitments to civil and military nuclear infrastructures. Continue reading
More $millions for nuclear weapons in US spending bill
Nuclear weapons budget gets boost in US spending bill, Defense News, WASHINGTON 11 Sept 18
— Congress could, in the coming days, finalize a nuclear weapons budget that adds $458 million in 2019 over last year, after a conference committee released a compromise funding plan on Monday.
U.S. Navy Conducts Military Exercises in Gulf Amid Iran Tension
Bloomberg By Zainab Fattah, September 9, 2018,
Exercises to ensure free movement in Gulf, Red Sea chokepoints
- Iran said it’ll halt exports from Hormuz if it’s oil barred
The U.S. Navy is conducting exercises this month to ensure its readiness to guarantee freedom of movement through Persian Gulf and Red Sea waterways amid escalating threats from Iran to disrupt shipping across important choke points.
The exercises, with regional and global allies, are part of the U.S. 5th Fleet Theater Counter Mine and Maritime Security Exercise, Commander Scott A. Stearney told reporters from NAVCENT headquarters in Manama. One exercise is taking place in Djibouti, which sits on one side of the Bab Al Mandab strait, a crucial pinch point for global shipping at the south end of the Red Sea……. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-09/u-s-navy-conducts-military-exercises-in-gulf-amid-iran-tension
Congress must curb Trump’s power to start a nuclear war. He is not a well man
President Trump is not well. Congress must curb his power to start a nuclear war. The fate of the earth depends on it The Inquirer, Will BunchWithin seconds after someone at the New York Times hit the “send” button about 4 p.m. on Wednesday, an op-ed by a supposed senior official in the Trump administration — the identity known to less than a handful of Times editors — instantly became the lodestar, to borrow a suddenly popular word, of those hoping to end Donald Trump’s presidency before Jan. 20, 2021.
The most depressing thing about the anonymous op-ed from this high-level Trump insider was not its assertions that the “amorality” of America’s 45th president is a threat to the nation’s welfare, or that the commander-in-chief is fundamentally antidemocratic, or that The Donald’s leadership style is “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.” Nor is it the less-than-“cold comfort” (to steal another hot phrase) that there’s some sort of “resistance” within the White House, claiming it’s somehow saving America from the absolute worst of Trump.
No, the most depressing thing is that a majority of Americans already knew most, if not all, of these things about the short-fingered vulgarian currently ensconced in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from the day he descended from Trump Tower in June 2015 to launch his hate-laden, xenophobic campaign. And the people elected him anyway. And that now that he’s here, President Trump seems impossible to remove. ……
Even if the overall tone of the Woodward book and the Times’ op-ed is to confirm what we already instinctively knew about Trump’s unfitness for office and the massive dysfunction that stems from that, the post-Labor Day bombshells still raised enough questions for four or five different potential columns. There’s the fun but wildly overrated parlor game of speculating who wrote the anonymous diatribe (cough, cough, director of intelligence Dan Coats? … maybe, although he denies it) to questioning whether the Times should have granted anonymity (yes … although other journalists disagree) to whether going semi-public with the view from inside the White House “resistance” was an act of courage … or cowardice (more on that in a minute).
For example:
— Just one month into his presidency, according to Woodward’s Fear, Trump ordered the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, to begin drawing up plans for a preemptive military strike against nuclear-armed North Korea — a request that “rattled” the Marine Corps veteran. The fact that, for the time being, Trump has chosen to get along with — if not venerate — North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un is indeed cold comfort, especially as we gain more insight into the dangerous, flip-flopping mind of the American president. Military experts say a war of the type that Trump coveted would kill 20,000 South Koreans a day — and that’s before it went nuclear.
— An emotional reaction to a disturbing event — an April 2017 lethal chemical attack traced to the Syrian government — provoked a Trump command that was both troubling and potentially illegal. The president called in the secretary of defense, James Mattis, and issued an order to assassinate the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad. “Let’s f–ing kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the f–ing lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward. The book says the Trump cabinet member assured the commander-in-chief that he’d take care of it, even as he told a top aide he’d do no such thing. Instead, America bombed a Syrian airfield,killing an unknown number of soldiers and civilians. There seems to be little discussion of how any of this might affect the tinderbox that is the Middle East.
— With surprisingly little fanfare, the Trump administration continues to actively weigh a military invasion of Venezuela, where the socialist government of Nicolás Maduro has been imploding, with a sometimes violent crisis bringing economic despair and a growing number of refugees. As with other proposed military interventions, the main proponent of this highly dubious course of action is the president himself — with top advisers continually trying to convince the commander-in-chief that a U.S. invasion would not only destabilize South America but turn much of the region against us. At one point last year, Trump reportedly raised his enthusiasm for an invariably bloody incursion with four top leaders from the region, adding, “My staff told me not to say this.”
Beyond that, the Founding Fathers vested the power to declare war with Congress — a sound idea that’s been completely lost in our post-World War II national security state, even after efforts to rein in the president’s war powers after the debacle in Vietnam. Some of that stems from the arrival of the nuclear age — the realization that snap decisions about a war that would kill millions of people might have just a 5- or 10-minute window. But in the last 20 months, the fear that America’s “nuclear football” travels with a president that even his close advisers now say is both mentally and morally unfit — and that there’s currently nothing to prevent Donald Trump from initiating a nuclear war — has grown palpable.
“Under existing laws, the president of the United States can start a nuclear war – without provocation, without consultation and without warning,” Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey told a hearing last year. “It boggles the mind.” It’s even more mind-boggling the more we know about the ugly state of mind of the current president. Markey and Capitol Hill lawmakers introduced landmark legislation that would prevent any U.S. president — not just Trump but those who come after him — from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress. Not surprising, their bill has so far gone nowhere in a do-nothing Congress dominated by Trump allies. And while there are legitimate questions about how such a law would work in practice (hopefully the world never finds out), the measure would provide a sound legal basis for military leaders to refuse an unlawful and irrational order.
Call to USA’s military to save the nuclear power industry
Senators from both parties look to the military to save nuclear power https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/senators-from-both-parties-look-to-the-military-to-save-nuclear-powerm by John Siciliano, September 06, 2018 A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate on Thursday would leverage the buying power of the U.S. military to help along the struggling nuclear energy industry, if the Pentagon is OK with paying above market rates.
“Our bipartisan bill will help rejuvenate the U.S. nuclear industry by providing the tools, resources, and partnerships necessary to drive innovation in advanced reactors,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a sponsor of the legislation.
The bipartisan legislation, called the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, would establish at least one power purchase agreement with the Defense Department, or another federal agency, by Dec. 31, 2023, to buy electricity from a commercial nuclear reactor.
Joining Murkowski on the bill are Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Chris Coons of Delaware. Republicans James Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia also cosponsored the bill.
Since the Defense Department is the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, its role would seem paramount in implementing the legislation once passed.
But the cost for the nuclear-powered electricity would be higher than the market rate, as the bill is focused on driving ahead advanced and “first-of-a-kind” technology, according to the bill.
“An agreement to purchase power … may be at a rate that is higher than the average market rate,” reads the bill.
The bill would also extend the maximum length of federal power purchase agreement from 10 to 40 years, according to a summary of the bill issued by the Nuclear Energy Institute.
The industry group explains that the length of the agreement is important for new reactors, which need the extra revenue from longer agreements to pay for the initial capital costs. The current 10-year agreements used in energy contract with federal facilities are not sufficient.
The industry group says the longer federal agreement could also help the existing fleet of reactors, which are currently not being “adequately compensated for their carbon-free electricity, by establishing longer term, guaranteed revenue streams.”
“This legislation sends an unmistakable signal that the U.S. intends to re-commit itself as a global leader in clean, advanced nuclear technology,” said Maria Korsnick, the nuclear group’s president. “Next generation nuclear technology is being aggressively pursued globally, and in order for the American nuclear industry to compete with state-owned or state-sponsored developers in rival nations — especially China and Russia — we must have significant collaboration between the federal government, our national labs, and private industry in order to accelerate innovation.”
Myanmar President U Win Myint Urges Parliament to Back Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty
President Urges Parliament to Back Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty The Irrawaddy, NAN LWIN 7 September 2018
YANGON—Myanmar President U Win Myint is seeking lawmakers’ approval to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, with a final decision to be made next week in the Union Parliament.
Union Minister for International Cooperation U Kyaw Tin explained Myanmar’s stand on the abolition of nuclear weapons and the details of the president’s proposal to sign the prohibition treaty to lawmakers on Thursday in the Union Parliament.
“The government supports nuclear disarmament,” U Kyaw Tin said. He said the Myanmar government believed nuclear disarmament is the only way to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and the use of such weapons, whether intentional or accidental.
According to the Signature and Ratification terms of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, members need to follow a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities such as undertakings not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. The treaty also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the provision of assistance to any state in the conduct of prohibited activities.
Myanmar became a non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1992, and signed the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty in 1995, committing not to develop nuclear weapons. The country also signed the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and a Small Quantities Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1995………..
A total of 60 countries have signed the treaty and 14 have agreed to sign, including ASEAN members Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia and Vietnam.
Union Parliament Speaker U T Khun Myat said a final decision would be made on Sept. 14. He said if lawmakers want to discuss the issue in Parliament, they have until Monday evening to propose their names. https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/president-urges-parliament-back-nuclear-weapon-ban-treaty.html
If Democrats take over Congress in November, there’ll be cuts to USA’s nuclear weapons spending
Cuts to nuclear spending and special ops oversight: Expectations for new congressional leadership https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2018/09/05/cuts-to-nuclear-spending-and-oversight-of-socom-what-to-expect-from-a-democratic-hasc/
USA and Russia – in 20th Century -devised hideously elaborate ways of blowing each other up
Top-secret ‘doomsday machine’ documents reveal terrifying nuclear apocalypse plans https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/04/top-secret-doomsday-machine-documents-reveal-terrifying-nuclear-apocalypse-plans-7911916/ Jasper Hamill 4 Sep 2018 It’s no secret that the US and Russia spent much of the 20th century devising hideously elaborate ways of blowing each other up. Now declassified documents written in 1964 have revealed the true extent of the apocalyptic atomic broadside Washington planned to unleash against its greatest enemy. A pair of top-secret memos written by top military chiefs shows the US was intending to implement an ‘overkill’ strategy which would have flattened Russian cities and killed tens of millions of people.
They demonstrate how generals were considering the possibility of unleashing thousands of nukes in a bid to cause ‘95% damage’ to targets such as military facilities and ‘urban-industrial centres’ including major cities. The files also document plans to blow up 30% of all the people living in 30 Chinese cities, saying this outcome would be ‘desirable’. The secret files were unearthed by George Washington University’s National Security Archive and shed light on a secret nuclear strategy called the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), which is often referred to as a ‘doomsday machine’ and has never been declassified. Researchers are only able to learn about this highly disturbing scheme by reading other documents which discuss it, meaning the release of the two memorandums is a major step forward in understanding the grim fate which would have befallen the world if a nuclear war erupted.
‘US nuclear war plans [made] during the Johnson administration included the option of a retaliatory strike against nuclear, conventional military, and urban-industrial targets with the purpose of removing the Soviet Union “from the category of a major industrial power” and destroying it as a “viable” society,’ wrote the National Security Archive in a statement. ‘The document, the Joint Staff’s review of SIOP guidance in June 1964, showed continued acceptance by policymakers of the cataclysmic nuclear strike options that had been integral to the plan since its inception. Accordingly, the SIOP set high damage requirements – 95% for the top priority nuclear targets – ensuring that it remained an “overkill” plan, referring to its massively destructive effects. ‘Prepared and continually updated by the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff, the SIOP has been characterized by some as a “doomsday machine”.’ The latest declassified document is a review of SIOP conducted by the Joint Staff, a group of senior military leaders.
It lays out plans for retaliatory and preemptive strikes against Russia or China which range in severity from an assault aimed at knocking out nuclear weapons facilities to a blitzkrieg designed to ‘destroy the will and ability of the Sino-Soviet bloc to wage, remove the enemy from the category of a major industrial power and assure a post-war balance of power favourable to the United States’. The plans also expose a scheme to use ‘population loss as the primary yardstick for effectiveness in destroying the enemy society with only collateral attention to industrial damage’, the National Security Archive added. What this means is that the US was willing to bomb Russia back to the Stone Age and viewed the destruction of its population as a valid strategy of war…. https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/04/top-secret-doomsday-machine-documents-reveal-terrifying-nuclear-apocalypse-plans-7911916/?ito=cbshare
International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) lobby for African nations to ratify comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty
African countries can help ban nuclear weapons – ICRC https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/african-countries-can-help-ban-nuclear-weapons-20180905, 2018-09-05
Carien du Plessis, correspondent African countries have the power to force the rest of the world to ban nuclear weapons – if almost all of them adhered to the treaty on this.
The International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) Head of Regional Delegation for Southern Africa Vincent Cassard urged African officials at the start of a four-day seminar on Tuesday on international humanitarian law at the Department for International Relations to lobby their governments to ratify the treaty on the comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons, which opened for signature almost a year ago, on September 20.
“The ICRC’s position has been consistent over the last half a century: the use of nuclear weapons would never comply with rules of international humanitarian law,” he said. “The consequences would render humanitarian assistance impossible.”
Ten countries have so far ratified the treaty, but 50 ratifications are needed for the treaty to come into effect. The African Union has 55 member states.He said although southern Africa was largely peaceful, the focus of the international humanitarian law seminar was on peacekeeping operations, such as those in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which involved military help from neighbouring countries.
Participating officials had to ponder questions on whether it was legally acceptable to torture soldiers for information about secret military bases, and on when to attend to wounded soldiers from the enemy side.
The seminar ends on Friday.
Cassard told News24 even small countries like eSwatini (previously Swaziland) and Lesotho had a lot of power, because their ratification carried the same weight as that of large countries.
He said although southern Africa was largely peaceful, the focus of the international humanitarian law seminar was on peacekeeping operations, such as those in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which involved military help from neighbouring countries.
Participating officials had to ponder questions on whether it was legally acceptable to torture soldiers for information about secret military bases, and on when to attend to wounded soldiers from the enemy side.
The seminar ends on Friday.
Karl Grossman on the nuclear weaponisation of space
Janine Jackson interviewed Karl Grossman about the the weaponization of space for the August 24, 2018, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
CounterSpin Karl Grossman Interview
LA Times: Pence says Pentagon Should Create ‘Space Force’
LA Times story (8/9/18) goes from “would” to “will” on Space Force.
Janine Jackson: While the internet treated it largely as a kind of painful joke, corporate news media reported the Trump White House’s plans to establish a “Space Force” as the sixth branch of the US military as almost an inevitability: A Los Angeles Times story slips from saying the force “would be” responsible for training military personnel to saying the space command “will centralize planning for space war-fighting.” The pushback reported is from those concerned about “bureaucracy,” or changes in the “roles and budgets” of existing military branches. There are details to be worked out—even such “basic” ones, says a Washington Post front-pager, as “what uniforms” the space force would use. But coverage presents potential opposition to the plan, from congressmembers, for example, more as a “hurdle” than a cause for deeper investigation.
Karl Grossman is a preeminent resource on the weaponization of space. He’s professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and author of the books Weapons in Space and The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, among others. He’s also a longtime associate of FAIR, the media watch group that brings you this show. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Karl Grossman.
Karl Grossman: A pleasure to be with you, Janine.
JJ: We can ask how media can report the statement, from the bipartisan leaders of the Armed Services Committee Panel on Strategic Forces, that “beefing up” military capabilities in space “will result in a safer, stronger America,” with no thought to whether terrestrial war-making has made America safer or stronger, but we know that elite media takes place in this sort of la-la land where those presumptions are premises.
But I want to ask you about the more specific claim being made, and simply recited in the press, about the nature of this plan: USA Today says it “would develop forces to defend satellites from attack and perform other space-related tasks.” It says the Pentagon’s plan “identifies”—doesn’t allege, but identifies—Russia and China as “explicitly pursuing space war-fighting capabilities to neutralize US space capabilities in a time of conflict.” What are we to make, Karl Grossman, of the idea that creating a space force is a defensive measure?
KG: What we would be doing is opening the heavens to war, making space a war zone, and that flies in the face of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which sets space aside for peaceful purposes, and precludes the deployment in space, by any nation, of weapons of mass destruction. And there’s been efforts—I’ve covered them for years now; mainstream media has not covered these efforts—to broaden the Outer Space Treaty to preclude not just weapons of mass destruction, but any weaponry in space, and in that way ensure that it would be space for peace.
And the two countries that have been leaders in this effort have been Russia and China. In fact, I have here a piece from Chinese media, this was just a couple of weeks ago, “China Envoy Calls for Strengthening Outer Space Covenants and Cooperation.” What Russia and China—and let me mention, too, our neighbor Canada—have been promoting, pushing, has been a treaty titled Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, the PAROS treaty.
And I’ve been actually to the United Nations for votes on the PAROS treaty. And one country after another country votes for it—again, with Russia, China and our neighbor Canada in the lead. And the one nation, in all the countries of the world, voting against the PAROS treaty? The United States. And because there’s a consensus process for a disarmament treaty, the PAROS treaty has gotten nowhere. So what we’d be doing by creating this Space Force, and seeking, as Trump put it, “American dominance” in space, is just really asking for Russia and China and other countries—there will be India and Pakistan, the list will go on—to go up into space and weaponize space.
JJ: So it’s really turned on its head; it’s being presented, in the words, largely, of Mike Pence and other officials, that it’s “our adversaries,” as it’s put, that have already transformed space into a war-fighting domain—those are their words—and so, therefore, the US has to get up there to respond.
KG: I must say, China did a real stupid thing in the year 2007. It used one of its missiles to destroy an obsolete Chinese satellite. And the next year, we did the same thing to one of our satellites, with a missile. And this is being used by the US as an example of China being keen on anti-satellite weaponry. In fact, what is was was a very dumb way to eliminate a satellite, because you’re left with all kind of debris—dumb on the Chinese part, and dumb for the United States to do the same thing the year after.
But up to now, China and Russia—and I’ve spoken to officials of both countries, and I’ve been to both countries; I’ve been on the story for a long time—and they’re very, very reluctant to violate the intent of the Outer Space Treaty. Also, and they’ve gone on and on with me about this, they don’t want to waste their national treasuries; they don’t want to expend—I mean, to put weaponry up in space is an expensive proposition; it isn’t like acquiring a tank or even a jet fighter; billions and billions of dollars would be the cost—and they’ve told me that they just don’t want to waste their money on placing weapons in space. However, if the US moves up into space with weapons, with this mission to dominate the Earth below from space, despite the cost, they’ll be up there.
JJ: I’ve read a lot about satellites, Karl, but a word that I haven’t seen much of in this current round of coverage is nuclear. But that’s got to be in the story, right?
Karl Grossman: “Consider the consequences of a shooting war: Battle platforms are hit, and radioactivity from these nuclear reactors rains down on Earth.”
KG: Absolutely. In moving up into space, with the Space Force, no doubt the United States will be placing nuclear power systems in space. That was the architecture of Reagan’s Star Wars, orbiting battle platforms with nuclear reactors on them providing the power for hypervelocity guns, particle beams and laser weapons; as Star Wars head general James Abrahamson said, without reactors in orbit, there would need to be a long, long extension cord that goes down to the surface of the Earth, bringing up power. Consider the consequences of a shooting war: Battle platforms are hit, and radioactivity from these nuclear reactors rains down on Earth.
JJ: You really are not getting the picture of, not just things going wrong, but things going as they might be anticipated to go, being, really, a horrific calamity for human beings. It’s a very tidy image that we’re getting about what war in space would be like.
KG: This lethal threat would be above our heads. I did a documentary a number of years ago, entitled, advisedly, Nukes in Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens. And nukes and weapons in space, they go together.
JJ: And I wanted to ask you about that question of priorities, finally. The Washington Post had an article headlined “Potential Winners if a Space Force Flies,” which delivered the no doubt shocking news that “a group of government contractors sees a chance to profit.” Hold onto your hat! An analyst tells the Post, “Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Harris Corporation may be particularly well positioned to benefit from Trump’s Space Force.” I found it odd to present military contractors as sort of savvily responding to policy, as opposed to driving it, but then, to your point, there was vanishingly little reference in media coverage to who would not benefit from this allocation of funds, to what would be lost, to what would be harmed, and so I wanted to underscore that point that you made, just to say, media didn’t talk about it either.
And then, finally, what do you see as the role for the public in this, where can people focus in terms of speaking out on this issue?
“Space Force” looks to be a coup for the military industrial complex (LA Times, 8/18/18).
KG: Just a quick mention of a very important piece, in regards to mainstream media, I was so happy to see it, in the Los Angeles Times, this is just a couple of days ago, the headline, “Trump Backed ‘Space Force’”—in quotes—“After Months of Lobbying by Officials With Ties to the Aerospace Industry.” And listeners can Google that; it’s very, very detailed, talks about
a small group of current and former government officials, some with deep financial ties to the aerospace industry, who see creation of the sixth military service as a surefire way to hike Pentagon spending on satellite and other space systems.
So on this issue, we can at this point, there’s been enough documentation, to include the “follow the money” precept.
As to what people can do, we have to rise from the grassroots. An excellent organization, that I would recommend that people connect with, is the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. Its website is Space4Peace.org, and among other things, the Global Network will be doing, October 6–13 this year, they’re going to—all over the world, this is going to be happening—protests and other actions in a Space for Peace week. So from the grassroots, people—certainly in this country, and all over the world—need to stand up and to stop this madness, to keep space for peace.
JJ: We’ve been speaking with Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury. You can find his recent article, “Turning Space Into a War Zone,” on CounterPunch. Karl Grossman, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
KG: A pleasure, Janine.
New documentary claims that Hitler had nuclear weapons ambitions, only thwarted by an accident
NUCLEAR NAZI How Adolf Hitler’s plan to build an atomic bomb and destroy London was only thwarted when ferry carrying key ingredients sunk https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7150860/how-adolf-hitler-atomic-bomb-london-only-thwarted-by-ferry-ride/
The discovery shines light on Hitler’s ambitions to become a nuclear power and nuke Britain,By Harvey Solomon-Brady 1st September 2018
How a UK submarine could carry out a nuclear strike, depending on a radio programme
war https://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/How-a-60-year-old-BBC-radio-show-may-be-one-of-13198577.php Sinéad Baker, - The UK’s nuclear arsenal is housed on four submarines, with one of those submarines on patrol at all times.
- During their isolated missions, crews watch for signals that the UK still exists — and may launch a counter-attack if they believe their country has been destroyed.
- One of these signs is whether BBC Radio 4 is still broadcasting the “Today” programme, Britain’s flagship news and politics show.
- If the submarine commander believes Britain has been destroyed, he may be under orders to launch a nuclear strike.
Deep underwater, on submarines equipped with nuclear missiles, British crews are constantly prepared to fire their weapons, and potentially play a part in bringing about the end of the world. Sailors on the four Vanguard-class submarines which patrol the waters and hold the UK’s nuclear deterrent operate under strict protocol for working out when to act and what to do — part of which is said to include listening to BBC radio.
According to a prominent British historian, the broadcast of BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme is one of the official measures the Royal Navy uses to prove that the United Kingdom still exists. “Today” has been broadcast at around breakfast time since 1958 and is the highest-profile news programme in British media.
Lord Peter Hennessy, a history professor who joined the UK’s House of Lords in 2010, said that if it can’t be heard for three days in a row, then it could signify Britain’s demise, and trigger their doomsday protocol.
According to Politico, Hennessy says: “The failure to pick up the BBC Today program for a few days is regarded as the ultimate test.”
If no sign comes through, the commander and deputy will open letters that contain instructions from the prime minister and execute their final wishes.
These letters, each known as a “Letter of Last Resort’ are secret instructions, written when a prime minister enters the office and sealed until an apocalypse. They tell the UK’s submarine commanders what to do with the country’s nuclear weapons if the country has been destroyed.
Writing these letters is one of the first tasks undertaken by any new prime minister. They are locked inside a safe inside another safe, and placed in the control rooms of the nation’s four nuclear submarines, Politico reports. The safes will only be accessible to the sub’s commander and deputy.
Matthew Seligman, Professor of Naval History at Brunel University, told BBC Newsbeat that there are “only so many options available.”
“Do nothing, launch a retaliatory strike, offer yourself to an ally like the USA, or use your own judgment.
“Essentially, are you going to use the missiles or not?”
The UK has four submarines that are capable of carrying the country’s Trident nuclear missiles. At least one of these has been on patrol at all times since 1969, the government says.
There are 40 nuclear warheads and a maximum of eight missiles on each submarine.
Only the prime minister can authorize the launch of the country’s nuclear weapons.
Terrible sickness price paid by Americans for 1,032 nuclear bombs the govt dropped on America
America Has Dropped 1,032 Nuclear Weapons (On Itself) In the form of nuclear tests. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/america-has-dropped-1032-nuclear-weapons-itself-30042
uring the early years of nuclear testing it was anticipated that nuclear weapons would be used on the battlefield, and that the Army and Marine Corps had better get used to operating on a “nuclear battlefield.” During the 1952 Big Shot test, 1,700 ground troops took shelter in trenches just seven thousand yards from the thirty-three-kiloton explosion. After the test, the troops conducted a simulated assault that took them to within 160 meters of ground zero. This test and others like them led to increases in leukemia, prostate and nasal cancers among those that participated.
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
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 (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 