nuclear-news

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

Trump administration considers adding a special new military branch – for weapons in space

Trump considers adding a military branch – for space, News Target , 04/21/2018 / By David Williams  “……..President Trump himself has declared that creating an entirely new branch of the military, one that’s dedicated solely for matters of defense and war in space – is now in the cards.

April 25, 2018 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

High cancer rates in UK’s nuclear test veterans

Mirror 22nd April 2018 , Survivor of Britain’s nuclear tests lost all his teeth, had thyroid tumour
and wife suffered two stillbirths – and he was one of ‘lucky’ ones
EXCLUSIVE: Sixty years ago on Christmas Island, these army veterans had to
put their hands over their eyes as a nuke 100 times more powerful than
Hiroshima was set off – and more than half their unit died of cancer.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/survivor-britains-nuclear-tests-lost-12409628

April 25, 2018 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How artificial intelligence could start a nuclear war

Why artificial intelligence might trigger a nuclear war https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610996/why-artificial-intelligence-might-trigger-a-nuclear-war/

Well before Terminator robots rise and attack us, AI could help us destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, warns a new study.

The news: RAND Corporation report concludes that military adoption of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies could have a destabilizing effect over the next couple of decades and lead some nation to take the nuclear option.

Details: Strategic stability provided by “mutually assured destruction” might be undermined if AI offers a new—and vastly better—way to target an adversary’s weapons systems, the report says. The findings are drawn from information collected through workshops with experts on nuclear weapons, national security, government policy, and AI.

Algorithms for peace: It isn’t all doom and gloom. The study also suggests that under some scenarios, AI could help preserve strategic stability by providing new ways of gathering and analyzing information about nuclear capabilities.

A Strangelove scenario? It is notoriously difficult to predict what AI will look like 10 or 20 years from now. That said, even current AI looks likely to have a big impact on the military. The RAND report may only heighten calls to weaponize the technology and make its development a national priority.

April 25, 2018 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review makes allowance for NEW NUCLEAR BOMB TESTING

War on the rocks 20th April 2018 , While the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review included a
blanket commitment not to conduct explosive nuclear tests, the Trump
administration’s 2018 version of the document argues that the United
States “must remain ready to resume nuclear testing if necessary to meet
severe technological or geopolitical challenges [emphasis added].”

Severe technological challenges that could merit a return to testing do not
currently exist. Specific geopolitical challenges, a new criterion, are not
defined. Does this mean the administration could resume testing if China
continues making aggressive moves in the South China Sea? If North Korea
tests another missile? If Russian hackers disrupt U.S. government websites?
https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/mushroom-clouds-beneath-the-surface-the-dangers-of-a-return-to-nuclear-testing/

April 22, 2018 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Yes Virginia, reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons

 

NPEC 20th April 2018 , In Reactor-Grade Plutonium and Nuclear Weapons: Exploding the Myths,
long-time defense analyst Gregory S. Jones draws from his decades of
research using publicly available, unclassified information to debunk the
persistent fallacy that reactor-grade plutonium cannot be used to build
reliable nuclear weapons. This belief has long been held by a segment of
the nuclear power industry determined to use plutonium as reactor fuel
despite its highly uneconomical nature. Further, this mistaken belief has
made reactor-grade plutonium readily available to many non-nuclear weapon
states.
http://www.npolicy.org/thebook.php?bid=37

April 22, 2018 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

North Korea just promised a huge concession on its nuclear weapons. It’s done that before. 

South Korean President Moon Jae-in said North Korea might end its nuclear program while the US keeps its troops in South Korea. We’ve been here before. Vox By 

April 20, 2018 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

30 UK civil society organisations call on Britain to sign UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Nuclear Ban 17th April 2018 , In advance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee which
meets in Geneva from April 23rd over 30 UK civil society organisations have
co-signed a letter to Boris Johnson, challenging the government to take its
disarmament responsibilities seriously and in particular to participate in
the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
http://www.nuclearban.scot/challenge-to-uk-to-participate-in-nuke-ban-treaty/

April 20, 2018 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

America’s Nuclear Posture Reviews (NPR) – inconsistencies, limitations, and questions unanswered

What is US nuclear policy, exactly? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Adam Mount, Abigail Stowe-Thurston 19 Apr 18,  The US Nuclear Posture Reviews (NPR) are the nation’s primary statements of nuclear weapons policy, and each has been debated closely. However, the 2018 NPR is unusual in that it has been subject not only to debate about the rectitude of its policies, but also about what those policies actually are. Even as press accountsclaim that the review provides for significant, even alarming changes to US policy, four notable experts, writing in Real Clear Defense, recently assured us that the document is “clearly in the mainstream of U.S. nuclear policy.” These widely divergent accounts are not merely a function of incomplete information or expertise, but also due to the fact that statements by the NPR authors and other senior defense officials reveal inconsistencies on several subjects—including the circumstances in which the US would consider using nuclear weapons, the capability of existing forces, and the necessity and mission of two proposed nuclear options.
………there remain serious questions about the administration’s commitment to basic tenets of US nuclear weapons policy. For example, does the administration accept mutual vulnerability with Russia? Does it understand strategic stability as a product of a strategic relationship—one the United States could threaten with its actions—or simply as the ability to deter adversaries? If the United States seeks superiority over other nuclear powers, as the president has suggested, it could influence the answers to those questions and could potentially represent a revolutionary shift in US nuclear policy.A survey of the statements of senior officials and associated authors of the NPR reveal significant inconsistencies on central elements of US policy—including on the definition of non-nuclear strategic attacks, the capability of existing forces, and the necessity and mission of the newly proposed systems……….

The question of whether the United States would respond to a major cyberattack with nuclear weapons has been the subject of considerable concern and debate. In January, days after the draft NPR was leaked, the New York Times cited three anonymous current and former senior government officials confirming that a large cyberattack against the United States could elicit a nuclear response.

The leaked draft of the review stated, “…the President will have an expanding range of limited and graduated options to credibly deter Russian nuclear and non-nuclear strategic attacks, which could now include attacks against U.S. [Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications], in space and cyber space.” Following significant public concern, this sentence was revised and the clause “in space and cyber space” stricken from the final version of the NPR released in February. Nevertheless, the fact that it was included in the leaked draft indicates that the authors initially intended the category of “non-nuclear strategic attacks” to include a scenario in which the United States would retaliate against a major cyberattack.

Though the published document does not explicitly include cyberattacks as an example of “extreme circumstances,” it does not explicitly exclude the possibility of a nuclear response to a cyberattack………..  https://thebulletin.org/what-us-nuclear-policy-exactly11709

April 20, 2018 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Scared ex-Soviet general warns NUCLEAR war is INEVITABLE

World War 3 IMMINENT! Scared ex-Soviet general warns NUCLEAR war is INEVITABLE

A SCARED former Russian army general issued a harrowing warning that a nuclear war is “inevitable” and it is an “illusion” if leaders feel they can control a military conflict between the US and Russia.  Express UK By THOMAS HUNT, Apr 17, 2018   Former Russian general: Use of nuclear weapons is inevitable

Evgeny Buzhinskiy, a retired Lieutenant-General, claimed the Cold War was rather comfortable in comparison to the current conflict and the West should be prepared because Vladimir Putin “will not accept defeat” if World War 3 started.

Speaking to Channel 4 News, he said: “I think it’s worse than the Cold War, which we have been waging for 40 years after the Second World War.

“In the Cold War time I was in the armed forces and I was quite comfortable I’d say.

“There were definite duels and definite red lines – everybody knew what to do.There were no threats, no sanctions, no isolation, no cornering, no nothing.

“There was just ideological confrontation, but people on both sides knew how far they could go.”

The military veteran was then asked by the presenter whether rising tensions could lead to a third world war.

The General responded: “Of course. I repeat, you cannot control military confrontation between Russia and the United States.

Of course Russia cannot wage a war against the United States. For years, economically it cannot.

“In the general purpose forces, we are a bit lagging behind the United States.

“And of course, Russia will no accept any kind of defeat.

“So the involvement of nuclear weapons is inevitable.”

When asked if he is just trying to scare viewers, Mr Buzhinskiy said he was scared for the possible repercussions. He added: “I am scared myself because I have children and I have grandchildren so I am scared for their fate.”

……..https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/947171/World-War-3-Russia-news-nuclear-war-inevitable

April 18, 2018 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Strikes on Syria. What may happen next between Russia and USA?

Syria strikes: The real impact is in Moscow, April 14, 2018  After nearly a week of tension that sometimes verged on the surreal, the US and its allies finally carried out strikes against regime targets in Syria on Friday night. The strikes, more limited than once seemed likely, were designed to deter the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons once and for all.

April 14, 2018 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US, British and French forces launch air strikes on chemical weapons sites in Syria

Syria: US, British and French forces launch air strikes in response to chemical weapons attack, 

US, British and French forces have pounded chemical weapons sites in Syria with air strikes in response to an alleged poison gas attack that killed dozens in the rebel-held town of Douma last week.

Key points:

  • US, UK and France hit three chemical weapons sites in Syria
  • US Defence Secretary says strikes were a “one-time shot”
  • Strikes biggest intervention yet by Western powers against Assad regime

In a televised address to the nation, US President Donald Trump said the three nations had “marshalled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality”.

The strikes were the biggest intervention by Western powers against President Bashar al-Assad in the country’s seven-year-old civil war, which has pitted the US and its allies against Russia.

The Pentagon said the strikes targeted a research centre in Damascus, along with a chemical weapons storage facility and command post west of Homs……

British Prime Minister Theresa May said the strikes were not about intervening in a civil war nor were they about a regime change.

“We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised within Syria, on the streets of the UK or anywhere else in our world,” Ms May said…….

Russia’s Defence Ministry said the majority of missiles fired during the attack were intercepted by Syrian air defence systems using Soviet-produced hardware, including the Buk missile system.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-14/us-to-strike-syria-in-response-to-chemical-weapons-attack/9658900

April 14, 2018 Posted by | France, politics international, Russia, Syria, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia wants nuclear power, WITHOUT the restrictions against making nuclear weapons

Saudi Arabia And The Nuclear Temptation. Lobe Log 

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and defense minister, Mohammed bin Salman, seems to have gotten what he wanted from his long glad-handing tour through the United States and several European capitals. He met President Trump and brand-name business tycoons and potential investors, and took home some actual deals, including a commitment by the giant French oil company Total to invest billions in a new petrochemical complex.

What he should have gotten but did not were stern lectures excoriating his glib, casual attitude about acquiring or developing nuclear weapons. Asked by Norah O’Donnell of CBS what Saudi Arabia would do if Iran obtained such weapons, he replied, “Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” 

Either the young prince was badly briefed or his knowledge of history and international security affairs is thin. He does not seem to realize that his grand plans for modernizing his country and restructuring its economy, which are based on full integration into the global industrial and financial system, would fall apart if the United States and its allies thought that Saudi Arabia was pursuing nuclear arms. He could forget those big investments and deals, and most of his country’s sources of military equipment and training would dry up. The damage to his country that pursuit of nuclear weapons would cause would far outweigh any conceivable strategic gain. Does he not know why Iran was subjected to crippling economic sanctions for all those years before the multinational agreement of 2016 curtailed its nuclear program? Does he not know why North Korea is a pariah state?

Saudi Arabia is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories other than the five recognized nuclear powers from acquiring or developing a nuclear arsenal. Israel, India, and Pakistan have gotten away with their weapons programs because they are not parties to the NPT and thus have no legal obligation to abide by its terms. Even so, Pakistan did not escape the wrath of the U.S. Congress when it tested nuclear weapons in the 1990s, as bipartisan majorities enacted laws that authorized Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to impose stiff sanctions, which they did.  

Saudi Arabia, which has few friends in Congress, would be unlikely to escape the same fate. The kingdom cannot afford to become an international outlaw, like North Korea, or to see its oil sales curtailed and its access to global financial markets cut off, like Iran. That would put an end to the grand development plan the prince has styled “Vision 2030.”  ………..

According to many reports, the Saudis are asking that a bilateral deal, known as a “123 Agreement” for the section of the law that requires it, permit them to control both ends of the nuclear fuel cycle. In that way, they could enrich their own uranium and reprocess fuel once it is used up to extract the plutonium generated by the chain reaction. An existing agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia’s neighbor Abu Dhabi permits neither. That agreement is known in the industry as the “gold standard.” But Saudi Arabia does not want to accept the “Abu Dhabi model” because the international agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program does not prohibit enrichment. 

Enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors is plentiful in world markets, but Prince Mohammed has said that Saudi Arabia wants to take advantage of its own domestic resources by doing its own enrichment. Even if there is a valid argument to be made for enrichment, however, the Saudis cannot make a legitimate argument for reprocessing to capture plutonium, which has limited civilian uses but is primarily a fuel for nuclear weapons. 

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), who has long opposed nuclear energy in any form, can be expected to lead congressional opposition to a 123 agreement that allows reprocessing. “Saudi Arabia’s crown prince has confirmed what many have long suspected—nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia is about more than just electrical power, it’s about geopolitical power,” Markey said in a statement last month. “The United States must not compromise on nonproliferation standards in any 123 agreement it concludes with Saudi Arabia.” He said Saudi Arabia is interested more in “megatons than megawatts.” 

The Saudis could obtain civilian nuclear power reactors from other countries—South Korea provides those in Abu Dhabi—and it would not need an agreement with the United States to do that. But if it rejects a 123 agreement because it insists on retaining the right to reprocess, it will be sending an unmistakable and ill-advised signal. https://lobelog.com/saudi-arabia-and-the-nuclear-temptation/

April 14, 2018 Posted by | Saudi Arabia, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Deutsche Welle Expose Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons Link

Marianne Wildart, 8 Apr 18In this recent article the German News outlet  ‘Deutsche Welle’ expose the link between civil nuclear and nuclear weapons.  Nuclear ‘energy’ is a political choice.

……….A study by the Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) in Finland simulating the costs of the global transition to renewables and found that a 100-percent renewable energy system would be cheaper that what we have today.

The disposal of nuclear waste is still controversial, especially in the U.K.

Fell, meanwhile, has documented the explosion of nuclear powers costs, as well as the security concerns over new nuclear reactors.

Yet India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UK remain committed to building new nuclear power plants. And Fell sees a motive for this that has nothing to do with securing an affordable energy supply. “The main driving force behind the new nuclear reactors are nuclear weapons, and the desire for nuclear weapons,” he told DW.

Scientists at the University of Sussex have come to a similar conclusion. In their study of British nuclear policy they attribute the construction of new reactors to cross-funding with military nuclear programs. They argue that maintaining nuclear power programs and expertise at the expense of electricity customers has the advantage of relieving the defense budget….    https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/331643/posts/1820643667

 

April 9, 2018 Posted by | 2 WORLD, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Could new U.S. tactical missile projects trigger a new nuclear arms race?

Are the U.S. Army and DARPA Trying to Start a Nuclear Arms Race? National Interest,  Michael Peck, 6 Apr 18,   Could new U.S. tactical missile projects trigger a new nuclear arms race?

Recent comments by U.S. Army leaders, and a new project from Pentagon research agency DARPA, point to the United States developing new long-range battlefield missiles.

 The Pentagon believes that it needs the missiles because its field artillery is inferior to Russian guns that have a longer range than their American counterparts. “We need cannons that fire as far as rockets today, we need rockets that fire as far as missiles, and we need missiles that push out to 499 kilometers and beyond,” Gen. Robert Brown, commander of U.S. Army Pacific, told an Association of the U.S. Army audience in Huntsville, Alabama last month.

“499 kilometers and beyond” is a very significant phrase, because the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Treaty (INF), signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, banned nuclear and conventional missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (or about 300 to 3,400 miles). The agreement came in the midst of an arms race after the Soviets deployed SS-20 intermediate-range nuclear missiles which threatened Western Europe, to which the United States responded by deploying Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles.

The conventional weapons provision pointed to an uncomfortable fact: there is no way to peek inside a nose cone to be sure the missile isn’t carrying a nuclear warhead. So while conventional intermediate-range missiles could have many uses (attacking airfields, command centers, etc.), a missile launched from, say, Germany could hit Moscow with a nuclear weapon.

Indeed, the INF treaty obligated both sides to dismantle a lot of expensive hardware: 2,692 weapons, from short-range tactical missiles to long-range cruise missiles. It also established mechanisms for both sides to verify compliance. The treaty has been assailed in recent years, with the United States accusing Russia ofviolating the agreement by deploying a new ground-launched cruise missile. Putin’s recent speech, in which he boasted of Russia developing a nuclear-powered cruise missile, isn’t likely to reduce tensions.

However, General Brown suggested that the U.S. Army wouldn’t mind breaching the INF treaty. “‘I know there’s the INF treaty…but we need to push beyond that,’” Brown said, according to Politico.

At the same time, DARPA is pursuing its OpFires missile program. “The United States ground-based forces are currently limited in effective range of surface-to-surface precision fires,” according to DARPA. “The OpFires program seeks to provide operational/theater level commanders with flexible capabilities to strike time sensitive targets while providing persistent standoff from unpredictable land launch positions.”

DARPA says “the overarching goal of the OpFires program is to develop and demonstrate a novel ground-launched system enabling advanced tactical weapons to penetrate modern enemy air defenses and rapidly and precisely engage critical time sensitive targets.”……….http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-the-us-army-darpa-trying-start-nuclear-arms-race-25231

 

April 6, 2018 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Researchers from 30 countries call for boycott of South Korean university, in campaign against lethal autonomous weapons

We are locked into an arms race that no one wants to happen, global researchers warn
A CHILLING letter claims the world is on the cusp of opening a dangerous Pandora’s box — and there is no going back.  http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/we-are-locked-into-an-arms-race-that-no-one-wants-to-happen-global-researchers-warn/news-story/fc6dfa060c66ed876beb79d1b7530cc6  Nick Whigham@NWWHIGHAM  5 Apr 18 

The boycott comes in advance of a meeting next Monday in Geneva, Switzerland, of 123 member nations of the United Nations discussing the challenges posed by lethal autonomous weapons. Twenty-two of those nations have already called for an outright and pre-emptive ban on such weapons.

The open letter announcing the boycott against the South Korean university said autonomous weapons are the “third revolution in warfare” and warned about letting the genie out of the bottle.

“At a time when the United Nations is discussing how to contain the threat posed to international security by autonomous weapons, it is regrettable that a prestigious institution like KAIST looks to accelerate the arms race to develop such weapons,” the letter said.

“We therefore publicly declare that we will boycott all collaborations with any part of KAIST until such time as the President of KAIST provides assurances, which we have sought but not received, that the Center will not develop autonomous weapons lacking meaningful human control,” the researchers said.

“If developed, autonomous weapons will be the third revolution in warfare. They will permit war to be fought faster and at a scale greater than ever before. They have the potential to be weapons of terror. Despots and terrorists could use them against innocent populations, removing any ethical restraints. This Pandora’s box will be hard to close if it is opened.”

Professor Walsh organised the boycott which involves researchers from 30 countries and includes three of the world’s top deep learning experts, Professor Stuart Russell from the University of California, Berkeley, who authored the leading textbook on AI and roboticist Prof Wolfram Burgard, winner of the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, the most prestigious research prize in Germany.

“Back in 2015, we warned of an arms race in autonomous weapons,” Professor Walsh said in a statement alongside the letter. “We can see prototypes of autonomous weapons under development today by many nations including the US, China, Russia and the UK. We are locked into an arms race that no one wants to happen.

“KAIST’s actions will only accelerate this arms race. We cannot tolerate this.”

Professor Walsh has long campaigned against the development of autonomous weapons.

He has previously travelled to speak in front of the United Nations in an effort to have the international body prevent the proliferation of so-called killer robots with the ability to think for themselves.

Speaking to news.com.au last year he said “the arms race is already starting.”

He believes it’s no longer a question of whether military weapons are imbued with some level of autonomy, it’s just a matter of how much autonomy — which poses a number of worrying scenarios, particularly if they fall into the wrong hands.

“They get in the hands of the wrong people and they can be turned against us. They can be used by terrorist organisations,” he warned.

“It would be a terrifying future if we allow ourselves to go down this road.

April 6, 2018 Posted by | South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment