US can’t trace $62 million of military aid sent to Ukraine – watchdog.
Rt.com 28 June 24
The Pentagon does not know whether defense items were “lost or destroyed,” an investigation has found.
The US Defense Department is unable to locate $62 million worth of weapons given to Ukraine, according to a report released on Wednesday.
The conclusions were presented by the Pentagon inspector general after an assessment on whether the DoD is effectively monitoring defense items provided to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
The watchdog found that as of late November last year, a total $62.2 million in hardware designated for enhanced end-use monitoring (EEUM) was reported as missing. Among them are night vision devices, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and missile launch units.
According to the report, the US Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) in Ukraine “cannot tell which of these items were lost and which were destroyed.” The Ukrainian army has not yet provided clarification, it adds…………………………………………more https://www.rt.com/news/600100-us-military-aid-millions-missing-ukraine/
UK government hires scandal-ridden Fujitsu company to account and track its nuclear waste!
Government Hires Fujitsu to Account and Track Dangerous Nuclear Wastes from Dounreay – Are they Laughing at Us?
At the same time folk at Glastonbury Festival are saying No to New Nuclear Wastes and the Post Office Inquiry is Live , Government have hired the company at the centre of the Post Office scandal to account for and track the UK’s most dangerous nuclear wastes. The £306K Fujitsu contract has been awarded by Nuclear Restoration Services (former Magnox) for Fujitsu’s ATOM application: “A contract has been awarded by NRS
Dounreay as a result of a direct award through the Crown Commercial Services
RM6194 Back Office Software Framework, for the provision and support of ATOM Application.”
Dounreay was the test site of the UK’s experimental Fast Breeder nuclear reactors. “EARLY in the morning of Tuesday 10 May 1977 there was a loud explosion at the Dounreay nuclear plant on the north coast of Scotland. The UK Atomic Energy Authority, which runs the plant, had dumped at least 2 kilograms of sodium and potassium down a 65-metre shaft packed with radioactive waste and flooded with seawater.”
Fujitsu’s ATOM stands for Accountancy and Tracking Of Material – “a comprehensive track and trace application, specifically designed for the processing, movement and reporting of nuclear and radioactive materials throughout the supply chain right up to nuclear decommissioning”. According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 2008 Fujitsu’s ATOM employed over ” 2,000 people • Manages over 115,000 radioactive item records in the UK.” In 2008 Dik Third, Nuclear Materials Advisor, UKAEA, worked closely with Fujitsu and said “…one of the problems with radioactive materials is that they have properties that computer-based logistics packages don’t handle. Unlike tins of beans, radioactive materials with short half-lives can transform into another isotope entirely.”
Fujitsu are now in control of the accounting and tracking of radioactive materials ie of nuclear wastes from the UKs failed fast breeder reactor at Dounreay. They will be allocating wastes to the nuclear “waste hierarchy’ that means sorting wastes to go landfill, to incineration, to the Low Level Waste Repository at Drigg, to Cyclife (radioactive scrap metal plant) and to Sellafield. The nuclear waste hierarchy has been criticised for reducing the levels at which waste can be designated for “free release” and other “disposal” routes which increasingly mean dumping into the public domain. There is a precedent for radioactive material ending up in the wrong place even without the services of Fujitsu.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
Post Election: A Different Kind of Nuclear Bomb
The Nuclear Legacy
The Government has accidentally left behind an unexploded bomb for an incoming Labour Government. Should it go off, it will be early evidence for the argument that Starmer can’t be trusted. The bomb in question is whether or not to go ahead with building another large French nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk.
Our current experience with building large French nuclear power stations is no
Tom Burke on how an incoming Labour Government will have to deal with the unexploded political bomb of nuclear left behind by the Conservatives
BYLINE SUPPLEMENT, JUN 26, 2024, https://www.bylinesupplement.com/p/post-election-a-different-kind-of
You know something is changing in British politics when our better-known political commentators start turning up at Green Party events. They have not found it easy to make much sense of what such a heterodox coalition offers voters. But there is no doubting that their presence signals an old order in transition.
The Financial Times publishes a general election poll tracker. The picture it shows has not changed significantly for eighteen months. A consistent 20 point gap between Labour and the Conservatives is now barely worth a comment. Much less noticed, however, has been another equally consistent pattern.
Adding together support for the insurgent parties – Reform at 11.5%, Lib-Dems at 9.2% and the Greens at 6.3% – may not tell you much about the balance of power in the next Parliament but it does tell you something significant about Britain’s electorate. Voter support for the three minor parties totals 27%, almost 4% higher than that for the ruling Conservatives.
Put another way, more than 70% of British voters want anyone other than the current Conservative Government to run the country. Apart from being a clear demonstration of the wisdom of crowds, this is another dagger at the heart of our archaic and increasingly dysfunctional first past the post voting system. The political complexities of the 21st Century cannot easily be tackled as a tidy battle between labour and capital. Voters have already recognised this. It is time that our political leaders did too.
No issue makes this more apparent than that of climate change. The Conservatives’ choice of this issue as a key battleground on which to fight an electoral culture war was entirely voluntary. There was no great grassroots pressure from within the Party itself. Nor was there any groundswell of public opinion although there was a noisy, if evidence-free, torrent of editorial ink from the Rothermere, Murdoch, Barclay press.
The Uxbridge by-election last July paused a string of Conservative losses. Victory was put down to a voter rebellion against too-expensive climate change policies. The Government then seized on climate as a wedge issue for the forthcoming election and began a systematic winding back of climate action.
In doing so it was copying an election strategy first adopted by the Australian National Party. Since our Prime Minister’s election strategist is the Australian Isaac Levido – a protégé of another, better known, Australian political strategist, Lynton Crosby, this should not have surprised anyone.
What is less explicable is why anyone should have thought that a strategy that failed in Australia would work here. Labour’s victory in the 2022 Australian election was aided by a break-away group of candidates standing as ‘Teals’ – blue-green Conservatives. Exactly the constituency David Cameron had wooed for the Tories here in 2010.
As things currently stand, Labour looks like being helped into Downing Street by an ill-chosen culture war that climate change won. This will have its own challenges for Labour. No-one doubts their good intentions on the climate. But their clumsy handling of, and subsequent back pedalling on, their £28 billion a year green prosperity pledge has left a legacy of doubt in voters’ minds. It risks being punished by increasingly volatile voters if it cannot quickly resolve those doubts.
The Nuclear Legacy
The Government has accidentally left behind an unexploded bomb for an incoming Labour Government. Should it go off, it will be early evidence for the argument that Starmer can’t be trusted. The bomb in question is whether or not to go ahead with building another large French nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk.
Our current experience with building large French nuclear power stations is not encouraging. Although, unusually, we are not alone in this respect. No-one else, including the French themselves, has been able to do so either. Indeed, France has now decided not to even try to build any more of the type of reactors intended for Sizewell as they are too expensive and difficult to build. They will build a different design instead.
The French reactor we are currently building at Hinkley Point was promised to cost £5.6 billion in 2008 and be producing the electricity to cook turkeys on by 2017. In today’s money it will cost nearer to £46 billion and not be producing electricity before 2030. To get EDF to invest, the then Labour Government promised EDF an index linked price for its electricity.
This means that, were it available now, electricity from Hinkley Point would cost £130/MWh. Since National Grid will sell you electricity today for about £80/MWh why would anyone buy more expensive nuclear electricity? To get EDF to build Hinkley Point a Conservative Government bought 35 years’ worth of electricity in advance at a fixed price. To pay for the difference between what EDF can get from the wholesale market there will be tax on everyone’s electricity bill.
It is beyond my understanding why any sane person would want to repeat this experience. Yet that is just what the Conservative Government, with Labour support, was planning to do. It is often argued that building a second station using the same reactors will be cheaper. If that were so, someone needs to explain why the French have already decided not to build any more. Is there something they know that we don’t?
Labour now face a particular difficulty on Sizewell. Since their wind-back of the green prosperity plan, they have doubled down on their promise to deliver carbon-free electricity by 2030. So let us, for argument’s sake, put aside any reservation about whether this is practical. We, and our children, will all certainly be better off if they can deliver carbon-free, secure and affordable electricity to consumers by 2030.
But construction of Sizewell cannot start until after 2030. What then, is the case for forcing homeowners and businesses to pay a tax on their energy bills to finance an unnecessary nuclear power station? And what would this do to the scale and speed of investment in the energy efficiency and renewables which are cheaper and faster ways to get both bills and carbon emissions down?
Why WikiLeaks founder will plead guilty – and what happens next
Angus Thompson and Millie Muroi, June 25, 2024 , The Age
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 52, has struck a plea deal with the United States that is set to end a years-long legal pursuit over the release of classified documents.
He is expected to plead guilty to conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified national defence information in a court in the Northern Mariana Islands at 9am on Wednesday (AEST) but will avoid jail time in the US after spending several years fighting extradition from London’s maximum-security Belmarsh Prison.
Why was Julian Assange released?
Assange is en route to Saipan, the largest of the Northern Mariana Islands, which are a US commonwealth in the western Pacific. There he will face a US Federal Court judge on a single charge of breaching the Espionage Act with the mass release of secret documents leaked by former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.
He faced 18 espionage charges after being indicted in early 2019 by the US Justice Department, which began legal proceedings to seek his extradition from Britain in the same year.
The charges sparked a global outcry over press freedom and led a cross-party coalition of Australian politicians, including former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce and teal independent Monique Ryan, to travel to the US in 2023 to pressure the Biden administration to drop its pursuit.
US President Joe Biden told a press conference earlier this year he was “considering” a deal over Assange, after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese raised it during his October 2023 US visit.
“I’ve made it clear that enough is enough – that it’s time it was brought to a conclusion,” Albanese said.
How long did Assange spend in prison?
Assange was first detained in 2010 and sent to London’s Wandsworth Prison after a Swedish court ordered his arrest on sex crime allegations. He was freed on bail with a £240,000 surety, but in February 2011, a London court ordered Assange’s extradition to Sweden.
The British Supreme Court rejected his final appeal against the extradition in June 2012. Five days later, he took refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London, seeking political asylum……………………………………………………………….
What does the plea deal mean for Assange’s future?
Assange is expected to face a US judge at 9am local time in Saipan, who is expected to approve the plea deal, meaning he will avoid the maximum 175 years he faced in the US under the original charges.
His future is largely unknown beyond that, however, in a post on social media platform X on Tuesday morning celebrating Assange’s release, WikiLeaks said he was expected to return to Australia.
What has been the Australian government’s response?
Albanese has so far been tight-lipped about Assange’s release. But Coalition and Greens MPs welcomed the announcement. Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Simon Birmingham said he welcomed the fact Assange’s decision to plead guilty would bring an end to the “long-running saga”.
Nationals MP Joyce said the issue was about “extraterritoriality” and went beyond Assange as an individual. “It’s about an issue, about an Australian citizen, who did not commit a crime in Australia,” he said.
Greens senator David Shoebridge said whistleblowers such as Assange continued to pay an unfair price for revealing unethical and criminal actions of governments. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/why-wikileaks-founder-has-been-set-free-and-what-happens-next-20240625-p5joia.html
‘Julian Assange Is Free’: WikiLeaks Founder Strikes Plea Deal With US
“We thank all who stood by us, fought for us, and remained utterly committed in the fight for his freedom,” said WikiLeaks. “Julian’s freedom is our freedom.”
COMMON DREAMS STAFF, Jun 24, 2024, https://www.commondreams.org/news/julian-assange-plea-deal
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Monday reached a deal with the U.S. government, agreeing to plead guilty to one felony related to the disclosure of national security information in exchange for his release from Belmarsh Prison in the United Kingdom.
A related document was filed in federal court in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth. Under the plea agreement, which must still be approved by a judge, the Department of Justice will seek a 62-month sentence, equal to the time that the 52-year-old Australian has served in the U.K. prison while battling his extradition to the United States.
Assange faced the risk of spending the rest of his life in U.S. prison if convicted of Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charges for publishing classified material including the “Collateral Murder” video and the Afghan and Iraq war logs. Before Belmarsh, he spent seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with asylum protections.
“Julian Assange is free,” WikiLeaks declared on the social media platform X, confirming that he left Belmarsh Friday “after having spent 1,901 days there,” locked in a small cell for 23 hours a day.
He was granted bail by the High Court in London and was released at Stanstead Airport during the afternoon, where he boarded a plane and departed the U.K.,” WikiLeaks said. “This is the result of a global campaign that spanned grassroots organizers, press freedom campaigners, legislators, and leaders from across the political spectrum, all the way to the United Nations.”
“He will soon reunite with his wife Stella Assange, and their children, who have only known their father from behind bars,” the group continued. “WikiLeaks published groundbreaking stories of government corruption and human rights abuses, holding the powerful accountable for their actions. As editor-in-chief, Julian paid severely for these principles, and for the people’s right to know. As he returns to Australia.”
The news of Assange’s release was celebrated by people around the world, who also blasted the U.S. for continuing to pursue charges against him and the U.K. for going along with it.
“Takeaway from the 12 years of Assange persecution: We need a world where independent journalists work in freedom and top war criminals go to prison—not the other way around,” the progressive advocacy group and longtime Assange supporter RootsAction said on social media.
Leftist Colombian President Gustavo Petro said in a statement: “I congratulate Julian Assange on his freedom. Assange’s eternal imprisonment and torture was an attack on press freedom on a global scale. Denouncing the massacre of civilians in Iraq by the U.S. war machine was his “crime”; now the massacre is repeated in Gaza I invite Julian and his wife Stella to visit Colombia and let’s take action for true freedom.”
Australian Greens leader Adam Bandt, who represents Melbourne in Parliament, said on social media that “Julian Assange will finally be free. While great news, this has been over a decade of his life wasted by U.S. overreach.”
“Journalism is not a crime,” Bandt added. “Pursuing Assange was anti-democratic, anti-press freedom, and the charges should have been dropped.”
The women-led peace group CodePink said in a statement:
Without Julian Assange’s critical journalism, the world would know a lot less about war crimes committed by the United States and its allies. He is the reason so many anti-war organizations like ours have the proof we need to fight the war machine in the belly of the beast. CodePink celebrates Julian’s release and commends his brave journalism.
One of the most horrific videos published by WikiLeaks was called “Collateral Murder,” footage of the U.S. military opening fire on a group of unarmed civilians–including Reuters journalists–in Baghdad. While Julian has been in captivity for the past 14 years, the war criminals that destroyed Iraq walked free. Many are still in government positions today or living off the profits of weapons contracts.
While Julian pleads guilty to espionage—we uphold him as a giant of journalistic integrity.
Vahid Razavi, founder of Ethics in Tech and host of multiple NSA Comedy Nights focusing on government mass surveillance, told Common Dreams that “they took a hero and turned him into a criminal.”
“Meanwhile, all of the war criminals in the files exposed by WikiLeaks via Chelsea Manning are free and never faced any punishment or even their day in court,” he added. “You can kill journalists with impunity, just like Israel is doing right now in Gaza.”
British journalist Afshin Rattansi said, “Let no one think that any of us will ever forget what the British state did to the most famous journalist of his generation.”
“They tortured him—according to the United Nations special rapporteur on torture—at the behest of the United States,” Rattansi noted.
Andrew Kennis, a professor of journalism and social media at Rutgers University, told Common Dreams that “Julian Assange is nothing less than the Daniel Ellsberg of our time.”
Scary truths on civilian nuclear power are coming to the fore
Firstly, everyone agrees that climate breakdown will flip heretofore stable regions into unstable. Adding the reasons mentioned above, a proliferation of civilian nuclear power stations will give potential non-nuclear conflicts a new nuclear dimension. Add to that the cheaper, supposedly even sometimes mobile, small nuclear reactors that are seen as “dirtier” than existing NPPs.
It’s no surprise therefore that the civil nuclear lobby would rather not talk about it.
Bill Ramsay, The National 24 June 24
IT’S entirely natural that the UK civilian nuclear power lobby pitch is behind Labour.
Probably some who support Scottish independence think that the stance of the SNP on nuclear power is a marginal vote-loser. However, if looked at properly through a national security lens, it’s actually a vote-winner.
Occasionally, the threat of some limited non-state terrorist attack on a civilian nuclear facility gets an airing. The more important issue of the implication of the presence of civilian nuclear power stations in a war zone rarely does.
………………………………. the lack of discussion – in the public domain at least – of the implications of the presence of a civilian nuclear power station in a so-called non-nuclear conventional battlefield.
I did nothing more on the issue until my sort-of retirement from education as a senior official of the EIS aligned with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine hosts Europe’s largest nuclear power station and some others. More than half of Ukraine’s electricity is generated by its nuclear power stations.
My first attempt at a paper was rather “undercooked” – as the rejection from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) rightly pointed out – but the final effort – after helpful further consultation with Paul Rodgers, emeritus professor of peace studies at Bradford University – is now available on the Scottish CND website.
In Castle Zaporizhzhia: War Fighting Implications Linked To The Proliferation Of Nuclear Power As Part Solution To Climate Chaos, I unpack the dangers that the nuclear lobby would rather not discuss.
I argue that from a purely military perspective, the occupying Russian forces – whose current, if not future, capabilities are far from overwhelming – will militarily milk the Zaporizhzhia NPP for all its worth and more.
Militarily, the intimidatory potential of the Zaporizhzhia NPP of today and future Zaporizhzhias are huge. Zaporizhzhia NPP performs a similar role for the Russian invaders of Ukraine that the motte-and-bailey castle did for the Norman invaders of England after 1066. These castles of wood then stone were designed to intimidate the Saxon natives.
Zaporizhzhia NPP does the same. Russia can use it as a base of operations from which it can project its power in the full knowledge that the Ukrainians cannot attack it without the risk of another Chornobyl nuclear disaster.
If they wished, the Russians could fire long-range ordnance from it, in the full knowledge the Ukrainians dare not fire back. Indeed, although Zaporizhzhia NPP was discussed at the Ukrainian summit held in Switzerland a few days ago, the bigger global security risks associated with civilian nuclear power production was not. Why? Because the civil nuclear lobby sees nuclear power as a clean alternative to fossil fuels.
In my view, civil nuclear power as a climate chaos mitigator is triply flawed.
Firstly, everyone agrees that climate breakdown will flip heretofore stable regions into unstable. Adding the reasons mentioned above, a proliferation of civilian nuclear power stations will give potential non-nuclear conflicts a new nuclear dimension. Add to that the cheaper, supposedly even sometimes mobile, small nuclear reactors that are seen as “dirtier” than existing NPPs.
It’s no surprise therefore that the civil nuclear lobby would rather not talk about it. Though, to be fair to RUSI, soon after the publication of my report by Scottish CND, RUSI published another which was followed up by a seminar and more recently it has established an ongoing project on strategic and security aspects of civil nuclear power.
Despite all this, the security aspects of civil nuclear power remain very much an elite issue with very little reportage in the mainstream media.
It’s a similar strategy to that employed by John Cleese’s hotelier character Basil Fawlty when faced by an influx of a coach-load of elderly German tourists to his establishment. Paranoid that his staff would make reference to the Second World War, he threatened them with dismissal if they did.
We would all like the war in Ukraine to end, not least because of the death and destruction. The nuclear lobby’s motives are rather less altruistic as the longer the war goes on, the more likely their so-called solution to climate chaos will be exposed to a more searching critique. https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24405095.scary-truths-civilian-nuclear-power-coming-fore/
Ukraine hit Russia’s space communications and early warning center
COMMENT. This is really serious. The US is really trying to start a war with Russia. Russia will definitely respond to these attacks. And the vast majority of Americans will know nothing about the US provocation because of our censorship. So, they will be outraged at the Russian attacks and support US counterattacks. They’ve hit a few other early warning facilities in Russia in the last few weeks that Scott Ritter has talked about, and that Putin has given very grave and serious warnings about because it blinds Russia to knowing if they are about to be attacked by intercontinental ballistic missiles, making their loss an existential threat for Russia.
After the strikes in Sevastopol and the loss of Russian civilians in Crimea and Dagestan, Ukraine also hit the valuable NIP-16 space monitoring and communication center near the city of Yevpatoria on the Black Sea coast.
This is a Soviet facility that was placed under the command of the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces for Nuclear Early Warning and Command Operations after Russia’s unification with Crimea.
As can be seen, Kiev is now systematically hitting Russian targets of strategic importance. Moscow can no longer afford not to take action.
The NIP-16 installation includes two sites located 10 km apart: the receiving station at site 1, near the village of Vitino, and a transmitting station at site 2, near the village of Uyutnoe.………………………………………………………. https://seemorerocks.substack.com/p/ukraine-hit-russias-space-communications?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-2d576da4-cd74-4647-81eb-57e26fc5d6a8
Why ‘no’ to NATO?
David Swanson, beyondnuclearinternational
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty forbids transferring nuclear weapons to other nations. It contains no NATO exception. Yet NATO proliferates nuclear weapons
Five NATO members have U.S. nuclear weapons stored and controlled by the U.S. military within their borders: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.
The people of each of these countries routinely protest the presence of nuclear weapons and have never been asked to vote on the matter.
Alliance spreads nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and risk, writes David Swanson
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty declares that NATO members will assist another member if attacked by “taking action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” But the UN Charter does not say anywhere that warmaking is authorized for whoever jumps in on the appropriate side.
The North Atlantic Treaty’s authors may have been aware that they were on dubious legal ground because they went on twice to claim otherwise, first adding the words “Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” But shouldn’t the United Nations be the one to decide when it has taken necessary measures and when it has not?
The North Atlantic Treaty adds a second bit of sham obsequiousness with the words “This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.” So the treaty that created NATO seeks to obscure the fact that it is, indeed, authorizing warmaking outside of the United Nations — as has now played out in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya.
While the UN Charter itself replaced the blanket ban on all warmaking that had existed in the Kellogg-Briand Pact with a porous ban plagued by loopholes imagined to apply far more than they actually do — in particular that of “defensive” war — it is NATO that creates, in violation of the UN Charter, the idea of numerous nations going to war together of their own initiative and by prior agreement to all join in any other member’s war. Because NATO has numerous members, as does also your typical street gang, there is a tendency to imagine NATO not as an illegal enterprise but rather as just the reverse, as a legitimizer and sanctioner of warmaking.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty forbids transferring nuclear weapons to other nations. It contains no NATO exception. Yet NATO proliferates nuclear weapons, and this is widely imagined as law enforcement or crime prevention. The prime minister of Sweden said in May that NATO ought to be able to put nuclear weapons in Sweden as long as somebody has determined it to be “war time.” The Nonproliferation Treaty says otherwise, and the people who plan the insanity of nuclear war say “What the heck for? We’ve got them on long-range missiles and stealth airplanes and submarines?”
The people of Sweden seem, at least in large part, to also want to say No Nukes — but when were people ever asked to play a role in “defending democracy”? The purpose of bringing nukes into Sweden, for those in the Swedish government who favor it, may in fact be purely a show of subservience to U.S. empire, driven by fear of its obliging partner in the arms race, the militarists in Russia.
Poland’s president says his country would be happy to have “NATO” nuclear weapons there, “war time” or not, and this proposal is reported in U.S. corporate media with no mention of any legal concerns and with the claim that it comes as a response to the Russian placement of nuclear weapons in Belarus. Last year I asked the Russian ambassador to the United States why putting nuclear weapons into Belarus wasn’t a blatant violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, and he said, oh no, it was perfectly fine, because the United States does it all the time.
In fact, NATO itself owns and controls no nuclear weapons. Three NATO members own and control nuclear weapons. We cannot be certain how many weapons they have, since nuclear weapons are both justified with the dubious alchemy of “deterrence” and, contradictorily, cloaked in secrecy. The United States has an estimated 5,344 nuclear weapons, France an estimated 290, and Great Britain an estimated 240.
NATO calls itself a “nuclear alliance” and maintains a “Nuclear Planning Group” for all of its members — those with and those without nuclear weapons — to discuss the launching of the sort of war that puts all life on Earth at risk, and to coordinate rehearsals or “war games” practicing for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe. NATO partners Israel and Pakistan are estimated to possess 170 nuclear weapons each.
Five NATO members have U.S. nuclear weapons stored and controlled by the U.S. military within their borders: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. These are estimated at 35 nuclear weapons at Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, 20 at Incirlik in Turkey, and 15 each at Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Büchel Air Base in Germany. The United States is reportedly also moving its own nuclear weapons into RAF Lakenheath in the UK, where it has stored them in the past.
The people of each of these countries routinely protest the presence of nuclear weapons and have never been asked to vote on the matter. The notion that the nuclear weapons in a European country are still U.S. nuclear weapons and thus haven’t been proliferated is an odd fit with the general understanding of international treaties, which are conceived and written as if there were no such thing as empire……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/06/23/why-no-to-nato/
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org.
France’s Orano loses operating licence at major uranium mine in Niger.
Niger has removed the mining permit of French nuclear fuel producer Orano
at one of the world’s biggest uranium mines, the company said Thursday,
highlighting tensions between France and the African country’s ruling
junta.
RFI 21st June 2024
Scotland’s First Minister Swinney hits back at ‘hopelessly ideological’ attack from nuclear industry
By Martin Williams, @Martin1Williams, Senior News Reporter, Herald 20th June 2024
The First Minister has rejected an attack from the nuclear industry that his ban on new power plants is “hopelessly ideological”.
John Swinney doubled down on his rejection of new nuclear after he was challenged in the Scottish Parliament over his stance after the nuclear industry criticisms, revealed in the Herald on Sunday targeted his view that he was “not a fan of the nuclear industry” and that he “never have and never will” support investments in new power plants.
He has been responding to calls to lift the ban on nuclear as fears grow over hundreds of jobs being lost and skilled workers leaving Scotland for overseas.
The nuclear industry attacked the First Minister for being “hopelessly ideological and anti-science” after he said he was “not a fan” of the business and that he “never have and never will” support investment in the power plants……………………
When asked for his response to the nuclear industry in the Scottish Parliament, Mr Swinney said: “The Scottish Government does not support the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. We have abundant natural resources and a highly skilled workforce to take advantage of the many renewable energy opportunities. Evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives.
“Nuclear energy also creates radioactive waste, which must be safely managed over many decades to protect the environment, requiring complex and expensive handling. The Scottish government is supporting continued growth in renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture technologies to drive economic growth, support green jobs and provide secure, affordable and clean energy for Scotland.”
But in response, Scottish Conservative Central Scotland MSP Graham Simpson said: “So it is hopelessly ideological and anti science…………………..
The First Minister responded: “I gave a considered answer to Graham Simpson. I don’t think it could in any way be described as ideological, because I made the point that evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives.
“We are facing a cost of living and public finance crisis, so any responsible First Minister will look to make sure that we make the most fiscally efficient approach to energy generation.
“This government, as a result of its clear policy leadership, has successfully decarbonised electricity generation within Scotland. We have developed renewable energy with policy certainty, and I want to give the same policy certainty to storage, to hydrogen to carbon capture technologies to drive economic growth and support green jobs……………………
And he added: “So I am afraid to say Graham Simpson has not got a leg to stand on this question. We have got a clear strategy on renewables. We will pursue that and will pursue it sustainably to deliver for the people of Scotland……………………….. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24400300.swinney-hits-back-hopelessly-ideological-attack-nuclear/
Delusional Netanyahu joins delusional Zelensky in seeking total victory when none possible
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 21 June 24 https://heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com/
Last November, Ukraine President Zelensky fired Valery Zaluzhny, his top military commander. Zaluzhny made the mistake, after the much touted Ukraine counteroffensive against Russia flopped, of suggesting the war was a stalemate that could not be won. Zelensky fired Zaluzhny, reminding him that the Ukraine war narrative was complete victory. Ukraine would win back all lost territory including Donbas, receive war reparations from Russia, and get Russia president Putin prosecuted for war crimes. Zelensky remains in delusion of achieving those goals for the past 7 months.
Just this week Zelensky has been joined in war delusion by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a stunning development, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has publicly announced, in direct contradiction of Prime Minister Netanyahu, that Israel cannot defeat Hamas in Gaza.
Reason? Hamas is an ideology, and no military, however strong, can defeat an ideology on the battlefield. Israeli IDF Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari could not have been more candid “This business of destroying Hamas, making Hamas disappear, it’s simply throwing sand in the eyes of the public. Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party. It’s rooted in the hearts of the people – whoever thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.”
Israel’s genocidal campaign upon the entire Palestinian population has backfired spectacularly, making Hamas stronger every day. Instead of destroying Hamas, Israel is self- destructing before our eyes. It has not only lost on the battlefield. It has lost support of the entire world outside the Biden administration in America. No matter how this ends, Israel will neither recover its moral standing in the world, nor claim Gaza for Greater Israel.
A sign of Israel’s disintegrating political position is Netanyahu’s dissolution of his war cabinet over the resignation of opposition leader Benny Gantz. Netanyahu is left surrounding himself with extreme right wing fanatics who either are as delusional as Netanyahu or are simply trapped into continuing their genocidal campaign as the only means of remaining in power.
Netanyahu and his fanatical war council are now threatening to pivot north to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon. Such a move could militarily devastate Israel, with no chance whatsoever of prevailing. Netanyahu’s war delusions appear to have no limits.
It doesn’t matter how many standing ovations Netanyahu receives when he addresses Congress July 24, that is, if he is still in power. It doesn’t matter how many tens of billions in weapons Biden gifts Netanyahu to obliterate tens of thousands more Palestinian
kids and moms in their futile quest for total victory. Nothing can save Israel from defeat Netanyahu so delusionally set in motion.
But possibly the most delusional of all is President Biden, lusting to fling another hundred billion of American treasure to maintain two lost wars in furtherance of his preposterous belief that America still rules the world.
Over budget and plagued with delays: UK nuclear lessons for Australia
The big challenges facing nuclear power in Britain, both for large reactors and SMRs, are not technological or economic, but largely administrative and logistical.
AFR, Hans van Leeuwen, Europe correspondent, Jun 21, 2024 –
Behind the shore of England’s south-western county of Somerset lie the Quantock Hills – as perfect a landscape of lush rolling pasture and rugged heathland, laced with woodland groves and nestled hedgerows, as you could possibly imagine. It’s also home, incongruously, to a very, very large crane.
Big Carl, as it is known, is, in fact, the world’s largest. It is six kilometres long, 250 metres high and has 96 wheels. It has spent the past few years at Hinkley Point, on the Bristol Channel. Big Carl hit a mini-climax of hydraulic achievement just before Christmas last year, as it hauled a 14-metre tall, 245-tonne steel dome onto the top of a 44-metre nuclear reactor.
Progress at last. The reactor’s name is Hinkley Point C – which sadly doesn’t quite have the same folksy ring as “Big Carl”. Fifteen years have elapsed since French giant EDF and its Chinese partner began trying to build it, and rouse Britain from decades of nuclear slumber.
Lining up the regulators and the finance took seven years. Construction is in its seventh year, and might be only just past the halfway mark. There are 10,000 workers and 3500 British companies involved in pulling this off, at a cost that may end up topping £46 billion ($88 billion) – almost thrice the original estimate of £16 billion.
This is the kind of monumental scale of project that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton wants to bring to Australia. Alongside it, he also envisages small modular reactors (SMRs): more petite, but equally dully monikered, nukes that are thrown together in a factory and then operate from what is really little more than an industrial shed.
Britain wants to build those too, and is in the last throes of a competition to put taxpayer money behind at least one contender. But even the most advanced would-be manufacturer, Rolls-Royce, doesn’t appear to expect an SMR to actually be up and running until the start of the 2030s………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Why so long, and so costly?
Greatrex offers a warning to Australia: the big challenge facing nuclear power in Britain, both for large reactors and SMRs, but most clearly in evidence at Hinkley Point C, is not technological or economic, but largely administrative and logistical.
“Issues around bottlenecks in the planning system, the time it takes for permitting on various things, the issues around access to grid and grid connections, they’re all real factors,” he says.
“There are a whole number of issues around planning and permitting that seem to be taking more time to deal with than the actual construction period.”
This has left Greatrex and his organisation fighting a rearguard action against public and media perceptions that the industry is foundering – particularly as the flagship Hinkley Point C reactor project suffers repeated cost and deadline blowouts.
Although the government has this year doubled down on building large reactors to keep nuclear’s share of British electricity generation at about 25 per cent, the negative stories keep coming……………………………………………………………………………
For 35 years after the plant starts operating, taxpayers will fill any gap between that price and the going market rate, likely resulting in a subsidy far higher than that for offshore wind or solar. The government is also guaranteeing the debt funding of almost half the capital costs of building it.
The original estimated cost of Hinkley Point C was £16 billion, and the anticipated date to get it open and running was 2023. Now, it’s £35 billion in today’s prices, which could be £46 billion by the time the work is completed between 2029 and 2031.
EDF this year took a €12.9 billion ($20.8 billion) impairment charge on the project. The Chinese partner, having been frozen out of future nuclear projects in Britain for geopolitical reasons, has reportedly been withholding its own contributions this year.
The company has blamed the blowout on design changes enforced by the regulator, along with labour shortages and supply chain issues.
Going first to restart the nuclear construction industry in Britain after a 20-year pause has been hard,” Hinkley Point C boss Stuart Crooks said in a letter to staff earlier this year.
But the British government is still pushing on with a second reactor, the 3.2-gigawatt Sizewell C on the country’s east coast, which EDF will also build. This has taxpayer backing of £2.5 billion, and the government is on the hunt for £20 billion of private capital, supposedly by the end of the year………………………………………………………………………………
Rolls-Royce rollout starts at home
But even if the Coalition has to look elsewhere than Britain and Europe for its mega-reactors, energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has explicitly name-checked Rolls-Royce as a potential partner on SMRs………………………………………..
At any rate, Rolls-Royce has to crack its home market first. The government will next month decide which of six horses to back with taxpayer largesse. https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/over-budget-and-plagued-with-delays-uk-nuclear-lessons-for-australia-20240621-p5jnkq
UK’s nuclear plant will cost nearly three times what was estimated
Australian Financial Review Tom McIlroy, Political correspondent, Jun 20, 2024
Recent overseas experience suggests an Australian nuclear energy program
would be vulnerable to delays and cost blowouts – the construction of
Britain’s latest plant is years behind schedule and modular technology is
still not commercially viable.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will not say
how much his plan to build seven nuclear power stations by 2050 will cost,
but promised on Thursday to release the numbers before the election.
Britain’s Hinkley C generator in Somerset is on track to cost about three
times its original budget. It was initially due to be operational in 2017
and to cost about $35 billion, but it is now not expected to open before
2031 and will cost about $90 billion. The blowout has been blamed on
inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit. The first new reactors in
decades, built from scratch in the United States, also suffered lengthy
delays and budget upheavals.
Australian Financial Review 20th June 2024
UK nuclear power plants rollout may be hit by planning hurdles
Companies bidding for government contracts to build the UK’s first mini-reactors
may find there are factors beyond their control. Britain wants to revive
its nuclear industry. Both the Conservatives and Labour, jostling for
electoral success, see reactors as a way of decarbonising the energy
network, providing a reliable base alongside clean but intermittent wind
and solar power.
But there’s a problem. All but one of the country’s
existing nuclear power stations are set to be decommissioned by the end of
the decade and Hinkley Point C, the only new one being built, is suffering
from budget blowouts and delays. The solution, it seems, is not to think
big but to think conspicuously smaller.
Mini-plants are being touted as a
faster and cheaper way of boosting the country’s nuclear capacity. Six
companies are on a shortlist competing for £20 billion in government
funding to build the nation’s first small modular reactors and in the
next two weeks they will submit final bids. Two are expected to be selected
by the end of the year.
So far, so good, yet there are worries that the
first hurdle may be somewhat easier to clear than what follows. In recent
years planning has been the bane of construction companies of all stripes,
from housebuilders to infrastructure specialists, and there is talk that
the rollout of small modular reactors could be hampered by the same lengthy
regulatory and permission-seeking processes that have beset larger-scale
nuclear projects, in particular.
The first small modular reactor is not
expected to be up and running before 2035. “Planning is a major drain on
the time in the schedule,” said Alastair Evans, director of corporate and
government affairs at Rolls-Royce, the FTSE 100 engineering specialist that
has been promoting its water-cooled reactor for use in the UK for several
years. “There will be lessons that we can learn and the planning
inspectorate can learn from what they have just been through,” a
reference to the ten years taken for the Sizewell C development in Suffolk
to move from initial public consultation to gaining consent. Small modular
reactors can take up the space of one or two football pitches, have a
capacity of up to 500 megawatts and will employ between 1,000 and 2,000 on
site.
Yet it still takes an average of more than four years for so-called
national significant infrastructure projects, which include all power
stations over 50MW, to secure a development consent order, according to the
latest government estimates, an increase from about two and a half years in
2012. Research by Britain Remade, a pro-growth think tank, suggests that
the average construction cost for new nuclear infrastructure that has been
built in the UK since 2000 is £9.4 million per megawatt, adjusting for
inflation. That is more than four times the cost in South Korea, which has
adopted a fleet approach to expand its nuclear capacity. “A key problem
is, if you look at the planning system for nuclear power stations, it is
extremely bureaucratic, slow-moving and paperwork-intensive,” Sam
Dumitriu, head of policy at Britain Remade, said.
He cited the 44,000-page environmental impact assessment that Sizewell C produced as part of its planning application. …………………………….
Times 21st June 2024
1 This Month
22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT
YouTube. Register here
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (202)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 