Sen. Lindsey Graham’s structural path: Let Ukrainians do all the dying in support of US proxy war against Russia
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 22 Mar 24
Early in the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, Senator Lindsey Graham gloried in America’s use of Ukrainian soldiers to do all the dying. “I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person.” Anybody but US cannon fodder was just fine for the armchair warrior from South Carolina.
Two years later, with over 400,000 of those hapless Ukrainian soldiers dead from Sen. Graham’s exhortations to die for American exceptionalism, Graham remains unbowed.
During his recent visit to Kyiv, he demanded Ukraine pass a new mobilization law to draft younger cannon fodder to send into the chopper mill of a lost war. Graham is miffed Ukraine draft laws exempt men under 27. “I would hope that those eligible to serve in the Ukrainian military would join. I can’t believe it’s at 27. You’re in a fight for your life, so you should be serving — not at 25 or 27. We need more people in the line. No matter what we do, you should be fighting.”
Graham remains unconcerned he supported US provocations which led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He’s in denial of his acquiescence in the effort to prevent a negotiated settlement early on that would have preserved Ukraine territory. Now he’s telling Ukraine to send its young men to fill the ranks of the 400,000 dead Ukrainians he exalted to die for US exceptionalism.
It would take a psychiatrist, maybe a team of psychiatrists, to determine the pathology in in Graham’s psyche that leads him to promote mass slaughter of foreigners to prop up American’s collapsing control of European geopolitics. But good luck trying to get the Senior Senator from South Carolina to lie on the couch. His focus remains: ‘So many Ukrainians yet to die…so little time.”
It’s Journalistic Malpractice To Say Gazans Are Starving Without Saying Israel Is Starving Them
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAR 19, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/its-journalistic-malpractice-to-say?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=142753938&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The mass media are printing some amazingly depraved headlines about a new UN-backed report on starvation in Gaza from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, who says half the enclave’s population is now at the highest-possible threat level for starvation.
The mass media are printing some amazingly depraved headlines about a new UN-backed report on starvation in Gaza from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, who says half the enclave’s population is now at the highest-possible threat level for starvation.
At a time when only 20 percent of news readers ever make it past the headline of a given story, this is an extremely destructive and propagandistic act of journalistic malpractice. The editors of The New York Times know exactly what they’re doing packaging a story about Israel’s deliberate starvation of Palestinian civilians like it’s a troubling prediction about the weather.
Contrast the New York Times’ headline with that of Al Jazeera’s report on the same story: “Gaza headed towards famine amid Israeli aid curbs: What to know”. That’s the normal way to present a story about a deliberately inflicted famine upon an imperiled population. If a population was being deliberately starved by siege warfare from a nation like Russia, China or Iran, we may be absolutely certain that the name of that nation would appear in the headline.
But because the western media exist to generate propaganda and not to report the news, we get headlines like “Gaza faces famine during Ramadan, the holy month of fasting” from the BBC, and “Famine in northern Gaza is imminent as more than 1 million people face ‘catastrophic’ levels of hunger, new report warns” from CNN, and “Famine imminent in northern Gaza, says UN-backed report” from Reuters, and “‘Catastrophic levels of hunger’ in Gaza mean famine is imminent, says aid coalition” from The Guardian.
We saw this with Saudi Arabia’s US-backed starvation of Yemen as well. When the mass media talked about Yemen at all (usually they just ignored it), editors consistently obfuscated the fact that this was a population being deliberately starved by a cruel blockade and the deliberate targeting of food infrastructure. The fact that it was being made possible by the United States was almost never mentioned.
This is a very good example of how western propaganda works, by the way. The mainstream western press don’t generally make up whole-cloth lies (though they will uncritically print claims made by western government agencies who have an extensive history of lying); what they do is rely on half-truths, distortions and lies by omission to give their audiences a wildly slanted picture of what’s going on in the world. By always going out of their way to tell you an enemy of the US-centralized empire is committing an atrocity the millisecond it looks like they might be, while being furtive and obfuscatory about the crimes of the US and its allies, they give their audience a skewed understanding of who is and is not committing the real evils in our world.
This doesn’t typically happen as a result of any grand monolithic conspiracy; it’s mostly just the natural consequence of having all the major news platforms controlled by wealthy and powerful people who each have a vested interest in manufacturing consent for the status quo upon which their wealth and power are premised. The oligarchs control the media, and they hire the executives who run the media, and the executives hire the editors who write the headlines and guide the reporters to report a certain way, and this gives rise to a system where everyone working for the outlet conducts themselves in a way that just so happens to suit the powerful people on top.
Then before you know it you’ve got editors at The New York Times — a paper that’s been published by the same family for over a century — packaging a story about starvation caused by an Israeli siege to look like it’s a story about an innocent crop failure. Odds are nobody told them to do that; they just learned over the years that that’s how you rise to the top in an outlet like The New York Times.
Heavy resistance to Canada’s 1st nuclear waste repository, while Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) says it is safe.
Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) reaffirms safety of Canada’s 1st nuclear waste repository but there’s still heavy pushback
Preferred site, in either southern or northwestern Ontario, to be chosen by year’s end
Sarah Law · CBC News Mar 18, 2024
The body tasked with selecting the future storage site for Canada’s nuclear waste has reaffirmed its confidence in the project’s safety, but others remain concerned about the potential risks of burying spent nuclear fuel hundreds of metres below the earth’s surface.
By the end of this year, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is expected to decide on its preferred site for the country’s first deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel.
The potential locations are:
- The Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area, about 250 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay.
- The Saugeen Ojibway Nation-South Bruce area in southern Ontario, about 130 kilometres northwest of London.
Earlier this month, the NWMO released updated “Confidence in Safety” reports, which say both sites are suitable for the safe, long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
However, We the Nuclear Free North and the First Nations Land Defence Alliance, for example, remain concerned about what’s known as the Revell site in northwestern Ontario.
The alliance issued a letter to NWMO president and CEO Laurie Swami on March 5, saying: “Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace. We call on you to respect our decision.”
……. “They’re both good sites. We think that both of the sites would be safe,” said Paul Gierszewski, technical subject matter expert with the NWMO and lead author of the “Confidence in Safety” reports.
Brennain Lloyd is project co-ordinator with Northwatch, which is part of We the Nuclear Free North. Members of the organization feel less confident about the project’s safety, she said.
“I think this newest report from the NWMO tries to put the best face possible on a project which is absolutely loaded with risk and uncertainty, and uses a lot of language that’s difficult for the public, for non-technical leaders to work through,” Lloyd said.
“There are no resources available in any part of this process for the public to be able to get technical assistance from independent third-party peer reviewers.
While Gierszewski says the 2023 reports expand on the previous year’s findings, Lloyd questions whether they contain new information or airbrushed statements that “paint a better picture.” …………………………………
Demand for in-person meetings
Chief Rudy Turtle of Grassy Narrows First Nation, 250 kilometres northwest of Ignace, said no one from the NWMO has met with him in person to discuss the proposed nuclear waste site.
Grassy Narrows has a particular interest in which Ontario site is chose, given the First Nation’s experiences dealing with contaminated fish in the 1960s and ’70s. Mercury from a Dryden pulp and paper mill was dumped into the English Wabigoon River, upstream from the First Nation. Research indicates past mercury exposure continues to impact the health of people in the community.
In the case of a nuclear waste repository, Turtle said, “Should there be any leak or if the containment fails, there is the possibility that [toxic chemicals] can leak downriver again.”
Turtle would like to see a series of in-person meetings so people can better understand the safety measures being proposed and the potential risks………………………………………..
Chief Michele Solomon of Fort William First Nation said it is unlikely her community’s position against the site will change.
Band council passed a resolution last September calling for the Ontario government to adopt the proximity principle, which means nuclear waste would be stored at the point of generation and not transported elsewhere.
“Anything that has the potential to get into our waterway that would cause harm to the fish or to the animals or to our people … we take that very seriously,” Solomon said.
………………………………………………. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/nuclear-waste-repository-safety-reports-1.7145240
—
US Air Force tests very expensive third-stage rocket motor for next nuclear missile
The U.S. Air Force and two main contractors on the LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program on Saturday tested the solid-rocket motor that will power the nuclear weapon’s third stage.
The test, which also involved Northrop Grumman and Aerojet Rocketdyne, took place in a closed chamber at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex in Tennessee. It followed static fire tests of the first and second stages’ rocket motors in March 2023 and January 2024, respectively.
This third stage that was tested is the smallest of Sentinel’s three-stage propulsion system. The Air Force did not offer further details about the test, nor did it identify whether the event was successful.
“This test is the latest in our ground and flight test program and is designed to help us refine Sentinel’s air vehicle design,” Maj. Gen. John Newberry, commander of the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center and the service’s program executive officer for strategic systems. “It demonstrates the progress the Air Force is making on modernizing our nation’s strategic land-based nuclear deterrent.”
The Sentinel program is intended to replace the aging LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM, which has been a key part of the United States’ nuclear triad since the Cold War. The Air Force now has roughly 400 Minuteman III weapons in silos spread out across Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado and Nebraska…………………………………………..
The price tag for the Sentinel program has spiked enough to trigger a cost overrun process known as a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Top Air Force leaders have pinned the bulk of the cost growth on its highly complex command and launch segment, which involves securing real estate from hundreds of landowners across the Midwest, building more than 400 launch facilities and 7,500 miles of utility corridors, and laying thousands of miles of fiber-optic networks…………………https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2024/03/20/us-air-force-tests-third-stage-rocket-motor-for-next-nuclear-missile/—
Canada to expedite approval of new nuclear projects, energy minister says
Reuters, By Steve Scherer and Rod Nickel, March 1, 2024
OTTAWA, Feb 29 (Reuters) – Canada will expedite the approval process for new nuclear projects, but will not exclude them from the federal environmental review as requested by the province of Ontario, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said.
All new major projects in Canada, including nuclear reactors, have to be reviewed under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), which the government has promised to revise this spring after the Supreme Court last year ruled it overstepped into provincial jurisdiction.
Wilkinson said the legislative revisions to the IAA will be limited to addressing the concerns of the court because if the government does more than that, it would “have to open up large scale consultations that will take significant time.”
“That being said, we do have some ideas that as to how we can make the process more efficient and respond to the thoughts and aspirations of the provinces,” Wilkinson told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday, adding that accelerating the process will not come at the cost of addressing environmental concerns.
Canada is the world’s second-largest uranium producer, but the long regulatory process has resulted in miners like NexGen Energy having to wait seven years and counting to build the world’s largest uranium mine in Saskatchewan.
“It’s a very long process,” said NexGen CEO Leigh Curyer. “Government and industry working together to bring these projects online more expeditiously, that is absolutely key.”……………………..
Nuclear expansion faces opposition, however, over charges it already doesn’t adequately review risks.
The Sierra Club environmental group opposes development of nuclear fuels because of dangerous waste, high cost and links to weapons, said Sierra’s Canada programs director Gretchen Fitzgerald.
“Canada again and again has failed to create valid environmental assessment processes and arms-length regulation of the nuclear power industry – leaving communities at risk,” Fitzgerald said………………………………
OLD SITES VS NEW ONES
Last month, Ontario said would start work to refurbish aging nuclear reactors at Pickering, located about 45 km (28 miles) east of Toronto, to extend production by 30 years…………………………………………………………..
Ontario is developing what could be the first operating small modular reactor (SMR) in the Western world by the end of the decade, a technology that many countries are looking at as a way of replacing coal-fired plants, Wilkinson said.
Wilkinson said SMRs are “sort of carbon copies of each other” and so should not require repetitive engineering assessments.
The government is also reviewing its entire regulatory process to approve large industrial projects including nuclear by eliminating overlaps between the provincial and federal assessments, he said. The details of that review, which will have a particular impact on mining, will be released in the next few months, Wilkinson said……….https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canada-expedite-approval-new-nuclear-projects-energy-minister-says-2024-02-29/
New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau nuclear plant ranked as poor performer among international peers
Consultant ranks Lepreau in ‘bottom quartile’ in multiple performance categories
Robert Jones · CBC News · Mar 20, 2024
Since 2014 the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station has been one of the poorest-performing reactors among dozens of similar facilities in five countries, a pair of unflinching reports commissioned by N.B. Power about the troubled plant suggest.
The U.S.-based energy consulting firm ScottMadden found N.B. Power spent less on upkeep at Lepreau since it completed a major refurbishment in 2012 than owners of more reliable reactors, and they provided evidence that Lepreau’s troubles may be connected to a failure to invest enough on maintenance.
The reports also suggest Lepreau’s performance may worsen in future years if amounts spent on keeping ahead of trouble are not increased significantly………………………………………………………..
Lepreau, originally commissioned in 1983, had a disappointing production record in its first 25 operational years that has continued over the last decade, despite a major overhaul of its reactor and nuclear components between 2008 and 2012.
In the 11 years from 2013 and 2023, Lepreau suffered 400 more days of downtime than originally projected, costing the utility up to $1 billion in lost production and repair costs that have been battering the utility’s finances…………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-point-lepreau-poor-1.7148879
How Biden’s budget plunged the Aukus submarines pact into doubt
Alarm in Australia as the US suddenly struggles to fortify its own fleet
Matt Oliver, INDUSTRY EDITOR, 18 March 2024
A year on from the trio’s meeting, the Aukus partnership is suddenly
looking decidedly more fragile. Inside defence circles, there are growing
doubts about America’s ability and willingness to deliver following a
shock proposal from the Biden administration that cuts to the heart of the
deal.
Amid a row at home over government budgets, the White House this
month suggested halving the number of Virginia-class submarines it builds
next year – the very same type it has promised to Australia under Aukus.
That means the US faces a shortfall itself, raising the prospect it may
refuse to sell its existing vessels and leave Canberra in the lurch.
Telegraph 18th March 2024
Musk’s SpaceX is building spy satellite network for US intelligence agency, sources say
By Joey Roulette and Marisa Taylor, March 17, 2024
WASHINGTON, March 16 (Reuters) – SpaceX is building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with a U.S. intelligence agency, five sources familiar with the program said, demonstrating deepening ties between billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s space company and national security agencies.
The network is being built by SpaceX’s Starshield business unit under a $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency that manages spy satellites, the sources said.
The contract signals growing trust by the intelligence establishment of a company whose owner has clashed with the Biden administration and sparked controversy, opens new tab over the use of Starlink satellite connectivity in the Ukraine war, the sources said.
The Wall Street Journal reported, opens new tab in February the existence of a $1.8 billion classified Starshield contract with an unknown intelligence agency without detailing the purposes of the program.
Reuters reporting discloses for the first time that the SpaceX contract is for a powerful new spy system with hundreds of satellites bearing Earth-imaging capabilities that can operate as a swarm in low orbits, and that the spy agency that Musk’s company is working with is the NRO.
Reuters was unable to determine when the new network of satellites would come online and could not establish what other companies are part of the program with their own contracts.
SpaceX, the world’s largest satellite operator, did not respond to several requests for comment about the contract, its role in it and details on satellite launches. The Pentagon referred a request for comment to the NRO and SpaceX.
In a statement the NRO acknowledged its mission to develop a sophisticated satellite system and its partnerships with other government agencies, companies, research institutions and nations, but declined to comment on Reuters’ findings about the extent of SpaceX’s involvement in the effort…………………………………………..
Decision time Democrats: Oppose Biden’s genocide in Gaza or tacitly support it
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 15 Mar 24
Decision time Democrats: Oppose Biden’s genocide in Gaza or tacitly support it
The verdict of history will condemn President Biden to eternity for enabling Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza. Over half (56%) of his 81 million voters in 2020 recognize this ghoulish truth and are abandoning him with their respect and possibly their vote November 5.
But that leaves roughly 37 million Biden voters who have turned away from Biden’s genocidal policies to continue total support in this election season. They have scrubbed any references to Gaza, Palestinians or genocide from their support. They go further and criticize any Democrat who does, even hurling scurrilous insults that critics are in sync with Trump and aiding Trump’s reelection.
While destroying life for 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza, Biden has destroyed his soul and legacy with the worst murderous policy any leader could engage in. At 81 and in declining mental and physical health, it may be too late to expect a Biden epiphany to abandon genocidal aid to Netanyahu’s Likud Party.
But it’s not too late for genocidal Biden’s unthinking supporters to pivot to peace. If so, they would not only join the Democratic voting majority and most of the civilized world in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, they would be reclaiming their moral legacy as well.
The U.S. Is Betting Big on Small Nuclear Reactors (done up with green paint)
Oil Price, By Felicity Bradstock – Mar 14, 2024,
- After decades of decline, the U.S. is significantly increasing its investment in nuclear energy to address climate change and strengthen energy security.
- The recently passed Atomic Energy Advancement Act simplifies approval processes for novel reactor designs, aiming to expedite the development of new nuclear power plants.
………. The U.S. is set to accelerate the rollout of new nuclear power plants and reactors following the passing of new legislation this month. This follows a movement away from nuclear power for several decades due to the poor political and public perception of nuclear power due to several notable nuclear disasters………………..
This month, the House approved legislation aimed at developing U.S. nuclear power capacity in the coming years, with a vote of 365 to 36. The Atomic Energy Advancement Act was widely approved by both the Democrat and Republican parties ………
……………………………..The law will see that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) streamlines its processes for the approval of new reactor designs, and will increase hiring at the commission, reduce fees for applicants, establish financial prizes for novel types of reactors, and encourage the development of nuclear power at the sites of retiring coal plants. The legislation is expected to support the greatest development of U.S. nuclear power of this generation. ……………………………..
The Biden administration has repeatedly demonstrated its support for nuclear power by passing laws and approving funding to keep existing nuclear projects afloat. Two policies, passed in 2021 and 2022, provided the funding needed to save 22 reactors, with further investment being rolled out this year. This financing is expected to keep the existing U.S. nuclear reactor fleet online until at least 2032, by which time the government hopes greater investment will be being made into new nuclear projects. The policies also provide funding for research and development into the next generation of modular, more flexible nuclear plants
The passing of the Atomic Energy Advancement Act is expected to speed up the deployment of new nuclear energy technology, supported by previous Biden administration policies that provide greater investment to the sector. While strict safety regulations must be upheld, the government is putting pressure on the NRC to modernize and approve innovative reactor designs to allow for new nuclear energy capacity to be rolled out …. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-US-Is-Betting-Big-on-Small-Nuclear-Reactors.html
Northwestern Ontario First Nations Chiefs Unite Against Nuclear Waste Proposal
By NNL Digital News Update, March 14, 2024
Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug – Environment – Leaders from five First Nations communities in Northwestern Ontario have voiced a resolute opposition to the prospect of nuclear waste storage within their territories.
In a concerted message to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), these chiefs have articulated a clear rejection of any plans to introduce nuclear waste facilities into the region.
A Firm Stand on Environmental Protection
The stance against nuclear waste storage is captured in a letter addressed to Laurie Swami, President and CEO of the NWMO, an industry-funded body tasked with managing Canada’s nuclear waste. The letter outlines grave concerns about the potential for spills or leaks that could irreversibly harm the environment, disrupt the natural way of life, and have lasting impacts on future generations.
Letter to Nuclear Waste Management Organization
Signed by chiefs from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Asubpeeschoseewagong (Grassy Narrows), Wapekeka, Neskantaga, and Onigaming, the letter embodies the collective apprehension of these communities.
These leaders, forming part of the First Nations Land Defence Alliance, are standing firm in their resolve to protect their lands and waters from the risks posed by nuclear waste.
Concerns Over Potential Environmental Impact Chief Donny Morris of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug highlighted the risks associated with disturbing the Canadian Shield rock to construct an underground storage facility.
Morris emphasized the importance of environmental preservation over financial compensation and stressed the right of all regional First Nations to be involved in the consultation process.
Calls for Consideration of Alternative Sites In a pointed critique of the proposed locations for the nuclear waste repository, Steven Chapman, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug’s lands and environment director, suggested that such facilities should first be considered in areas closer to Canada’s political centers, such as Toronto or Ottawa.
This suggestion underscores a broader call for equity and responsibility in the siting of facilities that pose environmental risks.
The NWMO has narrowed its search to two potential sites, one near Ignace and another in Southern Ontario, with a final decision expected later this year. The chiefs’ letter firmly states their lack of consultation and consent, urging the NWMO to respect their collective decision against the proposed site near Ignace.
Chiefs in the Ottawa region have also rejected the plans to store nuclear waste in their traditional territories.
As these communities stand united in their opposition, the debate over nuclear waste management in Canada continues to raise important questions about environmental stewardship, indigenous rights, and the principles of equitable decision-making in the context of national infrastructure projects.
Text of the Letter Written by Chiefs………………………………… https://www.netnewsledger.com/2024/03/14/northwestern-ontario-first-nations-chiefs-unite-against-nuclear-waste-proposal/
War Games in Arctic: What’s Driving the West’s New Passion?
“Now, that Finland and Sweden are becoming active NATO members, this opens the possibility for the US to deploy nuclear weapons in the Far North.”
“because of the Arctic’s sparsely located population, collateral damage from the use of nuclear weapons there will be less noticeable.”
Bruce K. Gagnon , MARCH 15, 2024 https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2024/03/war-games-in-arctic-whats-driving-wests.html
Two unprecedented military exercises are being conducted by the US and its NATO allies simultaneously in various parts of the Arctic, signaling a new aggressive stance by the West in the region.
Thirteen NATO countries participated this week in the Nordic Response 2024 exercise held in Finland and Sweden, near the border with Russia. Additionally, the US Army recently conducted a training event near Fairbanks, Alaska, also close to Russia’s borders.
The US exercise was conducted within the framework of the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center (JPMRC) and involved 8,000 American servicemen from the 11th Airborne Division and an unspecified smaller number of “foreign allies.”
The Nordic Response exercises in Finland and Sweden are even bigger in scope, since they involve 20,000 service members from 13 NATO member countries, 50 warships and 100 military aircraft. The United States and Norway contributed their F-35 fifth-generation fighter jets to the organizers of the Nordic Response drills. Additionally, the UK agreed to send several of its own F-35s from the Royal Air Force, stationed on the British aircraft carrier, Prince of Wales.
“We just want to beef up our presence in the Far North,” said German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who came to inspect the Nordic Response 2024 war games. “This is the biggest and the most important NATO exercise in 40 years,” he contended.
German submarines, along with troops from new NATO members Finland and Sweden, also participated in the military exercises. However, the majority of the fighting force consisted of Americans, who openly expressed their intention to “rebuild their capacity to fight in the Arctic”, a capability that had somewhat weakened since the end of the Cold War.
The presumed adversary in both Alaska and the Finnish forests was the same: Russia and its possible ally China. The American newspaper Business Insider reported that the new “Arctic Strategy” of the US Army is pivoted towards “regaining Arctic dominance.” The new strategy has been operational since 2021.
However, Business Insider noted that the rivalry with Russia now is not limited to the military sphere, as it was during the Cold War era. The economy has a role to play, too. “Rapidly melting sea ice in the Arctic Circle, warming twice as fast as the rest of the world is opening up new opportunities for natural resource extraction, shipping routes, and commercial fishing, as the Arctic becomes navigable,” the publication wrote.
Vladimir Vasilyev, the chief research associate at the Institute of the US and Canada at the Russian Academy of Sciences, suggests that the Americans may be interested in gaining control over the North Sea Route. This route is considered the shortest maritime connection between the growing economies of Southeast Asia and Europe. Russia has extensive experience in utilizing the North Sea Route, which goes along the country’s northern shores. As the ice continues to melt, this sea route is becoming increasingly accessible to commercial vessels.
“The United States is striving to ‘rediscover’ the Arctic region militarily,” a member of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences Alexander Bartosh told Sputnik. “Now, that Finland and Sweden are becoming active NATO members, this opens the possibility for the US to deploy nuclear weapons in the Far North.”
The goal of the US beefing up its military force in the region, in Bartosh’s opinion, is two-fold. The first is to leverage their superiority at sea and in the air for potential strikes against Russia. And secondly, they seek to exploit the region’s untapped natural resources, primarily focusing on oil and gas.
Vladimir Vasilyev notes the historic roots of the ‘military side’ of American interest in the Arctic. “The Arctic region plays an indispensable role in the long-time US strategy of encircling Russia,” Vasilyev highlighted. He also did not exclude the deployment of American nuclear weapons in the region. “In the Arctic, nuclear accidents are easier to cover up,” Vasilyev noted and added: “Also, for a very long time Americans had an illusion that because of the Arctic’s sparsely located population, collateral damage from the use of nuclear weapons there will be less noticeable.”
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paves Way for Increase in Production in Commercial Reactors of Tritium for Nuclear Weapons
The U.S. no longer has a Department of Defense, as it has become The U.S. War Department. This article shows that the private nuclear industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy are factotums of The U.S. War Department. We need a list of the people who are pro The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and who sent a letter in favor of expanding nuclear power all over the world to mitigate climate change. They completely forgot how India first developed nuclear weapons. One of these amnesiacs is Ernest Moniz, but I’m not sure of the others who schizophrenically hold both views. They need help seeing the contradictions in these mutually exclusive positions. —Jan Boudart, secretary, Nuclear Energy Information Service, NEIS.org
Expansion of Tritium Gas Production for DOE in TVA’s Commercial Nuclear Reactors Undermines Nuclear Non-Proliferation Norms, Keeps U.S. on Nuclear War Footing.
Tom Clements
Savannah River Site Watch COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, US, February 27, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken a big step forward in allowing expansion of production of tritium, a radioactive gas used to boost the explosive power of all U.S. nuclear weapons. Increased tritium production would take place in the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar nuclear power reactors, further undermining nuclear nonproliferation norms by allowing continued production of nuclear weapons materials in commercial nuclear power reactors.
The NRC published a notice in the Federal Register on February 23, 20241 that supports the decision to dramatically increase the production of tritium in the Watts Bar units 1 and 2 reactors in Tennessee. The NRC, a civilian regulatory agency, recommends that the licenses for both reactors be amended to allow for an increase in irradiation of special tritium-producing rods from 1,792 to 2,496 for each reactor in a single operating cycle of about 18 months.
The significant increase in irradiation of Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Roads (TPBARs) in the reactors’ cores would result in production of much greater amounts of tritium, as requested by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for its client, the Department of Defense. According to NNSA’s 2023 “Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan,” the goal is “to reach maximum tritium production in each of the two Watts Bar reactors by FY 2025.”
“Expansion of tritium production for use in all nuclear warheads reveals that the U.S. aims to keep a massive nuclear weapons stockpile far beyond any level of deterrence,” said Tom Clements, director the public interest group Savannah River Site Watch, Columbia South Carolina. “For the sake of global security, the U.S. must adopt a policy to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons and in parallel halt the production of weapons tritium in civilian nuclear reactors,” added Clements. (See sources here linked in SRS Watch news, Feb. 23, 20242.)
he apparent objective with this larger tritium supply is for the NNSA to fill the tritium “reservoirs” in all warheads to maximum capacity, which could be up to around 5 grams of tritium per warhead. This would allow the weapons to operate with greater flexibility, including at their highest explosive yield, thus keeping the U.S. on a footing to “fight” a nuclear war with maximum destructive effect. Russia and China could react to this US decision, possibly stimulating a “tritium race,” underscoring the risks of enduring reliance on nuclear weapons, according to SRS Watch.
The NRC has documented in an “environmental assessment” (EA) that radiation exposure, tritium release into the environment and nuclear waste production would all increase due to the action but has declined preparation of an in-depth “environmental impact statement” (EIS). The NRC claims the impacts are within earlier-considered bounds and has thus issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) and recommends that a license amendment be issued by the NRC to allow more tritium rods to be irradiated. The NRC declined to review both the proliferation impacts of the decision and the impacts on a brewing nuclear arms race.
Both the EA and FONSI are included in the text of the short Federal Register notice, revealing that an inadequate analysis was conducted of the proposed action of dramatically increasing TPBAR irradiation. According to SRS Watch, an in-depth EIS, with public meetings, should have been prepared, especially given that tritium leakage from TPBAR irradiation has been documented, with diluted tritium-contaminated water being discharged into the Tennessee River from the “tritiated water storage tank with a capacity of 500,000 gallons.”
…………………………………………………………Due to increased tritium production, TPBAR manufacture at the Westinghouse uranium fuel plant near Columbia, SC would also expand. Production in that commercial nuclear facility of TPBARs used to produce tritium for military use exposes the reality that the Westinghouse facility is a dual use military-commercial facility, thus crossing the imaginary line between civilian and military uses of nuclear technology, as documented by SRS Watch in the 2021 report “Crossing the Line: South Carolina Nuclear Weapons Secrets Exposed3.” https://www.einpresswire.com/article-print/691542118/nuclear-regulatory-commission-paves-way-for-increase-in-production-in-commercial-reactors-of-tritium-for-nuclear-weapons?
Hollywood stars put their name to a good message, but it’s the messengers who are problematic.
Nuclear Threat Initiative’s CEO is, yes, Ernest Moniz, the former US Energy Secretary, who is at the forefront of promoting nuclear power to anyone and everyone who wants it
Moniz is one of the chief architects behind the pro-nuclear infiltration of the COP28 climate summit
Make (some) nukes history, Hollywood stars put their name to a good message, but it’s the messengers who are problematic
By Linda Pentz Gunter, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/11/make-some-nukes-history/
A handful of Hollywood celebs, some highly recognizable including Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand, Lily Tomlin, Emma Thompson and Michael Douglas, as well as musicians such as Jackson Brown and Graham Nash, just signed their names to a letter published in the LA Times urging that we “Make Nukes History”.
Hooray, right? Well, only half hooray.
The Hollywood letter was part of a quickly launched campaign to coincide with the Oscar buzz around the successful feature film, Oppenheimer, in order to leverage attention for the need to abolish nuclear weapons. The Make Nukes History campaign aims to raise public awareness about the civilization-ending risks posed by today’s nuclear arsenals. It reminds us that while Oppenheimer is a history lesson, nuclear weapons are very much still with us, but that we can put an end to what J. Robert Oppenheimer started.
So far, all so good. Far too few of us are thinking about nuclear weapons and the threat they pose, let alone doing something about getting rid of them. It’s an important message that needs reiterating.
Meanwhile, Oppenheimer duly swept seven Academy Awards on Sunday. We waited hopefully for one of the winners to say something about the effect of Oppenheimer’s bomb down the ages. It came only from Cillian Murphy at the end of his Best Actor acceptance speech. “We made a film about the man who created the atomic bomb and for better or for worse we are all living in Oppenheimer’s world so I would really like to dedicate this to the peacemakers, everywhere,” Murphy said.
The Make Nukes History message did not make it to the Oscar stage and the LA Times letter was surprisingly skimpy, failing to get at the heart of the two key takeaways missed in the Oppenheimer film: the unwilling, unrecognized and still uncompensated victims of Oppenheimer’s original Trinity bomb; and the on-going harm down generations to all peoples whose lands were seized and used for atomic tests.
The letter includes a quote from President John F. Kennedy, then states:
“At a time of great uncertainty, even one nuclear weapon—on land, in the sea, in the air, or in space—is too many. To protect our families, our communities, and our world, we must demand that global leaders work to make nuclear weapons history—and build a brighter future.”
Demand indeed. Some of us have been doing this for decades. And we have a treaty for that. But thank you for waking up.
But what does “build a brighter future” actually mean? That, it turns out, is the slogan of the organization behind the orchestration of the Hollywood letter and Oscar campaign — the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
Let’s first take a look at who actually signed the letter. With two exceptions, all the signatories are white. There are no Native Americans on there. No US Marshall Islanders. Almost none of the Oppenheimer film cast and crew signed it. The last four signatures belong to the board of NTI.
NTI was the brainchild of Fonda’s ex, Ted Turner. NTI’s CEO is, yes, Ernest Moniz, the former US Energy Secretary, who is at the forefront of promoting nuclear power to anyone and everyone who wants it. Turner is also a firm supporter of nuclear power (I know because I tried to challenge him on it in person and was quickly deflected by a very large gentleman in possession of an impressive set of muscles.)
Moniz is one of the chief architects behind the pro-nuclear infiltration of the COP28 climate summit and its ridiculous “let’s triple global nuclear power capacity by 2050” proclamation. He will be in Brussels later this month, headlining the International Atomic Energy Agency’s propaganda-fest, billed as the First Ever Nuclear Energy Summit. So will Charles Oppenheimer, Robert Oppenheimer’s grandson and another signatory to the LA Times letter.
So here we have a slightly star-studded short-lived campaign to proclaim an end to one kind of nuke, while behind the scenes the same organization is working hard to promote the other kind of nuke, thus ensuring that the door to nuclear weapons development stays firmly open.
So sorry, no two thumbs up for this bit of Hollywood theatre.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. All opinions are her own.
New York Time’s Morning Newsletter Blames Everyone but Israel for Israeli Crimes
HARRY ZEHNER, FAIR, 13 Mar 24
With over 17 million subscribers, the Morning, the New York Times’ flagship newsletter, is by far the most popular newsletter in the English-speaking world. (It has almost three times as many subscribers as the next most popular newsletter.)
Since October 7, as Israel has waged an unprecedented war on Palestinian children, journalists, hospitals and schools, the New York Times’ highly influential newsletter has bent over backwards to blame everyone but Israel for the carnage.
Waging a legitimate war
According to the Morning—led by head writer David Leonhardt—Israel’s war on Gaza is a targeted operation designed to eliminate Hamas. The Morning propagates this narrative despite well-documented declarations of collective punishment and even genocidal intent by high-ranking Israeli officials—a tendency that South Africa has forcefully documented in their case before the ICJ (UN, 12/29/23). Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s comments on October 12, 2023, are typical: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved.”
This sentiment has been echoed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, multiple cabinet-level ministers and senior military officials. Speaking from a devastated northern Gaza, one top Israeli army official said (UN, 12/29/23): “Whoever returns here, if they return here after, will find scorched earth. No houses, no agriculture, no nothing. They have no future.”
Despite these statements and the body of supporting evidence, the Morning has consistently portrayed the war on Gaza as a focused campaign targeting the military infrastructure of Hamas.
For instance, in one October edition (10/13/23), Leonhardt and co-writer Lauren Jackson explained, “Israel’s goals are to prevent Hamas from being able to conduct more attacks and to reestablish the country’s military credibility.”
Despite these statements and the body of supporting evidence, the Morning has consistently portrayed the war on Gaza as a focused campaign targeting the military infrastructure of Hamas.
For instance, in one October edition (10/13/23), Leonhardt and co-writer Lauren Jackson explained, “Israel’s goals are to prevent Hamas from being able to conduct more attacks and to reestablish the country’s military credibility.”
The Morning did, in the same edition (1/28/24), quote Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s comments in the immediate aftermath of October 7:
After the Hamas-led October 7 terrorist attacks, Israel ordered what its defense minister called a “complete siege” of Gaza. The goal was both to weaken Hamas fighters and to ensure that no military supplies could enter.
This is, however, a downright fictional interpretation of Gallant’s quote (Al Jazeera, 10/9/23), given that the Morning failed to quote the next words out of his mouth:
There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything will be closed. We are fighting against human animals, and we are acting accordingly.
Blame the terrorists
The Morning consistently has argued that Hamas makes densely populated civilian areas legitimate targets for Israeli attacks by conducting military operations nearby. This deflects blame from Israel and frames civilian casualties as a necessary evil, as in the October 30 edition of the newsletter:
Hamas has hidden many weapons under hospitals, schools and mosques so that Israel risks killing civilians, and facing an international backlash, when it fights. Hamas fighters also slip above and below ground, blending with civilians.
These practices mean that Hamas is responsible for many of the civilian deaths, according to international law.
Similar rhetoric was deployed in this December edition (12/20/23):
Hamas has long hidden its fighters and weapons in and under populated civilian areas, such as hospitals and mosques. It does so partly to force Israel to make a gruesome calculation: To fight Hamas, Israel often must also harm civilians.
The Morning has not yet found it pertinent to report on, for instance, the Israeli soldiers who dressed as doctors to gain access to the Ibn Sina Hospital in the West Bank, and proceeded to assassinate three Palestinian militants in their hospital beds.
To the Morning (11/14/23), Israel’s mass slaughter of civilians is unavoidable:
The battle over Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza highlights a tension that often goes unmentioned in the debate over the war between Israel and Hamas: There may be no way for Israel both to minimize civilian casualties and to eliminate Hamas.
It repeats this line again in a late January edition (1/22/24), once again framing the mass murder of civilians as a “difficult decision”:
The Israeli military faces a difficult decision about how to proceed in southern Gaza…. Israel will not easily be able to eliminate the fighters without killing innocent civilians.
And again in the October 17 edition:
Longer term, there will be more difficult choices. Many steps that Israel could take to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza, such as advance warnings of attacks, would also weaken its attempts to destroy Hamas’s control.
These themes are repeated across all editions of the Morning, and echo throughout the New York Times’ reporting on Israel. Israel’s motivations in the war (beyond eliminating Hamas) go unquestioned, while the openly genocidal statements made by high-ranking politicians and military leaders go unacknowledged.
And when Israeli mass murder of Palestinian civilians is mentioned, it is constantly qualified by the line that Hamas is fully or partially to blame.
Let’s break down one emblematic newsletter (12/7/23) written by Leonhardt in December, in which he “puts the [civilian death] toll in context and explains the reason for it.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It is notable that—unlike with Israel—Leonhardt did not attempt to contextualize Hamas’ actions by noting the horrifying conditions that Israel has imposed on Gaza for years, or the over 900 Palestinian children killed by Israel in the decade preceding October 7. To Leonhardt, history is only relevant when it justifies Israeli aggression.
While Leonhardt states unequivocally that Hamas is violating international law, he does not find it worthwhile to investigate Israel’s flagrant and abundantly documented violations of international law. He also does not mention the Palestinian right to resist occupation, a right enshrined under international law.
This unequal treatment leads straight to the jarringly contrasting conclusions, in which he essentially excuses Israel’s genocidal war as unavoidable, while he condemns Hamas for “simply not prioritizing Palestinian lives.”
Leonhardt’s December 7 piece is not an aberration: It is emblematic of the language, selective contextualization and framing that the Times‘ Morning newsletter wields to provide ideological cover for Israel’s crimes. https://fair.org/home/nyts-morning-newsletter-blames-everyone-but-israel-for-israeli-crimes/
-
Archives
- April 2026 (231)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 