nuclear-news

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

Sizewell C to build further education campus in Leiston.

Education and employment leaders have hailed new plans for an education campus in Leiston as a “landmark moment”. 

The education campus will include College on the Coast, a new permanent further education college delivered in partnership with Suffolk New College, that will provide technical, vocational, and academic pathways aligned to the workforce needs of the new nuclear power plant and the wider energy, infrastructure and engineering sectors.

Sizewell C announced further details of the centre, which will include a post-16 college, at a well-attended public exhibition in July. 

A planning application for the College on the Coast and Apprentice Hub, on the eastern edge of Leiston, will be submitted in the coming months. ………..


 East Anglian Daily Times 31st July 2025, https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25353049.sizewell-c-build-education-campus-leiston/

August 2, 2025 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

Russian nuclear submarine base hit by tsunami.

Waves triggered by 8.8 magnitude earthquake damaged base that houses Pacific Fleet

 Russia’s far east nuclear submarine base appears to have been damaged by
the tsunami that swept the country’s Pacific coast on Wednesday,
according to satellite imagery obtained by The Telegraph. The waves,
triggered by an 8.8 magnitude earthquake, hit the Rybachiy base in
Kamchatka peninsula, which houses most of the nuclear submarines in
Russia’s Pacific Fleet. A section of one pier has bent away from its
original position, possibly indicating that it was detached from its
moorings, images taken by the Umbra Space satellite on Thursday morning
have revealed.

It does not appear that a submarine was moored alongside at
the time of impact and experts said damage to the structure alone would
have little military significance. However, questions were raised about
whether the tsunami caused any further harm to the base, which was thought
to have been hit within 15 minutes of the earthquake.

 Telegraph 1st Aug 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/08/01/russian-nuclear-submarine-base-earthquake-satellite/

August 2, 2025 Posted by | climate change, Russia | Leave a comment

 Radiation dangers at “Sea Fest” in Cumbria

 Campaigners have sent a letter to Cumbria Wildlife Trust urging them to
inform families of the dangers at “Sea Fest” on 2nd August. Radiation
Free Lakeland have been writing to the wildlife charity for many years and
even taken direct action at the Sand Sculpture events on St Bees Beach
producing their own sand sculpture of “The Scream” and presenting
Cumbria Wildlife Trust with a “Blinky” statue.

The letter asks that
Cumbria Wildlife Trust inform families of the risks of encountering
radioactive particles whilst spending hours digging sand sculptures.


Campaigners point to Sellafield’s own recent Particles in the Environment
Reports which outline alpha and beta rich finds one of which is Cesium-137
with an activity of 1.23 ± 0.25 MBq “the 2nd highest Cs-137 activity
measured in any find since the programme (of monitoring and retrieval)
began”. Also stated by Sellafield: “Alpha-rich particle find rates at
Sellafield beach and Northern Beaches appear higher than those measured in
recent years” as reported in Sellafield Particles in the Environment
Update (1-Jan to 1-April 2025).

 Radiation Free Lakeland 1st Aug 2025, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2025/08/01/cumbria-wildlife-trust-sand-castle-event-where-alpha-rich-particle-find-rates-at-sellafield-beach-and-northern-beaches-appear-higher-than-those-measured-in-recent-years/

August 2, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

An unwanted visitor to Britain’s shores – a harbinger of death

28th July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/an-unwanted-visitor-to-britains-shores-a-harbinger-of-death/

Not reference to the recent visit of US President Donald Trump to Scotland, but instead the Nuclear Free Local Authorities are highlighting the delivery of US nuclear weapons to RAF Lakenheath earlier this month. Fortunately Mr Trump will be leaving after a short stay, unfortunately the B-61 nuclear weapons will not.

RAF Lakenheath is, despite its cover name, the United States Air Force’s largest airbase in the United Kingdom, a home to two squadrons of the F35A nuclear capable fighter bomber able to carry the B61-12 ‘tactical’ nuclear bomb. Rather than being a weapon designed for delivery as part of a strategic nuclear exchange, the B-61 is intended for use as a ‘battlefield’ weapon for more immediate employment in a direct conflict in Europe with Russia.

Given the current ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia with heightened tensions between Russia and the USA and its NATO allies, this makes it employment frightening more likely in the present than it was in the past.

Anti-nuclear campaigners at Nukewatch have published a detailed expose of a recent flight of a giant C-17 Globemaster from the United States which observed by the Nukewatchers on its arrival at the Suffolk airbase. As the aircraft was operated by a specialist unit authorised to transport nuclear weapons and had travelled in-bound from the US Air Force’s main nuclear weapons storage site at the Kirtland Air Force base in New Mexico to Suffolk, Nukewatch  believe that this aircraft was carrying nuclear weapons. This would be the first deployment of US nuclear weapons in the UK since 2008.

Nukewatch ‘judge that the evidence publicly available from our observations and flight-tracking data now supports the conclusion that nuclear weapons are based at the Lakenheath US airbase.’

Their excellent report can be found at https://www.nukewatch.org.uk/how-the-us-air-force-brought-nuclear-weapons-to-lakenheath-air-base-the-inside-story/

In response, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has launched a campaign calling on the UK Government to make a full public disclosure and hold a debate and a vote in Parliament about the acceptance of this deployment. These nuclear weapons will be available for use at the command of US President with the British Prime Minister Starmer has zero say on the matter. This makes Lakenheath an obvious future target for a pre-emptive nuclear attack in the event of a future conflict with Russia. In recent polling, 61% of Britons surveyed were opposed to any deployment of US nuclear weapons in the UK.

CND is inviting its supporters to sign an online petition to their local MP at https://cnd.eaction.org.uk/dontmakeusatarget

CND previously uncovered through a legal challenge that the US military – as ‘visiting forces’ – have a blanket exemption from nuclear safety regulations. This was issued in March 2021 by the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. It means that there is no requirement for the USAF to carry out emergency planning on nuclear matters.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK Government abandons plan to greenwash nuclear in a new taxonomy

28th July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/government-abandons-plan-to-greenwash-nuclear-in-a-new-taxonomy/

Much to the delight of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, the UK Government has  abandoned the latest plan to introduce a new taxonomy for ‘green’ energy technologies. Why? Because, in the small print, Ministers wanted to include nuclear so the plan would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’ the industry.

The government recently published its response to a consultation conducted earlier this year by the Treasury. In the consultation, a taxonomy was described as ‘a classification tool which provides its users with a common framework to define which economic activities support climate, environmental or wider sustainability objectives.’ 

It should have been a mechanism to facilitate further investment in ‘green’ energy projects, but the proposal was in the NFLA’s view fatally flawed as in the small print the consultation document obliquely included nuclear.

28th July 2025

Government abandons plan to greenwash nuclear in a new taxonomy

Much to the delight of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, the UK Government has  abandoned the latest plan to introduce a new taxonomy for ‘green’ energy technologies. Why? Because, in the small print, Ministers wanted to include nuclear so the plan would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’ the industry.

The government recently published its response to a consultation conducted earlier this year by the Treasury. In the consultation, a taxonomy was described as ‘a classification tool which provides its users with a common framework to define which economic activities support climate, environmental or wider sustainability objectives.’ 

It should have been a mechanism to facilitate further investment in ‘green’ energy projects, but the proposal was in the NFLA’s view fatally flawed as in the small print the consultation document obliquely included nuclear.

The NFLAs opposed this plan and Dr Paul Dorfman, who kindly drafted our response, explained why: ‘The ‘UK Green Consultation’ document stated that, ‘Subject to stakeholder feedback on the value and use cases of a UK Green Taxonomy, the government proposes that nuclear energy will be classified as green in any future UK Green Taxonomy’ – a ‘horse and cart’ situation that brought into question the role, process and purpose of consultation, with all that has implications for trust in government.

Now Emma Reynolds MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, has stated that Ministers have abandoned the plan: ‘the government has concluded that a UK Taxonomy would not be the most effective tool to deliver the green transition and should not be part of our sustainable finance framework.’  Ms Reynolds claimed that ‘other policies were of higher priority to accelerate investment into the transition to Net Zero and limit greenwashing.’

The NFLAs support the aspiration to achieve Net Zero, but nuclear, as a technology associated with resource intensive activities, environmental damage and contamination, and a deadly legacy of radioactive waste, is in the NFLA’s view most certainly not ‘green’ and its inclusion would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’.

Dr Paul Dorfman succinctly expressed our relief at the government’s U-turn: ‘In this contest, it seems fair that Government has taken a considered step back and has made the right decision not to pursue this Taxonomy.’

The decision appeared to have a near immediate impact with Schroders Greencoat, which describes itself as ‘a specialist renewables infrastructure investor’, widely reported to have decided to withdraw as a prospective investor in Sizewell C. Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes said: “It’s welcome news that Schroders Greencoat won’t be investing in Sizewell C. Based on our dialogue with Schroders, we attribute this to the government deciding not to adopt a green taxonomy, which thankfully has the outcome that nuclear energy cannot be erroneously labelled ‘green’”.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s end goal is in sight, and so is his end.

Tarik Cyril Amar, 23 July 25, https://www.rt.com/news/621881-zelensky-wont-go-down-quietly/

The Ukrainian leader is not “turning” to authoritarianism – it has always been his goal, and when he has it, he won’t let go.

When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case.

It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine’s most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country’s presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections.

And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump’s White House. This is not surprising: Trump’s recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, “Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.”

And according to “knowledgeable officials in Washington” who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president “feet first” in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh’s confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia.

Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn’t mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries’ leaders is always an option.

Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington..

Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an authoritarian slide,” which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky. The Economist has detected an “outrage” in Zelensky’s moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization.

Full disclosure: Knowing Ukrainian and Russian – Ukraine’s two languages – well and having written about the realities of Zelensky’s misrule for years already, my immediate response to these sudden revelations is “what took you so long?” My first articles explaining Zelensky’s obvious authoritarian tendencies – and practices, too – date back to 2021, and I have repeatedly pointed out that his popularity was slipping. All it took was to pay attention to Ukrainian polling.

But then, I know the reason for the mainstream’s delay: The bias induced by Western information warfare and media career conformism, which only weakens a little – or is redirected – when the geopolitics of the powerful change. In that sense, the increasingly sharp public criticism of Zelensky is yet another sign that he has fallen – and remains – out of favor with the American leadership that rules the West.

Zelensky’s recent actions may well indicate, as Hersh also suspects, that he knows he is in great danger – and not from Russia but his “friends” in the West. Just over the course of the last two weeks, Zelensky has reshuffled his government and, at the same time, started a devastating campaign against institutions and individuals that have two things in common: the mission to combat corruption and a well-deserved reputation for being particularly open to US influence.

Indeed, it is when Zelensky escalated his attacks on the latter that the Financial Times woke up from years of sweet slumber to discover there’s something authoritarian about the West’s top man in Ukraine. By now, things have only gotten worse: The domestic intelligence – and, of course, repression – service SBU has raided key anti-corruption organizations and made arrests. Simultaneously, Zelensky’s absolutely obedient majority in the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law to completely neuter these institutions by putting them under the president’s control, which the president then signed rapidly. By now, Ukraine is witnessing widespread protests against Zelensky’s attempt to combine maximum greed with unfettered if petty despotism.

For the Ukrainian news site Strana.ua – a media rarity, as it has managed to resist the Zelensky regime’s aggressive attempts to subdue and streamline it – the SBU raids on the anti-corruption agencies alone were a powerplay, designed to consolidate Zelensky’s one-man rule. That is correct, and he wasn’t even done.

At the same time, it is, obviously, also very convenient to remove the last feeble restraints on Ukraine’s fabulously pervasive graft, since whatever the West – that is, the Europeans – will now spend on Ukraine will be misappropriated even more wildly than before. That could come in handy especially if there should be a need to stay rich in exile.

This gangster-economic aspect of Zelensky’s fresh power grab has not escaped even his Western friends: the OECD has already warned the Ukrainian regime that the stifling of the anti-corruption agencies will harm Western investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction in general and its arms industry in particular. Likewise, the International Renaissance Foundation, a Soros power structure that has been all too active in Ukraine for more than three decades now, has also called for a repeal of the new law.

In essence, these and similar Western complaints all mean the same: We know you are robbing us blind already but we’ve made our peace with that because you serve our geopolitics. But if you try to take an even larger cut, we may reconsider.

Taken together, Zelensky’s government reshuffle and his assault on the anti-corruption agencies seem to reflect a double strategy: On one side, the endangered puppet is signaling submission to the US in at least some of his recent personnel moves, but on the other, he is also consolidating his power at home by insulating it from too much direct American influence. It is as if he were sending a message to Washington: “I really am your man. But if you try to choose another, I’ll fight.”

The historic irony is that, with Zelensky succeeding in finally razing the last pitiful remnants of pluralism in Ukraine, he – the once hysterically idolized darling of the “value-based” West – will be the president achieving a complete authoritarianism like no Ukrainian leader before him. And all that while propped up with hundreds of billions from the West.

Any displays of surprise or shock by Ukrainian and Western politicians or mainstream media betray either that they have been dozing under a rock for years or that they are being disingenuous. Because today’s Zelensky is not “turning” to authoritarianism. On the contrary, authoritarianism has always been his default disposition and his aim. Zelensky has been working on his personal assent to unchecked power – and, of course, its material spoils as well – since he became Ukraine’s president. That means, long before the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (and behind and through it the West) escalated in early 2022.

How do we know? Because it was already obvious, including to many Ukrainians, by 2021 at the very latest. It was then that Zelensky’s Ukrainian critics – not Russians or those with sympathy for Russia – attacked him and his political party “Servant of the People” for erecting a “mono-vlada,” that is, in essence, an authoritarian political machine to control not only the state but the public sphere as well.

By 2021, Zelensky had already engaged in all of the following: vicious lawfare against Ukraine’s opposition and his personal political rivals, such as former president Petro Poroshenko; massive media censorship and streamlining, while targeting with repression and chicanery any outlets, editors, and journalists daring to resist, for instance Strana.ua; systematically and illegally abusing emergency powers and unaccountable but powerful institutions (most of all, the National Security Council) to stifle criticism; and, last but not least, the fostering of a dictatorial personality cult which was boosted by the West.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. Zelensky has steadily fastened his hold over Ukraine, while prolonging and losing an avoidable and catastrophic war for a Western strategy to demote Russia. Ukraine has been bled dry for a cynical and (predictably) failing Western scheme; Russia, meanwhile is not only winning but has greatly increased its autonomy from the West.

The war may end soon or it may drag on. For the sake of Ukraine we have to hope it will be over soon. Zelensky, if he were a decent man, would then have to hand himself over to postwar Ukrainian justice or be his own judge, the old-fashioned way. But Zelensky is no decent man. If rumors now swirling are not only plausible but truthful, then his masters in Washington may be the ones preparing an appropriately indecent end for him. If the protests against him accelerate, Zelensky may even end up “color-revolution-ed.” How ironic.

July 30, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | 1 Comment

French nuclear weapons, 2025

Bulletin, By Hans M. KristensenMatt KordaEliana JohnsMackenzie Knight-Boyle | July 15, 2025


France’s nuclear weapons stockpile has remained stable over the past decade and contains approximately 290 warheads for delivery by ballistic missile submarines and aircraft. Nearly all of France’s stockpiled warheads are deployed or operationally available for deployment on short notice. In addition, up to 80 warheads—the older TN75 warheads assumed to have been recently removed from the Le Vigilant submarine—are believed to be in the dismantlement queue and are likely no longer considered part of France’s stockpile.

The current force level is the result of adjustments made to France’s nuclear posture following former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s announcement on March 21, 2008, that the arsenal would be reduced to fewer than 300 warheads (Sarkozy 2008). As Sarkozy said in 2008, the 300-warhead stockpile is “half the maximum number of warheads [France] had during the Cold War” (Sarkozy 2008). By our estimate, the French warhead inventory peaked in 1991-1992 at around 540 warheads, and the size of today’s stockpile is about the same as it was in 1984, although the composition is significantly different.

President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed the Sarkozy formulation of “under 300 nuclear weapons” in a speech on February 7, 2020 (Élysée 2020) (see Table 1 –on original). Under President Macron, France has engaged in a long-term modernization and strengthening of its nuclear forces, which have included significant budget increases to the deterrent force in recent years (Assemblée Nationale 2024). It is possible but unclear if the decision to add another nuclear air base will increase the stockpile.

Research methodology and confidence

The analyses and estimates made in this Nuclear Notebook are derived from a combination of open sources: (1) state-originating data (e.g. government statements, declassified documents, budgetary information, and military operations and exercises); (2) non-state-originating data (e.g. media reports, think tank analyses, and industry publications); and (3) commercial satellite imagery. Because each of these sources provides different and limited information that is subject to varying degrees of uncertainty, we crosscheck each data point by using multiple sources and supplementing them with private conversations with officials whenever possible.

As a democracy with an active civil society and media landscape, it is possible to obtain relatively higher-quality information about France’s nuclear arsenal compared to many other nuclear-armed countries. France is one of only two countries (the other being the United States) that have publicly disclosed the size of their nuclear stockpile. French policy and military officials also offer regular statements on France’s nuclear doctrine and associated modernization programs.

Despite these positive steps, some challenges persist in obtaining reliable information about France’s nuclear arsenal. France’s freedom of information laws are more restrictive than in the United States and United Kingdom, and since 2008, a law initially designed to limit proliferation of French nuclear information has in practice been implemented on such a broad scale that it has restricted the ability of researchers and journalists to effectively analyze and disseminate data about discrete elements of France’s nuclear stockpile (Cooper 2022; Légifrance 2008). As a result, it is highly challenging to verify information presented by official sources, particularly as such statements rarely contain technical details………………………………………………….

……………………………………The role of French nuclear weapons

Successive heads of state, including Presidents Sarkozy, Hollande, and now Macron, have periodically described the role of French nuclear weapons. The Defense Ministry’s 2017 Defense and National Security Strategic Review reiterated that the nuclear doctrine is “strictly defensive,” and that using nuclear weapons “would only be conceivable in extreme circumstances of legitimate self-defense,” involving France’s vital interests. What exactly these “vital interests” are, however, remains unclear. During and after the Cold War, French leaders considered France’s “vital interests” to extend beyond its national boundaries; this discourse has been revived in earnest with the presidency of Emmanuel Macron. In February 2020, President Emmanuel Macron announced that France’s “vital interests now have a European dimension,” and sought to engage the European Union on the “role played by France’s nuclear deterrence in [its] collective security” (Élysée 2020).

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the heightened possibility of nuclear use in Europe, this discourse came under greater scrutiny and analysis. In October 2022, Macron clarified that France’s vital interests “would not be at stake if there was a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine or in the region,” apparently attempting to avoid being seen as expanding French nuclear doctrine (France TV 2022). Explicitly ruling out a nuclear role in case of Russian nuclear escalation in Ukraine appeared to contradict France’s statement at the August 2022 Review Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which explained that “for deterrence to work, the circumstances under which nuclear weapons would [or would not] be used are not, and should not be, precisely defined, so as not to enable a potential aggressor to calculate the risk inherent in a potential attack” (2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 2022).

The discussion around the role of France’s deterrent in Europe has intensified after the election of Donald Trump as US President, and even more so given the Trump administration’s open disdain for the United States’ European allies, overtures toward Russia, and threats to stop supporting Ukraine. While the broad contours of France’s nuclear posture will likely remain largely unchanged for the near future, how it is communicated and demonstrated appear to be evolving (Maitre 2025).

In addition to statements about France’s vital interests in Europe, Macron announced in March 2025 the addition of a nuclear air base at Luxeuil in eastern France, which will become the first base to house France’s new hypersonic nuclear cruise missile by 2035 (Élysée 2025). And when French jets (including Rafale jets from the nuclear base at Saint Dizier) deployed to northern Sweden in April 2025, France’s ambassador to Sweden explicitly stated: “As President Macron has said, it is of course the case that our French vital interests also include the interests of our allies. In that perspective, the nuclear umbrella also applies to our allies and of course Sweden is among them” (Granlund 2025)…………………….

………………..France does not have a no-first-use policy and reserves the right to conduct a “final warning” limited nuclear strike to signal to an adversary that they have crossed a line—or to signal the French resolve to conduct further nuclear strikes if necessary—in an attempt to “reestablish deterrence” (Élysée 2020; Tertrais 2020). Although France is a member of NATO, its nuclear forces are not part of the alliance’s integrated military command structure. …………………………..

……………………………………………………………………….. Command, control, and communication

France maintains strict and centralized control over its nuclear arsenal, with the president having sole and final authority as to the decision to use nuclear weapons. However, in practice, the implementation of such a decision would involve additional military personnel—namely the highest- and second-highest-ranking military officers: the Chef d’État-Major des Armées (CEMA) and the Chef de l’État-Major Particulier du Président de la République (CEMP), who is the president’s top military advisor.

Only one of those officials—the CEMA—is enshrined in the French defense code as the responsible official for ensuring that the president’s order is executed (Légifrance 2025). However, conflicting accounts appear to exist regarding the CEMP’s role, with testimony reportedly indicating that under previous administrations, the president and the CEMP each carried one half of the nuclear codes (Pelopidas 2019; Wellerstein 2019).

The primary command post for the president to transmit nuclear orders is called “Jupiter” and is located underneath the Élysée Palace ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Submarine-launched ballistic missiles

The French force of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) constitutes the backbone of the French nuclear deterrent. Under the command of the Strategic Ocean Force (Force Océanique Stratégique, or FOST), the French Navy (Marine Nationale) operates four Triomphant-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) equipped with nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missiles—Le Triomphant (hull number S616), Le Téméraire (S617), Le Vigilant (S618), and Le Terrible (S619)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Air-launched cruise missiles

The second leg of France’s nuclear arsenal consists of nuclear ASMPA (air-sol moyenne portée-amélioré) air-launched cruise missiles for delivery by fighter-bombers operated by the Strategic Air Forces and the Naval Nuclear Aviation Force………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The nuclear weapons complex

France’s nuclear weapons complex is managed by the Direction des Applications Militaires (DAM), a department within the Nuclear Energy Commission (Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies renouvelables, or CEA). DAM is responsible for research, design, manufacture, operational maintenance, and dismantlement of nuclear warheads………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-07/french-nuclear-weapons-2025/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=French%20nuclear%20arsenal%20today&utm_campaign=20250724%20Thursday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29

July 30, 2025 Posted by | France, weapons and war | Leave a comment

French submarine-maker targeted by hackers

Cyber attackers claim to have uncovered source code for submarine weapon systems.

 A French naval giant is investigating a potential cyber attack after
hackers claimed to have obtained sensitive data about the country’s
nuclear submarines. Naval Group, a state-owned ship maker that traces its
origins back almost 400 years to the reign of Louis XIII, said it had
“immediately launched technical investigations” after cyber criminals
threatened to publish files on the dark web.

 Telegraph 27th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/27/french-submarine-maker-targeted-by-hackers/

July 29, 2025 Posted by | France, safety | Leave a comment

The real story of Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history

The Chernobyl Sarcophagus Memorial sculpture was erected in 2006 and is dedicated to the memory of the heroic plant workers and emergency crew who prevented a global catastrophe .

28 July 25,https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-story-of-chernobyl-the-worst-nuclear-disaster-in-history

On 26th April 1986, a routine safety test went catastrophically wrong and triggered the worst nuclear accident of all time. The incident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near Pripyat, Ukraine led to the release of 400 times more radiation than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during WW2.

31 people died in the immediate aftermath, whilst the long-term health effects caused by Chernobyl are still a hotly debated subject. Approximately 60,000 square miles around the plant were contaminated and an area nearly twice the city of London remains an exclusion zone to this day.

Background of Chernobyl

Lying just 10 miles from the Belarus-Ukraine border and around 62 miles north of the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was commissioned in 1977 as part of the old Soviet Union, with the first reactor supplying power to the grid later that year. By 1984, four reactors had entered commercial operation, each capable of producing 1,000 megawatts of electrical power.

Just under two miles from the plant was the city of Pripyat, founded in 1970 and named after the nearby river. It was built to serve the power plant and at the time of the disaster, its total population was just shy of 50,000.

Nuclear disaster unfolds

Throughout Friday, 25th April 1986, Chernobyl’s engineers lowered power at Reactor No. 4 in preparation for a safety test to be conducted later that evening. The test was supposed to check whether the reactor turbines could continue powering emergency water coolant pumps in the event of a power failure.

Ironically, the safety test was anything but safe as human error and substandard reactor design led to a partial meltdown of the core.

The experiment was poorly conceived and equally badly executed. Firstly, the less-experienced night shift crew carried out the safety test and later claimed they had not received full instructions from the day shift crew on how to properly conduct it. Secondly, the emergency core cooling system for Reactor 4 was disabled along with the emergency shutdown system.

Finally, the reactor’s power level dropped to a dangerously unstable level at which point the engineers removed most of the control rods in violation of safety guidelines. Although power began to return, it was far from under control.

Explosion in Reactor 4

At 1:23am on 26th April, the safety test was given the all-clear by plant supervisors. Almost immediately a power surge occurred, triggering the engineers to re-insert all 211 control rods. The control rods were graphite tipped, a design flaw that would prove fatal as they increased the reaction in the core, instead of lowering it.

The subsequent steam explosions blew off the steel and concrete lid of the reactor as the core suffered a partial meltdown. Two engineers were killed instantly whilst two more suffered severe burns. The explosion, along with the resulting fires, released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere. Blown by the wind, radioactive materials were spread to many parts of Europe over the coming days.

Emergency response begins

Firefighters quickly arrived on the scene but without proper protective clothing, many perished in the coming months from acute radiation syndrome. By dawn, all the fires were suppressed except for the one in the reactor core.

The other three reactors were shut down a short while later. The following day officials ordered helicopters to begin dumping more than 5,000 tonnes of sand, lead, clay, and boron onto the burning reactor to help extinguish the core fire.

A Soviet cover-up

It took nearly 36 hours for Soviet officials to begin evacuating nearby Pripyat. The city’s residents were unaware of the true dangers presented by the previous day’s events. Advised to pack only necessities, the people of Pripyat were loaded onto buses believing their evacuation to be temporary. Little did they know, they would never return to their homes again.

Two days after the catastrophic explosion the rest of the world remained in the dark as the Soviets attempted to cover up the event. However, on 28th April, Swedish radiation monitoring stations 800 miles away began detecting high levels of radiation. With their backs to the wall, the Soviets finally made a statement, with the Kremlin admitting an accident had occurred at Chernobyl, but assuring the world that officials had it under control.

Heroism on display

In the days that followed, hundreds of workers risked their lives to contain radiation leaking from the reactor core.

On 4th May, three divers made their way through the dark flooded basement of Reactor 4 to turn valves and drain the ‘bubbler pools’ sitting below the core. Had they not succeeded in their mission, molten nuclear material would have eventually melted its way down to the pools.

This would have triggered a radiation-contaminated steam explosion and destroyed the entire plant along with its three other reactors, causing unimaginable damage and nuclear fallout that the world would have struggled to recover from.

Radioactive debris also needed to be removed from the roof of the reactor. After robots failed to do the job, workers equipped with heavy protective gear were sent in.

Nicknamed ‘Bio-robots’, these workers were unable to spend more than 90 seconds on the roof due to the extreme levels of radiation. In the end, 5,000 men went up on the irradiated rooftop to successfully clear the radioactive material from it.

Clean-up commences

By mid-May, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had ordered thousands of firefighters, miners, and soldiers to begin the long and arduous task of cleaning up. Known as ‘Liquidators’, 600,000 – 800,000 of them began burying radioactive debris and topsoil, as well as shooting all wildlife (both domestic and wild) within the 19-mile exclusion zone surrounding the power plant.

Nicknamed ‘Bio-robots’, these workers were unable to spend more than 90 seconds on the roof due to the extreme levels of radiation. In the end, 5,000 men went up on the irradiated rooftop to successfully clear the radioactive material from it.

Clean-up commences

By mid-May, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had ordered thousands of firefighters, miners, and soldiers to begin the long and arduous task of cleaning up. Known as ‘Liquidators’, 600,000 – 800,000 of them began burying radioactive debris and topsoil, as well as shooting all wildlife (both domestic and wild) within the 19-mile exclusion zone surrounding the power plant.

Aftermath

The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone was eventually extended to cover approximately 1,000 square miles, whereby it was declared uninhabitable for over 20,000 years. The other three reactors at Chernobyl remained active until their individual shutdowns in 1991, 1996, and 2000. Gorbachev later wrote that he believed the incident at Chernobyl was the ‘real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union’.

Whilst the lasting health effects of the disaster remain unclear and much debated, various sources have estimated that thousands of cancer deaths can be linked back to Chernobyl.

July 29, 2025 Posted by | incidents, Reference, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Greenpeace hails Italian court ruling allowing climate case against energy company Eni to continue

 Italy’s highest court has ruled that a lawsuit brought by climate
activists against Italian energy company Eni and its government
shareholders can go ahead, in what Greenpeace said on Tuesday was a victory
for efforts to pursue climate justice in Italy.

In an ordinance released on
Monday, the Court of Cassation rejected the company’s motions to dismiss
the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds and ordered the case to be heard on
its merits by a Rome tribunal. Eni said that it was greatly satisfied with
the decision, and said it expected that the Rome court would ultimately
“dismantle” the climate activists’ claims of responsibility.

 Yahoo News 22nd July 2025, https://uk.news.yahoo.com/greenpeace-hails-italy-court-ruling-130205151.html

July 29, 2025 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

The Kyshtym disaster: Russia’s hidden nuclear crisis

The Kyshtym disaster in 1957 was the Soviet Union’s biggest nuclear crisis until Chernobyl. So, why did the Soviets keep quiet about the former for decades?

28 July 25, https://www.history.co.uk/articles/kyshtym-disaster-russia-hidden-nuclear-crisis

What would be considered the worst nuclear disaster in history? Many scholars would say Chernobyl, when an explosion at a nuclear power plant in northern Ukraine released dangerous levels of radiation.

This was on 26th April 1986, when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union. Was Chernobyl inevitable? Many historians do believe that Soviet authorities failed to learn lessons from an earlier nuclear crisis on their own soil. Below, we at Sky HISTORY look back at the 1957 Kyshtym disaster — and how the Soviets kept it under wraps for decades.

Was there really a nuclear plant in Kyshtym?

The nuclear plant at the heart of the Kyshtym disaster was not actually in the Russian town of that name. Instead, it was in a secretive ‘closed city’ nearby, called Chelyabinsk-40. Today, it is called Ozyorsk. (Both Kyshtym and Ozyorsk are in Russia’s Chelyabinsk Oblast.)

In the 1940s, the Soviets realised that they were trailing the United States in the development of nuclear weapons. To help themselves catch up, they hastily built what is now commonly known as the Mayak nuclear plant.

This facility, which still stands today, was tasked with processing plutonium needed to make nuclear weapons. However, because the plant was assembled in a rush, many safety risks of the project were not considered sufficiently.

The Kyshtym explosion and its immediate aftermath

Before the Kyshtym disaster, it was routine for Mayak workers to deposit radioactive waste into the Techa River. This bode ill (literally) for villagers along the river who used it as a source of drinking water.

So, Mayak staff later decided to store such waste in an underground storage compartment of the plant itself. This space comprised 14 stainless steel containers attached to a concrete base.

However, in the 1950s, the cooling system in one of these tanks started to malfunction. This led the waste in the container to heat up and eventually, on 29th September 1957, explode. The force sent 20 curies of radioactive material flying a kilometre into the air.

The wind blew the radioactive particles over an area of about 20,000 square kilometres inhabited by approximately 270,000 people. This was generally to the northeast, away from Chelyabinsk-40, which lay upwind from the Mayak plant.

How did authorities initially react?

Residents of nearby areas were not initially notified of what had happened. This was largely due to the Soviet Union’s strong culture of secrecy during the Cold War. The national government didn’t want to let slip that Mayak even existed, let alone that a nuclear explosion had happened there.

It was also around the same time that the Soviet Union launched its Sputnik satellite, a big PR coup. Admitting responsibility for what was the world’s biggest nuclear disaster to date would have been more than an inconvenient fly in the ointment.

Still, the Soviets also knew that doing what they could to limit the radioactive contamination would go some way towards keeping everyone in the dark. So, while about 10,000 local residents were evacuated over the next two years, they weren’t told exactly why.

A cover-up lasting for decades

Almost 17,000 hectares of the contaminated area was turned into East Ural Nature Reserve in 1968. Members of the public were barred from entry, which remains the case to this day. Scientists have studied the reserve to monitor the long-term effects of nuclear radiation on its ecology.

The Kyshtym disaster was kept secret from the public until 1976, when Soviet dissident Zhores Medvedev reported about it in New Scientist magazine. However, the Soviet government still did not openly acknowledge the Kyshtym disaster before accidentally revealing it to the United Nations in the late 1980s.

It is estimated that thousands of cancer cases may have resulted from exposure to radiation caused by the nuclear explosion way back in 1957.

How does Kyshtym compare to Chernobyl?

On the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), Kyshtym is classified as Level 6. Chernobyl, an even bigger catastrophe, is ranked just one level higher (Level 7) on the INES. Kyshtym released about 40% as much radioactivity as Chernobyl.

Chernobyl is thought to have affected a larger population, too, as 335,000 people were evacuated in the wake of the 1986 disaster. Also, while Chernobyl quickly claimed 31 lives, none were lost in the immediate aftermath of Kyshtym.

July 28, 2025 Posted by | history, incidents, Reference, Russia | Leave a comment

 ‘A heroic endeavour’: Sizewell C’s £38bn plan to keep the lights on

 As construction finally starts how will this megaproject be built, can
it avoid the pitfalls of previous nuclear plants, and is it worth the
money?

Hinkley Point is overdue and over budget, while the EPR has been
plagued by problems in other countries where it has been built. Small
wonder, then, that some have asked whether replicating Hinkley is a good
idea.

Julia Pyke is here to tell people that copying Hinkley is exactly
what we should be doing. “It’s better to build the thing you know how
to build because … it will be cheaper.” Hinkley has helped build up a
nuclear workforce that was in decline. Pyke recalled the first batch of
university interns at Sizewell C. “The majority of them literally
didn’t know that the UK had a nuclear industry. It had been that
quiet,” she said.

The deal struck last week will see the government take
a 45 per cent stake, with Canadian pension fund La Caisse holding 20 per
cent, British Gas owner Centrica 15 per cent, EDF 12.5 per cent, and Amber
Infrastructure the remaining 7.6 per cent.

The gargantuan cost will be 65
per cent funded by debt, and 35 per cent by equity. The government has
pencilled in a total cost of £55 billion for contingency and inflation
over the lifetime of the plant. Last week there was much noise around the
fact that Sizewell’s price tag had ballooned from an estimate of £20
billion, in 2015 money. The new figure accounts for inflation and “some
cost increase”, according to Pyke. One big difference between Hinkley and
Sizewell, she argued, is that the design is now better understood and
contracts will be tighter. Many of Hinkley’s overruns were blamed on
“cost-plus” contracts that allowed suppliers to ratchet up their bills.
Pyke pointed to a recent deal for civil engineering at Sizewell: “It’s
a contract which, roughly speaking, pays the contractors the actual cost of
doing a day’s work. And it aligns profit to achieved milestones. So
they’re not incentivised to run the job long.”

In any case, Pyke argued, talk of cost misses the point. Sizewell C will ultimately be an
asset for the taxpayer. And the project will pay billions in tax over its
lifespan. “The cost is an investment for society because it’s going to
give us energy security and lower bills, as well as pay tax … it has much
wider societal benefits.”

Alison Downes, executive director of the Stop
Sizewell C campaign, said that as a group, they had always tried to
emphasise the wider problems with the project, beyond their self-interest.
“One former EDF chief executive described the EPR design as too
complicated — almost unbuildable,” she said. “The long delays at EPRs
elsewhere in the world, the massive cost overruns, suggest that this
project will be very difficult to build. And the Sizewell site is complex.
Any savings are likely to be frittered away in more complicated
groundworks.”

 Times 26th July 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/sizewell-c-38bn-plan-to-keep-the-lights-on-ndszrldwd

July 28, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

SNP slam ‘toxic’ Sizewell-C costs for Scottish energy bills.

 THE SNP have demanded Scots are not forced to pay for “toxic” overspending
on the Sizewell-C budget. Prior to the summer recess, Energy Secretary Ed
Miliband quietly revealed that energy bills in Scotland will rise as a
result of a significant budget increase on the project – doubling in cost
to £38 billion with further revelations a loan facility of up to £36.6bn
will be provided, pushing the upper limit to £47.7bn.

Sizewell-C now becomes more costly than Hinkley Point C, the most expensive nuclear power
plant in the world.

Independent analysis from the House of Commons Library
confirmed that Scots will pay at least £300 million extra on energy bills
now to cover the overspend, with Miliband admitting there will be a
decade-long “nuclear tax” on bills north of the border.

SNP Energy spokesperson, Graham Leadbitter MP, said: “This toxic overspend now totals
£48bn and Anas Sarwar has serious questions to answer as to whether he
thinks it’s acceptable for Scots to foot the bill through higher energy
bills. “It is an absolute disgrace that energy rich Scotland will see
Scots face higher energy bills because of a nuclear plant running over
budget in Labour-run England.” With 2.5m households in Scotland, Miliband
forecasted that bill payers will pay an extra £12 per year to cover the
power plant, though experts have warned that figure is likely a minimum
with costs expected to rise further.

 The National 27th July 2025 – https://www.thenational.scot/news/25342880.snp-slam-toxic-sizewell-c-costs-scottish-energy-bills/

July 28, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The next Chernobyl? Soviet-era nuclear power plant is branded a ‘ticking time bomb’ that could go off at ‘any moment’

 A Soviet-era nuclear power plant in an earthquake zone has been branded
‘Chernobyl in waiting’ and a ‘ticking time bomb’ amid fears of a looming
disaster. The Armenian Nuclear Power Plant was opened in 1976 and comprises
two reactors, reportedly supplying the nation with 40 per cent of its
electricity. But it stands in a seismic zone, and has already been
shuttered once before, closing for six years after the Spitak Earthquake in
1988.

 Daily Mail 25th July 2025,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14939915/Chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-ticking-time-bomb.html

July 28, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, safety | Leave a comment

Ed Miliband put up your energy bills (for Sizewell nuclear)– and hoped you wouldn’t notice

 Miliband took the last day of term before MPs knocked off for a
six-week-long holiday – sorry, I mean “working in the constituency”
– to let slip that he was putting up your energy bills. This is to pay
for the ballooning cost of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk.
Incidentally, another thing that the Energy Secretary let out the bag on
Tuesday was that the cost of this had almost doubled to £38 billion.

That is regrettable but Miliband did not want us to get too down about it. The
UK Government expects that it will be “limited to an average of around
£1 a month on a typical household bill”. Given the way that energy bills
have gone in recent years, I doubt that anyone feels anything less than
seething resentment at paying even another penny.

 The National 25th July 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25342653.ed-miliband-put-energy-bills—hoped-wouldnt-notice/

July 28, 2025 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment