nuclear-news

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

Recent history sheds light on the Ukraine situation . Part One

Retired Swiss Military-Intelligence Officer. Is it possible to actually know what has been and is going on in Ukraine?

The integration of these paramilitary forces into the Ukrainian National Guard was not at all accompanied by a “denazification,” as some claim.

Among the many examples, that of the Azov Regiment’s insignia is instructive.

Jacques Baud
The Unz Review 02 Apr 2022 I  Just recently I came across perhaps the clearest and most reasonable account of what has been going on in Ukraine. Its importance comes due to the fact that its author, Jacques Baud, a retired colonel in the Swiss intelligence service, was variously a highly placed, major participant in NATO training operations in Ukraine. Over the years, he also had extensive dealings with his Russian counterparts. His long essay first appeared (in French) at the respected Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement. A literal translation appeared at The Postil (April 1, 2022). I have gone back to the original French and edited the article down some and rendered it, I hope, in more idiomatic English. I do not think in editing it I have damaged Baud’s fascinating account. For in a real sense, what he has done is “to let the cat out of the bag.” — Boyd D. Cathay

Part One: The Road To War

For years, from Mali to Afghanistan, I have worked for peace and risked my life for it. It is therefore not a question of justifying war, but of understanding what led us to it.

Let’s try to examine the roots of the Ukrainian conflict. It starts with those who for the last eight years have been talking about “separatists” or “independentists” from Donbass. This is a misnomer. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.

In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language — because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the American-sponsored overthrow of [the democratically-elected] President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language in Ukraine. A bit like if German putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.

This decision caused a storm in the Russian-speaking population. The result was fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which was carried out beginning in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and some horrific massacres of the Russian population (in Odessa and Mariupol, the most notable).

At this stage, too rigid and engrossed in a doctrinaire approach to operations, the Ukrainian general staff subdued the enemy but without managing to actually prevail. The war waged by the autonomists consisted in highly mobile operations conducted with light means. With a more flexible and less doctrinaire approach, the rebels were able to exploit the inertia of Ukrainian forces to repeatedly “trap” them.

In 2014, when I was at NATO, I was responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we were trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels, to see if Moscow was involved. The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not “fit” with the information coming from the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] — and despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.

The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what pushed the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Agreements.

But just after signing the Minsk 1 Agreements, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive “anti-terrorist operation” (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against the Donbass. Poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements.

It is essential to recall here that Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very few who actually have) will note that it is written that the status of the Republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution within Ukraine.

That is why, since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded the implementation of the Minsk Agreements while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of Ukraine. On the other side, the West — led by France — systematically tried to replace Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass before then. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.

n October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. This was exactly comparable to the Swiss who went to fight in Bosnia on weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who go to fight in Ukraine today.

The Ukrainian army was then in a deplorable state. In October 2018, after four years of war, the chief Ukrainian military prosecutor, Anatoly Matios, stated that Ukraine had lost 2,700 men in the Donbass: 891 from illnesses, 318 from road accidents, 177 from other accidents, 175 from poisonings (alcohol, drugs), 172 from careless handling of weapons, 101 from breaches of security regulations, 228 from murders and 615 from suicides.

In fact, the Ukrainian army was undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoyed the support of the population. According to a British Home Office report, in the March/April 2014 recall of reservists, 70 percent did not show up for the first session, 80 percent for the second, 90 percent for the third, and 95 percent for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO area. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense then turned to NATO to help make its armed forces more “attractive.” Having already worked on similar projects within the framework of the United Nations, I was asked by NATO to participate in a program to restore the image of the Ukrainian armed forces. But this is a long-term process and the Ukrainians wanted to move quickly.

So, to compensate for the lack of soldiers, the Ukrainian government resorted to paramilitary militias. In 2020, they constituted about 40 percent of the Ukrainian forces and numbered about 102,000 men, according to Reuters. They were armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There were more than 19 nationalities.

These militias had been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if one can argue about the term “Nazi,” the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic…[and] are composed of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov Regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of the 2nd SS Das Reich Panzer Division, which is revered in the Ukraine for liberating Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before carrying out the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre in France.

The characterization of the Ukrainian paramilitaries as “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis” is considered Russian propaganda. But that’s not the view of the Times of Israel, or the West Point Academy’s Center for Counterterrorism. In 2014, Newsweek magazine seemed to associate them more with… the Islamic State. Take your pick!

So, the West supported and continued to arm militias that have been guilty of numerous crimes against civilian populations since 2014: rape, torture and massacres…

The integration of these paramilitary forces into the Ukrainian National Guard was not at all accompanied by a “denazification,” as some claim.

Among the many examples, that of the Azov Regiment’s insignia is instructive: see above

In 2022, very schematically, the Ukrainian armed forces fighting the Russian offensive were organized as:

  • The Army, subordinated to the Ministry of Defense. It is organized into 3 army corps and composed of maneuver formations (tanks, heavy artillery, missiles, etc.).
  • The National Guard, which depends on the Ministry of the Interior and is organized into 5 territorial commands.

The National Guard is therefore a territorial defense force that is not part of the Ukrainian army. It includes paramilitary militias, called “volunteer battalions” (добровольчі батальйоні), also known by the evocative name of “reprisal battalions,” and composed of infantry. Primarily trained for urban combat, they now defend cities such as Kharkov, Mariupol, Odessa, Kiev, etc……. more https://www.sott.net/article/466340-Retired-Swiss-Military-Intelligence-Officer-Is-it-Possible-to-Actually-Know-What-Has-Been-And-is-Going-on-in-Ukraine

April 16, 2022 Posted by | politics, Reference, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear power stations UK: the new and existing sites at threat of flooding from 2030 amid rising sea levels

NationalWorld investigates how safe the locations of both the current and proposed nuclear power stations are amid rising sea levels     https://www.nationalworld.com/news/environment/nuclear-power-stations-uk-new-existing-sites-threat-flooding-2030-sea-levels-3655640

By Isabella Boneham,, 15th April 2022  All of the current and proposed locations of nuclear power stations in the UK will be at “significant risk” of being flooded from 2030 due to extreme weather events becoming more frequent, a Greenpeace chief scientist told NationalWorld.

UK seas have risen by over 16.5cm since 1901, bringing into question the safety, security and viability of nuclear power stations on Britain’s coastlines. However, in the Government’s latest energy strategy, Boris Johnson ramped up the drive for nuclear energy, proposing plans to build eight new stations with one being approved each year until 2030.

Where are the current and proposed locations of nuclear power stations in the UK?

There are eight nuclear power stations currently generating in the UK

  • Hunterston, a coastal area in Ayrshire, Scotland
  • Torness, east coast of Scotland
  • Hartlepool, located in County Durham
    • Heysham, located in Lancashire
    • Sizewell, located on the Suffolk coast
    • Dungeness, on the coast of Kent
    • Hinkley Point, located in Somerset
    • Wylfa, on the island of Anglesey in Wales
  • In June 2011, eight sites across Britain were chosen as locations for new nuclear stations.
  • In the Government’s new energy strategy, announced on 7 April 2022, Boris Johnson confirmed plans for these eight sites:
    • Bradwell B is a proposed new nuclear power station at Bradwell-on-Sea in Essex and is currently in the public consultation stages.
    • Hartlepool in County Durham was confirmed as a ‘designated nuclear site’ in the Government’s 7 April energy strategy. The town’s existing EDF nuclear power station is due to cease production in 2024.
  • Heysham in Lancashire was named in the UK government’s new major energy strategy.

    • The Government has backed the construction of Hinkley C in Somerset, which will be the largest nuclear station in Britain – it is set to open by the end of 2026.
    • Oldbury in south Gloucestershire was mentioned as a candidate for a new nuclear reactor site.
  • Moorside nuclear power station is proposed for a site near Sellafield in Cumbria – it has received full business case approval from the government.
  • There are proposals for a nuclear plant on the coastline of Suffolk called Sizewell C, with ministers throwing in £100m investment to EDF Energy’s £20bn nuclear power station.
    • Small Modular Reactors will form a key part of the nuclear project pipeline, with both Trawsfynydd and Wylfa tipped as sites.
    • How will rising sea levels affect UK nuclear power stations?
  • All of the locations of current and proposed nuclear power stations are deemed to be unsafe.A new interactive tool that looks at flooding risk to coastal regions has revealed the severity of the rising sea level threat to the location of nuclear power stations.

  • The searchable map from Climate Central, a non-profit organisation focused on climate science, shows the expected rise of sea levels and what areas of the UK are most at risk from flooding.By 2030, based on the current pollution trajectory, it is clear that the locations of current and proposed stations are at threat from rising sea levels.
  • The coastlines of these areas, where nuclear stations are located, are at threat of floods from 2030 onwards.These maps identify places that require deeper investigation of risk and are based on global-scale datasets for tides in addition to sea level rise projections.
  • Dr Paul Dorfman, Chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, an independent institute providing expert research and analysis of nuclear issues, told NationalWorld that current and proposed nuclear power stations will be vulnerable to flooding due to rising sea levels and more frequent and severe storms.

How big is the climate threat?

The UK’s sea level has risen by over 16.5cm since 1901, according to the state of the UK Climate Report 2020 published last year by the Met Office.

It also found that 2020 was the third warmest year, fifth wettest and eight sunniest on record.

No other year has fallen in the top 10 for all three variables for the UK

  • It also marked the eighth warmest year for UK near-coastal sea-surface temperature in a series from 1870.Parts of the UK will be at risk of being flooded in 2030 due to rising sea levels and warming temperatures.
  • Areas at risk of being flooded in 2030 are Portsmouth, East Riding of Yorkshire, Arun (West Sussex), London boroughs on either side of the Thames including Canary Wharf and Fulham, Chichester (West Sussex), Weston-Super-Mare, Cardiff, Great Yarmouth (Norfolk), and West Berkshire (Berkshire) and Worthing (West Sussex), according to Climate Central’s interactive tool.
  • Dr Scott Kulp, a senior scientist at Climate Central and lead author of the study, said that these maps show the “potential of climate change to reshape cities, economies, coastlines, and entire global regions within our lifetimes.”
  • He added: “As the tideline rises higher than the ground people call home, nations will increasingly confront questions about whether, how much, and how long coastal defences can protect them.”Over 1.3 million residential and commercial addresses in Britain will be at risk of flooding by 2050, intelligence provider Gamma has said.
  • What has the government said?
  • A spokesperson from the Government’s Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, said: “Site licence holders in the civil nuclear industry are required to meet robust standards, overseen by independent regulators, including ensuring that sites have the necessary defences in place to protect them against the effects of climate change, such as flooding, rises in sea levels, coastal erosion and drought.”

The spokesperson added: “The Office for Nuclear Regulation and environmental regulators would not allow a nuclear power station to be developed on a site, or to operate, if they judged that it was not safe to do so.”

April 16, 2022 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Reclaim the Word “Clean” from the Nuclear Industry

 https://www.lakesagainstnucleardump.com/post/reclaim-the-word-clean-from-the-nuclear-industry?fbclid=IwAR02CKMwy0OWx3Na_aCg_WKViBwAFB0CAeW0iXf7t0Zx5AGWwtGl-I7d314 15 Apr 22,

PETITION https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/clean-energy-technology-park-is-a-nuclear-nightmare

King Midas turned everthing he touched into gold. This is what the most toxic industry would have us believe nuclear power is …”clean” and “green” and puppy dogs tails. The dark heart of this industry resides in another heartland. That of Nannashire near Preston where the UK’s Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing site hunkers down like a well camouflaged toxic toad between the well known, vigorously and sucessfully opposed fracking sites of Preston New Road and Roseacre. Unlike fracking, Nuclear has co-opted so many ordinary folk with its unprecedented PR machine and largesse to good causes (using public money). And now it has even co-opted the English language with the naming of the “Clean Energy Technology Park” even while it gears up to rip up uranium from far flung countries and manufacture ever more nuclear fuel. There is no “away” for nuclear wastes apart from the Midas curse of turning all life on this fragile biosphere to a nuclear wasteland. How can we fight the “Clean Energy Technology Park” when even language has been twisted so out of shape for the nuclear cause…

What absolute idiot does not want “Clean Energy”?

Its CLEAN ENERGY Why are you Opposing it??

The first step to resistance is to reclaim the world “CLEAN” from the nuclear industry. Join us and sign the petition which will be handed in on the anniversary of the ongoing Chernobyl disaster – 26th April. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/clean-energy-technology-park-is-a-nuclear-nightmare

To: Trading Standards, Lancashire County Council. “CLEAN” ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PARK IS A NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE We the undersigned call for the the word “clean” to be removed from the UK’s Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing plant which the industry has re-named the Clean Energy Technology Park. We call for Removal of the word “CLEAN” from the CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PARK to be replaced with the accurate description of “NUCLEAR”.

To describe Nuclear energy as “clean” is fraudulent and the claim amounts to a mass marketing scam perpetrated on the British public.

Why is this important?

“Clean” Energy Security? The raw material for nuclear is uranium which can be found in in the UK in the Orkneys but which our government buys from, for example Kazakhstan where it is largely mined by leaching out the uranium from the rock using massive amounts of fresh water and chemicals

. “Clean” Carbon footprint? Nuclear is at least the third highest carbon emitter after coal-fired plants and natural gas. As uranium becomes more scarce more energy and chemicals are needed to get the uranium out of the ground. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have calculated their carbon footprint for 2019/20 as 1,046,950 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). This does not include operation of nuclear reactors or include the building of Hinkley Point C with the biggest pour of concrete in the UK ever. The nuclear and fossil fuel industry are mutually intertwined. The biggest gas plant being constructed in the UK right now is at Sellafield, home to 80 percent of the UK’s existing nuclear waste which needs to be kept cool. The heating effect of discharges to the atmosphere and sea and also the use of water as a coolant for reactors and nuclear wastes are all contributing to ocean temperature rise and climate change. An honest description of Nuclear would be : Radioactive Fossil Fuel by proxy

“Clean” Radioactive Emissions Radioactive emissions occur at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle from the mining of uranium to enrichment, to fuel manufacture, to operation of the reactors, to the “disposal” of nuclear wastes. These emissions occur both routinely and accidentally and have already resulted in large swathes of the world’s land and oceans becoming irreversibly polluted with man-made radioactive isotopes.

“Clean” and Healthy? Radiation can damage the DNA in our cells. High doses of radiation can cause Acute Radiation Syndrome or Cutaneous Radiation Injuries. There is no such thing as a “safe dose” of radiation

The “Clean Energy Technology Park” just 3.9 miles from the centre of Preston is planning an incinerator to burn intermediate level radioactive wastes from across Europe. This would result in daily plumes of chemical and radio-toxic airborne fine particle emissions blowing accross Preston City Centre. We call for the word “Clean” to be replaced by – Nuclear – at the

“Clean Energy Technology Park”.

.

April 16, 2022 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Fears sunken Russian warship Moskva was carrying nuclear weapons

There are fears that sunken Russian warship The Moskva was carrying nuclear weapons that could now cause a “broken arrow” incident. news.com.au

Megan Palin, April 16, 2022  There are fears that sunken Russian warship The Moskva that is now believed to be resting at the bottom of the Black Sea was carrying nuclear weapons.

Maksym Marchenko, the governor of the Odesa region, said Ukraine struck the ship with two Neptune missiles and caused “serious damage” on Thursday.

The Russian Defence Ministry denied there had been an attack by Ukraine on the ship, which would normally have about 500 sailors aboard, and said the heavily damaged Moskva sank in a storm under tow after being gutted by fire.

Speaking at the Pentagon on Friday, a senior US defense official said the Moskva warship was hit by two Ukrainian Neptune missiles, prompting its sinking.

In a chilling revelation, sources say it’s likely that several nuclear missiles are on the sunken vessel, and there is now real concern that could lead to a nuclear accident – otherwise known as a “broken arrow” incident in American military slang.

Mykhailo Samus, director of a Lviv-based military think-tank; Andriy Klymenko, editor of Black Sea News; and Ukrainian newspaper Defence Express all warned today that the Moskva was designed to carry warheads which could fit in the nose of its supersonic P-1000 “Vulkan” missiles – designed to take out American aircraft carriers.

“On board the Moskva could be nuclear warheads – two units,’ Samus said, while Klymenko called on other Black Sea nations – Turkey, Romania, Georgia, and Bulgaria – to insist on an explanation. Where are these warheads? Where were they when the ammunition exploded,” he asked.

This is HUGE. Russia’s defense ministry admits Moskva, their flagship in Black Sea fleet, slava class cruiser, has SUNK! It was key to intelligence & air defenses for the Russian ships. IMO this is on the level big as stopping Russians from taking Kyiv. https://t.co/3SifeskeHzpic.twitter.com/EmNR4L0Vgy— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) April 14, 2022

BlackSeaNews editor-in-chief Andriy Klymenko called for an urgent international probe into whether the Moskva was carrying nuclear weapons.

“Friends and experts say that there are two nuclear warheads for cruise missiles on board the Moskva,” he said…………..   https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/fears-sunken-russian-warship-moskva-was-carrying-nuclear-weapons/news-story/959170261e82bd43b5eb3c37fabf8dcd

April 16, 2022 Posted by | incidents, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ukrainian blogger gets 15 years gaol for saying that Zelensky govt takes orders from other governments

https://www.lindipendente.online/2022/04/05/ucraina-blogger-arrestato-perche-critica-zelensky-rischia-15-anni-di-carcere/?fbclid=IwAR0XFoa_HVePLpr3DYMhXT2PH-d0juJG-3gBHSrVqovgqqc_rCyYB0kA_70 Mike Mapes 15 Apr 22,

Ukrainian blogger Gleb Lyashenko has been sentenced for “betrayal” to 15 years in prison after writing on a post:

“Zelensky was wrong. It has been years that the Russia has been asking us for a reasonable agreement, that is to stay out of the Nato. But there was no change of course. This is why our government takes orders from others, who use us Ukrainians for their purposes. The result was this absurd war. “

Since yesterday Ukraine also has its Assange and Snowden.

“All wars start with lies. But all wars can be stopped by the truth!”

April 16, 2022 Posted by | Legal, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

No room at the dump: NFLA fears Johnson’s nuclear ambitions will lead to need for second unwanted underground facility

Like the standing joke about buses turning up late and in pairs, the
Nuclear Free Local Authorities fear that Boris Johnson’s commitment to
treble Britain’s nuclear generating capacity by 2050 will create so much
new toxic nuclear waste that the government will want to build a second
underground nuclear dump in the next two decades.

A large, and much maligned, element in last week’s UK Energy Security Strategy was the
pledge to build up to eight new large nuclear power stations over the next
three decades, generating 24 gigawatts of electricity, and the UK could run
out of room to store the resultant radioactive waste if the Prime
Minister’s plan becomes reality.

Professor Claire Corkhill is Chair in
Nuclear Material Degradation and EPSRC Early Career Research Fellow and
Reader at the University of Sheffield, and a member of the Committee on
Radioactive waste Management (CORWM) which advises the government.
Professor Corkhill has publicly commented that existing plans for the dump
will only provide sufficient capacity to take the legacy waste from 70
years of operations and waste from up to 16 gigawatts of nuclear new build,
and has expressed concern about ‘rushing to expand nuclear power until
the implementation of radioactive waste policy [i.e. the GDF] has
progressed further’.

 NFLA 13th April 2022

No room at the dump: NFLA fears Johnson’s nuclear ambitions will lead to need for second unwanted underground facility

April 16, 2022 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Carelessness of Russian soldiers around Chernobyl – shows danger of nuclear sites in wartime

As we learn more about the negligence of Russian generals who ignored
warnings that the radioactive forest surrounding Chornobyl was a hazardous
staging ground for their assault on Kyiv, environmental historian Kate
Brown flags an ill-recognized reality: humanity is ill prepared for what
happens when nuclear facilities are held hostage during war.

Known as the
“Red Forest”—its pine trees turned red from radiation exposure after
a reactor at Chornobyl melted down in April 1986—the area where Russian
soldiers bulldozed and dug trenches and bunkers is the most contaminated
region of the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone, which is itself “one of the most
toxic places on Earth,” writes the New York Times.

But Russian generals did not seem troubled by the fact that their troops were digging and
bunking down in earthworks that may have had radiation levels 1,000 times
above ambient.

 Energy Mix 12th April 2022

https://www.theenergymix.com/2022/04/12/careless-russian-operations-around-chornobyl-show-hazards-of-nuclear-plants-in-war-zones/

April 16, 2022 Posted by | incidents, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Ukraine MoD Asserts No Evidence That Russia Will Deploy Nuclear Weapons Amid War

The spokesperson of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry, Oleksandr Motuzianyk stated that Ukraine perceives no indicators that Russia will deploy nuclear weapons.

Written By Rohit Ranjan Republic World,  15th April, 2022 

Amidst the ongoing war, time and again there were concerns that Russia might use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. However, the spokesperson of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry, Oleksandr Motuzianyk stated that Ukraine and its foreign allies currently perceive no sight that Russia could deploy nuclear weapons against its neighbour. As per the reports of Interfax, Motuzianyk stated that Russia’s so-called last trump card is nuclear weapons and at this time, there are no indications that Russia will be able to utilize these weapons in the ongoing war.

.Motuzianyk further stated at a press conference held on Friday at the Ukraine media centre in Kyiv that such records are not kept by the intelligence services. He claimed that the international colleagues and intelligence agencies, with which they cooperate and share information, have not yet confirmed the fact of Russia using nuclear weapons. However, he also added that they must be prepared for any change in the situation, including the possibility of such a disastrous situation. He continued by stating that they cannot forecast this at this time………………   https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/ukraine-mod-asserts-no-evidence-that-russia-will-deploy-nuclear-weapons-amid-war-articlesho


April 16, 2022 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Spain outraged as massive US nuclear-powered submarine arrives in Gibraltar

SPAIN has launched an official complaint against the arrival of a US nuclear-powered submarine in Gibraltar.

By ALESSANDRA SCOTTO DI SANTOLO, Apr 14, 2022 The arrival of a USS Georgia submarine in the port of Gibraltar has sparked a diplomatic row between Spain and the US. The Spanish Foreign Ministry has confirmed that it has lodged an official protest with the US.

The Spanish authorities wanted the submarine to anchor at the Rota naval base instead, where the US Georgia had already been based in August 2020.

The reasons and the duration for the stopover of the submarine remain unknown.

Since the port of Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the United Kingdom in 1713, the Spanish government actually lacks the authority to prevent such moves.  The British Overseas Territory has been at the centre of a bitter row between the UK and EU after Brexit, as access to Gibraltar was not included in the trade agreement. Under an EU proposal, Spain would gain control over the country’s external border……………………https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1596057/spain-news-Gibraltar-uss-Georgia-submarine-nuclear-uk-latest

April 16, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Spain | Leave a comment

 Dr Richard Dixon: Scottish and UK governments are on a collision course over nuclear energy and oil.

The UK Government’s new energy strategy
makes no sense at all and puts Westminster on collision course with
Holyrood. In early March, Boris Johnson said he would produce, as a matter
of urgency, a plan to respond to the twin challenges of war in Ukraine and
the cost-of-living crisis.

Four weeks later, we finally have the British
Energy Security Strategy and it does pretty much the opposite of what’s
needed. Supposedly this is because the PM and Chancellor could not agree on
key measures. The result is a strategy that convinces no-one. Even the
right-wing press have roundly lambasted it.

The first thing you are taught
in any class about energy is that using less is much better than producing
it differently. Yet, there is nothing at all in the strategy on the
quickest, cheapest and most obvious way to save energy and reduce bills –
improving the energy efficiency of people’s homes.

The last thing youwould do if you want to change our energy system quickly and at an
affordable cost is invest in new nuclear reactors, yet that is exactly what
the government plans to do, egged on by Labour’s new enthusiasm.

The cover of the strategy shows the construction site at Hinkley Point C,
originally proposed in the mid-1980s, subject of a two-and-a-half year
public inquiry and with construction now running ten years late and many
times over budget. The world’s most expensive power plant is perhaps not
the cleverest example to use.

The plan suggests eight new nuclear reactors.
In 2010, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government planned to build
eight new reactors in the next decade … 12 years later the two reactors
at Hinkley are the only ones actually under construction and they might
possibly producing electricity in 2027 with a price tag of £23 billion.

There will be a new round of applications for oil and gas production in the
autumn, given a green gloss by the complete con that is the Climate
Compatibility Checklist. The Cambo oilfield might be back on the table. The
government says it is reviewing the science on fracking, and Ineos has
already kindly offered to start drilling.

The Scottish Government is due to
publish a set of energy scenarios before the summer and a draft Energy
Strategy in the autumn. There will be plenty of energy efficiency and
renewables but no new nuclear and no fracking. Apart from offshore wind,
the UK and Scottish plans on energy are pretty much the opposite of each
other. Sparks will fly.

Scotsman 14th April 2022

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scottish-and-uk-governments-are-on-a-collision-course-over-nuclear-energy-and-oil-dr-richard-dixon-3653814

April 16, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Touring exhibition celebrates 40 years on Wales county councils Nuclear Free Zones

 A TOURING exhibition is to visit Llandudno next week to celebrate 40 years
since all eight of the (then) county councils of Wales declared themselves
“Nuclear Free Zones”. This was marked on February 23, 1982 by the Clwyd
“Nuclear Free Wales” Declaration. CND Cymru (supported by North Wales
Quakers) are marking the campaigns which led to that signing with a touring
exhibition at 12 centres around Wales, including Llandudno (known as
“Nuclear Free Wales @40”).

 North Wales Pioneer 14th April 2022

https://www.northwalespioneer.co.uk/news/20068321.exhibition-celebrating-40-years-nuclear-free-wales-come-llandudno/

April 16, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear and gas in EU taxonomy slammed as ‘greenwashing’.


Nuclear and gas in EU taxonomy slammed as ‘greenwashing’,   

  • The controversial decision to include gas and nuclear in the EU’s taxonomy was the outcome of a lengthy and highly-politicised process    EU Observer By ELENA SÁNCHEZ NICOLÁS BRUSSELS, 14 Apr 22,  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and EU plans to reduce its reliance on Russian fossil-fuel imports, have raised more questions over the fate of the European Commission’s controversial taxonomy proposal.

EU member states were already split over the role of gas and nuclear in the energy transition and, thus, in green finance — even before the war in Ukraine……….

Critics say the proposal undermines the credibility of the EU taxonomy as a science-based investment tool, gives credence to claims of greenwashing, creates confusion in financial markets, and will cause major delays in the much-needed transition away from fossil fuels.

The taxonomy does not ban outright investment in activities not included in the guidelines — but it is designed to steer investments away from companies and investors which falsely claim to be environmentally sustainable.

‘Gold standard’ gone

Experts have warned that including natural gas (with a higher threshold than the one recommended by experts) and nuclear power in the EU’s sustainable finance rules may lead to further greenwashing in financial markets.

University College Dublin professor Andreas Hoepner, who has been one of those leading academic opposition on the taxonomy, describes it as probably “the biggest greenwash ever.”

The proposal, he said, ignores rigorous scientific analysis and weakens the credibility of the whole EU sustainable finance agenda. And it may even lead to an increase in emissions incompatible with the Fit-for-55 package and the EU’s climate targets.

The rules were meant to create common standards for classifying taxonomy-aligned economic activities as environmentally sustainable.

But Laurence Tubiana, one of the key architects of the 2015 Paris Agreement, has warned that investors may go elsewhere to seek more “more reliable science-based criteria” to classify their investments.

“The whole idea of creating a ‘gold standard’ is gone” with gas and nuclear power included in the EU taxonomy, Dutch MEP Bas Eickhout told EUobserver in an interview.

With the credibility of the whole taxonomy hanging by a thread, Eickhout warned of the impact on green bonds, given that funds raised from these bonds could be used for gas and nuclear projects. The transition towards net-zero emissions will require massive investment, but not enough money is currently going into projects delivering climate neutrality, he said.

“If we now lower the standard in order to mobilise the money, then we are still fooling ourselves,” he said, because the taxonomy must be “a credible standard” to fulfil its goal…………………..

“The EU should rapidly transition away from fossil fuels, fossil-fuel investments and subsidies to deliver climate stability,” added Ursula Woodburn from the UK’s cross-sector group of business leaders, CLG Europe,

The decision to include gas and nuclear in the taxonomy was slammed as the outcome of a both lengthy and highly-politicised process.

But the European Commission has also come under fire for looking at this tool purely through a domestic prism — despite its impact beyond EU borders.  https://euobserver.com/war-peace-green-economy/154585

April 14, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

French presidential election – Macron and LePen have differing pro-nuclear policies – but in both cases, very costly.

French presidential election: Future of nuclear power and EDF down to voters, Euractiv By Nelly Moussu | EURACTIV.fr | translated by Anne-Sophie Gayet, 13 Apr 2022

Both Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, the candidates that qualified for the second round of the French presidential election, support the revival of nuclear energy. However, they differ in their ambitions, strategies and modus operandi. EURACTIV France reports.

EDF, the French multinational electric utility company, is looking to diversify its energy sources – in particular, focusing its core business on nuclear power. This progress has so far been hampered, however, by a number of difficulties that have challenged the energy giant’s finances: the shutdown of reactors for maintenance and the obligation to lower its prices, as mandated by the state.

With Macron and Le Pen’s pro-nuclear energy programmes, the company is likely to face increased financial pressure, presented with high investment costs for maintenance and the building of reactors.

Two pro-nuclear politicians

Presenting his electoral programme in Belfort on February 10, Macron outlined his plan to build six new nuclear reactors of the EPR 2 type, examine eight other projects, and extend existing plants. “I am asking EDF to study the conditions of extension beyond 50 years, in conjunction with the nuclear safety authority”, Macron said.

An “inter-ministerial programme directorate dedicated to new nuclear power” would be set up to “ensure the management, coordinate administrative procedures, and ensure that the costs and deadlines of the projects are respected”, he continued.

Macron also announced a new regulation for nuclear electricity, replacing the Regulated Access to Historic Nuclear Electricity (Accès Régulé à l’Electricité Nucléaire Historique, ARENH). This system, which allows all energy suppliers to purchase electricity from EDF under conditions set by the State, will expire in 2025.

……….   Le Pen has broad nuclear ambitions too. In her plan, named ‘Marie Curie’, the candidate announced that she wanted to extend the life of existing power plants to 60 years, reopen the Fessenheim plant (which was closed in 2020), build five pairs of EPRs by 2031 and five pairs of EPR 2s by 2036.

However, these forecasts are not necessarily credible, said Nicolas Goldberg, an energy expert at Terra Nova.   In a note published by the Terra Nova think tank on Monday (April 11), he emphasised that Le Pen’s announcements “are contradictory to what the nuclear industry advocates: according to independent audits carried out on behalf of the State, deciding today on a nuclear revival would mean that at best a first pair of EPRs could be available between 2035 and 2037 […]. It should also be remembered that the industry itself has expressed some doubts about its ability to build more than 14 EPRs by 2050.”

Towards a nationalisation of EDF?

To implement their nuclear projects, Macron and Le Pen would rely on EDF, 84% of which is currently owned by the state.

………………..“The state will take its responsibilities to secure EDF’s financial situation and its financing capacity in the short and medium-term, as much as to allow it to pursue its strategy of profitable development within the framework of the energy transition”, Macron announced in February during his speech in Belfort.

Some have interpreted this statement as an open door to nationalisation. “Emmanuel Macron knows very well that in order to have a cheap nuclear power, public funding is required”, Goldberg said. By nationalising, EDF’s borrowing rates would not be the same; nor would the sharing of risks……………..

“For Emmanuel Macron, I feel that it is complicated,” Goldberg said. “There is, at the same time, the will to keep an integrated group, to give public financing for nuclear power, and to remain in the European markets”. Nationalisation is uncertain on Macron’s side, and it could be only partial.

Nationalisation is less of an uncertainty for Le Pen, Goldberg said. “It’s a nationalisation no matter what it costs,” the expert says. However, the candidate has not given any details on this issue in her programme. Contacted by EURACTIV on this for more details, her campaign team did not respond……..   https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/french-presidential-election-future-of-nuclear-power-and-edf-down-to-voters/

April 14, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

UK to get ”special weapons”storage sites for USA nuclear weapons, – making a pre-emptive strike easier.

Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the upgrade of the UK storage facilities is “an early sign that the US and Nato are preparing to engage in a protracted and maybe heightened standoff with Putin’s Russia”.

UK military vaults upgraded to store new US nuclear weapons  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/12/uk-military-vaults-upgraded-to-store-new-us-nuclear-weapons

A US 2023 budget request shows the UK is one of several European countries where investment is under way at ‘special weapons’ storage sites    Julian Borger in Washington and Dan Sabbagh, Wed 13 Apr 2022

Military bunkers in the UK are being upgraded so they can be used to store US nuclear weapons again after 14 years of standing empty, according to US defence budget documents.

In the Biden administration’s 2023 defence budget request, the UK was added to the list of countries where infrastructure investment is under way at “special weapons” storage sites, alongside Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey – all countries where the US stores an estimated 100 B61 nuclear bombs.

Hans Kristensen, the director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), who first reported on the budget item, said he believed the British site being upgraded is the US airbase at RAF Lakenheath, 100 km north-east of London.

The US withdrew its B61 munitions from Lakenheath in 2008, marking the end of more than half a century of maintaining a US nuclear stockpile in the UK. At the time of the withdrawal, the gravity bombs were widely seen as militarily obsolete and hopes were higher for further disarmament by the nuclear weapons powers.

That optimism has since been dashed, against the backdrop of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, his regime’s nuclear threats against Nato, and extensive nuclear weapon modernisation programmes pursued by both the US and Russia. As part of the US plan, the B61 has been given a new lease of life with a guidance system, the B61-12 variant, due to go into full production in May.

The 2023 budget request says that Nato “is wrapping up a 13-year, $384m infrastructure investment program at storage sites in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK, and Turkey to upgrade security measures, communication systems, and facilities”.

In the 1990s, RAF Lakenheath had 33 underground storage vaults, where 110 B61 bombs were stored, according to the FAS. Since their withdrawal the vaults have been mothballed. Kristensen said he believes the vaults are now being upgraded so the new B61-12 bombs can be stored there, if needed.

The Biden administration has been careful not to make any moves that might be seen as escalatory in the nuclear arena in response to Putin’s announcement he would put Russia’s nuclear forces on higher alert a few days after his invasion of Ukraine. The US has cancelled scheduled tests of its intercontinental ballistic missiles, for example.

For the same reason, Kristensen said he doubted the Biden administration is planning to increase the US nuclear stockpile in Europe. When the new B61-12 bombs are delivered, expected next year, they will replace older models already there. Instead, he thought the Lakenheath upgrade is intended to provided more flexibility to move the nuclear weapons around Europe.

“One of the things they have talked about is protecting the deterrent against Russia’s improved cruise missiles capabilities,” Kristensen said. “So they could be trying to beef up the readiness of more sites without them necessarily receiving nukes, so that they have the options to move things around in a contingency if they need to.”

Britain has become keen to take a more assertive role when it comes to its own nuclear deterrent, and last year announced it would increase its own stockpile of Trident nuclear warheads by 40% to 260, the first such increase since the end of the cold war. Whitehall sources say the UK has “a clearer appreciation” of its role as a nuclear weapons state in a renewed era of state competition with Russia and China.

The UK Ministry of Defence did not comment on the upgrade mentioned in the US budget. One British official said: “We won’t provide anything on this as it relates to the storage of nuclear weapons.” But the news comes just four months after the arrival in Lakenheath of the first of a new generation of nuclear-capable US combat aircraft, the F-35A Lightning II, the first such deployment in Europe.

Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the upgrade of the UK storage facilities is “an early sign that the US and Nato are preparing to engage in a protracted and maybe heightened standoff with Putin’s Russia”.

“The administration should provide some clarity about the military necessity and goals of possibly bringing nuclear weapons back to the UK,” Kimball added.

The developments in Europe are part of a broader retreat from arms control. The Biden administration’s nuclear posture review, which has been sent to Congress but not yet declassified, is reported not to contain the changes the president pledged during his campaign.

In 2020, he said he would formally declare the sole purpose of nuclear weapons to be deterrence of a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. But the review leaves open the option of using nuclear arms to respond to non-nuclear threats as well.

The nuclear disarmament group CND said the “quiet announcement” by the US amounted to more militarisation at a time of growing risk and would add to the risks faced by the British public. Kate Hudson, the general secretary of CND, said she feared it could lead to US warheads being redeployed in the UK. “Nuclear weapons don’t make us safe – they make us a target,” she added.

April 14, 2022 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Able Archer: The NATO exercise that almost went nuclear

Able Archer: The NATO exercise that almost went nuclear. 

Able Archer was a 1983 NATO military exercise that nearly triggered war with the Soviet Union

Able Archer was an annual NATO military exercise that involved thousands of military personnel and equipment. The goal of the exercise was to simulate an escalation in a conflict between NATO countries and the USSR, culminating in a co-ordinated nuclear attack. 

 Live Science, By Callum McKelvie , 13 Apr 22,

In 1983, the annual exercise almost triggered the outbreak of war between NATO and the Soviet Union, when miscommunication led the Soviet government to believe the West was in fact mounting an invasion. 

Able Archer, was an annual NATO exercise and the culmination the culmination of the Autumn Forger maneuvers that involved 100,000 personnel, some 16,000 of which were flown in from the United States according to The Atomic Heritage Foundation. The exercise was designed to end with a simulated nuclear strike following a theoretical Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe.

Although the Soviet Union was aware that the annual event was due to take place, in 1983 Able Archer  differed in many ways from previous exercises. 

First, there were large periods of radio silence, as well as encrypted messages among the NATO forces. 

Second, the imaginary forces were moved to high alert and there were even reports of fake missiles being taxied out of hangers with dummy warheads. 

Finally, senior officials were involved with even President Ronald Reagan himself scheduled to participate, although in reality he dropped out, according to the BBC.   In the buildup to the 1983 Able Archer exercise the Warsaw Pact countries had become increasingly paranoid about the potential of a U.S. nuclear attack. 

In 1981 Ronald Reagan became the 40th President of the United States and quickly proved himself aggressive in his approach towards the USSR. In March 1983, just a few short months before Able Archer, Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”, according to Voices of Democracy and announced his intent to build the “Star Wars” space-based anti-missile program, according to the Atomic Heritage Foundation. 

That same year, the U.S. deployed Pershing II Nuclear Missiles at their bases in West Germany, able to reach a Soviet target in less than 10 minutes, according to Missile Threat.  

As a result of the this threat and the fear of a nuclear strike, the KGB created Project RYaN, which stood for “Raketno-Yadernoe Napadenie” — translated meaning “Nuclear Missile Attack” — according to the Wilson Center. 

“The Soviet Intelligence community was still traumatized by its failure to anticipate the German attack in 1941 and was determined not to be taken by surprise again,” Colonel Robert E Hamilton wrote in his article “Able Archer At 35: Lessons from the 1983 War Scare“.

As well as using traditional intelligence methods, including human agents, RYaN also utilized computers in a bid to monitor indicators from both NATO and the United States that a nuclear attack was imminent.

On Sept. 26, the Soviet Early Warning Satellite System registered a warning that five American minuteman missiles were on their way to Russian soil, according to Stanford University. The warning was revealed to be a false alarm. 

“1983 was a supremely dangerous year in which a series of events seriously raised the temperature between East and West,” historian Taylor Downing told All About History Magazine “Most obvious here was the shooting down of a Korean civilian airliner, flight KAL 007, by a Soviet fighter plane after it had strayed off course by about 350 miles and ended up crossing Soviet airspace above a sensitive military area.


“Reagan could not believe this was a case of mistaken identity, a tragic accident that caused the death of 269 innocent people, ” Downing continued. “He called the Soviet Union “a terrorist state” that showed no regard for human life. I argue that at this point the Cold War nearly went hot as some in Washington demanded a military retaliation against the Soviet Union.”

As tensions between the two sides began to rise, so did the danger of a possible nuclear conflict. According to the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction, if this occurred then both sides would annihilate each other.

“When situations are this tense it is always possible that one side will misinterpret what the other side is doing,” Downing said. “In the end, the safety of all nuclear systems is reliant upon the human factor — it is a politician or military leader who finally has to respond to threats perceived or real and press the nuclear button. So, no matter how sophisticated the failsafe systems are, it is down to a person to make the final decision — and all humans are fallible.”

When the Able Archer exercise began on Nov. 7, 1983, the Soviet response was unprecedented………………………………………….

In 1990 the President’s Foreign Advisory Board crafted a top secret report entitled “The Soviet War Scare” which makes clear the threat posed by Able Archer, stating that the US “may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair trigger.”…………….  https://www.livescience.com/able-archer

April 14, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, incidents, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »