nuclear-news

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

The UK’s £1 billion Thank You to Uncle Sam

The UK is set to buy a fleet of US fighter jets that can drop nuclear bombs. The purchase is purely political, say watchdogs

RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR, 6 November 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-uks-1-billion-thank-you-to-uncle-sam/

Keir Starmer’s plan to buy American fighter jets armed with nuclear bombs whose use will be entirely under the US president’s control makes no military sense, nuclear weapons monitors warn. 

In a report released today, the Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK make clear that the deal, announced by the prime minister on the eve of a Nato summit in June, is a blatant attempt to appease President Trump.

The new fleet of F-35 As is estimated to cost about £1 billion. That does not include the cost of the nuclear bombs which the aircraft would carry. 

But the cost is only one of many uncertainties surrounding the project.

The decision to buy twelve F-35 A aircraft for the Royal Air Force capable of dropping US B61 gravity, “free fall” nuclear bombs – so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons – risks triggering a dangerous nuclear escalation, increasing the threat to British citizens, says the report. 

And because their role would be dependent on the US, it would do nothing to address European concerns about America’s commitment to the Nato alliance, it adds.

The report says the decision “was made for purely political purposes rather than to provide a military capability that will play any meaningful role in defending Nato”. The move also undermines the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT).

UK picks up the tab

The nuclear bombs provided to RAF aircraft would replicate capabilities already provided by other European Nato members, says the report. 

Moreover, the monitors find there is no guarantee that the weapons carried by F-35s with a limited range would succeed in any conflict.

The decision to buy the fleet of nuclear bombers from the US “reflects a long-standing trend by the UK government to prioritise trans-Atlantic politics over genuine military needs”, the report emphasises.

It quotes Bernard Gray, a former top Ministry of Defence official responsible for weapons procurement who said: “If money was no object, we could view the £2 bn price tag for doing this as a Thank You to Uncle Sam.” 

Gray, who was referring to the potential price of both the planes and the bombs, added: “The UK is in effect picking up part of the cost of the mission that would otherwise fall on the US. In a world that wants to please President Trump, it’s easy to see how it plays well to buy aircraft primarily built in Texas.”

The authors of this year’s Strategic Defence Review, led by former Labour defence secretary Lord George Robertson, have downplayed the idea of Britain joining a Nato “tactical nuclear” weapons mission. 

Robertson has suggested that a perceived capability gap between strategic nuclear deterrence and tactical nuclear weapons could be bridged by investing, instead, in heavy long-range conventional weapons.

His caution was echoed by Fiona Hill, British-born former national security adviser to Trump, during a Defence Committee evidence session in June.

Pointing to how Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey host US nuclear weapons, she added: “There are other allies who already have dual capable aircraft as part of their arsenal”. 

In a reference to Britain’s Trident nuclear missile system, she made the point that Britain already played a “unique role” in Nato.

Concerns over Trident reliance

But today’s report also points to potential vulnerability of Trident, Britain’s strategic nuclear weapons system which relies heavily on US support, and serious mechanical problems affecting the new Dreadnought fleet of submarines designed to carry the missiles.

The report points to widespread scepticism about the role of theatre nuclear weapons, and the misleading assumption that using them would not escalate a conflict leading to the use of longer range and larger nuclear weapons systems. 

It quotes Sir Lawrence Freedman, one of Britain’s foremost military strategists, as saying: “There are lots of ways of hurting countries without actually having to use nuclear weapons yourself”.

“The idea that the further proliferation of theatre nuclear weapons is necessary or will make the world safer in any way is clearly absurd,” says the report. 

“When looked at objectively, they are merely a ‘solution’ looking for a problem.”

The report also makes the point that while the theatre nuclear weapons proposed for the RAF would be entirely dependent on the US, Trident is far from being the independent deterrent as successive British governments have persistently claimed.

Britain relies entirely on the US for Trident missiles as well as the design of modern nuclear warheads. 

There are also growing concerns about the reliability of Trident submarines leading with longer and longer patrols at sea, while the timetable for replacing the existing Vanguard class with Dreadnought class is slipping.

Turning back the clock

Okopi Ajonye, research manager at Nuclear Information Service told Declassified: “The UK government went to a lot of trouble to denuclearise the RAF at the end of the Cold War. This move was welcomed by the service, as it allowed the air force to focus on more important and relevant roles. 

“Starmer and Healey now want to turn the clock back and commit the RAF to an entirely unnecessary nuclear mission that will have major implications for the service and considerable hidden costs.”

Ajonye added that the proposal “has all the hallmarks of having been pulled together in a hurry without any thought about its practicalities or consequences” and guided by the politics of the Nato alliance rather than military need.

“The government’s plan is basically just political smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and politicians from other Nato countries into thinking that the UK is taking a significant step to strengthen its nuclear forces when in reality it is doing next to nothing,” he said

“The UK’s entry into Nato’s nuclear mission is driven less by strategic or military necessity and more by a desire to reassure two audiences: domestic political concerns over the crumbling Trident programme, and international concerns about the credibility of US security guarantees to Europe”.

Costs add up 

There are also concerns over the management of the existing F-35 fleet with a recent report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee expressing serious concerns about the MoD’s handling of the warplanes, including what it calls an unacceptable shortage of engineers. 

It added: “There are also questions over the additional costs of operating nuclear-capable F-35As, and how long the necessary arrangements will take to prepare.

“The deal would add new requirements to training, personnel and possibly infrastructure yet discussions in this area are at an early stage, and no indication of forecast costs has been provided by MoD.


Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the committee, commented: “Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”

He added: “There are basic lessons here that MoD has been worryingly slow to learn. Its appraisal of the F-35’s whole-life cost is unrealistic, which it currently gives as at almost £57bn through to 2069.”

The message from MPs is that the total cost to British taxpayers of taxpayers of the nuclear-armed American F-35s will be significantly more than that.

Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK will hold a webinar about the report and F-35 nuclear-armed aircraft on 11 November. 

November 8, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Nothing revolutionary’ about Russia’s nuclear-powered missile: Experts

Putin has touted cruise missile Burevestnik and torpedo Poseidon as game-changing weapons as the war in Ukraine rages on.

Aljazeera, By Mansur Mirovalev, 5 Nov 2025

Kyiv, Ukraine – The collective West is scared of Moscow’s new, nuclear-powered cruise missile because it can reach anywhere on Earth, bypassing the most sophisticated air and missile defence systems, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed.

“They’re afraid of what we’ll show to them next,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told the RIA Novosti news agency on Sunday.

Days earlier, she said Moscow was “forced” to develop and test the cruise missile, which is named the Burevestnik, meaning storm petrel – a type of seabird, in response to NATO’s hostility towards Russia.

“The development can be characterised as forced and takes place to maintain strategic balance,” she was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying. Russia “has to respond to NATO’s increasingly destabilising actions in the field of missile defence”.

With much pomp, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday handed state awards to Burevestnik’s developers.

Also awarded were the designers of Poseidon, an underwater nuclear-powered torpedo which Putin has also claimed has been successfully tested.

Russia says Poseidon can carry nuclear weapons that cause radioactive tsunamis, wiping out huge coastal areas. The “super torpedo” can move at the speed of 200km/h (120mph) and zigzag its way to avoid interception, it says.

“In terms of flight range, the Burevestnik … has surpassed all known missile systems in the world,” Putin said in his speech at the Kremlin. “Same as any other nuclear power, Russia is developing its nuclear potential, its strategic potential … What we are talking about now is the work announced a long time ago.”

But military and nuclear experts are sceptical about the efficiency and lethality of the new weapons.

It is not unusual for Russia to flaunt its arsenal as its onslaught in Ukraine continues. Analysts say rather than scaring its critics, Moscow’s announcements are merely a scare tactic to dissuade Western powers from supporting Kyiv.

“There’s nothing revolutionary about,” the Burevestnik, said Pavel Podvig, director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project at the the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

“It can fly long and far, and there’s some novelty about it, but there’s nothing to back [Putin’s claim] that it can absolutely change everything,” Podvig told Al Jazeera. “One can’t say that it is invincible and can triumph over everything.”

The Burevestnik’s test is part of Moscow’s media stratagem of intimidating the West when the real situation on the front lines in Ukraine is desperate, according to a former Russian diplomat.

The missile is “not a technical breakthrough but a product of propaganda and desperation”, Boris Bondarev, who quit his Russian Foreign Ministry job to protest against the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, wrote in an opinion piece published by the Moscow Times.

Few details about ‘unique’ missile

The problem is that officials have so far unveiled very little about the Burevestnik, which NATO has dubbed the SSC-X-9 Skyfall – a missile that has a nuclear reactor allegedly capable of keeping it in the air indefinitely………………………………………………………………………… https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/5/nothing-revolutionary-about-russias-nuclear-powered-missile-experts

November 8, 2025 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bpifrance helps UK nuclear reactor to financial close.

6 November 2025 By Jacob Atkins

 French export credit agency Bpifrance is covering a £5bn loan from 13
commercial banks to help finance the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear
power station in England. The facility, structured as a green loan, sits
alongside a £36.5bn term loan from the UK’s National Wealth Fund, which
was announced earlier this year, as well as a £500mn working capital
facility. Bpifrance has secured refinancing from French public development
bank Sfil, according to a November 4 statement. BNP Paribas acted as joint
debt advisor to Sizewell C, with HSBC as French authorities and green loan
co-ordinator, and Santander as documentation co-ordinator on the Bpifrance
facility. The other lenders on the Bpifrance loan are ABN Amro, BBVA,
Crédit Agricole, CaixaBank, Citibank, Crédit Industriel et Commercial
(CIC), Lloyds Bank, Natwest, Natixis and Société Générale.

 Global Trade Review 6th Nov 2025, https://www.gtreview.com/news/europe/bpifrance-helps-uk-nuclear-reactor-to-financial-close/

November 8, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Scottish National Party reject UK Government’s ‘nonsense’ national security threat smear

 THE SNP have rejected the UK Government’s “nonsense” accusations
that they are a threat to national security. Three Cabinet ministers have
levelled the accusation against the party three times since the beginning
of the week.

Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Defence Secretary John
Healey said: “The continuation of the Scottish nationalist Government in
Scotland is a threat to our security and to future prosperity and jobs in
that country.”

Asked about those claims at a meeting of the Scottish
Affairs Committee on Wednesday, Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander
replied: “I find myself, as usual, in agreement with the Defence
Secretary.” He pointed to the SNP’s opposition to nuclear weapons and
to its historic ban on public money being spent on weapons manufacture.

North East Green MSP Maggie Chapman said: “Trident is a moral abomination that swallows huge sums of money that we could spend instead on improving people’s lives, on tackling poverty, on funding our public services.

The Scottish Government should not be offering even more funding for
multibillion pound weapons giants who have armed and supported Israel’s
genocide against Gaza. These are not extreme statements. They are views
held by large numbers of people, including me. The military industrial
complex does not ensure our security: it lays the foundations for future
conflict and misery.”

 The National 5th Nov 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25599877.snp-reject-uk-governments-nonsense-national-security-threat-smear/

November 8, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point B to begin 95-year decommissioning plan

Clara BullockSomerset, 5 Nov 25, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c986pvg41y2o

A former nuclear power station will begin its 95-year decommissioning process after regulators granted formal consent.

EDF’s Hinkley Point B, which lies on the Somerset coast near Stogursey, has been given the green light to be demolished by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

In August 2022, Hinkley Point B reached the end of its operating life after nearly 46 years of generating electricity.

Dan Hasted, ONR director of regulation, said: “We will continue to proportionately regulate the Hinkley Point B site throughout the decommissioning phase to safeguard workers and the public.”

The nuclear site will transfer from EDF to the Nuclear Restoration Services next year, which will oversee the site’s dismantling.

Under the proposals, Hinkley Point B, which opened in 1976, could be decommissioned in three phases.

The first phase, which will last until 2038, includes the dismantling of all buildings and plant materials except for the site’s safestore structure. This facility will be used to store and manage the residential nuclear waste from the power station.

The second phase will see “a period of relative inactivity” of up to 70 years from 2039, to allow for the radioactive materials within the safestore to safely decay.

The final phase will see the former reactor and debris vaults being dismantled and removed.

Meanwhile, a new nuclear power station, Hinkley Point C, is being constructed near Hinkley B.

November 8, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government rapped as billions unaccounted for in nuclear spending

THE UK spending watchdog has raised serious concerns about the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) finances after auditors found it was “unable” to
explain billions of pounds of expenditure listed as going towards nuclear
weapons programmes.

As a result, the National Audit Office (NAO) has issued
qualified opinions on the MoD’s 2024–25 financial statements, meaning
the accounts do not meet normal standards of accuracy and transparency.

Crucially, the NAO found that the UK Government has “not provided
accounting records for ongoing capital projects” carried out on its
behalf by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), a non-departmental public body that helps deliver the UK’s nuclear weaponry. Auditors found that AWE projects on behalf of the MoD “constituted £6.13 billion of the
value of the department’s assets under construction”.

Of this total, £1.5bn was said to relate to “legacy projects” – but the MoD was found to be “unable to provide supporting evidence” that this figure
was appropriate. The NAO also said it had found “several other
balances” within the £6.13bn figure that did not meet the standard
required to be signed off by auditors, without going into specifics.

 The National 4th Nov 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25595083.uk-government-rapped-billions-unaccounted-nuclear-spending/

November 7, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The moment of truth: The West confronts Russian military advances.

on October 20th, Russia informed the United States that it had no intention of yielding on territorial concessions, the reduction of the Ukrainian armed forces, or guarantees that Ukraine would never join NATO.


Thierry Meyssan, Voltairenet.org, Tue, 04 Nov 2025

For two years, we in the West have been living in the myth that we will bring Russia to its knees and bring Ukraine into the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance. We will try Vladimir Putin and make Russia pay. Today, this myth is colliding with reality: Moscow now possesses devastating weapons, unparalleled in the West. They make any hope of victory for our coalitions impossible. We will have to acknowledge our mistake. This is not about apologizing for our errors, but about freeing ourselves from them.

On October 26, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chief of Staff, Valery Gerasimov, announced the completion of a project to miniaturize a nuclear reactor and install it on a missile. They reported conducting a test launch of the 9M730 Burevestnik missile, which traveled 14,000 kilometers. The unique feature of this nuclear-powered weapon (which has an unlimited range) is its ability to be guided in such a way as to bypass interceptor sites.This, according to Russian authorities, makes it an unstoppable missile.

On October 29, President Putin tested a Status-6 Poseidon torpedo, a nuclear-powered weapon. Throughout the Soviet Union, Eurasian military researchers believed that underwater nuclear explosions could trigger massive tsunamis. To achieve this, they needed to be able to launch torpedoes much farther than was possible at the time, in order to avoid the cataclysms they intended to unleash. This has now been accomplished. Mega-tsunamis could devastate cities like Washington, D.C., or New York City, or even naval groups like those of the U.S. aircraft carriers. However, the Poseidon torpedo is significantly longer than others: 21 meters. It cannot be launched from operational submarines and required its own dedicated vessel for launch. Its ability to operate underwater almost indefinitely more than compensates for this limitation. In any case, this torpedo ensures that Russia can launch a second strike in the event of a US attack. Until now, the first to launch a nuclear strike was guaranteed to cripple its enemy’s main means of retaliation.

No weapon is ever truly definitive. Each exists within a continuum of technological advancements; each is superseded by another; and each eventually encounters effective defenses or predators. But for the moment, there seems to be no answer to these weapons, any more than there is to Russian supersonic missiles.

In about twenty years, Russia has acquired a whole host of new weapons that surpass all Western technologies.……………………………………………………..

Russia possessed the capability to disconnect NATO orders from its own weapons. This wasn’t a form of jamming; the weapons simply stopped responding to commands………………………………………

The Westerners were also testing numerous weapons, such as the tactical atomic bomb that later devastated the port of Beirut.

In 2018, once the Syrian war had ended, President Vladimir Putin presented his weapons program to parliament [ 1 ] . This program comprised six advanced weapons:the Sarmatian (which leaves the atmosphere, orbits the Earth, and re-enters the atmosphere at will) and Kinzhal (dagger) missiles; the nuclear-powered 9M730 Burevestnik and Status-6 Poseidon launchers; the Avantgarde missiles, which combine the characteristics of the Sarmatian and Kinzhal missiles with added maneuverability; and finally, anti-missile lasers.Only the latter are not yet complete.

What were only prototypes in the 2010s became operational and were mass-produced during the war in Ukraine.

The Western response was almost inaudible. Only US President Donald Trump spoke out. He regretted that his Russian counterpart had seen fit to reveal his exploits because, in doing so, he was reigniting the arms race. Furthermore, he announced that the United States was resuming its nuclear tests. Donald Trump could hardly do otherwise: deploring Russia’s renewed arms race is a way of explaining that the Pentagon’s military research is lagging far behind and of asserting Washington’s peaceful stance. Announcing that he will resume nuclear tests is a way of shifting the focus, since none of the new Russian weapons represent an advance in nuclear terms, but only in terms of atomic bomb launchers. To say that he will do this to maintain parity with Russia and China is a blatant lie: Russia has not conducted nuclear tests since 1990 and China since 1996. Moreover, it will take at least two years to rebuild or rehabilitate Cold War-era facilities, and therefore to begin these tests. Until then, the United States is nothing more than a “paper tiger.”

We are now reaching the end of hostilities in Ukraine. The Russian army is on the verge of a decisive victory in the Donbas. It will not only capture Pokrovsk, but will also inflict a third defeat on the White Führer, Andriy Biletsky, whose 10,000 men are surrounded. …………………

..on October 20th, Russia informed the United States that it had no intention of yielding on territorial concessions, the reduction of the Ukrainian armed forces, or guarantees that Ukraine would never join NATO.

Whether the West likes it or not, it no longer has a choice. It simply cannot afford to continue supplying weapons to Russia in Ukraine on its own. The EU’s plan to eventually confiscate Russian assets frozen in Belgium and spend them immediately could spell the end of the Union. In any case, neither Belgium, nor Slovakia, nor Hungary will participate in this theft, which even the Soviets, the staunch opponents of private property, never perpetrated.

The EU’s grandiose ambitions are about to collide with reality: it can only continue this war by betraying the very ideals it claims to uphold………….

All of this is coming to an end, otherwise the EU will be directly drawn into the war against the Slavs that the UK and Germany instigated in 1933: the Second World War. And the EU’s armies, stripped of their arsenals, have no hope of resisting for more than two days. This is not about bowing down to a new master, Russia, but simply about acknowledging our mistakes before it’s too late. https://www.sott.net/article/502778-The-moment-of-truth-The-West-confronts-Russian-military-advances

November 7, 2025 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

No to Nuclear, Yes to Renewables for Wales

28th October 2025, Nuclear Free Local Authorities

Anti-nuclear campaigners meeting last weekend in Wrexham (25 October) issued a declaration calling on politicians representing Welsh constituencies in parliaments in Cardiff and Westminster to work for a nuclear free, renewables powered Wales.

Attendees at the screening of the award-winning film SOS: The San Onofre Syndrome organised by PAWB (Pobol Atal Wylfa-B, People against Wylfa B) hosted at the Ty Pawb Arts Centre in Wrexham also saw a special video message sent by the Californian filmmakers and heard from Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor in Energy Policy at Greenwich University and Richard Outram, Secretary of the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities, who both joined the meeting online.

Welsh campaigners are working with US, Canadian and other UK activists to establish a Transatlantic Nuclear Free Alliance to campaign on issues of common concern. The film (https://sanonofresyndrome.com/) highlights the impact of the decommissioning and the legacy of managing deadly radioactive waste faced by the neighbours of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California.


The film’s messages resonate with international audiences faced with identical threats and challenges. Commenting Professor Thomas said:

“The nuclear industry tries to assure us the radioactive waste disposal and reactor decommissioning are established processes with easily affordable costs. The truth is that we are three or more decades away from permanent disposal of waste and of carrying out the most challenging stages of decommissioning. The cost will be high, and the failure of previous funding schemes means the burden will fall on future taxpayers, generations ahead”. 

28th October 2025

No to Nuclear, Yes to Renewables for Wales

Joint Media Release

Anti-nuclear campaigners meeting last weekend in Wrexham (25 October) issued a declaration calling on politicians representing Welsh constituencies in parliaments in Cardiff and Westminster to work for a nuclear free, renewables powered Wales.

Attendees at the screening of the award-winning film SOS: The San Onofre Syndrome organised by PAWB (Pobol Atal Wylfa-B, People against Wylfa B) hosted at the Ty Pawb Arts Centre in Wrexham also saw a special video message sent by the Californian filmmakers and heard from Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor in Energy Policy at Greenwich University and Richard Outram, Secretary of the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities, who both joined the meeting online.

Welsh campaigners are working with US, Canadian and other UK activists to establish a Transatlantic Nuclear Free Alliance to campaign on issues of common concern. The film (https://sanonofresyndrome.com/) highlights the impact of the decommissioning and the legacy of managing deadly radioactive waste faced by the neighbours of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California.

The film’s messages resonate with international audiences faced with identical threats and challenges. Commenting Professor Thomas said:

“The nuclear industry tries to assure us the radioactive waste disposal and reactor decommissioning are established processes with easily affordable costs. The truth is that we are three or more decades away from permanent disposal of waste and of carrying out the most challenging stages of decommissioning. The cost will be high, and the failure of previous funding schemes means the burden will fall on future taxpayers, generations ahead”. 

Despite this, the UK Government will introduce developer-led siting plans, permitting nuclear operators to apply to locate new plants in sites throughout Wales, and intends to reduce regulation in the nuclear industry. A recent Memorandum of Understanding was also signed with the United States which could lead to British regulators being obliged to accept US reactor designs not currently approved for deployment in the UK. Great British Energy – Nuclear has also acquired land at Wylfa in Anglesey (Ynys Mon) as a potential site for the deployment of one or more so-called Small Modular Reactors being commissioned from Rolls Royce and the US company Westinghouse has also expressed interest in constructing a larger nuclear plant there. The Welsh Government specifically created Cwmni Egino to develop a new nuclear plant on the Trawsfynydd site at the heart of the beautiful Eryri National Park. And in South Wales, US newcomer Last Energy is seeking permission to deploy multiple micro reactors on a former coal power station site at Llynfi outside Bridgend.

Now eight leading campaign groups have backed the Wrexham Declaration which denounces the continued political obsession with the pursuit of nuclear power as a ‘fool’s errand’.

NFLA Secretary Richard Outram explains why: “Nuclear is too slow, too costly, too risky, contaminates the natural environment compromising human health, and leaves a legacy of nuclear plant decontamination and radioactive waste management lasting millenia that is ruinously expensive and uncertain. And nuclear plants represent obvious targets to terrorists and, as we have seen in Ukraine, to hostile powers in times of war”.

Campaigners are also convinced that nuclear will worsen fuel poverty or climate change……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/no-to-nuclear-yes-to-renewables-for-wales/

November 7, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Trump doubles down on nuclear tests as Russia issues warning.

By Reuters, November 1, 2025 , https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-doubles-down-on-nuclear-tests-as-russia-issues-warning-20251101-p5n6z4.html

Washington: President Donald Trump has reaffirmed that the United States will resume nuclear testing, but he would not answer directly when asked whether that would include underground nuclear tests that were common during the Cold War.

“You’ll find out very soon, but we’re going to do some testing,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday (Saturday AEDT) as he flew to Palm Beach, Florida, when asked about underground nuclear tests.

“Other countries do it. If they’re [going] to do it, we’re going to do it, OK?”

Trump said on Thursday that he had ordered the US military to immediately restart the process for testing nuclear weapons after a halt of 33 years, a move that appeared to be a message to rival nuclear powers China and Russia, whose last known tests were in the 1990s.

Trump made that surprise announcement on social media while aboard his Marine One helicopter flying to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping for a trade-negotiating session in Busan, South Korea.

It was not immediately clear whether Trump was referring to nuclear-explosive testing, which would be carried out by the National Nuclear Security Administration, or flight testing of nuclear-capable missiles.

Continue reading →

November 6, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Russia, USA | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear waste problem lacks a coherent plan.


The [GDF] will comprise vaults and tunnels of a size that may be
approximate to Bermuda, but without the devilish tax evaders, coupled with
a 1 km square surface site that will periodically swallow up trainloads of
toxic radioactive waste. It would be unsurprising if Nuclear Waste
Services, the agency charged with finding and building the site, placed a
job advert for its own Hades to manage this dystopic underworld and if the
postholder engaged Cerberus to guard the entrance.

The plan comes with an enormous bill for taxpayers which will scare the ‘bejeebers’ out of taxpayers. Previously the Government’s new National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) had identified in its August 2025 report that the GDF facility may have a whole life cost estimated to range from £20 billion to £53 billion.

Now PAC members have had a further frightener placed on them because these headline figures were based on 2017/18 prices and they have found that, when adjusting to the present, the undersea radioactive monster might cost over £15 billion more. It would be far cheaper to hire Godzilla.

The Public Accounts Committee Chair Geoffrey Clifton-Brown has called on the Government to produce a ‘coherent plan’ to manage the UK’s stockpile of radioactive waste

NFLA 31st Oct 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/trick-not-treat-nuclear-dump-is-full-of-nasty-surprises-not-sweet-treats/

November 6, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

“It is unacceptable that the EDF tariff reform is being adopted quietly, to the detriment of the users”

With electricity bills reaching record highs and 7 million people facing
energy poverty, it’s time to acknowledge the failure of a model. Twenty
years of brutal energy sector liberalization have failed to bring about
either lower prices or the investment promised by private operators in
exchange for regulated access to historical nuclear electricity (ARENH).

Created in 2011 to allow alternative suppliers to purchase EDF’s nuclear
production at a fixed and highly advantageous price, this mechanism was
supposed to generate sustainably competitive offers. On the contrary, it
has led to instability, private rent-seeking, industrial fragmentation, and
debt for EDF.

Le Monde 29th Oct 2025,
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/10/29/il-est-inacceptable-que-la-reforme-des-tarifs-d-edf-soit-adoptee-discretement-au-detriment-des-usagers_6650111_3232.html

November 5, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

Ministry of Defence still unclear on cost of RAF nuclear jet plan, MPs say

“Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”

Sir Keir Starmer announced at the Nato summit in June that the UK would purchase 12 F-35A jets

Christopher McKeon, Friday 31 October 2025

Ministers still do not know when RAF jets will be able to carry nuclear weapons or how much the project will cost, the Commons spending watchdog has found.

In a report published on Friday, the influential Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had still not set out how much it would cost to operate new F-35A jets.

Sir Keir Starmer announced at the Nato summit in June that the UK would purchase 12 of the jets, which could join the alliance’s airborne nuclear mission.

The committee said the project was still “at an early stage”, with the MoD “starting to understand” the requirements of being certified for the Nato nuclear mission.

The MoD told the committee that the F-35As were “20 per cent to 25 per cent cheaper” than the F-35Bs currently operated by the RAF and Royal Navy “and slightly cheaper to support”.

But with the additional training and personnel required to join the nuclear mission, the committee said it was a “reasonable assumption that this may end up proving more expensive”.

The MPs added that the MoD had yet to set out how long it would take to make the necessary arrangements for equipping the jets with nuclear weapons.

The F-35 is the most advanced fighter jet the UK has ever possessed, and the MoD expects the overall programme to cost £57 billion over its 56-year lifespan.

That figure is already triple the original estimate, but the committee said it did not include the costs of personnel, infrastructure and fuel, with the National Audit Office (NAO) suggesting an overall cost of £71 billion.

In July, the NAO issued a wide-ranging criticism of the F-35 programme, saying its return on investment had been “disappointing” and its capability remained below the MoD’s expectations.

The watchdog also criticised severe personnel shortages and “short-term affordability decisions” that hindered the delivery of the aircraft and its full capabilities.

On Friday, the PAC reiterated many of these findings, accusing the MoD of “a pattern of short-term decision-making” that had led to increased costs.

The committee cited delays to investment in a facility to test the jet’s stealth capability, which saved £82 million in 2024-25 but added an extra £16 million to the overall cost; and delayed investment in infrastructure at 809 Naval Air Squadron until 2029, which both reduced capability and added almost £100 million in extra costs.

MPs also found the MoD had miscalculated the number of engineers needed per plane, as it had failed to take into account staff taking leave or performing other tasks.

And they questioned the department’s intention to declare the F-35 to be at full operating capability by the end of the year, despite still not having a missile to attack ground targets from a safe distance.

Committee chairman Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: “Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”

He added that the MoD had been “worryingly slow” to learn “basic lessons” from the project, and described its appraisal of the F-35’s overall cost as “unrealistic”.

Sir Geoffrey said: “The F-35 is the best fighter jet this nation has ever possessed. If it is to be wielded in the manner in which it deserves, the MoD must root out the short-termism, complacency and miscalculation in the programme identified in our report………………………….https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/raf-fighter-jets-f35a-nato-b2855616.html

November 5, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Officials launch investigation after hazardous incident at shut-down nuclear plant: ‘Deeply concerning’

A government investigation got underway after radioactive water leaked from Scotland’s Dounreay nuclear site. In June 2024, NRS alerted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to “a potential leak of radioactively contaminated water from a carbon bed filter on the Dounreay site,” an agency spokesperson described, according to The National, a Scottish paper.
SEPA later confirmed a “small leak” that released different radioactive
substances, including Caesium-137 and alpha-emitting radionuclides. While NRS reported no increase in groundwater radioactivity downstream of the event, SEPA found the company had breached regulations and ordered a full review of its monitoring systems.

The Cool Down 29th Oct 2025, https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/dounreay-nuclear-site-radioactive-water-leak/

November 5, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Starmer,Macron, Merz…3 unwise leaders degrading their economies while destroying Ukraine.

President Trump has largely ceased supplying weapons directly to Ukraine. But he’s cool about goosing US weapons builders’ profits by selling them to Europe’s Big 3 so they can take over squandering their treasure on an impossible, quixotic effort to defeat Russia.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL ,1 Nov 25

 The UK’s Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Friedrich Merz are wildly unpopular. Starmer has the best approval rating at 13% followed by Macron at 11%. Merz is nearly invisible at 5%.

There are several reasons but likely tops is their insistence on continuing the lost US/NATO proxy war against Russia destroying Ukraine for nearly 4 years.

President Trump has largely ceased supplying weapons directly to Ukraine. But he’s cool about goosing US weapons builders’ profits by selling them to Europe’s Big 3 so they can take over squandering their treasure on an impossible, quixotic effort to defeat Russia. Trump, a realist on the war Biden made inevitable, wants out, not only on funding the war, but on endlessly funding Europe’s paranoia about a reconstituted Soviet empire. This is one foreign policy Trump is getting right.

Starmer, Macron and Merz are degrading their economies as they reduce critically needed social spending on the commons to fund a wildly unpopular war. No wonder far right, nationalistic political movements are nipping at their heels and may soon send them packing.

Europe has a pittance of America’s wealth to fund continuation of the war. Yet, the Starmer, Macron, Merz trio endlessly bleat that Ukraine can prevail, even get back its massive lost territory now forever part of Russia, if only they provide Ukraine more, more, more. They fear monger that Russia will come for them next unless they’re defeated in Ukraine. No responsible historian, political scientist or retired diplomat (without a job to protect) would support that delusional view.

Two things are certain. The economies and political stability of the UK, France, and Germany are being severely undermined by their leaders’ refusal to negotiate the war’s end, acknowledging Russia’s valid security concerns. Second, Ukraine descends deeper into failed state status, losing more cannon fodder and territory, every day the war grinds on.

What is not certain if Starmer, Macron and Merz do not come to their senses, is whether nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO can be avoided. All 3 need to be forced to watch ‘Forrest Gump’ to learn that ‘Stupid is as stupid does.     

November 4, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Stealing $140 billion in Russian assets won’t change the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

while the determination of Ukraine to fight is unquestionable, the emotional belief in the west that this will overcome the enormous social and economic challenges the country faces in an extended attritional war with Russia is wildly misplaced.

A full 180 degree change in diplomatic course by Europe would require an acceptance that the war against Russia was unwinnable, and that Russia’s underlying concerns – namely Ukrainian neutrality – would finally have to be accepted as a political reality.

Better for EU leaders to accept this now although, of course, they won’t.

Ian Proud. Nov 01, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/stealing-140-billion-in-russian-assets?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=177688104&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Caught between a rock and a hard place, European leaders continue to deny the obvious realities of the dire situation in Ukraine, which will only worsen over time. Yet I see no evidence of any willingness to change course, despite the obvious political hazard they face and the increasingly grim forecast for Europe and for Ukraine should they continue to push an unwinnable war.

The war in Ukraine is now entirely dependent on the ability of European states to pay for it at a cost of at least $50bn per year, on the basis of Ukraine’s latest budget estimate for the 2026 fiscal year. Ukraine itself is bankrupt and has no access to other sources of external capital, beyond that provided by the governments sponsoring the ongoing war.

That then brings the conversation back to the expropriation of $140bn in assets currently frozen in Belgium which the Commission would like to use for a reconstruction loan. The term ‘reconstruction loan’ is itself disingenuous, on the basis that any expropriated Russian assets would not be used for reconstruction, but rather to fund the Ukrainian war effort. Indeed. Chancellor Merz of Germany recently suggested that the fund could allow Ukraine to keep fighting for another three years.

The most likely scenario, in the terrible eventuality that war in Ukraine did continue for another three years is that the Russian armed forces would almost certainly swallow up the whole of the Donbass region – comprising Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. This – Ukraine’s departure from the Donbas – appears to be the basis of President Putin’s conditions for ending the war now, together with a Ukrainian declaration of neutrality and giving up any NATO aspirations. More likely, the Russian Armed forces might also capture additional swathes of land in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, and also in Dnipropetrovsk, where they have made recent incursions.

So, there is a strong likelihood, at the currently slow pace of the war effort in which Russia claims small pieces of land on a weekly basis, that three years from now Ukraine would have to settle for a peace that was even more disadvantageous to it than that which is available now, having lost more land, together with potentially hundreds of thousands of troops killed or injured.

Logically, European policymakers would be able to look into the future to see this grim predicament with clear eyes and encourage Zelensky to settle for peace now.

But European policy is driven by two key considerations. Firstly, an emotional belief that an extended war might so weaken Russia that President Putin was forced to settle on unfavourable terms. The idea of a strategic defeat of Russia – which is often spoken by European politicians – however, doesn’t bear serious scrutiny.

Russia doesn’t face the same considerable social and financial challenges that Ukraine faces. Its population is much larger and a wider conscription of men into the Armed forces has not been needed – Russia can recruit sufficient new soldiers to fight and, indeed, has increased the size of its army since 2022. Ukraine continues to resort to forced mobilisation of men over the age of 25, often using extreme tactics that involve busifying young men against their will from the streets.

Critically, Russia could likely continue to prosecute the war on the current slow tempo for an extended period of time without the need for a wider mobilisation of young men, which may prove politically unpopular for President Putin domestically. Yet, the longer the war continues, Ukraine will come under increasing pressure, including from western allies, to deepen its mobilisation to capture young men below the age of 25 to shore up its heavily depleted armed forces on the front line.

There has been considerable resistance to this so far within Ukraine. Mobilising young men above the age of 22 would prove unpopular for President Zelensky but it would also worsen Ukraine’s already catastrophic demographic challenge: 40% of the working age population has already been lost, either through migration or through death on the front line and that number will continue to go south, the longer the war carries on.

Russia’s financial position is considerably stronger than Ukraine’s. It has very low levels of debt at around 15% of GDP and maintains a healthy current account surplus, despite a narrowing of the balance in the second quarter of 2025. Even if Europe expropriates its frozen assets, Russia still has a generous and growing stock of foreign exchange reserves to draw upon, which recently topped $700bn for the first time.

Russia’s military industrial complex continues to outperform western suppliers in the production of military equipment and munitions. In the currently unlikely event that Russia started to fall into the red in terms of its trade – what commentators in the west refer to as destroying Russia’s war economy – it would still have considerable scope to borrow from non-western lenders, given the strength of its links with the developing world, aided by the emergence of BRICS.

Ukraine is functionally bankrupt because it is unable to borrow from western capital markets, on account of its decision to pause all debt payments. With debt expected to reach 110% in 2025, even before consideration of any loan backed by frozen Russian assets, it depends entirely on handouts from the west. Ukraine’s trade balance has continued to worsen throughout the war, reinforcing its dependence on capital injections from the west to keep its foreign exchange reserves in the black.

So while the determination of Ukraine to fight is unquestionable, the emotional belief in the west that this will overcome the enormous social and economic challenges the country faces in an extended attritional war with Russia is wildly misplaced.

So, let’s look at the rational explanation for Europe’s continued willingness to prolong the fight in Ukraine. The uncomfortable truth is that Europe’s political leaders have boxed themselves into this position because of a hard boiled determination not to concede to Russia’s demands in any peace negotiations. Indeed, there is a steadfast and immovable objection to talking to Russia at all, which has been growing since 2014.

However, across much of Europe, the political arithmetic is turning against the pro-war establishment with nationalist, anti-war parties gaining ground in Central Europe, Germany, France, Britain and even in Poland. And despite positive overtures made by President Trump towards negotiation with President Putin, Trumpophobia provides another brake on the European political establishment shifting its position.

So, changing course now and entering into direct negotiations with Russia would have potentially catastrophic consequences, politically, for European leaders, which they must surely be aware of. A full 180 degree change in diplomatic course by Europe would require an acceptance that the war against Russia was unwinnable, and that Russia’s underlying concerns – namely Ukrainian neutrality – would finally have to be accepted as a political reality.

On this basis, European politicians would face the prospect of explaining to their increasingly sceptical voters that their strategy of defeating Russia had failed, having spent four years of war saying at all times that it would eventually succeed. And that would lead potentially to internationalist governments falling across Europe starting in two years when Poland and France will again go to the polls, and in 2029 when the British and German governments will face the voters.

There are deeper issues too. An end of war would accelerate the process of admitting Ukraine into the European Union with potentially disastrous consequences for the whole financial basis of Europe. The European Commission will face the prospect of accepting that a two-tier Europe is inevitable, admitting Ukraine as a member without the financial benefits received by existing member states; for probably understandable reasons, this would cause widespread resentment within Ukraine itself, having sacrificed so much blood to become European, precipitating widespread internal dissent and possibly conflict in a disgruntled country with an army of almost one million. Alternatively, the European Commission would need to redraw its budget and face huge resistance from existing Member States, who would lose billions of Euros each year in subsidies to Ukraine.

Caught between hoping for a strategic defeat of Russia which any rational observe can see is unlikely, and accepting the failure of their policy, causing a widespread loss of power and huge economic and political turmoil, Europe’s leaders are choosing to keep calm and carry on. If they had any sense, the likes of Von der Leyen, Merz, Starmer or Macron would change tack and pin their hopes on explaining away their failure before the political tide in Europe evicts them all from power. But I see no signs of them having the political acumen to do that. So we will continue to sit and wait, while storm clouds grow ever darker over Europe.

November 4, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »