15 years after Fukushima, Japan prepares to restart the world’s biggest nuclear plant.
Tepco is set to defy local public opinion and restart one of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa’s seven reactors.
for many of the 420,000 people living within a 30km (19-mile) radius of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa who would have to evacuate in the event of a Fukushima-style incident, Tepco’s imminent return to nuclear power generation is fraught with danger.
A return to nuclear power is at the heart of Japan’s energy policy but, in the wake of the 2011 disaster, residents’ fears about tsunamis, earthquakes and evacuation plans remain
Justin McCurry Guardian, in KashiwazakiMon 19 Jan 2026
The activity around the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant is reaching its peak: workers remove earth to expand the width of a main road, while lorries arrive at its heavily guarded entrance. A long perimeter fence is lined with countless coils of razor wire, and in a layby, a police patrol car monitors visitors to the beach – one of the few locations with a clear view of the reactors, framed by a snowy Mount Yoneyama.
When all seven of its reactors are working, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa generates 8.2 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power millions of households. Occupying 4.2 sq km of land in Niigata prefecture on the Japan Sea coast, it is the biggest nuclear power plant in the world.
Since 2012, however, the plant has not generated a single watt of electricity, after being shut down, along with dozens of other reactors, in the wake of the March 2011 triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi, the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chornobyl.
Located about 220km (136 miles) north-west of Tokyo, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant is run by Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the same utility in charge of the Fukushima facility when a powerful tsunami crashed through its defences, triggering a power outage that sent three of its reactors into meltdown and forcing 160,000 people to evacuate.
Weeks before the 15th anniversary of the accident, and the wider tsunami disaster that killed an estimated 20,000 people along Japan’s north-east coast, Tepco is set to defy local public opinion and restart one of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa’s seven reactors.
On Monday, Tepco said it would delay the restart, originally scheduled for the following day, after an alarm malfunctioned during a test of equipment over the weekend, according to public broadcaster NHK. The reactor is now expected to go back online in the coming days, NHK added.
Restarting reactor No 6, which could boost the electricity supply to the Tokyo area by about 2%, will be a milestone in Japan’s slow return to nuclear energy, a strategy its government says will help the country reach its emissions targets and strengthen its energy security.
But for many of the 420,000 people living within a 30km (19-mile) radius of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa who would have to evacuate in the event of a Fukushima-style incident, Tepco’s imminent return to nuclear power generation is fraught with danger.
They include Ryusuke Yoshida, whose home is less than a mile and a half from the plant in the sleepy village of Kariwa. Asked what worries him most about the restart, the 76-year-old has a simple answer. “Everything,” he says, as waves crash on to the shore, the reactors looming in the background.
“The evacuation plans are obviously ineffective,” adds Yoshida, a potter and member of an association of people living closest to the facility. “When it snows in winter the roads are blocked, and a lot of people who live here are old. What about them, and other people who can’t move freely? This is a human rights issue.”……………………………..
“The core of the nuclear power business is ensuring safety above all else, and the understanding of local residents is a prerequisite,” says Tatsuya Matoba, a Tepco spokesperson.
That is the one hurdle residents say Tepco has failed to overcome after local authorities ignored calls for a prefectural referendum to determine the plant’s future. In the absence of a vote, anti-restart campaigners point to surveys showing clear opposition to putting the reactor back online.
They include a prefectural government poll conducted late last year in which more than 60% of people living within 30km of the plant said they did not believe the conditions for restarting the facility had been met…………
Kazuyuki Takemoto, a member of the Kariwa village council, says seismic activity in this region of north-west Japan means it is impossible to guarantee the plant’s safety.
“But there has been no proper discussion of that,” says Takemoto, 76. “They say that safety improvements have been made since the Fukushima disaster, but I don’t think there is any valid reason to restart the reactor. It’s beyond my comprehension.”
‘The priority should be to protect people’s lives’
Just weeks before the planned restart, the nuclear industry attracted fresh criticism after it emerged that Chubu Electric Power, a utility in central Japan, had fabricated seismic risk data during a regulatory review, conducted before a possible restart, of two reactors at its idle Hamaoka plant.
“When you look at what’s happened with Hamaoka, do you seriously think it’s possible to trust Japan’s nuclear industry?” Takemoto says. “It used to be said that nuclear power was necessary, safe and cheap … We now know that was an illusion.”
Adding to local concerns are the presence of seismic faults in and around the site, which sustained damage during a 6.8-magnitude offshore earthquake in July 2007, including a fire that broke out in a transformer. Three reactors that were in operation at the time shut down automatically.
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa restart is a gamble for Japan’s government, which has put an ambitious return to nuclear power generation at the centre of its new energy policy as it struggles to reach its emissions targets and bolster its energy security.
Before the Fukushima disaster, 54 reactors were in operation, supplying about 30% of the country’s power. Now, of 33 operable reactors, just 14 are in service, while attempts to restart others have faced strong local opposition.
Now, 15 years after the Fukushima meltdown, criticism of the country’s “nuclear village” of operators, regulators and politicians has shifted to this snowy coastal town.
Pointing out one of the many security cameras near the plant, Yoshida says the restart has been forced on residents by the nuclear industry and its political allies. “The local authorities have folded in the face of immense pressure from the central government,” he says.
“The priority of any government should be to protect people’s lives, but we feel like we have been deceived. Japan’s nuclear village is alive and well. You only have to look at what’s happening here to know that.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/19/japan-nuclear-plant-restart-kashiwazaki-kariwa-fukushima
TEPCO postpones 1st reactor restart since Fukushima due to alarm trouble.
January 19, 2026 (Mainichi Japan), https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20260119/p2g/00m/0bu/023000c
TOKYO (Kyodo) — Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. said Monday it will postpone until an unspecified date the restart of its nuclear reactor northwest of Tokyo — its first since the 2011 Fukushima disaster — due to a control-rod alarm failure.
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex in Niigata Prefecture was initially set to restart on Tuesday, but an alarm designed to sound when two non-paired control rods are withdrawn from the reactor fuel core failed to trigger during a test Saturday, the utility said at a press conference.
The company said it will announce a new date for restarting the No. 6 unit of the nuclear power complex.
After the latest incident, which was deemed a deviation from operational limits stipulated in the plant’s safety regulations, TEPCO returned all control rods to the fully inserted position.
The cause of the error was determined to be an incorrect control rod pairing that had persisted since the No. 6 unit began commercial operation in November 1996.
According to TEPCO, investigations since Saturday revealed that 88 of approximately 20,000 control rod pairs had configuration errors. The incorrect pairings had not been discovered until now because alarm tests are conducted at random.
Yutaka Kikukawa, unit director at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, denied that any mistakes were made by operational staff, saying, “We will do what needs to be done to correct the error discovered by chance.”
The configuration errors have since been corrected, and the plant was returned to its pre-deviation state Sunday night, TEPCO said.
The rescheduling came as it will take several days for the operator to conduct verification checks on each of the 205 control rods at the No. 6 reactor and examine the fission reaction of the fuel assemblies.
The reactors at the seven-unit complex have been offline since the No. 6 unit entered regular inspection in March 2012.
Chubu Electric to Face On-Site Probe over N-Plant Data Fraud
Tokyo, Jan. 14 (Jiji Press) https://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2026011400579—
Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority decided Wednesday that its secretariat will conduct an on-site inspection of Chubu Electric Power Co. over the company’s data fraud regarding earthquake risks at its Hamaoka nuclear power plant.
The inspection is expected to target Chubu Electric’s headquarters in the central Japan city of Nagoya. The power plant located in the central prefecture of Shizuoka may be subject to the probe if necessary.
Also at the day’s regular meeting, the nuclear watchdog approved the scrapping of its screening of the power plant for a possible restart, in the wake of the data scandal.
In addition, the NRA will issue an order for Chubu Electric to report back on the details of the data fraud under the nuclear reactor regulation law, with the deadline set for the end of March. The company will face punishment if it refuses the order or makes false statements.
The authority plans to urge other power companies to prepare appropriate documents for the NRA’s reactor screenings.
It’s time to stop talking about the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” and instead focus on halting U.S. militarism in the region.
Washington needs North Korea’s alleged threat to justify its military buildup in Northeast Asia.
From the standpoint of the U.S. (and Japan), can there be a more effective pretext than propping up North Korea’s threat?
Washington needs North Korea’s alleged “threat” to justify its military buildup in Northeast Asia. 워싱턴은 동북아에서의 군사력 증강을 정당화하기 위해 북한의 ‘위협’을 필요로 한다.
Korea Update, Jan 16, 2026, https://koreaupdate.substack.com/p/its-time-to-stop-talking-about-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6214632&post_id=184718135&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=nm4gn&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
My quick daily commentary: Japan’s insistence on North Korea’s “denuclearization” and the South Korean government’s push for the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
In his recent discussion, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, explained the role nuclear weapons play in fending off U.S. threats to national sovereignty.
Mearsheimer reiterates that the U.S. does not approach North Korea as it does other countries, such as Iran—obviously because of North Korea’s nuclear deterrent. He emphasizes that the United States no longer “plays games” with North Korea, meaning overt threats of invasion, because “they have nuclear weapons.”
“…they [Iranians] were foolish not to have nuclear weapons a long time ago… You don’t play these games in North Korea. Don’t play these games in North Korea because they have nuclear weapons.”
At the 2023 Korea International Forum in Seoul, Mearsheimer noted that North Korea’s primary concern is survival against the U.S., and that the most rational step is to maintain an ultimate deterrent: nuclear weapons.
Indeed, many argue that Washington may have no choice but to recognize North Korea as a nuclear power and negotiate.
U.S. President Donald Trump refers to North Korea as a nuclear power, and some analysts argue that the U.S. should formally recognize North Korea as a nuclear-armed state and enter into nuclear arms reduction negotiations.
The U.S. 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), released on December 5, 2025, made no mention of North Korea at all, let alone its denuclearization.
North Korea—the only country in the world to constitutionally guarantee nuclear weapons, underscoring the importance it places on its arsenal as a survival tool against the U.S.—argues that it has focused on nuclear development to protect its citizens and safeguard sovereignty, even under U.S. threats and national disasters like the “Arduous March.” On November 29, 2017, Pyongyang declared the completion of its nuclear forces. On September 21, 2025, the 14th Supreme People’s Assembly passed the “State Nuclear Force Policy,” formally enshrining nuclear possession in the constitution. In a Supreme People’s Assembly speech, Kim Jong-un stated:
“Let me make it clear: ‘denuclearization’ can never, ever happen for us. Even if the U.S. and its allies chant for 10, 20, 50, or 100 years, the fact that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea possesses nuclear weapons will remain unchanged, whether they like it or not.”
There is also a caveat. Some claim that historically, the U.S. has used every possible measure to prevent North Korea’s nuclear development, including threats of war, large-scale military exercises, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure on Russia and China to isolate Pyongyang. Despite these efforts, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities have continued to strengthen.
In my view, this claim is flawed. The United States has had ample time and opportunity to strike a deal with North Korea, yet it has not done so.
The reason is that the ongoing perception of North Korea as a threat—both conventional and nuclear—serves Washington’s geopolitical interests. In other words, it’s not primarily about North Korea—it’s about a bigger strategic target: China and Russia.
Washington needs North Korea’s alleged threat to justify its military buildup in Northeast Asia.
From the standpoint of the U.S. (and Japan), can there be a more effective pretext than propping up North Korea’s threat?
If North Korea did not exist as a threat, Washington would likely have invented another North Korea–style justification.
The irony is that North Korea now has the capability to strike the U.S. The U.S. 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), which made no mention of North Korea at all—let alone its denuclearization—underscores Washington’s lack of a strategy for a nuclear-armed North Korea that has threatened “nuclear strikes on the U.S. mainland.”
The bottom line: The Lee Jae Myung administration should stop talking about denuclearization—its’ waste of time. Instead, it instead focus on reducing Washington’s militarism. Specifically, it should push to end U.S.-led joint military exercises with South Korea and Japan. That would be the first and most sensible step.
Spectral Threats: China, Russia and Trump’s Greenland Rationale
Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort.
“There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,”
“Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”
14 January 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/spectral-threats-china-russia-and-trumps-greenland-rationale/
The Trump administration’s mania about Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, is something to behold. Its untutored thuggery, its brash assertiveness, and the increasingly strident threats to either use force, bully Denmark into a sale of the island, or simply annex the territory, have officials and commentators scrambling for theories and precedents. The Europeans are terrified that the NATO alliance is under threat from another NATO member. The Greenlanders are anxious and confused. But the ground for further action by Washington is being readied by finding threats barely real and hardly plausible.
The concerns about China and Russia seizing Greenland retells the same nonsense President Donald Trump promoted in kidnapping the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Looking past the spurious narcoterrorism claims against the former leader, it fell to the issue of who would control the natural resources of the country. If we don’t get Venezuelan oil now and secure it for American companies, the Chinese or the Russians will. he gangster’s rationale is crudely reductionist, seeing all in a similar veinThe obsession with Beijing and Moscow runs like a forced thread through a dotty, insular rationale that repels evidence and cavorts with myth: “We need that [territory],” reasons the President, “because if you take a look outside Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We are not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t.” On Denmark’s military capabilities in holding the island against any potential aggressor, Trump could only snort with macho dismissiveness. “You know what their defence is? Two dog sleds.”
This scratchy logic is unsustainable for one obvious point. Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort. With delicious perversity, any US effort to forcibly acquire the territory through use of force would be an attack on its own security, given its obligations under the Treaty. In such cases, it becomes sound to assume, as the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen does, that the alliance would cease to exist.
Such matters are utterly missed by the rabidly hawkish Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who declared that, “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” It was up to the US “to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests” in incorporating Greenland. To take territory from a NATO ally was essentially doing it good.
Given that the United States already has a military presence on the island at the Pituffik Space Base, and rights under the 1951 agreement that would permit an increase in the number of bases should circumstances require it, along with the Defence Cooperation Agreement finalised with Copenhagen in June 2025, much of Miller’s airings are not merely farcical but redundant. Yet, Trump has made it clear that signatures and understandings reflected in documents are no substitute for physically taking something, the thrill of possession that, by its act, deprives someone else of it. “I think ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty,” he told the New York Times. “Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
What, then, of these phantom forces from Moscow and Beijing, supposedly lying in wait to seize the frozen prize? “There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,” states the very convinced research director of the Oslo-based Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Andreas Østhagen. “Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen is similarly inclined. “The image that’s being painted of Russian and Chinese ships right inside the Nuuk fjord and massive Chinese investments being made is not correct.” Senior “Nordic diplomats” quoted in the Financial Times add to that version, even if the paper is not decent enough to mention which Nordic country they come from. “It is simply not true that the Chinese and Russians are there,” said one. “I have seen the intelligence. There are no ships, no submarines.” Vessel tracking data from Marine Traffic and LSEG have so far failed to disclose the presence of Chinese and Russian ships near the island.
Heating engineer Lars Vintner, based in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, wondered where these swarming, spectral Chinese were based. “The only Chinese I see,” he told Associated Press,“ is when I go to the fast food market.” This sparse presence extends to the broader security footprint of China in the Arctic, which remains modest despite a growing collaboration with Russia since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. These have included Arctic and coast guard operations, while the Chinese military uses satellites and icebreakers equipped with deep-sea mini submarines, potentially for mapping the seabed.
However negligible and piffling the imaginary threat, analysts, ever ready with a larding quote or a research brief, are always on hand to show concern with such projects as Beijing’s Polar Silk Road, announced in 2018, which is intended as the Arctic extension of its transnational Belt and Road initiative. The subtext: Trump should not seize Greenland, but he might have a point. “China has clear ambitions to expand its footprint and influence in the region, which it considers… an emerging arena for geopolitical competition.” Or so says Helena Legarda of the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin.
The ludicrous nature of Trump’s claims and acquisitive urges supply fertile material for sarcasm. A prominent political figure from one of the alleged conquerors-to-be made an effort almost verging on satire. “Trump needs to hurry up,” mocked the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and former President Dmitry Medvedev. “According to unverified information, within a few days, there could be a sudden referendum where all 55,000 residents of Greenland might vote to join Russia. And that’s it!” With Trump, “that’s it” never quite covers it.
Chubu Electric’s data fraud ‘undermines’ Japan’s nuclear energy policy
10 Jan 2026 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/01/10/japan/chubu-electric-data-fraud/
Chubu Electric Power’s data fraud linked to earthquake risks at its Hamaoka nuclear power plant has splashed cold water on the Japanese government’s energy policy of maximizing nuclear power use.
Shinsuke Yamanaka, chief of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, has said that the NRA’s safety screening of the Nos. 3 and 4 reactors at the plant in Shizuoka Prefecture is expected to “go back to square one.”
A delay in the restart of Hamaoka reactors will deal a blow to Chubu Electric’s earnings and affect the government’s goal of raising the share of nuclear power in the country’s energy mix.
The new basic energy plan of the government, adopted in February 2025, marked a shift from its policy of reducing dependence on nuclear power as much as possible, which was introduced following the March 2011 triple meltdown at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings’ tsunami-stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The plan instead calls for fully utilizing nuclear energy to meet surging electricity demand in the country. It specifically seeks to raise the share of nuclear power in the energy mix to about 20% by fiscal 2040 from the current level of slightly less than 10%. For this to be achieved, the number of active nuclear power reactors should be increased from the current 14 to more than 30.
Late last year, the process to obtain local consent was completed for the restart of reactors at Tepco’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station in Niigata Prefecture and Hokkaido Electric Power’s Tomari plant in Hokkaido.
On Jan. 20, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant’s No. 6 reactor is expected to become the first Tepco reactor to be brought back online since the 2011 disaster.
Yamanaka said that the NRA does not plan to investigate nuclear power plants other than the Hamaoka power station for data fraud similar to the irregularities found at the Chubu Electric plant.
If public trust in safety is eroded, however, securing local consent for future reactor restarts would become increasingly difficult.
Chubu Electric’s data fraud case “will greatly undermine public trust in safety,” industry minister Ryosei Akazawa told a news conference Friday. “This should not have happened.” He vowed to “take strict measures” against Chubu Electric based on its upcoming report on preventive steps.
If the safety screening of the Hamaoka reactors restarts from scratch, the power supplier’s earnings will be affected significantly.
The company expects that its profitability will improve by about ¥250 billion a year if the Nos. 3 to 5 reactors at the Hamaoka plant are brought back online. The Nos. 1 and 2 reactors at the plant ended operations in January 2009 and are now being decommissioned.
At a news conference Monday, Chubu Electric President Kingo Hayashi said, “The company’s responsibility for the data fraud is serious.”
On whether he will step down from his post, Hayashi said only that he will consider the matter “comprehensively.”
Hayashi also serves as chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan.
Chubu Electric is also expected to struggle in its decarbonization efforts after the company decided last year to withdraw from a project to construct wind power plants at a total of three locations off the coasts of Akita and Chiba prefectures.
Faslane nuclear base tugboats may be built in China
UK Defence Journal By George Allison, January 12, 2026
New tugboats intended to support operations at HM Naval Base Clyde, the UK’s nuclear submarine hub at Faslane, may be constructed in China under a major fleet replacement programme, depending on how the contractor applies its global production model.
The vessels form part of the Defence Maritime Services Next Generation programme, under which Serco is replacing a wide range of Royal Navy harbour and support craft. The programme covers tugs, pilot boats and barges used at naval bases across the UK, including Faslane, which hosts the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.
Under the current arrangements, the Ministry of Defence pays Serco to provide support services at the Royal Navy’s principal bases, and allows Serco, as the prime contractor, to determine its own supply chain for vessel replacement.
Build locations and Damen’s production model
Damen operates a distributed shipbuilding model, with construction spread across a network of yards in Europe and Asia depending on vessel type and production capacity. The company has historically built a range of smaller commercial and support vessels at yards in China and Vietnam, including certain classes of tugboats, while other workboat types are constructed at European facilities in countries such as Poland and Romania. Final outfitting, integration and delivery preparation are often carried out in the Netherlands or at European partner yards, depending on the contract.
Neither Serco nor Damen has publicly confirmed the specific build locations for individual vessels within the programme. However, Damen’s established production model suggests that some tugboats could be built outside Europe, including at shipyards in China that form part of Damen’s wider manufacturing network……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Not the first time
A similar issue emerged in Australia in 2025, when the national broadcaster ABC reported that a new fleet of tugboats ordered for the Royal Australian Navy had been built in China under a contract awarded to Dutch shipbuilder Damen. The report said certification documents showed the vessels were constructed at Damen’s Changde shipyard in China, before being delivered to Australia under a civilian-operated support arrangement.
In response to the reporting, Australia’s Department of Defence confirmed that the tugboats had been built in China, while stating that they were not commissioned naval vessels and would be operated by a civilian contractor. Defence officials emphasised that sustainment activity would take place domestically and that the vessels were intended for harbour support roles rather than frontline operations…………………….
Wider security context
In a separate but related context, the Ministry of Defence has in recent months issued internal guidance concerning the use of vehicles containing Chinese-manufactured components, amid broader concerns about information security and connected systems. Media reporting has said warning notices were placed in some MoD-leased vehicles advising personnel not to discuss sensitive matters inside them or connect official devices, and that certain vehicles were restricted from accessing sensitive military sites. The measures were described as precautionary, with no publicly confirmed security breach.
Parliamentary questions have also raised wider issues about reliance on overseas-manufactured systems within defence and government operations. Ministers have acknowledged the need to assess potential vulnerabilities linked to global supply chains, while maintaining that decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis and that there has been no evidence of compromise.
Competing views on cost, transparency and social value
Those defending the programme argue that the arrangements reflect commercial shipbuilding norms rather than a deliberate policy decision. They note that hull construction in Asia can reduce costs and production timelines, with final outfitting, systems integration and acceptance carried out later in Europe under established regulatory oversight. Critics argue that the lack of transparency over build locations risks undermining confidence, especially where vessels operate at nuclear sites. They contend that clearer public disclosure is needed on where vessels are constructed and what safeguards apply during the build process.
Louise Gilmour, secretary of GMB Scotland, said the decision to source the workboats overseas represented a missed opportunity to support domestic shipbuilding capacity, particularly at Ferguson Marine, where the union represents the largest section of the workforce. She said the vessels were well suited to the type of work the yard had carried out for generations and argued that contracts of this scale could play a role in sustaining skills and employment in Scotland.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/faslane-nuclear-base-tugboats-may-be-built-in-china/
“Condemning US imperialism for its illegal invasion and violation of sovereignty”
Over the weekend, 56 groups across the country marched to condemn the United States and to demonstrate solidarity with Venezuela, Palestine, and anti-imperialists…
North Korea News, Reporter Lee Seung-hyun , 2026.01.10
Actions condemning the US’s illegal invasion of Venezuela continued across the country over the weekend.
Fifty-six civic groups, including the Joint Action to Stop Trump Threats (preliminary), the National People’s Action, and the Independent Unification and Peace Solidarity, held a “Citizens’ March Condemning the US for Illegal Invasion and Sovereignty Violation” in front of KT in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 10th. The march continued through the city center, through Jongno, Gwanghwamun, and finally to the US Embassy.
Citizens who gathered in front of KT in Gwanghwamun, braving the bad weather of heavy snow, cold waves, and strong winds, chanted in one voice: △ Condemn Trump, a war criminal who aims to plunder resources and change the regime; △ Immediately release President Maduro, who has been illegally kidnapped; △ Stop the tyranny and war of aggression of US imperialism.
Yang Kyung-soo, chairman of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, said, “The tariff war waged by the United States against the world last year shows that the economic order that guaranteed the limitless greed of capital through neoliberalism is over, and that the history of the United States, which boasted sole global hegemony based on neoliberalism and powerful military power, and that the hegemony of the United States are also coming to an end,” adding, “The same goes for the US’s acts of aggression in Venezuela.”
He also mentioned that President Trump signed a proclamation on the 7th (local time) withdrawing from 66 international organizations, including 31 UN agencies and 35 non-UN agencies, and said, “This means that the United States, which is leaving behind both the universal value of responding to the climate crisis and the value of human rights, which are common values for all of humanity, can no longer lead the world order.” He emphasized, “We must stand together with the people of the world who oppose war and the United States, and with the people who love peace, to create a new world where peace, equality, and independence are guaranteed.”
Lee Eun-jung, standing representative of the National Women’s Solidarity, fiercely criticized, “The wars and military interventions the United States has waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria over the past several decades were organized violence by an imperialist state to protect its oil and resource hegemony.” She also strongly criticized, “The United States’ invasion of Venezuela and the arrest of President Maduro and his wife are also clear violations of sovereignty, theft of resources, and a declaration of colonial rule.”
However, times have changed, and the people of the world will not accept the war that the United States wages for its own interests and greed as its destiny, and will never be isolated, he said, raising his voice, saying, “The awakened people of the world will fight together against the imperialist United States that carries out barbaric and illegal invasions and violations of sovereignty
Pastor Hong Deok-jin of the National Council of Clergy Justice and Peace said, “The airstrike on Caracas, Venezuela and the forcible repatriation of the national leader by the Trump administration in the United States on January 3rd is not a simple military action, but an act of neo-imperialism that tramples on the sovereignty of a country and shakes the foundations of international law, and a direct challenge to peace-loving people around the world.” He demanded, “The United States must cease all military operations and withdraw its troops immediately.”
He also emphasized that “the international community must not tolerate U.S. violence,” and that “we must reject Pax Americana, which is dominated by the logic of great power, and we must mobilize all international means to stand in solidarity so that only the self-determination of the Venezuelan people can determine the future of their land.”
He urged the South Korean government to declare its principle of opposing war of aggression rather than worrying about what the United States thinks.
Palestine Peace Solidarity activist Hana said that although Palestine, Venezuela, and Korea are geographically distant, they are closely linked in the criminal plans of the United States and imperialism, and emphasized that “the struggles of the Venezuelan and Palestinian people, who are at the forefront of the fight against imperialism, should also be at the center of the anti-imperialist movement in Korea.”
He pointed out that the US’s support of Israel as a proxy agent in the Middle East to control oil flow and prices is similar to the imperialist greed to maintain hegemony by dominating resources.
He pointed out that since October 2023, Israel has indiscriminately killed at least 72,000 Palestinians by pouring more bombs into the Gaza Strip, an area half the size of Seoul, than the bombs dropped during World War II. He also pointed out that the US has vetoed eight UN resolutions demanding an end to genocide and has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid, making them the main culprits of genocide.
In addition, the government urged Dana Petroleum, which is 100% owned by Korea National Oil Corporation, to stop its complicity in colonial plunder, saying that it is conducting gas exploration activities in the western part of the Leviathan gas field near the Gaza Strip by paying a license fee of 20.4 billion won to the Israeli government.
Citizens’ actions condemning the US war of aggression were also held in Busan (Busan Station Plaza), Daegu and Gyeongbuk (in front of CGV Daegu Hanil), Daejeon (in front of Ian Kyungwon on Euneungjeong Street), and Jeju (in front of the Jeju City Hall Civil Affairs Office) that afternoon.
Plunging Toward Armageddon: U.S. and Russia on the Brink of a New Nuclear Arms Race
Beginning on February 6th, Russian and American leaders will face no barriers whatsoever to the expansion of those arsenals or to any other steps that might increase the danger of a thermonuclear conflagration.
Both the United States and Russia have already committed vast sums to the “modernization” of their nuclear delivery systems
By Michael Klare. 8 Jan 26, https://tomdispatch.com/plunging-into-the-abyss/
Plunging Into the Abyss. Will the U.S. and Russia Abandon All Nuclear Restraints?
For most of us, Friday, February 6, 2026, is likely to feel no different than Thursday, February 5th. It will be a work or school day for many of us. It might involve shopping for the weekend or an evening get-together with friends, or any of the other mundane tasks of life. But from a world-historical perspective, that day will represent a dramatic turning point, with far-reaching and potentially catastrophic consequences. For the first time in 54 years, the world’s two major nuclear-weapons powers, Russia and the United States, will not be bound by any arms-control treaties and so will be legally free to cram their nuclear arsenals with as many new warheads as they wish — a step both sides appear poised to take.
It’s hard to imagine today, but 50 years ago, at the height of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia (then the Soviet Union) jointly possessed 47,000 nuclear warheads — enough to exterminate all life on Earth many times over. But as public fears of nuclear annihilation increased, especially after the near-death experience of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the leaders of those two countries negotiated a series of binding agreements intended to downsize their arsenals and reduce the risk of Armageddon.
The initial round of those negotiations, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I, began in November 1969 and culminated in the first-ever nuclear arms-limitation agreement, SALT-I, in May 1972. That would then be followed in June 1979 by SALT-II (signed by both parties, though never ratified by the U.S. Senate) and two Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and START II), in 1991 and 1993, respectively. Each of those treaties reduced the number of deployed nuclear warheads on U.S. and Soviet/Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers.
In a drive to reduce those numbers even further, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in April 2010, an agreement limiting the number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 on each side — still enough to exterminate all life on Earth, but a far cry from the START I limit of 6,000 warheads per side. Originally set to expire on Feb. 5, 2021, New START was extended for another five years (as allowed by the treaty), resetting that expiration date for February 5, 2026, now fast approaching. And this time around, neither party has demonstrated the slightest inclination to negotiate a new extension.
So, the question is: What, exactly, will it mean for New START to expire for good on February 5th?
Most of us haven’t given that a lot of thought in recent decades, because nuclear arsenals have, for the most part, been shrinking and the (apparent) threat of a nuclear war among the great powers seemed to diminish substantially. We have largely escaped the nightmarish experience — so familiar to veterans of the Cold War era — of fearing that the latest crisis, whatever it might be, could result in our being exterminated in a thermonuclear holocaust.
A critical reason for our current freedom from such fears is the fact that the world’s nuclear arsenals had been substantially diminished and that the two major nuclear powers had agreed to legally binding measures, including mutual inspections of their arsenals, meant to reduce the danger of unintended or accidental nuclear war. Together, those measures were crafted to ensure that each side would retain an invulnerable, second-strike nuclear retaliatory force, eliminating any incentive to initiate a nuclear first strike.
Unfortunately, those relatively carefree days will come to an end at midnight on February 5th.
Beginning on February 6th, Russian and American leaders will face no barriers whatsoever to the expansion of those arsenals or to any other steps that might increase the danger of a thermonuclear conflagration. And from the look of things, both intend to seize that opportunity and increase the likelihood of Armageddon. Worse yet, China’s leaders, pointing to a lack of restraint in Washington and Moscow, are now building up their own nuclear arsenal, only adding further fuel to the urge of American and Russian leaders to blow well past the (soon-to-be-abandoned) New START limits.
A Future Nuclear Arms Race?
Even while adhering to those New START limits of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, both Russia and the United States had taken elaborate and costly steps to enhance the destructive power of their arsenals by replacing older, less-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear bombers with newer, even more capable ones. As a result, each side was already becoming better equipped to potentially inflict catastrophic damage on its opponent’s nuclear retaliatory forces, making a first strike less inconceivable and so increasing the risk of precipitous escalation in a crisis.
The Russian Federation inherited a vast nuclear arsenal from the former Soviet Union, but many of those systems had already become obsolete or unreliable. To ensure that it maintained an arsenal at least as potent as Washington’s, Moscow sought to replace all of the Soviet-era weapons in its inventory with more modern and capable systems, a process still underway. Russia’s older SS-18 ICBMs, for example, are being replaced by the faster, more powerful SS-29 Sarmat, while its remaining five Delta-IV class missile-carrying submarines (SSBNs) are being replaced by the more modern Borei class. And newer ICBMs, SLBMs, and SSBNs are said to be in development.
At present, Russia possesses 333 ICBMs, approximately half of them deployed in silos and the other half on road-mobile carriers. It also has 192 SLBMs on 12 missile-carrying submarines and possesses 67 strategic bombers, each capable of firing multiple nuclear-armed missiles. Supposedly, those systems are currently loaded with no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads (enough, of course, to destroy several planets), as mandated by the New START treaty. However, many of Russia’s land- and sea-based ballistic missiles are MIRVed (meaning they’re capable of launching multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) but not fully loaded, and so could carry additional warheads if a decision were ever made to do so. Given that Russia possesses as many as 2,600 nuclear warheads in storage, it could rapidly increase the number of deployed nuclear weapons at its disposal beginning on February 6, 2026.
Rather than confront such challenges, the leaders of both countries may instead choose to retain the New START limits voluntarily. Indeed, Vladimir Putin has already agreed to a one-year extension of this sort, if the United States is willing to do likewise. But pressures (which are bound to increase after February 5th) are also building to abandon those limits and begin deploying additional warheadsmost missile-tracking radars.
The United States is engaged in a comparable drive to modernize its arsenal, replacing older weapons with more modern systems. Like Russia, the U.S. maintains a “triad” of nuclear delivery systems — land-based ICBMs, submarine-launched SLBMs, and long-range bombers, each of which is now being upgraded with new warheads at an estimated cost over the next quarter century of approximately $1.5 trillion.
The existing New START-limited U.S. nuclear triad consists of 400 silo-based Minuteman-III ICBMs, 240 Trident-II SLBMs carried by 14 Ohio-class submarines (two of which are assumedly being overhauled at any time), and 96 strategic bombers (20 B-2s and 76 B-52s) armed with a variety of gravity bombs and air-launched cruise missiles. According to current plans, the Minuteman-IIIs will be replaced by Sentinel ICBMs, the Ohio-class SSBNs by Columbia-class ones, and the B-2s and B-52s by the new B-21 Raider bomber. Each of those new systems incorporates important features — greater accuracy, increased stealth, enhanced electronics — that make them even more useful as first-strike weapons, were a decision ever made to use them in such a fashion.
When initiated, the U.S. nuclear modernization project was expected to abide by the New START limit of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads. After February 5th, however, the U.S. will be under no legal obligation to do so. It could quickly begin efforts to exceed that limit by loading all existing Minuteman-IIIs and future Sentinel missiles on MIRVed rather than single-warhead projectiles and loading the Trident missiles (already MIRVed) with a larger number of warheads, as well as by increasing production of new B-21s. The United States has also commenced development of a new delivery system, the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N), supposedly intended for use in a “limited” regional nuclear conflict in Europe or Asia (though how such a conflagration could be prevented from igniting a global holocaust has never been explained).
In short, after the expiration of the New START agreement, neither Russia nor the United States will be obliged to limit the numbers of nuclear warheads on their strategic delivery systems, possibly triggering a new global nuclear arms race with no boundaries in sight and an ever-increasing risk of precipitous nuclear escalation. Whether they choose to do so will depend on the political environment in both countries and their bilateral relations, as well as elite perceptions of China’s nuclear buildup in both Washington and Moscow.
The Political Environment
Both the United States and Russia have already committed vast sums to the “modernization” of their nuclear delivery systems, a process that won’t be completed for years. At present, there is a reasonably broad consensus in both Washington and Moscow on the need to do so. However, any attempt to increase the speed of that process or add new nuclear capabilities will generate immense costs along with significant supply-chain challenges (at a time when both countries are also trying to ramp up their production of conventional, non-nuclear arms), creating fresh political disputes and potential fissures.
Rather than confront such challenges, the leaders of both countries may instead choose to retain the New START limits voluntarily. Indeed, Vladimir Putin has already agreed to a one-year extension of this sort, if the United States is willing to do likewise. But pressures (which are bound to increase after February 5th) are also building to abandon those limits and begin deploying additional warheads.
In Washington, a powerful constellation of government officials, conservative pundits, weapons industry leaders, and congressional hawks is already calling for a nuclear buildup that would exceed the New START limits, claiming that a bigger arsenal is needed to deter both a more aggressive Russia and a more powerful China. As Pranay Vaddi, a senior director of the National Security Council, put it in June 2024, “Absent a change in the trajectory of the adversary arsenal, we may reach a point in the coming years where an increase from current deployed numbers is required, and we need to be fully prepared to execute if the president makes that decision.”
Those who favor such a move regularly point to China’s nuclear buildup. Just a few years ago, China possessed only some 200 nuclear warheads, a small fraction of the 5,000 possessed by both Russia and the U.S. Recently, however, China has expanded its arsenal to an estimated 600 warheads, while deploying more ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear-capable bombers. Chinese officials claim that such weaponry is needed to ensure retaliation against an enemy-first strike, but their very existence is being cited by nuclear hawks in Washington as a sufficient reason for the U.S. to move beyond the New START limits.
Russian leaders face an especially harsh quandary. At a moment when they are devoting so much of the country’s state finances and military-industrial capacities to the war in Ukraine, they face a more formidable and possibly expanded U.S. nuclear arsenal, not to mention the (largely unspoken) threat posed by China’s growing arsenal. Then there’s President Trump’s plan for building a “Golden Dome” missile shield, intended to protect the U.S. from any type of enemy projectile, including ICBMs — a system which, even if only partially successful, would threaten the credibility of Russia’s second-strike retaliatory capability. So, while Russia’s leaders would undoubtedly prefer to avoid a costly new arms buildup, they will probably conclude that they have little choice but to undertake one if the U.S. abandons New START.
Racing to Armageddon
Many organizations, individuals, and members of Congress are pleading with the Trump administration to accept Vladimir Putin’s proposal and agree to a voluntary continuation of the New START limits after February 5th. Any decision to abandon those limits, they argue, would only add hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal budget at a time when other priorities are being squeezed. Such a decision would also undoubtedly provoke reciprocal moves by Russia and China. The result would be an uncontrolled arms race and a rising risk of nuclear annihilation.
But even if Washington and Moscow were to agree to a one-year voluntary extension of New START, each would be free to break out of it at any moment. In that sense, February 6th is likely to bring us into a new era — not unlike the early years of the Cold War — in which the major powers will be poised to ramp up their nuclear war-fighting capabilities without any formal restrictions whatsoever. That comfortable feeling we once enjoyed of relative freedom from an imminent nuclear holocaust will also then undoubtedly begin to dissipate. If there is any hope in such a dark prognosis, it might be that such a reality could, in turn, ignite a worldwide anti-nuclear movement like the Ban the Bomb campaigns of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. If only.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki urge Japanese government to uphold non-nuclear principles
10-Jan-2026 CGTN. https://news.cgtn.com/news/2026-01-10/Hiroshima-Nagasaki-call-on-Japan-to-uphold-non-nuclear-principles-1JOBGW72YxO/p.html
The city assemblies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have adopted statements urging the Japanese government to adhere to the country’s Three Non-Nuclear Principles, Kyodo News reported.
The Hiroshima City Assembly unanimously adopted its statement on Friday, pointing out that the ruling party’s attempt to revise the non-nuclear principles has caused concern, and strongly urging the Japanese government to take the feelings of people in the atomic-bombed cities seriously and to uphold the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, the report said.
The Nagasaki City Assembly passed its statement on Thursday by a majority vote, noting that successive Japanese governments have regarded the Three Non-Nuclear Principles as a national policy. It said the ruling party’s intended revision of the principles while amending the country’s security documents is totally unacceptable.
On August 6 and 9, 1945, in an effort to force Japan, which had launched a war of aggression, to surrender as soon as possible, the U.S. military dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. The Three Non-Nuclear Principles – not possessing, not producing, and not allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japanese territory – were first declared by then-Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato in 1967 and formally adopted by parliament in 1971, establishing them as Japan’s basic nuclear policy. The National Security Strategy, one of the three documents approved by the Cabinet in 2022, states, “The basic policy of adhering to the Three Non-Nuclear Principles will remain unchanged in the future.”
Japanese media have previously reported that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is considering reviewing the third of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which prohibits nuclear weapons from entering Japan’s territory, when updating related documents.
The Unbroken Thread: China’s Civilisational-State vs. The West’s Contractual Empire – A Study in Divergent Destinies
10 January 2026 Andrew Klein, PhD, https://theaimn.net/the-unbroken-thread-chinas-civilisational-state-vs-the-wests-contractual-empire-a-study-in-divergent-destinies/
Abstract
This article contrasts the developmental trajectories of China and the United States (representing the modern West) by examining their foundational civilisational codes, historical experiences, and political philosophies. It argues that while the U.S. follows the extractive, individual-centric model of a classic maritime empire (extending the Roman pattern), China operates as a continuous civilisational-state, its policies shaped by a deep memory of collapse and humiliation and a Confucian-Legalist emphasis on collective resilience. The analysis critiques the Western failure to comprehend China through the reductive lens of “Communism,” ignoring the profound impact of the “Century of Humiliation” and China’s subsequent focus on sovereignty, infrastructure, and social stability as prerequisites for development. The paper concludes that China’s model, focused on long-term societal flourishing over short-term extraction, presents a fundamentally different, and perhaps more durable, imperial paradigm.
Introduction: The Mandate of History vs. The Mandate of Capital
The rise of China is often analysed through the prism of Western political theory, leading to a fundamental category error. To compare China and the United States is not to compare two nation-states of similar ontological origin. It is to compare a civilisational-state – whose political structures are an outgrowth of millennia of unified cultural consciousness and bureaucratic governance – with a contractual empire – a relatively recent construct built on Enlightenment ideals, but ultimately sustained by global financial and military hegemony (Jacques, 2009). Their paths diverge at the root of their historical memory and their core objectives.
China’s Catalysing Trauma: Modern China’s psyche is indelibly shaped by the “Century of Humiliation” (c. 1839-1949), beginning with the Opium Wars – a stark example of Western imperial extraction enforced by gunboats (Lovell, 2011). This was compounded by the collapse of the Qing dynasty, civil war, and the horrific suffering during the Second World War. The foundational drive of the People’s Republic, therefore, was not merely ideological victory but the restoration of sovereignty, stability, and dignity (Mitter, 2013). Every policy is filtered through the question: “Will this prevent a return to fragmentation and foreign domination?”
America’s Founding Myth: The U.S. narrative is one of triumphant exceptionalism. Born from anti-colonial revolution, it expanded across a continent it saw as empty (ignoring Native nations) and engaged with the world primarily from a position of growing strength. Its traumas (Civil War, 9/11) are seen as interruptions to a forward progress, not as defining, humiliating collapses. This fosters an optimistic, forward-looking, and often abistorical mindset (Williams, 2009).
2. Political Philosophy: Meritocratic Collectivism vs. Individualist Democracy
China’s System: The “Exam Hall” State. China’s governance synthesises Confucian meritocracy and Legalist institutionalism. The modern manifestation is a rigorous, multi-decade screening process for political advancement, emphasising administrative competence, economic performance, and crisis management (Bell, 2015). The objective is governance for long-term civilisational survival. The Communist Party frames itself as the contemporary upholder of the “Mandate of Heaven,” responsible for collective welfare. Political legitimacy is derived from delivery of stability and prosperity.
The West’s System: The “Arena” State. Western liberal democracy, particularly in its U.S. form, is a contest of ideas, personalities, and interest groups. Legitimacy is derived from the procedural act of election. While capable of brilliance, this system incentivises short-term focus (electoral cycles), polarisation, and the influence of capital over long-term planning (Fukuyama, 2014). Expertise is often subordinated to popularity.
3. The Social Contract: Infrastructure & Security vs. Liberty & Opportunity
China’s Deliverables: Post-1978 reforms shifted focus to development, but within the framework of the party-state. The state prioritises and invests heavily in tangible foundations: universal literacy, poverty alleviation, high-speed rail networks, urban housing, and food security (World Bank, 2022). The social contract is explicit: public support in exchange for continuous improvement in material living standards and national prestige.
The West’s Deliverables: The Western social contract, historically, promised upward mobility and individual liberty protected by rights. However, the late-stage extractive economic model has led to the decline of public goods: crumbling infrastructure, unaffordable higher education, for-profit healthcare, and eroded social safety nets (Piketty, 2013). The contract feels broken, leading to societal discord.
4. Global Engagement: Symbiotic Mercantilism vs. Extractive Hegemony
China’s Method: Development as Diplomacy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the archetype of its approach: offering infrastructure financing and construction to developing nations, facilitating trade integration on its terms. It is a form of state-led, long-term strategic mercantilism aimed at creating interdependent networks (Rolland, 2017). Its “soft power” is not primarily cultural, but commercial and infrastructural.
The West’s Method: The post-WWII U.S.-led order, while providing public goods, has been characterised by asymmetric extraction: structural adjustment programs, financial dominance, and military interventions to secure resources and political alignment (Harvey, 2003). It maintains a core-periphery relationship with much of the world.
Conclusion: The Durability of Patterns
The West’s mistake is viewing China through the simple dichotomy of “Communist vs. Democratic.” This ignores the 4,000-year-old continuum of the Chinese statecraft that values unity, hierarchical order, and scholarly bureaucracy. China is not “learning from Communism”; it is learning from the Tang Dynasty, the Song economic revolutions, and the catastrophic lessons of the 19th and 20th centuries.
China’s course is different because its definition of empire is different. It seeks a Sinic-centric world system of stable, trading partners, not necessarily ideological clones. Its focus is internal development and peripheral stability, not universal ideological conversion. Its potential weakness lies in demographic shifts and the challenge of innovation under political constraints. The West’s weakness is its accelerating internal decay and inability to reform its extractive, short-termist model.
Two imperial models are now in full view. One, the West, is a flickering, brilliant flame from Rome, burning its fuel recklessly. The other, China, is a slowly rekindled hearth fire, banked for the long night, its heat directed inward to warm its own house first. History is not ending; it is presenting its bill, and the civilisations that prepared their ledger will write the next chapter.
References…………………………..
Japan’s ‘most dangerous’ nuclear power plant admits to manipulating earthquake safety data
Regulator halts review to restart Hamaoka power plant after 14 years
Shweta Sharma, Tuesday 06 January 2026, https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/japan/japan-nuclear-plant-data-manipulation-earthquake-b2895086.html
A Japanese power plant operator has admitted to cherry-picking critical safety data to pass the screening process of the nuclear safety regulator to restart two of its offline reactors.
Chubu Electric said on Monday that it had set up an independent panel of experts to investigate possible misconduct in compiling data as part of a process to restart two reactors at the Hamaoka nuclear power plant.
The plant originally had five reactors but two were permanently shut down in 2009. The remaining three reactors were taken offline in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Concerns about data manipulation mean the power plant is unlikely to restart anytime soon. It’s also a likely setback for Japan’s efforts to shift back to nuclear power to boost energy security and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Chubu told regulators it had selected an earthquake wave model closest to the average of 20 possible patterns to calculate the Hamaoka plant’s “standard seismic motion”, the maximum shaking the reactors could withstand. However, the company admitted, employees in charge could have deliberately chosen that model to make the plant appear safer and speed up the screening process.
We sincerely apologise for the incident,” Chubu Electric president Kingo Hayashi told a press conference. “The actions could potentially shake the foundations of the nuclear power business.”
The regulator learned about the misconduct last February after it was contacted by a whistleblower.
A senior agency executive called the matter “unbelievable” saying it broke trust in the operator and would make the people question its eligibility.
The industry ministry has now ordered Chubu Electric to submit a detailed report by 6 April explaining the cause of the misconduct and outlining measures to prevent it from happening again.
The Hamaoka power plant, 200km south-west of Tokyo, has been described as the “world’s most dangerous” nuclear power facility by some seismologists and anti‑nuclear campaigners. Government forecasts have predicted an 87 per cent chance of a powerful quake in the area, which sits on two major subterranean faults. A major accident would be likely to force the evacuation of Greater Tokyo, home to 28 million people.
Professor Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and a former member of a Japanese government panel on nuclear reactor safety, said in 2003 that Hamaoka was “the most dangerous nuclear power station” in Japan because of the potential for an earthquake to trigger a nuclear disaster.
He assessed at the time that such an incident would devastate a broad area between Tokyo and Nagoya, destroying more than 200,000 buildings and resulting in a huge tsunami.
The plant was ordered to shut down reactors 4 and 5 and cancel the planned restart of reactor 3 following the Fukushima disaster, when a magnitude 9 earthquake triggered tsunami waves up to 15m high. Hamaoka was built to withstand only an 8.5-magnitude quake and an 8m tsunami.
Chubu applied for a review to restart the Hamaoka reactors between 2014 and 2015, and it was approved for standard seismic motion in September 2023.
Shares of Chubu Electric dropped 8.2 per cent, its steepest fall since April 2025, after the latest revelations.
Why talk of a Japanese nuclear option is resurfacing – and why it alarms critics
Conservatives are calling for a rethink of nuclear taboos, while critics warn of risks to the global non-proliferation regime
Julian Ryall, SCMP,3 Jan 2026
An editorial in the Sankei Shimbun has reopened a long-taboo debate in Japan over whether the country should even discuss acquiring nuclear weapons, after off-the-record remarks by a senior security official arguing the country should have them sparked domestic and regional backlash.
The conservative daily argued that growing threats from Japan’s neighbours mean no option for protecting the public should be beyond discussion, a stance that has drawn praise from some on the right and alarm from critics who warn that even signalling such intent could destabilise the global non-proliferation system.
The editorial, published on Monday, was accompanied by a graphic comparing regional nuclear forces, stating that Russia has an estimated 5,580 nuclear warheads, North Korea around 50 and China about 500, with the latter figure projected to rise to more than 1,000 by 2030.
It appeared 10 days after the senior national security official in the Prime Minister’s Office said – in an off-the-record remark reported by Japanese media during a background briefing – that he personally believed Japan should possess nuclear weapons.
The remarks prompted a fierce reaction at home and abroad, including from Beijing, where Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, told reporters the situation was a “serious issue that exposes the dangerous attempts by some in Japan to breach international law and possess nuclear weapons”.
“China and the rest of the international community must stay on high alert and express grave concern,” he added.
Japan has for decades adhered to its three non-nuclear principles – not possessing, producing or permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons – while relying on the United States for extended deterrence and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which commits non-nuclear states to forgo developing or acquiring nuclear arms.
The Sankei editorial urged Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi not to “give in” to calls for the aide to be dismissed, arguing that doing so would “stifle free debate on how best to protect the Japanese people”.
It dismissed objections from China and North Korea as “ludicrous” and “hypocritical”, noting that both possessed nuclear weapons and were strengthening their arsenals.
“For Japan, the point of the debate is how to safeguard the public, not merely whether or not to actually possess nuclear weapons,” it added. “From that standpoint, making it taboo to merely mention the nuclear weapons option is the worst possible stance to adopt.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3338570/why-talk-japanese-nuclear-option-resurfacing-and-why-it-alarms-critics
Safety fears as Japan prepares to restart nuclear plant ‘built on tofu’
the greatest risk remains the region’s susceptibility to seismic activity.
the will of the majority of residents today is opposition to a restart and that opposition is f
While Fukushima operator Tepco says it is ‘committed to safety’ at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, critics believe it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Julian Ryall, 27 Dec 2025
Campaigners against nuclear energy have condemned Japan’s decision to resume operations at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant, claiming that the facility will be unable to withstand a major earthquake as it was “built on tofu”.
Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), the operator of the Niigata prefecture plant, on Wednesday applied for a final examination of the facility to the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA). Approval is likely to be a formality as the prefectural assembly already gave the nod on Tuesday.
Tepco, which has been fiercely criticised for its handling of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in March 2011, intends to restart one reactor at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa on January 20.
It would be the first of Tepco’s nuclear reactors to resume since three of Fukushima’s six reactors melted down after a magnitude 9 offshore earthquake unleashed devastating tsunamis.
Tepco has been working hard in recent years to convince the local government and residents of Niigata prefecture that it has made upgrades to secure the site from natural disasters.
Its president, Tomoaki Kobayakawa, told the media that as the operator “responsible” for the Fukushima accident, the company was now “committed to prioritising safety” at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa.
Many people remain unconvinced.
“The plant was famous for having been built on tofu – the bedrock is 30 metres (100 feet) below the surface – with many fault lines running through the site as well as offshore,” said Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear energy specialist for Greenpeace.
“Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is one of the world’s largest nuclear plants and the only one in theory capable of operating for Tepco. So restarting operations has been a priority for both the company and the government for more than a decade,” Burnie told This Week in Asia.
“But resistance from Niigata residents, the scale of safety issues and the incompetence of Tepco have undermined all efforts until now.”
History repeating itself?
Nearly 15 years after the Fukushima plant was the site of the second-worst nuclear accident in global history, Burnie warns that serious problems are being overlooked again.
Even during the preliminary planning stages, in the mid-1970s, it was apparent that ground conditions at the site by the Sea of Japan were not suitable, he said.
That was shown in July 2007, when the Chuetsu-oki earthquake struck. The magnitude 6.6 quake occurred on a previously unknown offshore fault line about 11km (7 miles) off the coast, followed 13 hours later by a 6.8 tremor around 330km (205 miles) to the west.
The nuclear plant, 19km (12 miles) due south from the epicentre of the initial quake, registered a peak ground acceleration – essentially how much the ground shook – of 6.8 metres (22 feet) per second squared in reactor No 1. The design specification for achieving a safe shutdown is 4.5m/s², while the restart level for key equipment in the plant is 2.73m/s².
Burnie said the original design specifications at the site “turned out to be gross underestimates”, with the quakes causing damage of varying degrees at 3,000 places within the plant.
A fire in an electric transformer caused the most serious damage. It left a pall of black smoke over the plant and alarmed local residents. There were also a number of leaks of mildly radioactive water and spills of radioactive cobalt-60, iodine and chromium-51 from overturned storage drums.
Given the events of 2007 and 2011, Burnie said local residents’ concerns were justified, particularly as new issues have come to light.
“We should have no confidence in Tepco assurances on safety at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa,” he said. “For example, two months after the NRA had approved the reactors’ basic safety assessment in late 2017, Tepco revealed that … the site under the emergency hydrogen ventilation buildings at units five, six and seven was vulnerable to liquefaction.”
Tepco “immediately came under pressure to explain the scale of liquefaction at the site, prove that it does not extend to the reactor buildings and how it was that the NRA was not informed prior to granting approval”, Burnie said.
Equally, he said, the NRA had to explain how it failed to identify liquefaction as a problem for a site before it granted basic safety approval.
A series of security incidents have also been cause for concern. There have been accusations of poor handling of sensitive documents, malfunctioning intruder detection systems and an employee borrowing a colleague’s pass to enter the restricted main control room in 2020.
Shaken by fears
But the greatest risk remains the region’s susceptibility to seismic activity.
“There are multiple seismic fault lines in the area of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site, including large-scale submarine active faults,” Burnie said. “The enormous seismic risks at the site remain unresolved and are certain to dominate the debate about the safety of any reactor restart, including in ongoing legal challenges.”
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Tepco said it would “carefully cooperate with all inspections performed by the NRA while also continuing to prioritise safety and steadily making each and every preparation for a restart”.
Takeshi Sakagami, a member of the Citizens’ Association for Monitoring Nuclear Regulation, said that a recent survey conducted by Niigata prefecture determined that 60 per cent of local residents believed that “conditions are not right” to resume operations at the plant.
“The governor explained that support should increase as understanding deepens,” Sakagami said. But “opponents counter that the will of the majority of residents today is opposition to a restart and that opposition is firm”.
Sakagami believed the government was hastening to restart the reactors “because they fear that Japan’s nuclear technology will fall behind the rest of the world”.
For him, the direction that Japan should take is simple.
“I believe Japan should abandon nuclear power and boldly shift towards renewable energy sources and energy conservation,” he said.
When the USSR and China saved humanity: How they won the World Anti-Fascist War.
December 28, 2025 , By Ben Norton, https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/12/26/ussr-china-world-anti-fascist-war/
It was the Soviet Union and China that defeated fascism in WWII. Their heroic contribution was later erased by the West. In the First Cold War, the US recruited former Nazis.
2025 marked the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascism in World War Two. Unfortunately, the history of this extremely important conflict is not very well understood today.
It was not the United States and its Western allies that defeated fascism in WWII. That is a myth that is promoted by Hollywood movies.
In reality, it was the Soviet Union and China that defeated fascism in WWII. However, their heroic contribution was later erased by the West, when the US waged the First Cold War against the global socialist movement.
The vast majority of Nazi casualties, approximately 80%, were on the Eastern Front, in the Third Reich’s savage, scorched-earth battles against the Soviet Red Army.
More than 26 million Soviets died in the Nazi empire’s genocidal war. Compare that to the just over 400,000 US Americans who died, and the roughly 450,000 Brits who lost their lives.
This means that 62 Soviets were killed for every US American who died in WWII. Yet, tragically, their sacrifice has been forgotten in the West – or, better said, erased from public consciousness for political reasons.
The fact that the USSR defeated Nazi Germany was even admitted by the inveterate anti-communist Winston Churchill, an explicit racist, colonialist, and erstwhile admirer of Hitler who oversaw the British empire’s extreme crimes, including a famine in Bengal in 1943.
In a speech in August 1944, Churchill acknowledged:
“I have left the obvious, essential fact to this point, namely, that it is the Russian Armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the German army. In the air and on the oceans we could maintain our place, but there was no force in the world which could have been called into being, except after several more years, that would have been able to maul and break the German army unless it had been subjected to the terrible slaughter and manhandling that has fallen to it through the strength of the Russian Soviet Armies”.
Then, in October 1944, Churchill said, “I have always believed and I still believe that it is the Red Army that has torn the guts out of the filthy Nazis”.
Read more: When the USSR and China saved humanity: How they won the World Anti-Fascist War.In fact, the USSR wanted to crush fascism even earlier by proposing a surprise attack on Nazi Germany in 1939, weeks before Hitler invaded Poland. Soviet military officers made an official request to British and French officials to form an alliance against Nazi Germany in August 1939, but London and Paris were not interested. The USSR had a million troops ready to fight, but the Western European powers were not prepared.
What the capitalist countries in Western Europe and North America had hoped for was that Nazi Germany would attack the Soviet Union, which they considered their main enemy. This is why the Western imperial powers had long appeased Hitler, signing shameful deals like the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed the Nazi empire to expand in Europe.
What the Western capitalist “liberal democracies” and the fascist regimes shared in common was mutual hatred of communism. The rich oligarchs who controlled Western governments feared that they would lose their privileges if workers in their countries were inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution.
In the 1930s, the US State Department spoke positively of fascism as an alternative to communism, and the US chargé d’affaires in Germany praised the supposedly “more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by Hitler himself … which appeal[s] to all civilized and reasonable people”.
It must be emphasized that, when the Japanese empire officially allied with Nazi Germany in 1936, the name of the deal they signed was the Agreement Against the Communist International, or the Anti-Comintern Pact. Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy subsequently signed the agreement in 1937, and the fascist regimes in Spain, Hungary, and other European countries joined in the following years. It was extreme, violent anti-communism that united all of these fascist powers.
While there is widespread ignorance about the Soviet Union’s leading role in crushing Nazi Germany in WWII, the heroic contribution that the people of China made to the defeat of the Japanese empire is even less well known.
For Europe, WWII began in 1939, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. For the people of China, the war started much earlier, in 1931, when the Japanese empire invaded the Manchuria region of northern China.
For 14 years, the people of China resisted Japan’s aggression, as the imperial regime sought to colonize more and more Chinese territory.
By the end of the war in 1945, roughly 20 million Chinese had lost their lives. This means that approximately 48 Chinese were killed for every US American who died in WWII.
In China, WWII is known as the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, and it was part of a larger conflict called the World Anti-Fascist War.
China held an important event on 3 September 2025 commemorating the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascism. It featured key leaders of countries that are today, once again, fighting against imperialism and fascism, including China’s President Xi Jinping, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, the DPRK’s leader Kim Jong-un, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, and officials from other countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, including Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel and Nicaragua’s representative Laureano Ortega Murillo.
The United States has long taken credit for the defeat of the fascist Japanese empire, but this erases the enormous, heroic, 14-year contribution made by the Chinese people.
Although it is true that the United States was briefly allied with the USSR and China during WWII, and it did provide significant military assistance through its 1941 Lend-Lease Act, Washington immediately terminated that partnership in 1945.
In fact, even before WWII officially ended, the United States had already started to recruit fascists to help them wage the First Cold War. US intelligence agencies saved many Nazi war criminals in the infamous Operation Paperclip. Instead of facing justice, these genocidaires assisted Washington in its subsequent attacks on the Soviet Union and its communist allies in Eastern Europe.
Later, the CIA and NATO created Operation Gladio, in which they used fascist war criminals as foot soldiers of their new global imperialist war on socialism. The former top Nazi military officer Adolf Heusinger was appointed the chair of NATO’s military committee, and the ex Nazi Hans Speidel became commander of NATO’s land forces in Central Europe.
The United States even rehabilitated Nazi war criminal Reinhard Gehlen, who had directed Hitler’s military intelligence on the Eastern Front in WWII, and who later led the CIA-backed Gehlen Organization to help Washington wage its cold war against communists.
The United States did not defeat fascism; it rehabilitated and absorbed fascism into the capitalist empire that Washington built after WWII, centered in Wall Street and based on the dollar.
The contemporary German government published the results of a study in 2016, called the Rosenberg project, which sifted through classified documents from 1950 to 1973. It found that, at the height of the Cold War, the government of capitalist West Germany, which was a member of NATO, was full of former Nazis.
In fact, 77% of senior officials in West Germany’s Justice Ministry had been Nazis. Ironically, there had been a lower percentage of Nazi Party members in the Justice Ministry in Berlin when the genocidal dictator Adolf Hitler himself was in charge of the Third Reich.
Similarly, in Japan after WWII, US occupation forces released Japanese war criminals from prison and used them to construct an imperial client regime. The CIA helped to create and fund the powerful Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has essentially governed Japan as a one-party state, with few exceptions, since 1955.
Notorious war criminal Nobusuke Kishi had overseen genocidal crimes against humanity against the Chinese people as an administrator of the Japanese empire’s puppet regime of Manchukuo, in Manchuria, during WWII. After the war ended, the United States strongly supported Kishi, who led the LDP, established the de facto one-party state, and became prime minister of the country.
Still today, the Kishi dynasty is one of the most powerful families in Japan. Kishi’s grandson Shinzo Abe also led the LDP and served as prime minister from 2012 and 2020, closely allying Japan with the United States, while antagonizing China and rewriting the history of WWII.
In short, after the Soviet Union and China led the fight to defeat fascism in WWII, the US empire recruited fascists to fight its global war against socialism.
Today, it is extremely important to learn these facts and correct the historical record, because 2025 is the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII, and it is clear that the proper lessons have not been learned in the West.
The planet is still plagued by extreme imperial violence, and closer than ever to another world war.
The United States and Israel have been carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, committing atrocities that are reminiscent of the fascists’ crimes against humanity in WWII.
Fascism has its roots in European colonialism. The genocidal tactics that the European empires used in Asia, Africa, and Latin America were later used by the fascists inside Europe.
Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was inspired by the genocidal crimes that the German empire had committed in southern Africa, and also by the genocide that the US colonialists had carried out against indigenous peoples in North America. The Nazis were likewise influenced by the US government’s racist laws against Black Americans, in its apartheid system known as Jim Crow.
Given the close links between fascism and Western imperialism, it is not surprising to see that, today, the US regime has become increasingly fascist. Politicians in Washington scapegoat immigrants and foreigners for the many domestic problems in their country, including the significant growth in inequality, poverty, and homelessness. They have no solutions other than more violence, racism, and war.
The increasing political desperation and instability in Washington is combining in a toxic mixture with the greed of US corporations in the military-industrial complex, which profit from war, and are thus incentivized to push for more conflict, not for peace.
The United States, as the leader of NATO, has already been waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukrainian territory, using the people of Ukraine as cannon fodder in an imperial war, tragically destroying an entire generation of Ukrainians in a vain attempt to maintain US global hegemony.
The US empire has also used its Israeli attack dog to wage war on the people of Iran, in an attempt to overthrow the revolutionary government in Tehran and impose a puppet regime, like the former king, the shah, who was propped up by Washington.
The number one target of the US empire today, however, is the People’s Republic of China. US imperialists fear that China is the only country powerful enough to not only challenge but to defeat Washington’s global hegemony.
The US empire is waging a Second Cold War against China, and it has weaponized everything in this hybrid war, imposing sanctions and tariffs to wage economic war, using its control over the dollar system in a financial war, and exploiting the media to spread disinformation and fake news as part of an information war.
Part of the US empire’s strategy in this information war is to erase the Chinese people’s major contribution to the defeat of fascism and imperialism in WWII.
This is why it is so crucial to defend the facts, and to teach the true history of WWII to people today. If we don’t correct the historical record, the fascists and imperialists of the 21st century will weaponize ignorance in order to carry out the same crimes that their ideological brethren committed in the 20th century.
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 