nuclear-news

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

Keir Starmer doesn’t speak for Labour members on nuclear weapons

,   https://labouroutlook.org/2024/04/14/starmer-doesnt-speak-for-labour-members-on-nuclear-weapons/

‘I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.’Keir Starmer, 2015

Labour CND has issued the following statement in response to Keir Starmer’s visit to Barrow, Friday 12 April

Keir Starmer used a visit to Barrow-in-Furness on 12 April to announce Labour’s ‘unshakeable absolute total’ commitment to Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system, and Labour’s plan to raise military spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product under a Labour government which means billions of pounds more public funds allocated to the military budget.1

Starmer should be under no illusions. He does not speak for the majority of Labour Party members, however, or even the public on these issues. Nor does this allay Tory voter fears that Labour is a safe pair of hands when it comes to defence.2


Trident is the ‘bedrock of Labour’s plan to keep Britain safe’, he said. The UK’s ‘nuclear deterrent’ was ‘maintained on behalf of NATO’. This was ‘a generational, multi-decade commitment’ from a Starmer government.

International tensions are growing, and with them the risk of nuclear confrontation. Politicians may believe Trident guarantees us a place at the top table. But the assurance of Labour and Tories alike that it brings safety for people in Britain is a cruel illusion. Meanwhile UK domestic politics continues to ignore the true international situation which is that Britain has not signed the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which came into force in 2021.

Politicians may believe Trident guarantees us a place at the top table. But the assurance of Labour and Tories alike that it brings safety for people in Britain is a cruel illusion.

A picture of Labour CND placards at a demonstration

Starmer doesn’t speak for Labour members on nuclear weapons

Barrow, CND, International, Labour CND, nuclear weapons, starmer, TridentLeave a Commenton Starmer doesn’t speak for Labour members on nuclear weapons

Share

‘I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.’Keir Starmer, 2015

Labour CND has issued the following statement in response to Keir Starmer’s visit to Barrow, Friday 12 April

Keir Starmer used a visit to Barrow-in-Furness on 12 April to announce Labour’s ‘unshakeable absolute total’ commitment to Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system, and Labour’s plan to raise military spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product under a Labour government which means billions of pounds more public funds allocated to the military budget.1

Starmer should be under no illusions. He does not speak for the majority of Labour Party members, however, or even the public on these issues. Nor does this allay Tory voter fears that Labour is a safe pair of hands when it comes to defence.2

Trident is the ‘bedrock of Labour’s plan to keep Britain safe’, he said. The UK’s ‘nuclear deterrent’ was ‘maintained on behalf of NATO’. This was ‘a generational, multi-decade commitment’ from a Starmer government.

International tensions are growing, and with them the risk of nuclear confrontation. Politicians may believe Trident guarantees us a place at the top table. But the assurance of Labour and Tories alike that it brings safety for people in Britain is a cruel illusion. Meanwhile UK domestic politics continues to ignore the true international situation which is that Britain has not signed the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which came into force in 2021.

Politicians may believe Trident guarantees us a place at the top table. But the assurance of Labour and Tories alike that it brings safety for people in Britain is a cruel illusion.

The possession of a nuclear weapons system makes the UK a target. The decision to site United States nuclear weapons on British soil – taken without public or even parliamentary debate – puts us on the front line of any nuclear attack.

Britain’s nuclear weapons system is not independent as Starmer claims. Trident is dependent on US technology and know-how.

Even sections of the military recognise that the money spent on Trident would be better deployed elsewhere, arguing for increases in areas of conventional defence.

Disregarding these and many other arguments against nuclear weapons, in a statement shot through with jingoism, Starmer

has made three commitments which he argues will defend the UK economy and prioritise British jobs and skills:

  • to build all four new Dreadnought nuclear submarines in the UK, at Barrow-in-Furness;
  • to maintain Britain’s continuous at sea nuclear deterrent; and
  • to deliver all future upgrades needed to properly equip Trident.

A commitment to increase the military budget means cuts elsewhere in government investment and public spending. Figures released by the Treasury as part of the Spring Budget showed that Core Military Spending was £54.2 billion pounds for the year ending March 2024, around 2.3% of GDP.3 How else will a Labour government, committed to fiscal responsibility as well as lowering taxes, find the extra resources to fund Starmer’s commitment to increase the military budget? It will come at the expense of the NHS, education, and the ability to address child poverty or to abolish the two-child cap on child benefits. It will also come at the expense of dealing with the human security threat of climate change.Labour CND says the next Labour government should not allow its priorities to be dictated by the Conservative Party and their establishment friends. We need is a radical rethink about spending priorities and about British foreign policy.The incoming Labour government will face a range of challenges. None of them will be solved by nuclear weapons or spending ever more money on the military.

Notes

  1. Keir Starmer, My commitment to the UK’s nuclear deterrent is Unshakeable Absolute Total, Daily Mail exclusive, 11 April 2024 athttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13298999/Keir-Starmer-vows-Britains-nuclear-deterrent-safe-hands-promises-unshakeable-commitment- Trident-new-generation-nuclear-submarines-built-UK.htm ↩︎
  2. See for example the hundreds of reader comments in response to the above, which have appeared within hours of the article being posted online. ↩︎
  3. Dr Stuart Parkinson, Co-Chair GCOMS-UK (UK branch of the Global Campaign on Military Spending) and Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, Spring Budget 24: Military Spending Continues to Grow at the Expense of Climate Funds and Overseas Aid, at https://demilitarize.org.uk/spring-budget-24-military-spending-continues-to-grow-at-the-expense-of-climate-funds-and-overseas-aid/ ↩︎

April 16, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Government could still replace Fujitsu in key nuclear contract

Fujitsu’s first government contract of the year could be just a stay of execution as department says that all replacement options are still being considered.

Karl Flinders, Chief reporter and senior editor EME, 12 Apr 24  https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366580657/Government-could-still-replace-Fujitsu-in-key-nuclear-contract

Fujitsu’s controversial contract with the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) was renewed because there were no other suppliers that could meet the regulatory duties required, but the service could be taken in-house next year.

Following the announcement of Fujitsu’s first government contract of the year and a subsequent public backlash, the government has been quick to stress that all options to replace the supplier’s £155,000 software support contract with the NNL, including moving the service in-house, are being considered.

Reacting to criticism for awarding the contract to Fujitsu, which is under intense scrutiny over its role in the Post Office scandal, the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero outlined the reason for Fujitsu’s new deal. “NNL requires bespoke software to ensure its work remains compliant with operationally critical regulations. There are currently no other suitable suppliers and without re-awarding this contract, the NNL would be unable to fulfil its regulatory duties,” said a spokesperson.

But the department added that, “The NNL will consider all options once the contract comes to an end in March 2025, including exploring in-house solutions.

Fujitsu’s huge UK government business is under pressure following public anger at the IT giant’s role as supplier of the Horizon system at the heart of the Post Office scandal. The company has already seen a reduction in public sector contracts this year.

By April 2023, Fujitsu had signed a £25m deal with Bristol City Council, a £16m contract with the Post Office, a deal worth £13m with Northern Ireland Water, an £8m deal with the Ministry of Defence, two deals with the Department for Education totalling £3m, and a contract with Leeds City Council worth up to £100,000. This year the NNL is its sole government contract announced so far.

In another sign of possible reputational damage, earlier this month the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ended Fujitsu’s role in providing a flood warning system for the UK, two months after signing an extension of up to 12 months. 

Read more about Fujitsu’s ‘hollow’ bidding pause

Fujitsu’s head of Europe, Paul Patterson, promised to pause bidding for government work until after the completion of the statutory public inquiry into the Post Office scandal, following the broadcast of the ITV drama, Mr Bates vs the Post Office, at the beginning of the year. 

During questioning by MPs at a business and trade select committee hearing in January, Patterson acknowledged Fujitsu’s part in the scandal, telling MPs and victims: “We were involved from the start; we did have bugs and errors in the system, and we did help the Post Office in their prosecutions of subpostmasters. For that, we are truly sorry.”

But the bidding pause, described as “hollow” by MP Kevan Jones, does not include deals with existing customers in the public sector, of which there are many. Last month, Computer Weekly revealed leaked internal communications that showed Fujitsu is still targeting about £1.3bn worth of UK government contracts over the next 12 months. Further leaked documents revealed that Fujitsu created a spreadsheet instructing staff how to get around its self-imposed ban.

Internal communications seen by Computer Weekly also revealed that Fujitsu is spending heavily on managing the current scandal fallout. It has sought external support in a project known as Holly, where it has engaged PR, ethical business experts and lawyers, at a cost of £27m so far.

The Post Office scandal was first exposed by Computer Weekly in 2009, revealing the stories of seven subpostmasters and the problems they suffered due to the accounting software (see timeline of Computer Weekly articles about the scandal below).

April 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Fresh blow for UK nuclear as the City snubs Sizewell C

By FRANCESCA WASHTELL , 14 April 20 24, https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13304269/Fresh-blow-UK-nuclear-City-snubs-Sizewell-C.html

Britain’s flagship nuclear plant could face greater dependence on foreign cash after a string of big-name City firms snubbed a chance to fund the project.

Phoenix, Abrdn and Aviva had said they would consider supporting new nuclear plants and were thought to be in the running to back Sizewell C in Suffolk.

But all have now said they are not in negotiations to take an equity stake in the power station, according to emails sent to campaign group Stop Sizewell C and seen by The Mail on Sunday.

This is a bitter blow for Ministers, who spent years changing the funding model for giant infrastructure works to entice City investors such as Phoenix and Aviva. The model, known as the regulated asset base, enables investors to receive dividends on projects still being built.

Sizewell C has been dogged by delays for years, and the Government has still to finally decide whether it will go ahead. 

A series of pension funds, including BT, NatWest, and Nest, have ruled out backing the plant, which will cost at least £20billion. 

Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said: ‘The Government has spent years planning and legislating to allow the funding model for Sizewell C, with the objective of attracting UK pension funds. The strategy has not succeeded, which is hardly a surprise considering the many uncertainties, including what the project will actually cost.’

In January, the Government committed a further £1.3billion of funding to Sizewell C, which will go on early building work.

Six groups are in talks with the Government over funding the project, with at least one understood to be from the Emirates.

British Gas owner Centrica is also thought to be in the frame.

Pressure is mounting after EDF this year began pressing the Government to help fund cost overruns on Hinkley Point C in Somerset. The French utility group said the price tag for that plant – which is the same type planned for Sizewell C – could hit £46billion from an initial estimate of £18billion. The Suffolk plant could power six million homes for 60 years, but would take nine to 12 years to build.

Ministers have also backed programmes to set up small nuclear reactors, especially a Rolls-Royce-led firm designing these easy-to-assemble plants.

Industry sources say these are likely to be more attractive to investors as they are quicker and cheaper to build.

April 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant: The ‘Sum Of All Fears’

Eurasia Review,  , By IDN, By Leonam dos Santos Guimarães

Drone attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, whether carried out by Ukraine or Russia, introduce a new and dangerous dimension to the conflict between the two largest former Soviet Socialist Republics, with possible far-reaching ramifications, not just for the region immediately surrounding the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, but also for all European Union countries and, more broadly, for the international community.

The biggest concern is the potential risk of a severe nuclear accident, which could have dire effects not only on Ukraine and Russia, but also on neighboring countries. The release of radioactive material knows no borders, and a contaminated cloud could spread across multiple nations depending on weather conditions, putting public health and the environment at risk on a significant scale.

The consequences of attacks on nuclear facilities are potentially severe and vast. A nuclear accident can result in the contamination of large areas, affecting land, water and wildlife, with lasting consequences for the environment and human health. It could also force mass evacuations of affected areas, creating humanitarian and refugee crises. In addition to the direct costs of cleanup and containment, a nuclear disaster can have a substantial economic impact on agriculture, land use, and public health.

Containing a leak at a nuclear power plant is a highly complex and challenging operation, depending on several factors. These include the type of damage to the reactor or other critical parts of the facility, as well as the amount and type of radioactive material released.

A plant’s ability to contain a leak depends on its design, existing safety systems, and how well those systems can handle the specific type of accident. The effectiveness of the immediate response, including confining the area, evacuating personnel, and implementing decontamination measures, is crucial to minimizing the impacts of a spill. The availability of technical, human, and financial resources to manage the situation is essential. This also includes international support, as seen after the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima disaster.

Several factors

The scope of a nuclear accident in Europe will depend on several factors, including the direction and speed of the wind, which determine the dispersion of radioactive particles in the atmosphere, the amount of material released, which the greater the amount, the larger the area potentially affected, and the effectiveness of containment and decontamination measures, which can significantly limit the scope of contamination………………………………………………………….

The possibility that such attacks could trigger a third world war is a serious and plausible concern. An intricate web of military alliances, geopolitical interests and containment strategies influences the dynamics of the current conflict. Attacks against nuclear facilities are perceived as significant escalations of conflict. If considered acts of war, they may justify severe retaliation. The nature and extent of such retaliations would depend on many factors, including the international perception of the incident and the strategic decisions of major world powers.

The risk of a third world war

The involvement of NATO members providing support to Ukraine further complicates the situation. While NATO has been careful in its approach to avoid direct escalation with Russia, the line between support and direct involvement is fine and delicate. Preventing an escalation into a broader conflict will likely depend on intense diplomatic efforts and attempts at de-escalation by all parties involved………………………………………………..  https://www.eurasiareview.com/14042024-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-the-sum-of-all-fears-oped/

April 16, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Ukraine: Briefing on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

On Monday afternoon (15 April), the Security Council will convene for an
open briefing under the “Threats to international peace and security”
agenda item. Slovenia and the US—the co-penholders on political issues in
Ukraine—supported by France, requested the meeting, which will focus on
the safety and security of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) in
the city of Enerhodar.

It appears that Russia expressed approval for
holding the meeting, noting the alarming nature of the situation at the
nuclear power plant. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director
General Rafael Mariano Grossi is the anticipated briefer. Ukraine is
expected to participate under rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of
procedure.

Security Council Report 12th April 2024

Ukraine: Briefing on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

April 16, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Sizewell C Nuclear : too destructive, too costly, too late

The Article, by IAN LINDEN, 14 Apr 24

Joan Girling grew up near the Suffolk coast, with its little terns, barn owls, harebells, ladies bedstraw, sedums, blue butterflies and acid grassland. There was no nuclear power station.   “It was perfect, a nature lover’s paradise,” she told me.

In 1959, Joan’s father, faced with compulsory purchase, was forced to sell off a corner of their front garden, with its large pond full of water lilies and wildlife.  It was to make way for workers’ traffic to the site of Sizewell A, a nuclear power station. Sizewell A is today a great, ugly, Stalinist-looking excrescence looming above the seashore.  Her grandmother, who lived next door, watched as they filled in the pond.  “The worst part was to hear my Grandma crying.  I remember it as if it was yesterday.”

In the late 1980s it all happened again: Sizewell B.  This time Joan moved house with her family to escape construction traffic.  From 1993-2005 she served on Suffolk County Council.  Fifteen years ago, Joan Girling became a founding and deeply dedicated member of Community against Nuclear Expansion, later renamed Together Against Sizewell C (TASC).

The human and environmental costs ought not be underestimated. The disruption and destruction accompanying years of building accounts for the level and persistence of local protest.   Stop Sizewell C, originally a parish of Theberton and Eastbridge action group, alongside the local Friends of the Earth, joined TASC in a long-running legal campaign. Crowdfunding helped finance three rounds of court action seeking judicial review of the Sizewell C project.   The last one challenged the Business Secretary (then Kwasi Kwarteng) over his 2022 Development Consent Order giving the green light to start construction. Kwateng rejected the Planning Inspectorate’s conclusion (part of the process required by the 2008 Planning Act) that in the absence of an assessed, permanent, potable water supply for the project, “the case for the grant of development consent is not yet made”.  Sizewell C will be forced to use a desalination plant during construction.  The Court of Appeal found for the Government in December 2023.

The construction of Sizewell C means heavy truck traffic.  New roads, a large park and ride facility, as well as a railway branch line, will have a major impact over a large area. Much of it is designated by Natural England — sponsored, incidentally, by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) — as a Suffolk Coast and Heaths National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).  A small bite comes out of reed beds and marsh land, designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest.  The new reactors will lie right next to Minsmere, a popular RSPB reserve where the drain-pipe boom of the bittern can be heard. Building Sizewell C will blight tourism for two decades, though it will boost other aspects of the local economy.  But before dismissing protest as Nimbyism, it is as well to evaluate what lies in the backyard………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.thearticle.com/sizewell-c-too-destructive-too-costly-too-late

April 16, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C Fiasco Part 4. Much more expensive than renewables- Unknown cost or period for Investors

Sizewell C Fiasco Part 4 Much more expensive than renewables- Unknown cost or period for Investors

Sizewell C was given the go ahead against the advice of the Planning
Inspectorate by politicians who have since mainly been discredited. They do
not have the finance in place yet – a staggering £30 billion plus?

Yet the Government have been chucking hard pressed taxpayers’ money at the project
and Sizewell C Project have started massive pre-construction works. If they
can cause this much Eco/ Landscape devastation even now, what will they do
if they get the go ahead on construction?

Sizewell C would be a disaster
for the Environment and the Landscape. Taxpayers and Investors will be
financing a bottomless pit. Locked in for decades to paying much more than
the cost of wind or solar energy. Even if finished on time – which is very
unlikely – it would be far too late for any energy crisis. Which would be
caused by the current bad or lack of – planning and management for energy
production and a hopeless so-called National Grid (run for shareholders not
UK Taxpayers).

If built Sizewell C would be too late to contribute to net
zero and its construction would produce vast amounts of carbon and other
pollution for well over a decade at least. Not to mention the much more
radioactive waste from this unproven EPR type of reactor which is too hot
to move until the next century – so has to be stored on site on an eroding
coastline! The whole thing is bonkers!
Stop Sizewell C 8th April 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ICw23iYY0

April 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Civil and military nuclear mutuality

‘The UK government is pursuing an uneconomic nuclear programme in large part so as to maintain & renew military nuclear capabilities’.

Rishi Sunak backs both civil and military nuclear: ‘Safeguarding the future of our nuclear deterrent and nuclear energy industry is a critical national endeavour’. French president Emmanuel Macron is even more upfront about it all: ‘Without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear.’ With the USA, China and Russia also evidently locked into similar paths, the global future doesn’t look too good. 

‘The UK government is pursuing an uneconomic nuclear programme in large part so as to maintain & renew military nuclear capabilities’.

backs both civil and military nuclear: ‘Safeguarding the future of our nuclear deterrent and nuclear energy industry is a critical national endeavour’. French president Emmanuel Macron is even more upfront about it all: ‘Without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear.’ With the USA, China and Russia also evidently locked into similar paths, the global future doesn’t look too good. 

Renew Extra Weekly, 13 Apr 24

Until recently, the UK government has always said that civil and military nuclear technologies were separate things, for example in response to claims that expansion of civil nuclear power capacity could lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons making capacity. But, as researchers at the University of Sussex have relentlessly catalogued, there seems to have been a change of view underway, culminating formally in March in a new policy document from No. 10 Downing Street. Entitled ‘Building the Nuclear Workforce of Tomorrow’ it claims that ‘domestic [civil] nuclear capability is vital to our national defence and energy security, underpinning our nuclear deterrent and securing cheaper, more reliable energy for UK consumers’.  So they are intertwined and mutually beneficial- we need both!

UK Prime Minister Sunak says that ‘in a more dangerous and contested world, the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is more vital than ever’ and that civil nuclear power is the ‘perfect antidote to the energy challenges facing Britain- it’s green, cheaper in the long term and will ensure the UK’s energy security for the long term’.

There are many issues raised by these claims. Leaving aside all the major moral and political issues associated with nuclear weapons, it is not at all clear that new nuclear reactors will be as costs effective as renewables. Indeed, the cost of renewables has fallen dramatically in recent years while the cost of nuclear projects has continued to escalate. It could be that, recognising this imbalance in cost, what we are now seeing is the government trying to provide a compensating justification for new civil nuclear- it will aid defence. Even if, arguably, it makes little economic sense as Business Green argued: ‘The UK government is pursuing an uneconomic nuclear programme in large part so as to maintain & renew military nuclear capabilities’.

Basically, as the Sussex University researchers have argued, it does seem that the government is just responding to military pressures. More specifically though, it’s a matter of rapidly expanding skill requirements- and shortages. Matthew Lay, Head of EDF Nuclear Skills Alliance, says that ‘the UK Government’s commitment to nuclear power must be seen in the context of a steady increase of nuclear capacity worldwide as well as growth in defence expenditure,’ and especially the growth in the ‘defence industry’s demand for nuclear skills, to deliver established and new nuclear submarine programmes’. So it’s about expanding nuclear skills for building nuclear sub power plants and civil reactors, including possibly Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which have some similarities. Presumably also about making fuels for them both too. 

Some may be happy about civil-military skill sharing, but it’s a long way from the old rhetoric about ‘atoms for peace’. In 1953 President Eisenhower called for nuclear bomb technology to be turned to peaceful ends around the world, with US help e.g. in transferring  nuclear plant technology to developing countries. That had floundered due, in part, to the high cost of nuclear plants. According to a review by Drogan, a State Department Intelligence Report, circulated in January 1954, ‘Economic Implications of Nuclear Power in Foreign Countries’, noted that ‘nuclear power plants may cost twice as much to operate and as much as 50 percent more to build and equip than conventional thermal plants’. So it warned that the introduction of nuclear power would ‘not usher in a new era of plenty and rapid economic development as is commonly believed’. You could say that we are still waiting! 

There were also potential conflicts between the ‘atoms for peace’ idea and proliferation issues. Indeed that is now even more of a problem, with some newly developing countries, following the UAE’s lead, looking to have nuclear plants, which, in theory, could give them the ability to make bombs. And (the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty apart!) why not, if nuclear weapons states like the UK are seen as no longer maintaining a clear separation between civil and military nuclear technology? Except of course the high cost of civil nuclear may make renewables a much better deal- especially solar, of which many countries (in the Middle East and Africa for example) have plenty. ……………………………………………………………………………..

Clearly UK Prime Minister Sunak doesn’t see it this way- he backs both civil and military nuclear: ‘Safeguarding the future of our nuclear deterrent and nuclear energy industry is a critical national endeavour’. French president Emmanuel Macron is even more upfront about it all: ‘Without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear.’ With the USA, China and Russia also evidently locked into similar paths, the global future doesn’t look too good. 

Do we really have to continue with all this? In 1995, Sir Michael Atiyah, then retiring as President of the Royal Society, said ‘I believe history will show that insistence on a UK nuclear capability [weapons and energy] was fundamentally misguided, a total waste of resources and a significant factor in our relative economic decline over the past 50 years’. He may have been right.  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/04/civil-and-military-nuclear-mutuality.html

April 15, 2024 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Longer it Takes the West to Accept that Ukraine is Losing, the Worse Things Will Get for Ukraine

Our leaders keep warning us that Putin will roll his tanks into the Baltic States and maybe even Poland should the Russians be successful in beating the Ukrainians. France’s President Macron is even telling us that we may have to send NATO troops to fight in Ukraine. Everyone seems to automatically assume that Putin’s ambition is still to conquer all of Ukraine and incorporate it in the Russian Federation. This is despite the fact that he said that it was to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to safeguard the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine from Ukrainian nationalist militias.

Well, we do seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle in Ukraine. How we get out of it is not immediately obvious.

Like many wars, this one seems to have started due to catastrophic blunders by the ruling elites on both sides. To simplify a rather complex situation, I believe that there were two massive blunders.

The West’s blunder – for several years Putin has warned NATO “not one inch further” – that he would not accept further NATO expansion eastwards and would not allow countries like Ukraine and Georgia, both with long borders with Russia, to join NATO. In 2008, Putin even attended a NATO summit during which he gave a speech warning NATO that Russia would not accept Ukraine’s and Georgia’s admission to NATO. To me that seems reasonable. After all, the U.S. would hardly accept Russia doing a deal with, say, Mexico which would allow Russia to establish bases close to the U.S.-Mexico border (although it’s also understandable that Ukraine and Georgia wanted to join NATO, given Putin’s sabre-rattling). And, of course, there was the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the USA was not too pleased about Russian missiles being situated close to the American mainland. Probably due to stupidity, hubris or a belief that Putin was bluffing, NATO delivered a diplomatic note to the Kremlin reiterating NATO’s view that countries like Ukraine and Georgia could join the Alliance if they wished. The result – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Putin’s blunder – Putin seems to have believed that it would only take a couple of weeks for the Russian army to get to Kiev, overthrow and murder the Zelensky Government and install a Russian-friendly regime. He got that one wrong and several hundred thousand Russians have been wounded or killed as a result. Moreover, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted Sweden and Finland to join NATO – another consequence Putin seems to have failed to foresee.

The war seemed to have started well for Ukraine. The Ukrainian army surprised the Russians and the world by fighting off the initial Russian invasion. Then the success of the summer 2022 Ukrainian offensive appeared to suggest that Ukraine might even be able to push the Russians out of Eastern Ukraine, retake Crimea and, by humiliating Putin, maybe even cause a coup in Russia which could overthrow Putin and his mafia cronies.

But after the 2022 Ukraine summer offensive, the Russians built formidable defensive lines protected by miles of minefields, dragon’s teeth and trench systems. So, when the 2023 Ukrainian combined operations offensive was launched, the Ukrainians were caught in a death trap and suffered huge losses of personnel and equipment while making little progress

We are now in a third phase of the war – the war of attrition – in which Russia is gaining the upper hand. Russia can massively out-produce Ukraine (and the quivering West) in terms of munitions, tanks, planes, missiles, artillery systems, drones and numbers of soldiers. Moreover, Russia has also received military material from North Korea, Iran, Syria and probably China. Meanwhile, Ukraine is running out of ammunition and troops. Some sources have suggested that the average age of Ukrainian forces is a worrying 43. And Ukraine doesn’t have time to mobilise, equip and train the numbers necessary to stem the Russian advance. In a war of attrition, the side with the greatest resources usually wins by grinding down its opponent. And that’s what we’re seeing now with small but continual Russian advances and Ukrainian retreats.

Our leaders keep warning us that Putin will roll his tanks into the Baltic States and maybe even Poland should the Russians be successful in beating the Ukrainians. France’s President Macron is even telling us that we may have to send NATO troops to fight in Ukraine. Everyone seems to automatically assume that Putin’s ambition is still to conquer all of Ukraine and incorporate it in the Russian Federation. This is despite the fact that he said that it was to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to safeguard the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine from Ukrainian nationalist militias.

By the end of the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, Putin’s forces could have walked into the Georgian capital Tbilisi. Instead, they withdrew and merely stayed on to guard the Russian-speaking enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia – the equivalent of the similar enclaves in Ukraine.

Putin has the habit of doing exactly what he says he’s going to do. This is a concept which contemporary Western politicians find so alien to their natures, of course, that they’re totally unable to grasp it (although their distrust of Putin is understandable).

Moreover, if we look at military budgets, you might wonder who is actually threatening whom. The USA’s military budget is around $877 billion. The total NATO military budget in 2023 (including the USA) a cool $1.3 trillion. The Russian Federation military budget prior to the Ukraine invasion? Just $86 billion a year.

Our rulers have repeatedly told us that we must “do whatever it takes” to stop Putin and that the West will support Ukraine for “however long is necessary”. But it seems to be becoming clear to everyone except our rulers that Ukraine is losing and can now never win if winning means expelling all Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.

The best Ukraine can now hope for is an untidy truce which involves a loss of the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine – at least 20% of Ukrainian territory. Though the longer this war goes on, the more territory Ukraine will lose.

So, what will our rulers choose – humiliation or annihilation?

Will our rulers accept total humiliation by pushing Ukraine to do a deal with Russia in which Ukraine will have to hand over at least 20% of its land area to the Russian Federation and agree that what little is left of Ukraine will be a neutral country and never join NATO? And how will our rulers explain this defeat to us, their electorates? Moreover, what will the West’s defeat do to the global balance of power? It will, of course, embolden those in the anti-Western bloc – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – who wish to do us harm. Moreover, it will convince many non-aligned countries that their future lies in alliances with the resurgent and increasingly powerful autocratic anti-Western bloc rather than with the declining, defeated, war-weary, supposedly democratic West.

Or will our rulers decide to try and save face and their own careers by ‘upping the ante’ – getting us more involved in helping Ukraine? Thanks to the incompetence of the head of the German air force, whose unsecured phone conference was recorded by Russian spies, we now know that British troops are apparently in Ukraine already, possibly helping with the loading and targeting of Storm Shadow missiles. It’s a pity our politicians ‘forgot’ to tell us that British troops are actually operating in Ukraine. Moreover, the New York Times recently revealed that the CIA has between 12 and 14 bases in Ukraine where it trains Ukrainian soldiers. If our rulers do get Western troops directly involved in killing Russians, as France’s President Macron has repeatedly proposed, we would risk the possibility of a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

I’m no military strategist. But it seems obvious to me that our rulers have blundered into a situation without any plan for how to extricate us in the event of things not turning out as they planned, thus forgetting the most basic rule of war – that no plan survives contact with the enemy. Or, as boxer Mike Tyson explained, “Everybody has a plan till they get punched in the face.”

It will be interesting to see whether our rulers choose humiliation by accepting Ukraine’s and, by extension, NATO’s defeat, or instead go for escalation which could lead to nuclear annihilation.

April 15, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

J.D. Vance – New York Times: The Math on Ukraine Doesn’t Add Up

The notion that we should prolong a bloody and gruesome war because it’s been good for American business is grotesque. 

Mr. Zelensky’s stated goal for the war — a return to 1991 boundaries — is fantastical.


J.D.Vance, The New York Times, Fri, 12 Apr 2024 , https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html

President Biden wants the world to believe that the biggest obstacle facing Ukraine is Republicans and our lack of commitment to the global community. This is wrong.

Ukraine’s challenge is not the G.O.P.; it’s math. Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide. This reality must inform any future Ukraine policy, from further congressional aid to the diplomatic course set by the president.

The Biden administration has applied increasing pressure on Republicans to pass a supplemental aid package of more than $60 billion to Ukraine. I voted against this package in the Senate and remain opposed to virtually any proposal for the United States to continue funding this war. Mr. Biden has failed to articulate even basic facts about what Ukraine needs and how this aid will change the reality on the ground.

The most fundamental question: How much does Ukraine need and how much can we actually provide? Mr. Biden suggests that a $60 billion supplemental means the difference between victory and defeat in a major war between Russia and Ukraine. That is also wrong. This $60 billion is a fraction of what it would take to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor. But this is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.

Consider our ability to produce 155-millimeter artillery shells. Last year, Ukraine’s defense minister estimated that the country’s base-line requirement for these shells was over four million per year but that it could fire up to seven million if that many were available. Since the start of the conflict, the United States has gone to great lengths to ramp up production of 155-millimeter shells. We’ve roughly doubled our capacity and can now produce 360,000 per year — less than a tenth of what Ukraine says it needs. The administration’s goal is to get this to 1.2 million — 30 percent of what’s needed — by the end of 2025. This would cost the American taxpayers dearly while yielding an unpleasantly familiar result: failure abroad.

Just this week, the top American military commander in Europe argued that absent further security assistance, Russia could soon have a 10-to-1 artillery advantage over Ukraine. What didn’t gather as many headlines is that Russia’s current advantage is at least 5 to 1, even after all the money we have poured into the conflict. Neither of these ratios plausibly leads to Ukrainian victory.

Proponents of American aid to Ukraine have argued that our approach has been a boon to our own economy, creating jobs here in the factories that manufacture weapons. But our national security interests can be — and often are — separate from our economic interests.The notion that we should prolong a bloody and gruesome war because it’s been good for American business is grotesque. We can and should rebuild our industrial base without shipping its products to a foreign conflict.

The story is the same when we look at other munitions. Take the Patriot missile system — our premier air defense weapon. It’s of such importance in this war that Ukraine’s foreign minister has specifically demanded them. That’s because in March alone, Russia reportedly launched over 3,000 guided aerial bombs, 600 drones and 400 missiles at Ukraine. To fend off these attacks, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and others have indicated they need thousands of Patriot interceptors per year. The problem is this: The United States only manufactures 550 every year. If we pass the supplemental aid package currently being considered in Congress, we could potentially increase annual production to 650, but that’s still less than a third of what Ukraine requires.

These weapons are not only needed by Ukraine. If China were to set its sights on Taiwan, the Patriot missile system would be critical to its defense. In fact, the United States has promised to send Taiwan nearly $900 million worth of Patriot missiles, but delivery of those weapons and other essential resources has been severely delayed, partly because of shortages caused by the war in Ukraine.

If that sounds bad, Ukraine’s manpower situation is even worse. Here are the basics:Russia has nearly four times the population of Ukraine. Ukraine needs upward of half a million new recruits, but hundreds of thousands of fighting-age men have already fled the country. The average Ukrainian soldier is roughly 43 years old, and many soldiers have already served two years at the front with few, if any, opportunities to stop fighting. After two years of conflict, there are some villages with almost no men left. The Ukrainian military has resorted to coercing men into service, and women have staged protests to demand the return of their husbands and fathers after long years of service at the front. This newspaper reported one instance in which the Ukrainian military attempted to conscript a man with a diagnosed mental disability.

Many in Washington seem to think that hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians have gone to war with a song in their heart and are happy to label any thought to the contrary Russian propaganda. But major newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic are reporting that the situation on the ground in Ukraine is grim.

These basic mathematical realities were true, but contestable, at the outset of the war. They were obvious and incontestable a year ago, when American leadership worked closely with Mr. Zelensky to undertake a disastrous counteroffensive. The bad news is that accepting brute reality would have been most useful last spring, before the Ukrainians launched that extremely costly and unsuccessful military campaign. The good news is that even now, a defensive strategy can work. Digging in with old-fashioned ditches, cement and land mines are what enabled Russia to weather Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. Our allies in Europe could better support such a strategy, as well. While some European countries have provided considerable resources, the burden of military support has thus far fallen heaviest on the United States.

By committing to a defensive strategy, Ukraine can preserve its precious military manpower, stop the bleeding and provide time for negotiations to commence. But this would require both the American and Ukrainian leadership to accept that Mr. Zelensky’s stated goal for the war — a return to 1991 boundaries — is fantastical.

The White House has said time and again that it can’t negotiate with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. This is absurd. The Biden administration has no viable plan for the Ukrainians to win this war. The sooner Americans confront this truth, the sooner we can fix this mess and broker for peace.

April 15, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Scottish National Party support signing an international treaty banning nuclear weapons, post independence

THE SNP support signing an international treaty banning nuclear weapons
after independence – despite External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson
refusing to say as much, The Sunday National understands. The news comes
after Robertson repeatedly declined to commit an independent Scotland to
signing the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) at the
launch of a government white paper on Scotland’s place in the world in
March. The SNP have been clear that the UK’s nuclear weaponry, which is
based on the River Clyde, would have to leave the country after a Yes vote.
Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon had said in 2021 that an independent
Scotland “would be a keen signatory” to the TPNW.

The National 14th April 2024

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24250138.snp-back-signing-tpnw-nuclear-ban-treaty-post-independence

April 15, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

‘Unprecedented infestation’ of rats at Dounreay site

‘Unprecedented infestation’ of rats at Dounreay site. Dounreay has had to
bring in a pest control company to deal with an “unprecedented infestation
of rats over the past few months,” according to a safety rep at the site.
Workers, too, have expressed their concerns about the situation with one
saying hundreds were reportedly seen “scurrying away” when pampas
grass-like plants were removed from around the buildings where they were
nesting.

There have been reports of the rats being seen in vehicles, a
kitchen area and near bins, while concerns have been raised about health
implications.

John O’Groat Journal 11th April 2024

https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/unprecedented-infestation-of-rats-at-dounreay-site-347661

April 15, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer slammed over staunch defence of nuclear weapons

“it’s increasingly clear that Starmer’s offer is just more of the same: billions of pounds wasted on nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and a belligerent foreign policy that includes support for the Aukus pact, Nato, and continuing arms sales to Israel, used to kill Palestinians.

“Putting billions of pounds into the pockets of arms companies and their investors will not reinvigorate the economy in any meaningful way.”

The National By Hamish Morrison @HMorrison97 Political Reporter, 10 Apr 24

KEIR Starmer has said Trident is the “bedrock” of Labour’s defence policy – despite growing concern over the state of the ageing nuclear fleet critics say is a “grotesque” waste of money.

The Labour leader launched a full-throated defence of Britain’s nuclear weapons in an attempt to stress the distance he has taken the party since its leadership under Jeremy Corbyn – who voted against the renewal of Trident while in charge.

During a visit to Barrow today, where nuclear submarines are being built, Starmer is expected to focus on increasing jobs and skills in defence.

Starmer said: “The changed Labour Party I lead knows that our nation’s defence must always come first. Labour’s commitment to our nuclear deterrent is total.

“In the face of rising global threats and growing Russian aggression, the UK’s nuclear deterrent is the bedrock of Labour’s plan to keep Britain safe.

“It will ensure vital protection for the UK and our Nato allies in the years ahead, as well as supporting thousands of high paying jobs across the UK………………………..

Labour will ensure that new UK leadership within Aukus helps make this national endeavour a success for Britain.”

The Aukus pact unites Australia, the UK and the USA in a military pact in the South Pacific, which critics say escalates tensions with the Chinese.

China’s government has described Aukus – which will see Australia provided with nuclear-powered submarines – as indicative of an “obsolete Cold War zero sum mentality”.

The SNP have said Labour’s commitment to Trident was “grotesque”.

Martin Docherty-Hughes (below), the party’s defence spokesperson, said: “Westminster has already wasted billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money on nuclear weapons and expensive nuclear energy.

“It is therefore grotesque that Sir Keir Starmer is prepared to throw billions more down the drain when his party claim there is no money to improve our NHS, help families with the cost of living or to properly invest in our green energy future.

“This money would be better spent on a raft of other things – not least investing in the green energy gold rush, which would ensure Scotland, with all its renewal energy potential, could be a green energy powerhouse of the 21st century.”

He blasted the “misfiring Trident missiles”, drawing attention to a high-profile blunder which saw a test missile dramatically fail to launch, landing just yards from the submarine carrying it.

Docherty-Hughes said the Government should provide more money for “underpaid and under-resourced” armed forces staff and conventional defence systems.

Alba general secretary Chris McEleny, who worked at HM Naval Base Clyde, where nukes are stored, said: “When one in four children in Scotland live in poverty it is obscene that resources are wasted to ensure that we have the best defended foodbanks in the world.”

He added that the “war-mongering Labour Party have now made it clear that independence is the only way to free Scotland of nuclear weapons”.

Healey, Labour’s shadow defence minister, said a “strong defence industrial strategy” would be “hardwired” in the party’s quest to promote economic growth if it gains power at the election.

He added: “We will make it fundamental to direct defence investment first to British jobs and British industry.”……………………………..

Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said voters were “desperately looking for hope from the Labour Party”.

She added: “However, it’s increasingly clear that Starmer’s offer is just more of the same: billions of pounds wasted on nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and a belligerent foreign policy that includes support for the Aukus pact, Nato, and continuing arms sales to Israel, used to kill Palestinians.

“Putting billions of pounds into the pockets of arms companies and their investors will not reinvigorate the economy in any meaningful way.”  https://www.thenational.scot/news/24248069.keir-starmer-slammed-staunch-defence-nuclear-weapons/

April 14, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government decision to withhold nuclear power plant information unlawful

 Government decision to withhold nuclear power plant information unlawful.
A ruling by the Information Commissioner (IC) requiring the Secretary of
State for Energy Security and Net Zero requesting the disclosure of
information in respect of a proposed nuclear power plant on Anglesey was
upheld by the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) which concluded that the
public interest supported its disclosure.

 Planning Resource 11th April 2024

https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1868100/government-decision-withhold-nuclear-power-plant-information-unlawful

April 14, 2024 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy ‘now an obstacle to delivering net zero’ – Greenpeace.

Nuclear energy has been touted as key to the global transition,
but concerns around costs and timescales have generated scepticism.
According to Greenpeace director of policy Doug Parr: “Nuclear power
can’t bridge the gap between anything and anything. It is too slow. It is
too expensive. It is a massive distraction.”

Speaking about the role of
nuclear energy in the UK’s transition, Parr tells Energy Monitor: “It
doesn’t help with the kind of grid system that we need, which is going to
be renewables heavy. I think the UK focus on nuclear power is now an
obstacle to delivering net zero because it is sucking up time, energy and
political bandwidth, which can be spent on more useful things.”

Parr argues that governments should be investing in more immediate solutions. He
points to investment in Sizewell C – the 3.2GW power station set to be
built in the English county of Suffolk – where construction is set to
commence this year. It is likely to take between nine and 12 years to
complete, but delays at Hinkley C (of which Sizewell C will be a close
copy) have stirred doubt.

“We will be putting a lot of money into
something like Sizewell C, when actually we will find that it is a white
elephant by the time it has opened,” he contends. “We will have spent
all that time, energy and effort, which could have been put into improving
our housing stock, improving our grid or improving the ability of electric
vehicles to meet the needs of people through a proper charging network –
things that would actually would deliver this decade, not in 15 years time.
So, we would cut a lot more carbon, we would get something done that is
useful and we wouldn’t have piles of messy radioactive waste that we
still don’t know what to do with.”

 Energy Monitor 10th April 2024, https://www.energymonitor.ai/features/nuclear-energy-now-an-obstacle-to-delivering-net-zero-greenpeace/

April 14, 2024 Posted by | climate change, UK | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »