UK recognises veterans of nuclear weapons tests with medals
Aljazeera, 22 Nov 22
The honour comes 70 years after Britain detonated a nuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean.
Seventy years after Britain detonated a nuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean, troops who took part – sometimes unknowingly – in the country’s atomic weapons tests are being recognised with a medal.
The UK government’s announcement on Monday of the Nuclear Test Medal is a victory for veterans and their families, who have campaigned for years for recognition.
Now, many want recognition of the health problems they believe they suffered as a result of exposure to radiation.
……….. Sunak attended the first-ever ceremony for the nuclear veterans at the National Memorial Arboretum in central England, marking the 70th anniversary of the United Kingdom’s first atmospheric atomic test on October 3, 1952.
Operation Hurricane
The detonation of a plutonium implosion device aboard a Royal Navy ship in the Montebello Islands off Western Australia, dubbed Operation Hurricane, made Britain the world’s third nuclear-armed nation, after the United States and Russia…….
The UK set off further nuclear explosions in Australia and ocean territories, including on Christmas Island, over the following years.
Veterans groups say about 22,000 UK military personnel were involved in British and American tests in the 1950s and 60s, many of them conscripts doing postwar national service.
Veterans, scientists and civil servants from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Kiribati who served under British command during the tests between 1952 and 1967 will also be eligible for the UK medal.
Many veterans and their families are convinced there is a link between the tests and health problems they have suffered, and are pressing the UK to hold a public inquiry into the tests.
Some allege they were deliberately exposed to radiation to see how their bodies would react, and claim their medical records were later suppressed.
‘The end of the world’
John Morris, who saw nuclear blasts on Christmas Island as a young conscript in the 1950s, told the BBC earlier this year that “I felt like I had seen the end of the world.”
“I saw right through my hands as the light was so intense,” he said. “It felt like my blood was boiling. The palm trees – which had been 20 miles [32km] away – were scorched.”
Numerous studies over the decades have probed allegations of high cancer rates among the test veterans, and of birth defects in their children, but have failed to establish an ironclad connection with the nuclear tests.
Successive British governments have denied troops were exposed to unsafe levels of radiation.
Alan Owen, founder of the Labrats International charity for atomic test survivors, welcomed the government’s recognition, but said “we want more”………………………………………https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/21/uk-recognises-veterans-of-nuclear-weapons-tests-with-medals
Videos showing execution of Russian POWs in Ukraine are authentic – New York Times
Rt.com 21 Nov 22
The clips suggest captive troops were “killed at close range,” the American newspaper insists.
The New York Times says it has verified the authenticity of videos that surfaced online last week, showing the execution of captive Russian soldiers by Ukrainian troops. The men “appear to have been shot dead at close range,” according to the newspaper.
The events shown in the clips occurred in the village of Makeyevka in the People’s Republic of Lugansk, earlier this month, the newspaper reported on Sunday.
“The videos… whose authenticity has been verified by The New York Times, offer a rare look into one gruesome moment among many in the war, but do not show how or why the Russian soldiers were killed,” the NYT wrote, adding that what actually happened to the soldiers remains “a mystery.”
However, the outlet noted out that judging by the footage, “at least 11 Russians… appear to have been shot dead at close range after one of their fellow fighters suddenly opened fire on Ukrainian soldiers standing nearby.”
The NYT also cited Dr. Rohini Haar, medical adviser at Physicians for Human Rights, who said that “killing or wounding a combatant, who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion” is a violation of the laws of international armed conflict……………….. https://www.rt.com/news/566901-ukraine-pow-execution-nyt/
Finland’s Fortum turns to U.S. in bid to replace Russian nuclear fuel
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/finlands-fortum-turns-us-bid-replace-russian-nuclear-fuel-2022-11-22/ HELSINKI, Nov 22 (Reuters) – Finnish power company Fortum (FORTUM.HE) on Tuesday said it was planning to begin buying nuclear fuel from U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric.
Fortum began looking to replace Russian fuel, which it has been using solely since 2008, last March as a response to Moscow’s war in Ukraine.
“The new and parallel fuel supplier will diversify our fuel strategy, improve security of supply and ensure reliable electricity production,” head of Loviisa power plant Sasu Valkamo said.
Fortum has applied for a licence to run its two plants in Finland until 2050, while the current fuel-supply agreements with TVEL, a subsidiary of Russian state-owned power company Rosatom, will run until 2027 and 2030, it said.
“A tendering process will be arranged for fuel supply for the new operating licence period,” the company said.
Fortum has also put its Russian assets up for sale.
Electricity production at Olkiluoto 3 reactor delayed until 2023.
Full-scale electricity production at Olkiluoto 3 reactor delayed until
2023. An investigation into damage to the reactor’s feedwater pumps will
take a number of weeks, with a knock on effect on the schedule for the
beginning of regular electricity production.
Finland’s newest nuclear reactor will remain offline longer than expected, announced its owner on
Monday, pushing back much-needed relief for electricity consumers. Nuclear
power utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) has announced that an investigation
into damage at the much-delayed Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor’s feedwater
pumps will continue for a number of weeks.
In a press statement, TVO said
that as a result of the ongoing investigation, the schedule for when
regular electricity production will begin at the reactor cannot currently
be estimated.
YLE News 22nd Nov 2022
Nuclear Industry Liability under the Paris Convention
The Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear
Energy and the Brussels Convention supplementary to the Paris Convention
established a special legal regime in relation to the compensation payable
in the event of an accident involving a civil nuclear power installation or
the transportation of nuclear substances to and from that installation.
Unlike general tort law, which is based on fault or negligence, under the
convention, the plant operator or party involved in the transportation is
exclusively liable for damages in the event of an accident and is always
deemed to be liable, regardless of whether fault can be established.
These two conventions were amended by agreement between the contracting powers,
including the United Kingdom, on 17 December 2021. After 1 January 2022,
nuclear plant operators became liable to pay compensation of up to €700
million in the event of an accident.
This level of liability will be increased by €100 million in each of the next five years leading to an
ultimate maximum liability of €1.2 billion towards claims involving
‘personal injury or loss of life, economic loss, the cost of preventive
measures and of measures of reinstatement of impaired environment’.
NFLA 21st Nov 2022
With Kiev exposed for a lie that could have triggered a third world war, it is time to examine past deceptions that Western media promoted.
As the war grinds on, elements in the Biden administration appear to be growing impatient with the tall tales of their Ukrainian clients. “This is getting ridiculous,” an unnamed NATO official told the Financial Times on November 16. “The Ukrainians are destroying our confidence and they are openly lying. This is more destructive than the missile.”
Zelensky, media lackeys caught in most dangerous lie yet. https://thegrayzone.com/2022/11/18/zelensky-media-lie/ ALEXANDER RUBINSTEIN·NOVEMBER 18, 2022
With Kiev exposed for a lie that could have triggered a third world war, it is time to examine past deceptions that Western media promoted.
A missile that exploded on Polish soil on November 15 killed two civilians and destroyed farm equipment. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Western corporate media rushed to blame the explosion on Russia in apparent hopes of triggering NATO’s Article 5, which requires NATO states to defend one another militarily when attacked by a hostile force.
Polish and NATO members including US President Joseph Biden have since confirmed the missile that struck Poland was, in fact, a Ukrainian S-300 anti-aircraft missile. Yet Zelensky is sticking to his line, blaming Russia for the strike, while NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg still insists that “Russia bears ultimate responsibility.” Meanwhile, the media outlets that reflexively pointed the finger at Russia have been forced to take a step back from their initial reporting.
“Russian missiles hit Poland, the territory of our friendly country. People died,” Zelensky insisted on November 15, the night of the attack. “The longer Russia feels impunity, the more threats there will be to anyone within reach of Russian missiles. To fire missiles at NATO territory! This is a Russian missile attack on collective security! This is a very significant escalation. We must act.”
Zelensky held firm the following day, despite mounting evidence that his own country’s air defenses were responsible, declaring “I have no doubt that this is not our missile… I believe that this was a Russian missile, based on our military reports.” By this time, most analysts rejected the Ukrainian president’s assessment, including the founder of the US government-sponsored intelligence cutout Bellingcat, who wrote “At this point I think it’s fair anyone saying that a Russian missile hit Poland based on the current evidence is being irresponsible.”
A Russian attack on NATO member Poland could have triggered Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which compels its member states to consider “an attack against one Ally” to be “an attack against all Allies.” Such a mobilization would have amounted to World War III.
Despite the clear risk of such a catastrophic escalation – or perhaps because of it – Western corporate media immediately blamed Russia for the strike, never even posing the question of why Russia would consider Polish farmland such an important military target that it would be willing to risk a full-scale war with the 30-member NATO alliance.
Initially, the Associated Press ran with the headline “Russian missiles cross into Poland during strike on Ukraine.” The article cited a “senior US intelligence official,” and later, “a second person.”
On November 16, AP began redirecting the link to its original article to a correction that stated, “The Associated Press reported erroneously, based on information from a senior American intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity, that Russian missiles had crossed into Poland and killed two people. Subsequent reporting showed that the missiles were Russian-made and most likely fired by Ukraine in defense against a Russian attack.”
Time Magazine ran with the headline, “Russian Missiles Cross Into Poland During Strike, Killing Two,” and cited the AP report.
Fox News similarly announced, “Russian missiles cross into NATO member Poland, kill 2: senior US intelligence official, citing the Associated Press. MSNBC also blamed a “Russian missile” for the strike in its headline.
Then there was CNN, which reported, “Poland says Russian-made missile killed two, will consider invoking NATO Article 4.” NATO Article 4 deals with the meetings between NATO states that are to take place in the event one of them is “threatened” and would theoretically precede any invocation of Article 5. Like CNN, Reuters cited the Polish Foreign Ministry and ran the headline, “Poland says Russian rocket hit its territory as NATO weighs response.”
The New York Times stated in the second sentence of its report on the missile strike that “the blast came as Russia fired roughly 90 missiles into Ukraine.” Two lines later, the Times stated “local media suggests a Russian missile strike.” Readers of the paper of record would have to scroll down several times to even read that Russian officials denied responsibility.
Earlier in the war, in an article on “Ukraine’s online propaganda,” the New York Times sought to downplay the Ukrainian government’s penchant for pushing fake news, arguing that Kiev’s information war merely “dramatize[s] tales of Ukrainian fortitude and Russian aggression.” The article quoted an unnamed Twitter user, who wrote, “Why can’t we just let people believe some things? … If the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope.”
The US media’s support for Ukraine’s propaganda efforts meant that it covered some of the most suspicious events without a hint of skepticism, and thereby encouraged more.
These questionable incidents included the following:
- On March 8, Western media reported that a Mariupol maternity hospital was attacked by Russian aircraft. Zelensky claimed the attack was evidence of Russian “genocide” against Ukraine. However, a key witness – a pregnant woman in the hospital photographed by AP – stated that no such airstrike occurred, and that nearby explosions were caused by Ukrainian artillery shells.
- On March 16, the Ukrainian government blamed a targeted Russian airstrike for destroying the Mariupol Dramatic Theater and causing anywhere from 300 to 600 deaths. Western corporate media promoted the Ukrainian narrative of the event despite a total absence of footage showing a missile strike, no images or evidence of large numbers of dead civilians inside, no images or evidence of any attempted rescue, and testimony by Mariupol locals asserting the Azov Battalion fighters that controlled the theater’s grounds staged the explosion to provoke NATO military intervention. Photographic evidence showed that Azov fighters removed all vehicles from the theater’s parking lot one day before the explosion.
- The Kramatorsk train station bombing that was blamed on Russia despite the fact the Tochka-U missile responsible for the blast contained a serial number matching others in Ukraine’s arsenal and originated from Ukrainian-controlled territory.
As the war grinds on, elements in the Biden administration appear to be growing impatient with the tall tales of their Ukrainian clients. “This is getting ridiculous,” an unnamed NATO official told the Financial Times on November 16. “The Ukrainians are destroying our confidence and they are openly lying. This is more destructive than the missile.”
Shelling of Zaporizhzhia is playing with fire, says UN nuclear chief, as blasts reported
Explosions cause damage at Ukrainian power plant, as Kyiv says it will investigate videos allegedly of surrendering Russians being shot
Guardian, Jennifer Rankin, Mon 21 Nov 2022
The UN nuclear energy watchdog has said the forces behind the shelling of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia power plant are “playing with fire”, after a series of explosions shook the facility.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has experts based at Zaporizhzhia, reported on Sunday that powerful explosions had shaken the area on Saturday night and Sunday. It said its on-site experts saw some of the explosions from their windows.
It reported more than a dozen blasts from apparent shelling, with damage to some buildings, systems and equipment, but “none so far critical for nuclear safety”.
The head of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, said the news was extremely disturbing and he called the explosions completely unacceptable. “Whoever is behind this, it must stop immediately. As I have said many times before, you’re playing with fire,” he said.
According to the IAEA Twitter account, Grossi renewed his appeal to Ukraine and Russia to agree and implement a nuclear safety and security zone around the plant as soon as possible.
Zaporizhzhia, in south-east Ukraine, is Europe’s largest nuclear power station and has been under Russian control since March, although its Ukrainian staff remain in place to run the facility. It has faced repeated shelling, raising fears of a nuclear disaster. Moscow and Kyiv have blamed each other for the attacks.
The plant’s six Soviet-designed water-cooled reactors are currently shut down, but there is a risk that nuclear fuel could overheat if the power that drives the cooling systems is shut. Shelling has frequently damaged the plant’s power supply.
Russian officials claimed that Ukrainian forces were behind the latest attacks. “They are shelling not only yesterday but also today, they are shelling even now,” an adviser to the head of Russia’s nuclear power operator Rosenergoatom, Renat Karchaa, told the Russian state news agency Tass. He said there had been 15 aerial strikes, including one that hit a storage facility.
Soon after the Russian accusations, Ukraine’s nuclear energy agency, Energoatom, said Russia was responsible for the shelling, which it said had resulted in 12 hits to Zaporizhzhia’s infrastructure. The company said on Telegram that the list of damaged equipment indicated that the attackers “targeted and disabled exactly the infrastructure that was necessary for the restart of 5th and 6th power units” and the restoration of power production for Ukrainian needs……………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/20/shelling-of-zaporizhzhia-is-playing-with-fire-says-un-nuclear-chief-ukraine
UK’s Sizewell nuclear project remains unfinanced
Alistair Osborne: The wind of change with no direction. Sizewell all at C.
Sometimes the brackets do a lot of work: “The government will continue to
secure the UK’s energy security through delivering new nuclear power,
including Sizewell C (subject to final agreement)”.
How far away is that deal? Maybe an unbuilt nuke on a Suffolk flood plain really can attract an
investor fan club. But, as yet, this £20 billion to £30 billion project
— the top end, natch, knowing nuclear — remains unfinanced.
France’s EDF only wants about 20 per cent of the project, with the taxpayer possibly
taking a fifth. And the only money pledged to date is the £700 million
from Boris Johnson on his way out of No 10. Final agreement may prove some
way off.
Times 18th Nov 2022
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alistair-osborne-the-wind-of-change-with-no-direction-w8kcq5l9b
Putin’s nuclear grip on Europe could spark another energy crisis, expert warns
Russian President Vladimir Putin controls about 42 percent of the world’s nuclear fuel, and may be able to send electricity prices soaring if he withholds supplies.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1698529/putin-nuclear-power-energy-uranium-gas-prices By JACOB PAUL, Nov 20, 2022, As global gas prices have been sent to record highs over the last year due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine and his supply cuts to Europe, nations across the continent have been scrambling to wean themselves off Russian fossil fuels to weaken Moscow’s tight grip on the energy market. But an expert has told Expess.co.uk that countries which have hedged bets on nuclear power as a means of gaining energy independence may not actually be able to escape Putin’s clutches as the Kremlin has dominance over nuclear fuel supplies, which could potentially trigger another price crisis.
While policymakers across Europe have argued that nuclear power stations can boost homegrown supplies of energy, they have failed to mention these plants require uranium to fuel them.
This is the crux of the issue as Russia, and Russia-controlled Kazakhstan currently supplies 42 percent of all uranium for all reactors worldwide. And when compared with the gas crisis, the statistics look eerily similar.
The EU for instance, got around 40 percent of its gas from Russia before Putin sent his troops into Ukraine. And when he withheld supplies to Europe, prices in Britain shot up too, despite the UK only getting four percent of its gas from Russia. This is due to the integrated nature of the gas market.
With the EU relying on Russia for 20 percent of its uranium needed to fuel supplies if Russia decided to curtail uranium deliveries to the bloc, it may spark the same problem and trigger another energy crisis.
Prof Paul Dorfman, an Associate Fellow from the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex told Express.co.uk: “The argument goes that nuclear provides a security of supply. In other words, ‘you don’t need to worry about Putin’s gas or the Middle East’s oil’. But this point of view is hugely problematic.
“There is no question that the whole business about the Russian invasion of Ukraine has turned the nuclear industry on its head. This whole idea of security of supply, that nuclear won’t leave us dependent on foreign problems is false.
“Putin, Russia and Russia-controlled Kazakhstan supply 42 percent of all uranium of all reactors worldwide. 20 percent for the EU, 14 percent of the US and nearly 30 percent of their enrichment services.
“The UK is different. We get our uranium from Australia and Canada and we don’t rely on Russia so we are ok.”
However, while nuclear fuel may not run short in the event of a supply cut from Russia, Prof Dorfman warned, it could send the cost of electricity in Britain soaring too.
Asked if the nuclear market was similar to the gas market in this regard, Prof Dorfman told Express.co.uk: “In my view, it certainly would have a significant impact on UK electricity prices because we live in a market world. Absolutely, yes.”
This could be a concern for the UK, given that Britain is planning to dramatically expand its number of nuclear power plants, a desire unveiled in the April energy strategy under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
It included the plan to set up new government body, Great British Nuclear, and a £120milion Future Nuclear Enabling Fund in a bid to build eight new reactors across the UK. Mr Johnson said: “We’re setting out bold plans to scale up and accelerate affordable, clean and secure energy made in Britain, for Britain – from new nuclear to offshore wind – in the decade ahead.
“This will reduce our dependence on power sources exposed to volatile international prices we cannot control, so we can enjoy greater energy self-sufficiency with cheaper bills.”
While it is recognised that renewable energies like wind and solar power are cheaper than other sources like oil and gas, Mr Johnson appeared to fail to take into account Putin’s grip on the global nuclear market and the prospect of sending electricity bills soaring in the UK.
Strange Rolls Royce plan for Large complex of Large Small Nuclear Reactors for Bradwell
Rolls Royce announced on 9 November that it is eying up Bradwell as a potential site for the deployment of four to six so-called (and currently non-existent) Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs).
Professor Andy Blowers, the Chair of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), commented:
‘This proposal, if it ever came about, would place up to six nuclear reactors on the Bradwell site. And they are hardly ‘small’ since each reactor would be close to the size of the old Bradwell A station. Together
these reactors would comprise a nuclear complex larger than the massive, proposed Bradwell B currently under consideration for development by the Chinese company, CGN.
‘It is hard to state how utterly inappropriate such a development, which would include long-term storage of highly radioactive nuclear wastes, would be on the low- lying Bradwell site, threatened by the impacts of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.
BANNG finds it extremely odd that Rolls Royce is proposing the Bradwell site for SMRs. Only two days
before the announcement BANNG, at a meeting of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) NGO Nuclear Forum, asked if CGN had withdrawn from the Bradwell B project. BANNG was told that there was no change to the proposals for Bradwell B but that further discussion was not
possible because of ‘commercial confidentiality’.
The Bradwell site is owned by the French company, EDF, which is also a minor partner in the
Bradwell B project. Rolls Royce agree that its proposal ‘requires agreement with CGN and EDF energy’.
Perhaps the Rolls Royce announcementunravels the mystery as to why CGN has not quit its operations at Bradwell altogether, claiming they are paused indefinitely. Could this be paving the way for Rolls Royce and also explain why BEIS invoked commercial confidentiality?
Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group 17th Nov 2022
NATO’s hair trigger: The Polish missile incident was a close brush with nuclear annihilation
https://www.rt.com/news/566710-polish-missile-incident-nato/ Scott Ritter. 18 Nov 22The fervor with which Poland and others sought to drag NATO into a war with Russia should ring alarm bells for everyone
The world dodged a bullet this week, with some NATO members trying, but failing, to trigger Article 4 as a means of confronting Russia in Ukraine. We may not be so lucky next time.
The recent scandal surrounding what most of the world now agrees was an errant Ukrainian surface-to-air missile landing on Polish soil, killing two Polish citizens in the process, has exposed an ugly reality about the eastern reaches of NATO today:
Despite the more reserved stance of the old NATO establishment (the US, UK, France, and Germany), the new upstarts in eastern Europe seem hell-bent on finding a mechanism that will justify NATO intervention in Ukraine.
This predilection for nuclear annihilation (no one should have any misgivings that a NATO-Russia conflict would end any other way) should send alarm bells ringing in the halls of power throughout NATO and the rest of the world, because left to their own devices, the Russophobic officials that dominate the governments of Poland and the three Baltic republics act like lemmings, running toward the Ukrainian cliff, oblivious to their fate as they chase the fantasy of NATO defeating Russia on a European battlefield.
The rush to judgment that accompanied the arrival of the Ukrainian surface-to-air missile on Polish soil serves as a stark reminder about how the supposedly defensive characteristics of the NATO Charter can be used to promote, rather than deter, conflict.
Let there be no doubt – NATO was aware that the missile that impacted near the village of Przewodów in Poland, killing two Polish citizens, was a Ukrainian surface-to-air missile the moment it was launched.
The airspace over Ukraine is one of the most highly-monitored locations in the world. Without revealing sources and methods, suffice it to say there isn’t anything that happens over Ukraine that isn’t registered in real time on a NATO display in headquarters throughout Europe – including Poland.
And yet … Poland saw fit to summon the Russian ambassador and lodge a protest.
Moreover, Poland declared that it would increase its military readiness while contemplating the activation of Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, a mechanism which allows the alliance to discuss security threats to member states with an eye on possibly using NATO military force to rectify the situation. Article 4 is behind every combat deployment of NATO since its inception, from Serbia, to Libya, to Afghanistan.
On cue, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, whose country borders Poland, tweeted that “every inch of NATO territory must be defended!”
Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala likewise turned to Twitter to exclaim: “If Poland confirms that the missiles also hit its territory, this will be a further escalation by Russia. We stand firmly behind our EU and NATO ally.”
For its part, Estonia called the news “most concerning,” with its foreign minister declaring via Twitter, “We are consulting closely with Poland and other allies. Estonia is ready to defend every inch of NATO territory.”
While all parties concurred that there was no basis for triggering Article 5 of NATO (i.e., the collective security clause), Article 4 was very much in play. Poland was adamant: The missile “attack” against Poland was clearly a crime, one that could not go unpunished. As such, under Article 4, Poland would be pushing “for NATO members and Poland to agree on the provision of additional anti-aircraft defense, including in part of the territory of Ukraine.”
And there you have it: “Including in part of the territory of Ukraine.”
Enter Germany, stage left: “As an immediate reaction to the incident in Poland, we will offer to strengthen air policing with combat air patrols over its airspace with German Eurofighters,” a German Defense Ministry spokesperson declared.
Cue NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who convened an emergency meeting of NATO ambassadors in Brussels to discuss the Polish incident. According to the Finnish foreign minister (Finland, although not a NATO member, was invited to the meeting), “Closing the airspace [above Ukraine] will definitely be discussed. Various options of how we can protect Ukraine are on the table.”
While Germany reportedly rejected the establishment of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, noting that such an action would pose a threat of direct confrontation between Russia and NATO, one is left pondering how such a discussion came to be in the first place: Ukraine fired a surface-to-air missile, which was tracked by NATO as it impacted on Polish soil. And, as a result, NATO members end up discussing the possibility of invoking Article 4 of the NATO Charter, seeking to extend NATO air defense into Ukrainian air space in concert with the establishment of a no-fly zone enforced by NATO aircraft.
“Even if it was a blue on blue [incident] with a Ukrainian rocket that landed in Poland, I think there is still enough ground for Poland to invoke Article 4,” a former director of policy planning for NATO, Fabrice Pothier, declared.
Just to clarify what Mr. Pothier is saying: Because Ukraine fired a surface-to-air missile that ended up landing on Polish soil, NATO is justified in invoking Article 4, setting the stage for a possible NATO-Russia conflict in Ukraine which could lead to global nuclear annihilation.
If there was ever any doubt about the threat NATO posed to the entire world, there is no more.
That this is being promulgated on behalf of a Ukrainian leader who, despite universal consensus that the missile which hit Poland was Ukrainian, denies this possibility, all the while blaming Russia in the hopes that NATO will intervene, only adds to the insanity of this crisis.
While it appears that the world has dodged the potential death sentence triggered by the NATO Article 4 this time, the hair-trigger aspect of NATO’s Pavlovian response mechanism when it comes to seeking causal justification for military intervention in Ukraine should have everyone on high alert.
USA using COP27 to co-opt Europe , especially Ukraine, into the small nuclear reactor gamble
U.S. announces new European SMR initiatives at COP27 in Egypt
“……………………………….. On November 12, the U.S. announced two global Small Modular Reactor (SMR) initiatives: (1) a Ukraine clean fuels from SMRs pilot project and (2) a new initiative to accelerate the European transition of coal-fired plants to SMRs.
………. additional information on these two initiatives is still underway (the White House mentioned both initiatives in its Overview of COP27)
The U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, and Ukraine Minister of Energy German Galushchenko introduced a “Ukraine Clean Fuels from SMRs Pilot” project…………………………
- The pilot project, which will run for 2-3 years, also relies on the work of a public-private consortium on scientific and practical developments for SMRs.
- Participating partners from the U.S. include Argonne National Laboratory, Clark Seed, FuelCell Energy, NuScale and Starfire Energy. On the Ukraine side, participants include nuclear operator Energoatom, the National Security and Defense Council, and the State Scientific and Technical Center for Nuclear and Radiation Safety.
Special Envoy Kerry introduced another a new initiative, called Project Phoenix, to accelerate the European transition of coal-fired plants to SMRs,……………
According to the White House Fact Sheet Project Phoenix will provide direct U.S. support for the coal-to-SMR feasibility studies and related activities that support energy security goals for countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk to go ahead, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt confirms
A spokesman for the group Stop Sizewell C said: “If the chancellor is
looking for cheap, reliable, energy independence, he is backing the wrong
project, as Sizewell C’s ultimate cost and technical reliability are very
uncertain and building it is reliant on French state-owned EDF.
“Greenlighting Sizewell C also loads more tax onto struggling households,
who would be forced to pay a nuclear levy on bills for a decade before they
could light a single lightbulb. “Despite the chancellor’s statement,
Sizewell C still needs financing, and with at least a year before it’s
decided whether it will finally go ahead, we’ll keep fighting this huge
black hole for taxpayers’ money, when there are cheaper, quicker ways to
get to net zero.”
ITV 17th Nov 2022
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-11-17/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-to-go-ahead-chancellor-confirms
Nuclear energy is unsafe, unreliable and leaves a long and toxic legacy,
according to the Scottish Greens. This comes as the Chancellor, Jeremy
Hunt, has confirmed plans for the Sizewell C nuclear plant.
Scottish Greens 17th Nov 2022
https://greens.scot/news/nuclear-is-unsafe-unreliable-and-will-leave-long-and-toxic-legacy
PERVERSE PRIORITIES UK : CUT PUBLIC SPENDING, KEEP NUCLEAR ARMS AND WARPLANES
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is considering billions worth of cuts in public spending while the Ministry of Defence, with Labour’s support, plans to spend vast sums on just two hugely expensive military projects.
RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR Declassified UK, 14 NOVEMBER 2022,
We are in the midst of an extraordinary, indeed perverse, new round of austerity cuts.
The chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is reported to be looking for £35 billion across government in cuts. While vital services will continue to be deprived of urgently-needed resources, the government seems set to give the military a budget rise in cash terms from £47.9bn this year to £48bn in 2023 and £48.6bn in 2024.
Liz Truss, backed by defence secretary Ben Wallace, wanted to award the armed forces even more – an increase close to £200bn by 2030, the biggest rise in the military budget since the start of the Cold War. By then UK military spending would have doubled to £100bn a year.
Rishi Sunak and Hunt have realised that such increases would be so unjustified and extravagant that they are reportedly ditching promises in the Conservatives 2019 manifesto and will actually cut the defence budget in real terms, that is with inflation taken into account.
However, the government’s spending on the military means that it will still be wasting vast resources on weapons systems that are unuseable in any foreseeable conflict.
Its planned public spending cuts are a small percentage of the amount the Ministry of Defence will be spending, with Labour’s enthusiastic support, on just two hugely expensive projects – the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons arsenal and a fleet of 48 American F35B fighter jets for the navy’s two large aircraft carriers.
‘Persistent engagement overseas’
The government had set out Britain’s role and military posture in an ‘Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development, and Foreign Policy’ and a report called ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’.
The documents are full of platitudes, vague promises and hollow claims. The review says Britain will be a “force for good”, “defending human rights”, avoiding any reference to Britain’s biggest market for arms sales – the Gulf states that are among the world’s worst abusers of human rights.
The refusal of the government to account to parliament about arms exports was sharply criticised by a cross-party Commons committee.
The defence report states that Britain will conduct “persistent engagement overseas”, including “further investment in Oman” demonstrating Britain’s “long-term commitment to the Gulf’s stability and prosperity, in addition to our presence in the British Indian Ocean Territory”.
This is an unstated reference to the US bomber base on Diego Garcia on the Chagos archipelago whose entire indigenous population was expelled by Britain.
The report refers to Britain’s “long standing relationships with Saudi Arabia…in support of shared security and prosperity objectives”. Saudi Arabia recently demonstrated its own priorities by siding with Vladimir Putin at the expense of consumers in the west by capping oil production.
‘Soft power superpower’
Ironically, the “integrated review” emphasises Britain’s potential role as a “soft power superpower” referring to the BBC and development aid, both of which are the victims of government cuts.
It emphasises the importance of the need to defend British interests against cyber attacks and to invest in unmanned drones. Yet the potential threat posed by cyber warfare and the opportunities presented by unmanned drones were ignored for many years by the Ministry of Defence.
The defence paper promises more investment in “autonomous platforms including swarming drones”, and says “Special Forces are at the heart of our approach to modernisation”. …………………………………..
Wasted billions
The lack of effective scrutiny of the armed forces and their expenditure has allowed the Ministry of Defence to waste tens of billions of pounds of public money on extravagant weapons systems irrelevant to modern conflict………………………………..
The figures below do not take into account the hidden costs of a skilled workforce diverted from military projects to more sustainable and useful products that benefit civil society. Nor do they take into account direct government support for arms exports and exporters – or bribery.
The MOD’s £300bn wasteful spending
| Trident renewal | £200bn |
| *Cost of delays/overruns in new projects, including frigates, Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft, Bowman radios, A400M military transport aircraft | £18+bn |
| F-35s for aircraft carriers | £18.8bn |
| Aircraft carriers | £6.2bn |
| *Nimrod aircraft (subsequently destroyed) | £4bn |
| *Rental costs of privatised housing previously owned by MOD | £4bn |
| *Ajax armoured vehicle | at least £3.5bn |
| Military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq | £48.5bn |
(* Source: National Audit Office) https://declassifieduk.org/perverse-priorities-cut-public-spending-keep-nuclear-arms-and-warplanes/
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 