nuclear-news

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

AUKUS: Its single point of obsolescence

A multi-decade submarine programme passing through that many hands is its own kind of risk. It helps that Burnham voted for Trident renewal in 2016 when Jeremy Corbyn voted against. This is not a man who wandered into submarine policy for a photograph.

By Vince Hooper | 1 August 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tba-hooper-for-midday-saturday,21376

A timeline is not a delivery date, and a single shipyard carrying the weight of both a national deterrent and a trilateral alliance remains exactly what the title suggests: a single point of obsolescence, writes Professor Vince Hooper.

ANDY BURNHAM HAS BEEN PRIME MINISTER for ten days and has already discovered the one town in England that Whitehall cannot ignore.

On Thursday he travelled to Barrow-in-Furness, a Cumbrian settlement of fewer than 70,000 people that happens to be the only place in Britain capable of building a nuclear submarine. He announced £8.4 billion for the Dreadnought program.

He spoke of reindustrialisation, apprenticeships, and the dignity of skilled work. He told the shipyard workers that security is about who builds it, not only what we build. It was a sentence that could have been lifted from a mayoral stump speech in Salford, which is more or less where it came from.

Australian readers may be forgiven for assuming this has nothing to do with them. It does. The money is for Dreadnought, Britain’s nuclear deterrent, but the sheds it flows into are the same sheds that must deliver SSN-AUKUS, the attack submarines on which Australia’s undersea future has been staked.

Every Dreadnought hull and every SSN-AUKUS hull must pass through the same facility, fitted by the same workforce, in a town that cannot currently house the workers it already has.

The UK Defence Committee warned in April that investment in upgrading Barrow had already slipped and that any further failure could delay SSN-AUKUS with serious consequences for credibility with AUKUS partners.

Lord Case, chairing the cross-government Team Barrow effort, conceded that the broader ecosystem, from housing and schools to transport and healthcare, was not keeping pace. The ambition is one boat every eighteen months. The most recent Astute-class boats have each taken more than a decade from keel to commissioning. One trusts the PowerPoint is more optimistic than the precedent.

The £8.4 billion covers Delivery Phase 4: sea trials for HMS Dreadnought and construction milestones for HMS Valiant. It preserves the possibility of SSN-AUKUS steel being cut in 2027 without the yard falling into the kind of gap that turned the Astute programme into a thirteen-year crawl from keel to operational status.

BAE has achieved a forty per cent productivity increase at the yard over three years, which is impressive until you remember that two submarine programmes are now competing for the same finite pool of welders, engineers and shed space.

The productivity gains occurred inside what economists would politely call a monopoly supplier. Apply a Herfindahl-Hirschman index to British submarine construction and you arrive at 10,000, the theoretical maximum. In any other sector that number would trigger an antitrust inquiry. In Barrow it triggers a prime ministerial visit. There is no second yard.

For Canberra, the risk compounds across the Atlantic. A July 2026 GAO report found that at least thirty-seven per cent of the U.S. Navy’s fast-attack submarine fleet is in maintenance at any given time. American Virginia-class production runs at 1.1 to 1.2 hulls per year; the AUKUS plan requires 2.33.

The U.S. Navy has told Congress it will not reach even two hulls annually before 2032. Under the National Defence Authorisation Act, the President cannot legally sell a nuclear-powered submarine to a foreign partner unless he certifies to Congress that the transaction will not degrade domestic undersea capabilities.

Australia is counting on three to five Virginia-class boats from the early 2030s as a bridge while it waits for SSN-AUKUS to arrive. If Washington cannot build enough hulls to satisfy its own fleet, the certification becomes politically impossible and the bridge collapses before it carries a single boat south.

On the British side, the Defence Committee heard in December that four of six commissioned Astute-class hulls were at low readiness; by late June, Navy Lookout reported that none was at sea. None.

The capability gap between Collins-class retirement and SSN-AUKUS delivery is not a scheduling inconvenience. It is a window in which Australia could find itself without a credible undersea force, which is an unusual position for a country that has just committed the largest defence expenditure in its history to acquiring one.

The political choreography is worth reading as closely as the engineering. Burnham has installed John Healey, the defence secretary who resigned in June over Starmer’s failure to fund the department, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, placing the man who quit over the defence budget in charge of the national finances, which is either poetic justice or an exceptionally dry joke.

He has given Defence to Wes Streeting, a right-flank Labourite who has affirmed the inherited commitment to three per cent of GDP on defence by the next parliament, and made Ed Miliband, until last month the energy secretary, his Foreign Secretary, the post from which Britain’s end of the AUKUS relationship is diplomatically managed.

Miliband’s previous experience of trilateral partnerships was largely confined to climate summits. The £8.4 billion itself was already committed under the Defence Investment Plan, and sits above a £4.7 billion shortfall in the broader £298 billion spending envelope that Burnham must find in his first budget.

Today’s announcement repackaged existing commitments inside a jobs narrative tailored for a prime minister whose political capital is northern, industrial, and built on a decade of telling Westminster it does not understand the provinces.

Burnham is Britain’s sixth prime minister in a decade, as he himself acknowledged in his first speech from Downing Street. A multi-decade submarine programme passing through that many hands is its own kind of risk. It helps that Burnham voted for Trident renewal in 2016 when Jeremy Corbyn voted against. This is not a man who wandered into submarine policy for a photograph.

As signalling, the visit works. As reassurance that AUKUS remains on track, it falls rather short.

The Defence Investment Plan reconfirmed up to twelve SSN-AUKUS boats inside a £63.6 billion nuclear ring-fence, but attached no programme cost. That omission speaks volumes in a language Canberra understands fluently.

Pillar 2 of the partnership (hypersonics, AI-enabled undersea surveillance, autonomous undersea vehicles) is advancing more quietly and with less industrial risk, but it is Pillar 1’s submarines that define whether AUKUS is a programme or a slogan. There is an uncomfortable irony in that division. Australia’s first SSN-AUKUS boat is not expected until the early 2040s, a platform being designed today for a battlespace nearly two decades away.

The very Pillar 2 technologies the partnership is developing (autonomous detection, seabed sensor networks, AI-enabled surveillance) could reshape undersea warfare before the first hull enters service, making crewed submarines less decisive than the programme assumes.

The UK Government plans to cut steel on its first SSN-AUKUS boat at Barrow next year, a timeline that will reassure some in Canberra if it holds.

But a timeline is not a delivery date, and a single shipyard carrying the weight of both a national deterrent and a trilateral alliance, while the ocean it is building for changes around it, remains exactly what the title suggests: a single point of obsolescence.

August 5, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ukraine strike on Iran, a cynical Zelensky sales pitch

Finian Cunningham, July 31, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/07/31/ukraine-strike-iran-cynical-zelensky-sales-pitch/

Zelensky’s attack on Iran is aimed at boosting that illusion of Ukraine acting as a benefactor for Western security when, in reality, it is recklessly inciting more war – all to satisfy the corrupt money racket.

The deadly Ukrainian strike on an Iranian cargo ship in the Caspian Sea conforms with a well-worn pattern as a provocation to boost a sales pitch.

The drone attack on July 25, which killed one Iranian mariner and injured several others, was hailed by Ukraine’s puppet president Vladimir Zelensky as “very good” and a blow to Iran-Russia war shipments, even though Western media reported that a civilian cargo vessel was hit.

Three days later, on July 28, Zelensky was warmly received in the White House by U.S. President Donald Trump, following the funeral for war hawk Senator Lindsey Graham.

That funeral, by the way, was less a Christian service than a Satanic ritual of ghouls bidding their farewells to a fellow war-pervert and believer in blood sacrifice of innocents. Zelensky and Israeli genocider Netanyahu surrounded by Washington’s war criminals and Epstein associates was chilling in brazen evil presence.

Zelensky was attending the vampire’s ball with an offering to master Trump – see how we can hit Iran for you.

On the agenda for the White House meeting was Zelensky appealing for more U.S. Patriot air defense batteries and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Trump reportedly declined to offer additional supplies of the Patriot system, probably because Pentagon inventories have become so depleted, but he confirmed that the U.S. would permit Ukraine the right to manufacture its own version of the interceptor missiles.

Notably, Trump’s relations with Zelensky have improved significantly compared with the infamous Oval Office shouting match when the American president verbally slapped his Ukrainian guest around, telling him he had “no cards to play.”

Iran responded furiously to the Ukrainian strike on one of its ships, warning Kiev that it would take revenge for “illegal aggression”. Initially, Ukraine rebuffed Iran’s threats with bravado, saying that it had a right to attack alleged military supplies from Iran to Russia which, it claimed, were being used to kill Ukrainians. Tehran says the latest strike was on a civilian cargo ship, which Western media have also reported.

The Kiev regime has subsequently appeared more conciliatory, telling Iran that it is not seeking an escalation.

Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly said that his Ukrainian counterpart, Andriy Sybiha, assured him the attack on the Iranian vessel was unintentional and that Kyiv did not want the dispute to escalate.

So what was all the gloating a few days before by Zelensky about?

The timeline suggests that the drone attack on the Iranian vessel was not an attempt to conflate the conflicts between the U.S. and Iran and the NATO proxy war with Russia, as some analysts contended.

Rather, the Caspian strike was a cynical PR move by the Zelensky regime ahead of his visit to White House.

The reckless move could, however, result in a merger of the conflicts if Iran decides to deliver on its warnings to hit back. Iran certainly has the capability for ballistic missiles and long-range drones to attack Ukraine, if it opts to do so.

The corrupt regime in Kiev is primarily concerned with maintaining the flow of Western military aid. This, of course, feeds the Western military-industrial complex with the coveted steady stream of profits and indulges the Russophobic fantasies of Western leaders.

Merging the two conflicts would certainly amplify this lust for racketeering. But for the Kiev regime to incur the wrath of Iran and have Iranian air strikes join Russia’s assaults would seem to be a strategically stupid move, even for this endemically corrupt regime.

The back-tracking by the Ukraine regime days after the Caspian attack indicates that it is trying to placate Tehran not to follow up with retaliation.

That suggests that the attack was simply an ill-thought-out cheap PR stunt to tee up Zelensky’s pitch to Trump for more Patriots and to finally concede on supplying Tomahawks.

This is a classic pattern by the criminal cabal in Kiev. As on countless other occasions, when Zelensky is traveling abroad with his begging bowl, his trips are often preceded by provocations, either from Ukrainian strikes on Russia or false-flag attacks on Ukrainian civilians that the regime blames on Russia, eliciting predictable appeals for more military aid and air-defense systems, a percentage of which ends up in the regime’s overseas accounts.

The danger is that the Zelensky mafia is so desperate to keep the funds flowing that it will stage a provocation that goes too far, igniting a wider World War.

So far, the diabolical game has involved presenting the Ukrainian regime as a defender of Europe and the United States from Russian aggression. Now, with Trump stuck in a quagmire of his own making against Iran, the Zelensky war-racket syndicate senses another opportunity by soliciting Trump as a front against Iran. Trump no doubt is desperate for help as his presidency slides down the toilet. Hence his warmer rapport with Zelensky.

Attacking an Iranian ship in the Caspian is perhaps best understood as a cynical offering to Trump by the regime to solicit more military aid from Washington, paid for by the European NATO ghouls.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has recently taken to describing Ukraine as a “security provider” for the West. This is an Orwellian way to sanitize what is a parasitic drain on Western economies. Zelensky’s attack on Iran is aimed at boosting that illusion of Ukraine acting as a benefactor for Western security when, in reality, it is recklessly inciting more war – all to satisfy the corrupt money racket.

Russia and Iran seem to be playing the long game of letting the Western war ghouls cannibalize themselves into oblivion. Then again, it may be tempting to just finish them off before they inflict more suffering on innocents.

August 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

EU considers emergency meeting as nuclear shutdown leaves Hungary facing energy crisis

By Sandor Zsiros, 31/07/2026, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/07/31/eu-considers-emergency-meeting-as-nuclear-shutdown-leaves-hungary-facing-energy-crisis

Hungarian PM Péter Magyar has warned of an energy crisis after record-low Danube water levels forced the shutdown of the Paks nuclear plant, which supplies nearly half the country’s power.

The European Commission says it is prepared to convene an emergency meeting of its Electricity Coordination Group over the shutdown of Hungary’s Paks nuclear plant, as the country’s prime minister warned of a looming energy crisis.

“Although the operator has emergency measures in place to guarantee nuclear safety, an event of this kind could further strain the regional electricity balance,” the Commission’s spokesperson, Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, told Euronews. “The Commission stands ready to convene an ad hoc meeting of the Electricity Coordination Group.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar has warned that the country could face an energy crisis as early as next week, after Paks – which supplies almost half of Hungary’s energy needs – was taken offline following record-low water levels in the Danube, which is used to cool the reactors. It is the first time the plant has been shut down completely since it opened 42 years ago.

“This means 2,000 megawatts will be lost from Hungarian energy production from Monday at the latest, while demand for residential and public consumption continues to rise because of the heat,” Magyar said on Thursday evening.

The government has asked the public and businesses to cut energy use during the peak hours between 5pm and 10pm, urging people to avoid using air conditioning and washing machines in particular.

Magyar explained that the government has also drawn up an emergency plan to limit consumption at industrial facilities on a rotational basis. The output of other power plants in Hungary will also be increased.

“Given the severity of this unprecedented situation, we are asking everyone – large consumers and the public alike – to act responsibly,” he said. “It is in our common interest to avoid unplanned outages and the kind of unexpected system collapse seen in Western Europe and the Balkans.”

András Perger, an expert at the Hungarian NGO Energiaklub, told Euronews that the country stands to lose 25–30 percent of its energy output from Monday, describing the situation as a serious test of Hungary’s energy supply.

“From Monday, when consumption is expected to rise and the Paks plant remains offline, a more serious situation will begin,” Perger said. “This will be a serious test for Hungarian and regional supply alike.”

He added that some of Hungary’s demands could be met through imports from neighbouring countries, though the availability of hydroelectric power is itself limited in the region.

In Romania, the shutdown of one reactor poses less of a problem, given that nuclear energy makes up a smaller share of the country’s energy mix.

“Although the situation in Hungary is stretched, I don’t expect this to cause serious regional problems,” Perger said.

Friends of the Earth Hungary, an environmental NGO says the development around the Paks Nuclear Plant is not an isolated incident but a climate adaptation challenge.

“Hungary needs to speed up its transition into a more resilient, decentralised energy system that relies less on climate-vulnerable infrastructure and more on energy savings, flexibility and renewable energy,” Executive President Ákos Éger said in a statement sent to Euronews.

The Commission’s Itkonen said Brussels is closely monitoring the electricity supply situation in both Hungary and Romania, though she stressed there are currently no immediate energy security concerns.

According to the Commission, the Electricity Coordination Group could aim to facilitate information-sharing and coordinate next steps among countries in the region. The process will be watched closely as Hungary heads into what officials on both sides describe as a critical test of the country’s energy resilience.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Vice President of the European Commission Teresa Ribera warns that modular nuclear reactors are still projects, not an immediately available energy solution

Any significant national support must also be analyzed from the perspective of state aid. The Commission’s competition services check whether the government compensates only the necessary costs and risks or whether the mechanism guarantees excessive revenues, disproportionately transfers losses to taxpayers, or grants a producer an advantage that competitors cannot obtain.

Informat.ro Călin Nicolescu, 21 July 2026,

Small modular nuclear reactors can become a component of the European energy system, but they do not yet represent a solution that can be used immediately to reduce emissions or cover the increase in electricity consumption, said the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, Teresa Ribera. She urged governments not to delay investments and reforms already necessary while waiting for technologies that still need to be demonstrated and commercially implemented.

In short Teresa Ribera says that the choice of the energy mix, including the share of nuclear energy, belongs to each member state. The Commission must ensure compliance with common safety, competition, and public money usage standards. Small modular reactors benefit from European research programs and a Commission strategy aimed at launching the first projects in Europe in the early 2030s. Ribera warns that modular reactors remain, for now, projects in development. Governments should not postpone investments in grids, energy efficiency, renewable sources, or emission reductions until 2035. Building new reactors and extending the operation of existing plants often requires public funding, guarantees, and the state taking on part of the project risk. The Commission will check whether these forms of support produce overcompensations, subsidized prices, or advantages that affect competition among energy technologies and consumer access to electricity.

Teresa Ribera responded to a question about the future of nuclear energy and small modular reactors during the inaugural session of the sixth edition of the summer course “The great current challenges of the European Union,” held in San Sebastián. The Executive Vice-President said that opinions on nuclear energy differ profoundly among states and that European policy must respect each country’s right to establish its own electricity production mix.

Some governments have decided to build reactors, modernize existing plants, or extend their operational lifespan, while others base their strategy on renewable sources, storage, interconnections, and reducing consumption. The role of the Commission is not to impose the same energy structure on everyone, but the institution verifies compliance with European nuclear standards, safety requirements, and state aid legislation.

Small modular reactors, known by the acronym SMR, are designed for lower capacities than conventional nuclear plants. Their components are expected to be manufactured to a greater extent in industrial units and transported to the site for installation or assembly, a model that the industry claims can standardize construction and reduce some delays and costs. The Commission estimates that such reactors could provide electricity and heat for industry, urban heating systems, hydrogen production, and large consumers such as data centers.

Ribera insisted, however, on the gap between technological potential and commercial availability. The modular reactors currently being discussed are still projects, and the first European installations are expected for the early 2030s, not to address immediate energy needs. The European strategy adopted in March 2026 aims to accelerate the development and commissioning of the first projects during this period, confirming that the technology is still ahead of extensive commercial implementation………………………………………………….

The issue of public cost occupied an important part of Ribera’s response. Building new nuclear plants and extending the operation of existing ones typically required both public funding and guarantees through which the state takes on part of the project risks. These interventions may be necessary to attract capital into a sector with very high initial investments and long timelines, but they raise questions about the advantages granted to the producer and the effect on the market.

The Commission announced that it will create a guarantee of 200 million euros to support private investments in the first commercial units based on innovative nuclear technologies. The guarantee is intended to reduce risk for investors and should be seen as a tool for preparing the first projects, not as sufficient funding for building an entire fleet of reactors.

Any significant national support must also be analyzed from the perspective of state aid. The Commission’s competition services check whether the government compensates only the necessary costs and risks or whether the mechanism guarantees excessive revenues, disproportionately transfers losses to taxpayers, or grants a producer an advantage that competitors cannot obtain.

Ribera specifically warned about the possibility that public funding could influence electricity prices. Guaranteed contracts, support schemes, and risk coverage can provide stability to a nuclear project, but they can affect competition with renewable sources, storage, or other technologies if the support is not proportional and transparent.

The Commission’s analysis does not start from the idea that nuclear energy should be treated identically to any ordinary investment. Plants involve special safety requirements, very long operating periods, and obligations regarding decommissioning and waste. These characteristics may justify specific mechanisms, but do not eliminate the obligation of states to demonstrate the necessity, proportionality, and effect of support on the market.

The European strategy presents SMRs as a possible internal source of low-emission energy, capable of supporting energy security and decarbonizing hard-to-electrify industries. The Commission estimates that the installed capacity of these reactors in the EU could reach between 17 and 53 GW by 2050, but these figures are development scenarios, not capacities already under construction or guaranteed.

The first projects will need to show whether modular production can reduce the costs and delays that have affected many conventional nuclear plants. The economic advantages depend on the standardization of models, the number of units ordered, the capacity of factories, coordinated authorization, and the existence of a sufficiently large market for repeating the same design.

The debate on SMRs is therefore conducted on two levels. The Commission is investing in preparing a technology that could become important in the coming decades, but warns that projects should not be presented as an already available alternative to the investments that need to be made now.

The message conveyed by Ribera in San Sebastián was that technological neutrality does not mean suspending decisions until all options reach maturity. States can support nuclear energy and modular reactors, but they must continue in parallel to reduce emissions, modernize infrastructure, and expand sources that can produce results before the first European SMRs come into operation.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Burnham is wrong – increased nuke spending will lose more jobs than create

July 30, 2026, https://cnduk.org/press-release-burnham-is-wrong-increased-nuke-spending-will-lose-more-jobs-than-create/

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has made his inaugural trip as Prime Minister to BAE’s shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness, announcing a £8.4 billion contract for the latest phase of Britain’s Dreadnought nuclear-armed submarine programme.

Ahead of the trip, Burnham made the claim that the spending would help revitalise the economy and local community.

“Keeping this country safe is the first responsibility of any government – but security is not only about what we build; it is about who builds it, and who benefits from it,” Burnham said ahead of the trip. Downing Street said that this phase of contracts would support 18,000 extra jobs in nuclear weapons sector and 22,000 additional apprentices by 2035.

“To every young person across the country, I want you to know that there is a path for you into a reindustrialised Britain, and it starts with the apprenticeships we are funding through this investment today,” Burnham added.

Successive British governments have claimed that hikes to military spending will result in improving the economy.

However, the government’s own data shows that the ‘defence’ industry is jobs-poor. For the same level of spending, double the number of jobs are created in social care for instance. This is because the vast majority of the spending goes on the weaponry and on profits for the arms companies like BAE.

Burnham has gone along with the Defence Investment Plan – of which £64 billion has been allocated to nuclear weapons. This is being funded through at least £7 billion in cuts to public services. Research by the Transition Security Project has found that this will result in a net loss of at least 10,000 jobs.

CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said:

“Spending billions of pounds on nuclear weapons is not keeping us safe. In fact, Britain’s role in replacing its nuclear submarines and buying the US F-35A nuclear-capable fighter jets is only increasing the risk of nuclear weapons being used. The government is making Britain less safe because of its aggressive, expansionist nuclear and foreign policy. British bases like RAF Fairford are now a target because the government has continued to allow Trump to use this base to illegally bomb Iran.

“On the economic front, the argument that Burnham is making – that more money for nuclear and military spending will revitalise the economy – is totally false and not backed up by facts. The Defence Investment Plan – precisely because it is based on cuts to far more jobs-rich areas like health, transport and education – will result in a net loss of jobs. This will only drive social deprivation even further.

“Right now, thousands of people are dying in this country because of the underfunding to our health service and because of the total lack of preparedness to tackle the climate-driven extreme heatwave.

“The British government needs to fundamentally shift direction. It needs to focus on diplomacy and dialogue, and scrap its nuclear weapons and cut back its military spending. It needs to prioritise funding our hospitals, schools, and mitigating climate change. That should be the priority of this government, not preparing for the next war that could lead to a nuclear confrontation.”

August 4, 2026 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Kremlin Still Key for US Atomic Power Despite Looming Import Ban


The vulnerability is growing more urgent as Washington promotes a nuclear
revival driven by power demand from data centers and electrification. The

US nuclear industry remains heavily dependent on Moscow for the enriched
uranium that fuels reactors generating about a fifth of the nation’s
electricity, highlighting the challenge of meeting a 2028 deadline to end
Russian purchases.

US reactor operators bought about 3.28 million
separative work units, or SWUs, of Russian enrichment services in 2025,
equal to almost 26% of their total purchases, according to data published
Wednesday in the Energy Information Administration’s latest uranium
marketing report. That compares with 17% a decade earlier.

 Bloomberg 30th July 2026,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/kremlin-still-key-for-us-atomic-power-despite-looming-import-ban

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Russia, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

What links Palestine Action arrests with Burnham’s nuclear weapons splurge?

MASS arrests of peaceful Palestine solidarity demonstrators in London were the backdrop to Andy Burnham boasting of his commitment to enlarging Britain’s nuclear arsenal in Barrow-in-Furness this week.

The left has a lot of work to do to turn the existing majority against British complicity in Israeli genocide, and the growing hostility to military partnership with a Donald Trump-led United States, into a more consistent rejection of the militarist agenda being forced down the country’s throat.

Not many will see a connection between the Palestine Action ban and Trident renewal, and many will even oppose the former while supporting the latter.


But the ban on Palestine Action — itself part of a wider project to suppress public solidarity with Palestine, from new police powers to outlaw protests to the prosecutions of peace movement leaders like Ben Jamal, Chris Nineham, Alex Kenny and Sophie Bolt — was never a random act of repression.

Nor — though this view is common on the left — was it primarily about banning criticism of Israel or a result of pressure from the Israeli state or its supporters, though of course both welcomed it.

The huge Palestine solidarity movement is a threat because it exposes the ugly truth about British foreign policy and the role the British military plays in the world.

A state which tries to warn international courts off investigating genocide is no defender of international law or human rights.

The armaments companies that help supply the weaponry for that genocide are complicit in it. They are also the beneficiaries of Labour’s militarist splurge.

And a military which actively assists the army committing the genocide — through the way bases like RAF Akrotiri act as staging posts for weapons supplies, or all those RAF surveillance flights over the killing fields of Gaza — is not a force for good in the world.


Early in the course of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, militarist pundit Paul Mason urged that it be reined in because outrage over Palestine would undermine support for the military more widely and for Britain’s interventions in other conflicts, notably Ukraine.

He was right to worry, though actually the implications of our complicity in Israeli war crimes, and more recently in the illegal US-Israeli war launched against Iran, are not widely enough recognised.

British military power is not used to deter aggression, but to enable it. Our principal allies are the most warlike countries on Earth, the readiest to resort to violence and the likeliest to plunge us into a new world war.

Once that is understood, the reckless rearmament drive — which itself is the result of pressure from President Trump — is much harder to justify. It makes Britain and the world more dangerous.

And support for rearmament rests anyway on shaky foundations. A plurality of the public oppose increased arms spending if it means tax rises or public service or welfare cuts.

Constant government hysteria has failed to instil war fever in the general public. Half of young people (aged 16-29 in a major poll this spring) say they would never fight in a war and ministers admit to a recruitment and retention crisis in the armed forces.

The causes are complex, with MPs like Clive Lewis pointing out rightly that many young people see little worth fighting for given Britain’s grotesque inequality and lack of decent jobs or affordable housing. But the success of the Palestine movement in opening eyes to the truth about our foreign policy and our allies should not be disregarded.
The ruling class wants war, or at least a population ready to be sacrificed in defence of the US-led imperialist order should war be required to shore it up.

That explains the rearmament drive. It also explains the continued repression of dissenting voices. Authoritarianism and militarism go hand in hand: we must oppose both.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Suffolk nuclear power plant on alert over wildfire

 Firefighters are racing to contain the Suffolk fire before the wind
changes direction and starts blowing smoke and flames towards the Sizewell
B nuclear plant. Westerly winds have so far pushed the blaze across the
heathland towards the coast, away from most human habitation and the power
station. But from early evening the wind is forecast to shift, pushing the
blaze and fumes first southwards and then south west. This could
potentially take them inland towards settlements like Leiston and the area
around Sizewell.

A nuclear industry source warned that if smoke started
blowing towards Sizewell B, it could force the station to shut down. There
is a risk of the smoke clogging the filters of the site’s heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which draws air from
outside.

This week, Sizewell B has restarted one reactor after refuelling
and plans to restart the second within days. On Thursday, EDF said Sizewell
had so far not been impacted by the blaze, but said it was “continuing to
monitor the situation”. As well as changing direction, the breeze is also
set to double in speed overnight – increasing from around 5mph on
Thursday to between 10 and 12mph through Friday, according to weather
website

Windy.com whose forecasts are based on the European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. ‘Low risk’ to under-construction
Sizewell C. The fire poses a “low risk” to Sizewell C, a nuclear power
plant being built next to Sizewell B, due to its distance from the fire and
the watercourses in between. A spokesman said: “Our sites and offices
remain open and operating as normal. “We are continuously assessing smoke
conditions and any impacts on the road network to help keep people safe and
ensure emergency services have priority access. “We remain ready to
support the local community, working closely with the local council, police
and fire and rescue service.”

 Telegraph 30th July 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/30/wildfire-in-suffolk-just-four-miles-nuclear-power-plant/

August 4, 2026 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Europe’s heatwave strains nuclear output

To date, six NPPs across Europe are closed or facing power reductions due to severe heatwaves and critically low river levels, as operators respond to environmental and cooling water constraints.

July 31, 2026, https://www.power-technology.com/news/europes-heatwave-strains-nuclear-output/?cf-view

t least ten nuclear reactors have been temporarily shut down or had their power output curtailed across Europe due to severe heatwaves and critically low river levels during June and July.

While no plants have been directly closed by wildfires, the Sizewell B nuclear power station in the UK has been placed on “high alert” due to a major 100-acre wildfire burning just four miles away.

The vast majority of disruptions have occurred in France, where state-owned EDF is legally bound to close reactors or reduce power to prevent discharged cooling water from pushing river temperatures past environmental thresholds. A record-breaking drought has caused the Danube River to drop to historic lows, affecting nuclear power plants (NPPs) in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Switzerland’s Beznau NPP has also been impacted.

As of 30–31 July 2026, there are six NPPs across Europe that are closed or facing power reductions, affecting around 15 reactors. In France, unit two at the Golfech NPP was fully shut down on 30 July 2026 as Garonne River temperatures surged. Units 3.4 and five at the Bugey NPP are under forced output curbs. EDF has ramped down both reactors at the Nogent-sur-Seine NPP to prevent overheating the Seine. Saint Alban units one and two (Rhône River) and Blayais units one and three (Gironde Estuary) have faced rolling curtailments over the past two weeks.

In Hungary, unit three at the Paks NPP is completely offline, unit one is heavily throttled and the entire 2GW-electrical plant is in a 72-hour countdown to a complete shutdown because the Danube has dropped below intake pump levels. In Romania, unit one at the Cernavoda NPP has been completely disconnected from the grid, and unit two is fluctuating under critical, hour-by-hour output restrictions.

As of 30–31 July 2026, there are six NPPs across Europe that are closed or facing power reductions, affecting around 15 reactors. In France, unit two at the Golfech NPP was fully shut down on 30 July 2026 as Garonne River temperatures surged. Units 3.4 and five at the Bugey NPP are under forced output curbs. EDF has ramped down both reactors at the Nogent-sur-Seine NPP to prevent overheating the Seine. Saint Alban units one and two (Rhône River) and Blayais units one and three (Gironde Estuary) have faced rolling curtailments over the past two weeks.

In Hungary, unit three at the Paks NPP is completely offline, unit one is heavily throttled and the entire 2GW-electrical plant is in a 72-hour countdown to a complete shutdown because the Danube has dropped below intake pump levels. In Romania, unit one at the Cernavoda NPP has been completely disconnected from the grid, and unit two is fluctuating under critical, hour-by-hour output restrictions.

Bulgaria has classified the current crisis as a force majeure event, noting that the river is continuing to drop by up to 2cms every day. In response, the Kozloduy plant has deployed emergency “special measures”, including riverbed dredging and the preparation of secondary pumps to try and keep the intake channels clear enough to avert an immediate blackout.

Switzerland’s Beznau NPP on the Aare River has been heavily disrupted, cycling between full emergency shutdowns and massive 50% power cuts over the past month. Both reactors were taken completely off the grid on 26 June when the Aare River first spiked to the 25°C threshold, and remained offline for several weeks. They are currently capped at roughly 50% of normal generation capacity to limit environmental thermal pollution.

Grid operators are replacing the missing nuclear electricity using a mix of fossil fuel generation, rapid energy imports, solar surges and mandated demand-reduction tactics.

August 3, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

No more sheltering or iodine tablets: Why are we getting a new nuclear emergency plan?

Worst-case scenario ‘very unlikely’, says Department of Climate, Energy and Environment

Caroline O’Doherty, Wed Jul 29 2026, https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2026/07/30/no-more-sheltering-or-iodine-tablets-government-reviews-nuclear-emergency-response/

Why are we getting a new nuclear emergency plan?

Technically speaking, it’s not new but an update of the National Plan on Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Exposures.

The Department of Climate, Energy and Environment says it’s a routine review carried out every so often. This is the fourth.

So it’s not prompted by, say, the heatwaves and droughts in Europe putting the vital cooling of nuclear power plants at risk?

The department says no.

And not by Russia’s fondness for exploding things in the vicinity of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant?

Apparently not.

Not even because of the excitement bubbling globally over the prospect of companies developing small modular reactors to provide their own power needs?

Not specifically, although such reviews do heed emerging technologies and new sites where they may be located.

Where are the existing sites?

Scattered around the world. There are 410 “operable” nuclear reactors and 71 new ones under construction.

Which are closest to Ireland?

Heysham nuclear power plant on Britain’s west coast, 200km from Ireland, and Flamanville on France’s northern coast, 400km away.

Isn’t Sellafield closer?

Sellafield no longer generates nuclear power, although it is handling nuclear fuel and waste.

What kind of emergency might arise?

The plan considers four “reasonable worst case” scenarios: a release of radioactivity from a nuclear power plant near Ireland; a release from one on mainland Europe; an incident involving the transport of nuclear materials by sea; and an incident involving the transport of radioactive materials by road.

Why does it not include worst-case scenarios such as nuclear war or an attack on Ireland?

That kind of incident is “out of scope” for this plan. If that happened the Department of Justice would take the lead.

What kind of risks do “reasonable worst-case” scenarios present to Ireland?

Not very significant. The plan says the chances of such incidents are “very unlikely” – around one in 5,000 over 100 years. It concludes, however, that “a nuclear accident abroad may have the potential to result in widespread but low-level contamination in Ireland”.

How low is low?

It says exposure to a radioactive plume from the nearest plants would only deliver a radiation dose equivalent to that received during a return flight from Dublin to London.

But would we still have to shelter indoors, close the windows and try to find the iodine tablets issued in the early 2000s?

No, the “Go In, Stay In, Tune In” message has been removed from the updated plan.

Do we even need a plan if the risk is so low?

We do. It sets out which departments and agencies will monitor what. They will need to keep in contact with European and international partners; repeatedly test food, water, air and soil; potentially restrict food imports, and closely track weather patterns in case winds might move a plume in an unexpected direction.

“There are no scenarios envisaged whereby evacuation or a shelter in place order will be required for the public in Ireland,” it says.

“Consumption of iodine thyroid-blocking tablets would not be necessary.”

But it adds: “Throughout the emergency phase the need for protective actions should be assessed continually.”

What if Ireland was to build its own nuclear power plant?

An entirely new plan would be needed with far more detail about safe and unsafe zones, evacuation procedures and health service preparedness.

However, the department says despite some politicians pushing to lift the ban on nuclear power generation in Ireland, nuclear does not feature as an energy option in any official plans covering the next few decades.

August 3, 2026 Posted by | Ireland, safety | Leave a comment

Danube drought curbs 0.9 GW nuclear output in Balkans

(Montel) Drought conditions affecting the river Danube have led to the shutdown of nearly 1 GW of nuclear power generation in Romania and Hungary, with record low water levels affecting cooling.

Montel 28th July 2026,
https://montelnews.com/news/ed02ab5d-cf33-4c82-b7cb-41bd4554a90e

August 3, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

UK’s £8.4bn nuclear submarine investment

 £8.4bn nuclear submarine investment “breathes new life into Barrow’s
historic traditions”. The £8.4bn investment into next generation nuclear
deterrent submarines “breathes new life into Barrow’s historic traditions”,
the UK Government has said.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham, accompanied by
defence secretary Wes Streeting, visited BAE Systems (BAES) shipyard in
Barrow following the announcement that funding has been committed to begin
the fourth major production phase of the UK’s Dreadnought Class submarine
programme.

A contract worth £5.9bn has been agreed by the government and
BAES, the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE) industry partner responsible for
submarine production from its shipyard in Barrow, the home of UK submarine
building.

Further investments are set to be committed to Rolls-Royce
Submarines in Derby and the wider supply chain across the UK. The DNE
supports more than 6,000 UK companies in the supply chain and backs about
47,000 UK jobs.

 Insider Media 31st July 2026 , https://www.insidermedia.com/news/north-west/8.4bn-nuclear-submarine-investment-breathes-new-life-into-barrows-historic-traditions

August 3, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Firefighters in ‘better position’ as they tackle Suffolk wildfire near Sizewell nuclear site, for third day

The fire is a few miles away from Sizewell B and the construction site for the new Sizewell C.

Standard 31st July 2026

Fire crews battling a large wildfire near Britain’s biggest nuclear power station have said the blaze is “stabilising”, as firefighting efforts enter their third day.

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service said late on Thursday night that they were in a “better position” than they were a few hours earlier, although they warned that the blaze near Sizewell B was still a “dynamic incident”.

An update early on Friday morning said that “crews and officers remained at the incident overnight” and that they “maintained a watching brief during darkness”.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast on Friday morning, deputy chief fire officer for Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Henry Griffin said an investigation had been launched into the cause of the fire and that the blaze had “stabilised”………………………………… https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/suffolk-andy-burnham-london-fire-brigade-zack-polanski-edf-b1291911.html

August 3, 2026 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

UK Needs Urgent Guidance On Preferred Reactor Concepts, (for small nuclear reactors) Says Fission Materials Roadmap

The report also called for long-term funding commitments of at least five years to support sustained research programmes.

By David Dalton, 30 July 2026, https://www.nucnet.org/news/uk-needs-urgent-guidance-on-preferred-reactor-concepts-says-fission-materials-roadmap-7-4-2026

Interim report lays out priorities on shaping next generation of nuclear plants

The UK urgently needs guidance on preferred reactor concepts and operating environments so it can prioritise materials research as it strives to shape the next generation of nuclear reactors which will power the country’s nuclear future, a report has said.

The UK Fission Materials Roadmap Interim Report, published by the United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (UKNNL) and the Henry Royce Institute, said a decision is needed within one to two years on whether the UK should build a domestic materials test reactor.

Within five years the government needs to establish a national materials archive to preserve irreplaceable irradiated material samples

The report also called for long-term funding commitments of at least five years to support sustained research programmes.

Four major technical themes are set out in the report: structural materials, fuels and cladding, disposability of materials and irradiation damage. These sit alongside six separate priorities: skills, infrastructure, funding, qualification, modelling and policy. Together, they form the foundation of a full roadmap planned for publication in late 2026.

Gareth Headdock, chief science and technology officer and deputy chief executive officer of UKNNL, said the interim report is the product of genuine collaboration across the UK nuclear sector.

“From structural steels to advanced fuels and waste disposability, we have identified the priorities that matter most and the decisions that cannot wait.

“The decisions ahead – on reactor concepts, materials test infrastructure and long-term funding – are consequential ones, and it is vital that we get them right.”

David Knowles, chief executive officer of the Henry Royce Institute, the UK’s national institute for advanced materials research and innovation, said the momentum behind the UK nuclear sector is clear.

He said recent agreements between Rolls-Royce SMR, UKNNL and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency to accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies demonstrate the growing international confidence in UK nuclear capability.

“At the same time, the continued progress of Rolls-Royce SMR in securing commercial opportunities and advancing deployment highlights the strength of UK nuclear engineering and the scale of the opportunity ahead,” he said.

Rolls-Royce SMR, a subsidiary of blue chip engineering giant Rolls-Royce, and Czech state power company ČEZ are working on plans to deploy up to 3 GW of SMR capacity in the Czech Republic.

The company, a Rolls-Royce subsidiary, is also deploying three units in the UK with the potential for six, with a launch programme of three units in Sweden .

August 3, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Ukraine continues its use of mine terrorism against civilians

In 2022, I widely documented Ukraine’s deployment of PFM-1 “Petal” mines in Donbass cities. Ukraine has been since also using boobytrapped explosives and now a new version of a”Petal” mine.

Eva Karene Bartlett, Jul 31, 2026, https://evakarenebartlett.substack.com/p/ukraine-continues-its-use-of-mine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3046064&post_id=209116807&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

When Ukraine fired missiles containing insidious, difficult to see, and dangerous mines dubbed “Petal” mines onto Donetsk and nearby cities in July 2022, I was in Donetsk and went on to document the mines in city streets, parks, apartment courtyards and even an orphanage in nearby Makeevka.

From the start of an article I wrote for RT immediately after Ukraine’s July firing of missiles containing the mines onto Donetsk:


On Saturday, July 30, just after 9pm, thunderous explosions rocked central Donetsk. Shortly after, there were announcements that air defense had shot down Ukrainian-fired missiles containing ‘petal‘ mines. Given that over 300 of these explosives are packed into each of the Ukrainian-fired rockets, central Donetsk could literally become a minefield if they successfully landed.

Social media and Telegram warnings urged residents to stay inside and wait for Emergency Services to clear the streets and sidewalks – which they began doing during the night. But come daylight, untold numbers of these tiny devices still remained. More warnings were issued to stay at home – better to be late for work than lose a leg. Residents that absolutely have to go out are advised to keep their eyes down to watch where they step, avoid grassy areas, and walk extremely carefully.

…According to DPR Emergency services, Ukraine is using Hurricane MLRS-fired rockets to spread the mines. Each contains 12 cluster munitions, each cluster has 26 mines inside. So each bomb has 312. The cluster explodes in the air, disseminating them widely, scattering in different directions. Their butterfly-like design enables them to glide and land without exploding, usually. Then they lie in wait for someone with bad luck to step on them.

Some of these anti-personnel mines have a self-destruct timer. Others, including the ones Ukraine is firing, have a years-long shelf life. They do pretty much no damage to military vehicles, and therefore their use in Donbass is insidious – deliberately targeting civilians, to leave them maimed….”

[Article continues, more photos on my blog]

August 3, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »