Regulating the regulators: How the nuclear power industry steers the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
by Arnie Gundersen | Apr 17, 2026, https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/regulating-the-regulators-the-extraordinary-influence-of-the-nuclear-power-industry-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission/
The Nuclear Energy Institute approves NRC commissioners, oversees its workers and, staff say, undermines its independence and public safety mandate
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mission statement provides a dual — and, critics say, contradictory — mandate that it “protects public health and safety” but also that it “advances the nation’s common defense and security by enabling the safe and secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy technologies…”
Given the history of nuclear accidents and lack of fully safe and permanent ways to address nuclear accidents and waste, critics see the mandate to protect public safety but also “advance” nuclear power as a conflict of interest. And given the nuclear industry’s heavy influence — some say control — over the nation’s regulatory agency, many both inside and outside the agency believe the industry has successfully turned the NRC into its advocate rather than its regulator.
Concerns about NRC objectivity
Concerns about the NRC’s objectivity and balance of support for public health versus industry support have taken on added urgency since President Trump last year signed an executive order calling for 10 new large nuclear reactors to be under construction by 2030 and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to speed reactor approvals. The first five or 10 new planned US nuclear reactors will “almost certainly” receive loans from the US Energy Department’s lending office, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told lawmakers Thursday.
The NRC employs several thousand technical staff. But it’s led by a commission of five people appointed by the US President and confirmed by the Senate. But the President and Senate see potential nominees only if they’ve already been approved by a well-funded industry group. That means the regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
Regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
The real control over nuclear power in Washington, D.C. lies in the nonprofit Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Every member of the NRC for the last decade has been screened by the NEI, which is the lobbying, campaign financing, and public relations organization for the nuclear industry.
The industry chooses its regulators
One does not become a Commissioner unless NEI finds that you are acceptable. Never has a member of a non-governmental organization or a safety critic been appointed to the Commission. Even nuclear proponents who’ve raised any questions about the nuclear industry, or worked for people who did, have been blocked.
While the NRC puts “public health and safety” first in its mission statement, the NEI’s charter says:
NEI is the unified voice of the commercial nuclear energy industry, influencing policies that affect its members, their customers, and the industry’s future. NEI represents the industry’s interests before Congress, the executive branch, state and local legislatures, federal regulators, international organizations, courts, and influential platforms where policy matters affecting the industry are discussed.
The NEI’s 2024 budget for direct lobbying was $1,570,000 while its total yearly operating budget was $57,500,000. According to IRS filings, its President & CEO earned a total compensation of $3,594,043,000 while its other 12 top executives together earned $7,222,173 with other staff salaries adding an additional $17,188,000, Propublica reported. That’s a lot of money to “represent the industry’s interest before Congress… and… federal regulators...”
“Regulatory Capture”
More significant to the public interest, however: Industry access to and even control of the NRC through informal channels euphemistically called “drop-in meetings” by NEI, nuclear reactor vendors, and plant owners has long been a concern of the NRC’s staff engineers.
In its 2022 audit prepared for the five Commissioners by the NRC’s Inspector General acknowledged that those concerns pose risks to the public:
Perceived Asymmetry of Access to NRC Management and Risk of Regulatory Capture Undermine NRC Transparency Goals
During our audit, the OIG identified chronic concerns, expressed by NRC staff and external stakeholders alike, about drop-in meetings and similar non-public informal interactions. One of these concerns was regulatory capture, which in relation to drop-in meetings is the concern that the NRC is serving to advance the interests of the very industry it regulates. Regulatory capture is often intangible and not measurable.
At a September 5, 2024 all-staff “Briefing on Human Capital” video call, with NRC leadership, eight top staff and two union leaders present, an intrepid staffer noted that the nuclear industry was unduly influencing regulatory policy:
Question: With NRC staff trust in the objectivity and integrity of NRC Commissioners and NRC executive leadership at an all-time low, with an annual exodus for sweetheart positions in the industry, what can be done to restore credibility and confidence that executive-level decision-making is not industry biased and actually serves the public interest?
Chairman Hanson: …everybody in this room, everybody up on this dais, are dedicated public servants, and I don’t question that at all…
Later in the same meeting, from an engineer:
Question: Okay. This question has a little bit of a background in it. The way outside stakeholders treat NRC staff is a factor in staff morale and workload, but it is often ignored. This has turned out to be a major issue with respect to advanced reactors where some company representatives and lobbying organizations have been downright abusive to agency workers. What’s worse, senior management is perceived as taking the side of the outside stakeholders and leaving the NRC project teams to take the brunt of the criticism. This is both demoralizing and time consuming for project staff. What can be done to limit repeated and unproductive industry interactions with project staff so that they can focus on doing the projects, rather than on handling difficult people of all the things that could help NRC meet tighter schedules?
Chairman Hanson: So thank you for the question. I wasn’t aware that this was an issue, so I appreciate the question just in kind of raising the awareness to me.
Think about that response. The Chairman of the US federal government’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission claimed that he “wasn’t aware” that stakeholders’ heavy-handed interaction with staff — and NRC leaderships’ support of those stakeholders over its own staff — was an issue, even though it had already been reported in an Inspector General’s audit that any self-respecting chairman of a public regulatory agency with fiduciary duty to taxpayers would have been obligated to read — and to respond to.
Chairman Hanson’s 2024 claim — either reckless and irresponsible, or simply not credible — also flies in the face of comments by one of his predecessors, former NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko. Five years earlier, in 2019, Jaczko publicly stated,
“I saw things up close that I was not meant to see: an agency overwhelmed by the industry it was supposed to regulate and a political system determined to keep it that way… honesty and integrity mean nothing if you are perceived to be critical of nuclear power…”
Clearly, the NRC and its five Commissioners have failed to live up to the agency’s core mission to put the public first.
The NEI presents itself as an impartial source of nuclear science and wisdom. Yet it also funds “astroturf” advocacy groups, including Nuclear Matters and Third Way. Schedule I of NEI’s 2024 990 tax filing shows that NEI paid $2.3 million to Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Nuclear Matters, which on its website claims:
Nuclear Matters is a national coalition of grassroots advocates, working to inform the public and policymakers about the clear benefits of nuclear energy.
The 2024 IRS 990 tax filing for Nuclear Matters states that its operating income was $2,309,945, showing that 99.5% of its income came from the NEI. Its form 990 identified three executives whose combined total compensation was $2,206,460. That means 95% of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s donation to the nonprofit Nuclear Matters was compensation to just three people. That’s highly irregular in the world of nonprofits.
Moreover, you might think that an organization claiming to represent a “nationwide coalition of grassroots advocates” should be funded by actual coalitions of grassroots advocates. But with 95% of its funding from NEI, Nuclear Matters is not.
Grassroots or astroturf?
You might also expect that an organization claiming to represent a “nationwide coalition of grassroots advocates” would work with, find substantial support from, and list a significant nationwide coalition. However, Nuclear Matters’ “Advocacy Council” includes 21 people, virtually all of whom are current or former nuclear industry representatives, policymakers or regulators. And its 16 listed “partners” are pro-nuclear organizations, many of which have received industry funding.
Does that fit your definition of “grass roots”?
The NEI’s reach extends beyond the NRC and into the Department of Energy, which controls funding of future nuclear reactor designs through DOE’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing. Membership in NEI is not limited to the owners of existing nuclear power plants, but also is open to newer companies seeking government funds to design the next generation of atomic power plants.
Reprocessing isn’t the solution
by Bart Ziegler, April 6, 2026, https://thecoastnews.com/opinion-reprocessing-san-onofres-nuclear-waste-a-risky-bet/
A decades-old conversation about what to do with the nuclear waste at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is now getting the attention it deserves.
Last December, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to explore sending spent fuel from San Onofre to a national laboratory for reprocessing. Our organization raised concerns at the time. Now, the county’s own staff has reached the same conclusion.
In a March 9, 2026, report, the county found that commercial-scale reprocessing “has historically been cost-prohibitive and presents security concerns related to plutonium separation” and that “deployment timelines remain uncertain and federal policy does not prioritize reprocessing as a near-term solution.” The report concluded that pursuing a reprocessing initiative “may not be a cost-effective or strategically viable project at this time.”
This comes as pressure to embrace reprocessing intensifies. An energy think tank and Oklo — a recycling company that recently announced a $1.68 billion facility in Tennessee — are pressing Congress to rewrite foundational laws governing nuclear energy to promote commercial recycling.
The Department of Energy is soliciting states to host “nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses” encompassing enrichment, fuel fabrication and waste disposal. Of 24 states that expressed interest, officials say 12 to 15 have “very serious proposals.”
The urgency driving these efforts is real. The 3.6 million pounds of spent fuel at San Onofre sit 100 feet from the Pacific Ocean, near a military base, above the water table and near multiple active fault lines. But handing the waste over to loosely regulated startups with unproven technology and limited oversight is equally a recipe for disaster.
Reprocessing advocates call it “recycling,” which sounds beneficial or even harmless, but it carries its own risks. Reprocessing does not eliminate nuclear waste. It transforms solid spent fuel rods into more unstable forms, including liquid radioactive acid, which is harder to contain.
The only commercial reprocessing plant operated in the United States, in West Valley, New York, ran for six years before shutting down and accruing a cleanup bill that may ultimately cost taxpayers more than $5 billion.
The deeper problem is proliferation. Reprocessing separates plutonium — a key component of nuclear weapons — from spent fuel, creating material that is far easier to divert or steal. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter halted U.S. commercial reprocessing after India used plutonium from its civilian program to build a bomb in 1974.
The National Academies and Department of Energy laboratories have since concluded that newer reprocessing methods do not meaningfully reduce that risk.
This does not mean reprocessing research should be abandoned. But it does mean lawmakers should stop treating commercial reprocessing as an emergency off-ramp for San Onofre and other sites with stranded nuclear waste.
If federal policy is updated, it should prioritize approaches that avoid separated plutonium, favor low-enriched fuel strategies, minimize high-hazard secondary waste streams and meet rigorous safety requirements.
Reprocessing is not a substitute for the federal government’s obligation to deliver a permanent disposal solution, as required by federal law. Rep. Mike Levin, co-chair of the bipartisan Spent Nuclear Fuel Solutions Caucus, warned that treating reprocessing as a near-term fix for San Onofre “distracts from the work that experts agree is unavoidable.”
Instead, if lawmakers are serious about a nuclear renaissance, they should advance bipartisan legislation already under discussion to establish an independent nuclear waste authority that prioritizes removing waste from high-risk, high-population sites like San Onofre.
Bart Ziegler is the president of the Del Mar-based Samuel Lawrence Foundation.
The Normalisation of Contradiction
18 April 2026 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/the-normalisation-of-contradiction/
There are moments in politics when language is no longer used to describe reality, but to overwrite it. This week, Donald Trump declared that the United States has a “very good relationship” with Iran – a statement delivered without hesitation, and seemingly without consequence.
When Donald Trump says the United States has a “very good relationship with Iran,” it jars because it so obviously clashes with reality. This is not a relationship built on trust or cooperation, but one forged in four weeks of bombing, a powerful naval blockade, port disruptions, and the looming threat of further escalation.
Yet the statement is delivered as if none of that matters – as if confident repetition alone can transmute coercion into camaraderie. What is more troubling is not just the claim itself, but how easily it passes without serious challenge. It suggests we are getting used to a kind of political language where contradiction is no longer questioned, only absorbed.
The media bears significant responsibility for this normalisation.
Rather than rigorously interrogating the gap between Trump’s framing and the preceding violence – civilian impacts, destroyed infrastructure, and a fragile ceasefire – much of the coverage treats the remark as colourful Trumpian flair or a quirky negotiating tactic. Headlines emphasise “progress in talks” and “signals of peace,” often quoting the president at length while burying context about the blockade’s human and economic toll. Segments frame it as savvy deal-making: bombs as leverage, threats as prelude. Dissenting voices highlighting the Orwellian inversion are relegated to opinion pages or late-night panels, dismissed as partisan nitpicking.
This is how normalisation works. When outlets amplify the triumphant narrative without equal scrutiny of the underlying reality, they don’t just report the rhetoric – they launder it.
The bold assertion gains the sheen of accepted fact through repetition across screens and feeds. Viewers and readers, already fatigued by endless cycles of crisis, absorb the new framing: enmity yesterday becomes “very good relationship” today. The rubble fades into background noise; the blockade becomes a footnote. Media’s reflexive both-sides-ism and hunger for drama further dilute accountability, turning a profound shift in language into just another news cycle.
This complicity runs deeper than any single outlet. It reflects a broader ecosystem where access to power often trumps adversarial scrutiny, and where the spectacle of Trump’s confidence generates clicks more readily than uncomfortable questions about consistency or consequences. Over time, it conditions the public to expect – and tolerate – reality rewritten in real time.
The real danger lies in what comes next. When language overwrites reality so casually, and media helps smooth the transition, accountability dissolves. Wars can be recast as successful pressure campaigns before the dust settles. Alliances can be proclaimed “strong” amid fresh betrayals. And the public, lulled by polished delivery and unchallenged repetition, stops demanding proof. We become spectators to our own disorientation, wondering why the map no longer matches the terrain.
In such moments, a vigilant press is not optional – it is essential to tether politics back to something resembling truth. Without it, we risk surrendering not just language, but the shared reality democracy depends on.
Author’s Note: This piece was written in response to President Trump’s recent statement claiming the United States has a “very good relationship” with Iran, made at a time of active military pressure, including a U.S. naval blockade and ongoing tensions. Overnight developments – including Iran’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz is open to commercial shipping for the remainder of the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire – reflect the fluid nature of the situation. The core argument about political language and its normalisation remains unchanged.
Trump warns Iran of ‘nuclear holocaust’ hours after bragging about peace.
President Donald Trump warned Iran of a potential ‘nuclear holocaust’ while announcing a 10-day ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, claiming credit for brokering the peace deal.
Jeremiah Hassel Senior U.S. News Reporter and Callum Hoare, 16 Apr 2026, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/trump-warns-iran-nuclear-holocaust-37029877
President Donald Trump has warned Iran of a “nuclear holocaust” unless it reaches an agreement with the US, just hours after bragging about peace.
Speaking to journalists before boarding Marine One heading to Las Vegas, the President claimed the US is “very close to making a deal with Iran” before outlining what he described as the benefits of such an arrangement.
Speaking to journalists before boarding Marine One heading to Las Vegas, the President claimed the US is “very close to making a deal with Iran” before outlining what he described as the benefits of such an arrangement.
“If that happens, oil goes way down, prices go way down, inflation goes way down, and much more importantly, you won’t have a nuclear holocaust,” Trump stated.
Israel and Lebanon have reportedly struck a ceasefire deal following weeks of reciprocal strikes and an Israeli bombing campaign that has claimed the lives of over 2,100 people in the Middle Eastern nation that shares a northern border with Israel.
Trump revealed the exact time the 10-day ceasefire would take effect, sharing a message hours earlier on Truth Social and taking credit for brokering the agreement.
“I just had excellent conversations with the Highly Respected President Joseph Aoun, of Lebanon, and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel,” Trump wrote. “These two Leaders have agreed that in order to achieve PEACE between their Countries, they will formally begin a 10 Day CEASEFIRE at 5 P.M. EST.
“On Tuesday, the two Countries met for the first time in 34 years here in Washington, D.C., with our Great Secretary of State, Marco Rubio,” he continued. “I have directed Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Rubio, together with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Razin’ Caine, to work with Israel and Lebanon to achieve a Lasting PEACE.
“It has been my Honor to solve 9 Wars across the World, and this will be my 10th, so let’s, GET IT DONE! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” he added.
A ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon could have significant implications for any potential peace settlement between the US and Iran. Tehran made it clear during the initial, unsuccessful peace negotiations between the US and Iran in Pakistan that a ceasefire in Lebanon was a fundamental requirement, without which Iran would refuse any American demands.
Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, told his Lebanese counterpart, Nabih Berri, that Tehran is advocating for a permanent ceasefire “in all conflict zones.” He added that a ceasefire in Lebanon is “just as important” as in Iran.
Trump invites leaders of Israel, Lebanon to the White House for direct peace talks Trump issued invitations to the leaders of both Israel and Lebanon to participate in direct peace talks at the White House, sharing an additional message on his Truth Social platform. “In addition to the statement just issued, I will be inviting the Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, and the President of Lebanon, Joseph Aoun, to the White House for the first meaningful talks between Israel and Lebanon since 1983, a very long time ago,” he posted. “Both sides want to see PEACE, and I believe that will happen, quickly! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
Nevertheless, the last substantial negotiations between the two countries were in fact conducted in 1993, not 1983 as Trump claimed. It remains uncertain whether this was a typing mistake or an intentional reference to the period of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
Aoun declines direct discussions with Netanyahu
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun rejected direct engagement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday. The alleged comments were delivered during a phone conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Aoun asserting that Washington “understands Lebanon’s position.”
Aoun’s office verified that a conversation with Rubio had occurred, yet made no reference to any prospective talks with Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s office likewise stayed quiet on the issue. Lebanon and Israel held their first direct diplomatic talks in decades on Tuesday in Washington, following more than a month of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon has insisted that a ceasefire must be in place to stop the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah before any direct negotiations can get under way, while pledging to commit to disarming the group. Washington has yet to publicly announce its support for a ceasefire as a prerequisite, while the Israeli government has characterised the talks as peace negotiations centred on the disarmament of Hezbollah.
Israel and Hezbollah continued to exchange fire across the border, with Hezbollah firing rockets and drones at towns in northern Israel. Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon intensified, particularly around the cities of Tyre, Nabatieh and the strategically significant town of Bint Jbeil, situated close to the Israeli border.
Israel and Lebanon have technically remained at war since Israel’s establishment in 1948, with Lebanon remaining deeply split over any form of diplomatic engagement with Israel.
Israeli forces have pushed further into southern Lebanon in an effort to establish what officials have described as a “security zone,” which Netanyahu has stated will extend at least 5 to 6 miles into Lebanese territory.
Nuclear-Powered Rockets — NASA Plans First Launch in 2028
In 2015 Gagnon said: “The nuclear industry views space as a new market for their deadly product. Nuclear generators on space missions, nuclear-powered mining colonies on Mars and other planetary bodies and even nuclear reactors on rockets to Mars are being sought. Thus, there are many opportunities for things to go wrong.”
by Karl H Grossman, April 17, 2026, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/4/17/800021876/community/nuclear-powered-rockets-nasa-plans-for-launch-in-29/
NASA got through the Artemis II mission last week with a few minor “anomalies,” as NASA calls problems, but in 2028 it plans to launch a nuclear-powered rocket to Mars as an initial step to using nuclear-powered rockets in space.
An accident involving a nuclear-powered rocket could be no small anomaly.
The NASA plan was heralded in a section titled “America underway on nuclear power in space” in a NASA announcement on March 24th headed “NASA Unveils Initiatives to Achieve America’s National Space Policy.”
It said that “after decades of study and in response to the National Space Policy, NASA announced a major step forward in bringing nuclear power and propulsion from the lab to space. NASA will launch the Space Reactor‑1 Freedom, the first nuclear-powered interplanetary spacecraft, to Mars before the end of 2028, demonstrating advanced nuclear electric propulsion in deep space.”
Scientific American followed with an article the same day headlined: “NASA announces a nuclear-powered Mars mission by 2028.” The subhead: “The U.S. space agency will aim to send a nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars—a first—in a bid to show that nuclear propulsion can be used to send missions into deep space.”
Pursuing use of nuclear propulsion in space has been a NASA aim for many years—indeed, going back to the 1960s.
This was highlighted by NBC News correspondent Tom Costello, who covers space issues, in 2023 going to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama where work has been done and remains underway on developing nuclear rockets.
Costello reported: “NASA looks at going to the moon…and to Mars. And to get to Mars, they’re going nuclear….While science and exploration are the driving motivators, there’s also a competitive factor, China. The Chinese government is very secretive, and a lot of their plans involve their military preparations. And so, there’s a reason for us to get there first. And NASA wants to get there faster…So to cut travel time, America is going back to the future.”
“This project was called NERVA,” Costello continued, citing NERVA (which stands for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application), “the 1960s a government program that most Americans have never heard of to develop nuclear powered rockets. It turns out they made big progress back in the 60s, running expensive tests.”
In Huntsville, he said, “they’ve got an exact replica to scale of the Saturn V [rocket]…Future astronauts will need that kind of lift. But once they’re in space, they can use a much smaller engine, a nuclear engine, to go all the way to Mars and back…It’s happening now at the Marshall Space Flight Center…This is where they put [together] components of nuclear thermal rockets.”
Things did not go smoothly for NERVA.
“NASA: Lost its NERVA,” was the heading in an article in Ad Astra in 2005 by longtime space journalist Leonard David. He wrote about how, “For NASA, it has been a long time in coming—permission to use the ‘N’ word: for nuclear power in space. In many ways, it has been the political, financial and technological third rail of space exploration—too hot of an issue to handle easily—radioactive to boot.”
He wrote that NERVA’s “success was short-lived. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, U.S. President Richard Nixon nixed NASA and NERVA funding dramatically…Eventually, NERVA lost its funding and the project was scuttled in 1973.
It’s not just the U.S. that is intending to use nuclear-powered rockets in space. “Nuclear-powered rockets will win the new space race,” was the headline last year in The Washington Post. The sub-head: “Russia and China are working hard for a nuclear-powered advantage in space. The U.S. must up its game.
“Space nuclear propulsion and power are not hypotheticals,” said the article. “China is investing heavily in both terrestrial and space-based nuclear technologies, with plans to send a nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars by 2033. Russia, too, has announced ambitious goals.”
The headline in a 2024 article in the South China Morning Post: “Starship rival: Chinese scientists build prototype engine for nuclear-powered spaceship to Mars.” Its subhead told of how a “1.5 megawatt-class…fission reactor passes initial ground tests as global race for space. The lithium-cooled system is designed to expand from a container-sized volume into a structure as large as a 20-story building in space.”
The article began by saying a “a collaboration of more than 10 research institutes and universities across China have made significant strides toward interplanetary travel with the development of a nuclear fission technology.”
The Russians are bullish on the speed a nuclear-powered rocket could, they believe, attain. “Mars in 30 days? Russia unveils prototype of plasma engine,” was the headline last year of an article put out by World Nuclear News.
It began: “A laboratory protype of a plasma electric rocket engine based on a magnetic plasma accelerator has been produced by Rosatom scientists, who say it could slash travel time to Mars to one or two months.” (Rosatom is the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation.)
The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space was formed in 1992 at a gathering in Washington, D.C. and now has membership throughout the world. It has organized protests at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to NASA launches of spacecraft using radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Using the heat of plutonium-238, the RTG’s generate electricity to run instruments, not to propel spacecraft.
The largest protest organized by the Global Network involved the Cassini space probe mission to Saturn in 1997 with 73 pounds of plutonium in three RTGs, the largest amount of plutonium ever on a spacecraft.
The most dangerous portion of that mission was when NASA had the Cassini probe perform a “slingshot maneuver,” sending it back towards Earth to use Earth’s gravity to increase its velocity. If, as NASA said in an Environmental Impact Statement for Cassini, there was an “inadvertent reentry” into the Earth’s atmosphere in that maneuver causing it to disintegrate and release its plutonium, an estimated “5 billion billion…of the world population…could receive 99 percent of the radiation exposure.”
NASA insisted at the time that beyond the orbit of Mars, it was necessary to use plutonium-powered RTGs. However, in 2011 NASA launched its Juno space probe to Jupiter which instead of RTGs used three solar arrays to generate onboard electricity. Juno orbited and studied Jupiter, where sunlight is a hundredth of what it is on Earth.
In the U.S., in 2021 a report titled “Space Nuclear Propulsion for Human Mars Exploration” was issued by a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine of the U.S.
The 104-page report also lays out “synergies” in space nuclear activities between the NASA and the U.S. military. It said: “The report stated: “Space nuclear propulsion and power systems have the potential to provide the United States with military advantages…NASA could benefit programmatically by working with a DoD [Department of Defense] program having national security objectives.”’
What might be an “anomaly” involving a nuclear-powered rocket.
“Is using nuclear materials for space travel dangerous, genius, or a little of both?” was the heading of a 2021 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
With the U.S. setting a goal of “a human mission to Mars,” said the articleby Susan D’Agostino, “the words ‘nuclear’ and ‘space’ are again popping up together….Nuclear propulsion systems for space exploration—should they materialize—are expected to offer significant advantages, including the possibility of sending spacecraft farther, in less time, and more efficiently than traditional chemical propulsion systems.”
“But,” the piece went on, “extreme physical conditions on the launchpad, in space, and during reentry raise questions about risk-mitigation measures, especially when nuclear materials are present. To realize the goal of nuclear-propelled, human mission to Mars, scientists must overcome significant challenges that include—but go beyond—the technical. That is, any discussion about such an uncommon journey must also consider relevant medical, environmental, economic, political, and ethical questions.”
The piece said that “attaching what amounts to a nuclear reactor to a human-occupied spaceship is not without risks.”
An article in 2023 by Bob McDonald of the Canadian Broadcasting System was headed: “Nuclear powered rockets could take us to Mars, but will the public accept them?”
“Nuclear rockets are not a new idea,” it noted. “Now, with the prospect of sending humans to Mars in the 2030s, the idea is being revived in an effort to shorten the roughly seven months it takes a conventional rocket to get to Mars. This might be a boon for future astronauts who face a seven-month, one-way journey using current technology.”
“The idea is to use a small fission reactor to heat up a liquid fuel to very high temperatures, turning it into a hot gas that would shoot out a rocket nozzle at high velocity, providing thrust,” it continued.
“The design of a nuclear rocket means they typically would produce less thrust than a chemical rocket, but nuclear engines could run continuously for weeks, constantly accelerating, ultimately reaching higher velocities in a tortoise-and-hare kind of way. Nuclear propulsion is expected to be twice as fuel-efficient as chemical rockets, largely because they can heat the gas they use for thrust to a higher temperature than chemical combustion, and hotter gas means more energy.”
“A quicker trip to Mars provides huge benefits. Astronauts would be exposed to less cosmic radiation during the journey. The psychological pressures of living in a confined space far from home would be reduced. Supplies and a rescue mission could be delivered more quickly. These rockets could also open up the outer solar system so trips to Jupiter and its large family of icy moons could eventually be within reach,” the piece went on.
“While the technology of nuclear propulsion is certainly feasible, it may not be readily embraced by the public. The accidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima have left many people skeptical about nuclear safety. And there will be risk,” said the piece.
“Technicians at the NASA Lewis Research Center in 1964 testing a nozzle design for a nuclear thermal rocket. A nuclear rocket wouldn’t be used to launch a spacecraft from the Earth’s surface — it would be designed to run in space only. It would have to launch into orbit on a large chemical rocket — so the public would have to accept the risk of launching a nuclear reactor on a standard rocket filled with explosive fuel.”
“And rockets have and will malfunction catastrophically, in what with black humor rocket scientists sometimes call RUD—’rapid unscheduled disassembly.’”
“No one wants to see nuclear debris raining down on the Florida coast or Disneyland, and that’s not the only possible scenario. An accident in orbit could potentially drop radioactive material into the atmosphere. These safety concerns need to be addressed before any nuclear rocket leaves the ground,” said the article.
Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network since its formation, cites in the past NASA “postponing a test of a nuclear-powered spacecraft just above the Earth. They weren’t allowed to test it on Earth because of its potential for spreading contamination widely, so they intended to test it over our heads. There were concerns about the technology failing, and it falling, burning up on re-entry. At the present time there is no schedule to do those tests, but I’m sure they’re pushing ahead to do them as quickly as possible.”
“Besides the problem of an accident,” said Gagnon, “the production process for nuclear space devices leads to radioactive contamination in the laboratories where they takes place and in air and water.”
In 2015 Gagnon said: “The nuclear industry views space as a new market for their deadly product. Nuclear generators on space missions, nuclear-powered mining colonies on Mars and other planetary bodies and even nuclear reactors on rockets to Mars are being sought. Thus, there are many opportunities for things to go wrong.”
If things go wrong, these “anomalies” could be major.
NASA’s March 24 announcement also said: “When SR-1 Freedom reaches Mars, it will deploy the Skyfall payload of Ingenuity‑class helicopters to continue exploring the Red Planet. SR-1 Freedom will establish flight heritage nuclear hardware, set regulatory and launch precedent, and activate the industrial base for future fission power systems across propulsion, surface, and long‑duration missions. NASA and its U.S. Department of Energy partner will unlock the capabilities required for sustained exploration beyond the Moon and eventual journeys to Mars and the outer solar system.”
Big Tech Is Rushing Into Nuclear Energy, and Bypassing Safety Oversight
By Haley Zaremba – Apr 16, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Big-Tech-Is-Rushing-Into-Nuclear-Energy-and-Bypassing-Safety-Oversight.html
- A growing number of nuclear startups are opting out of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the voluntary safety watchdog created after Three Mile Island — breaking a decades-long industry norm.
- The Trump administration is actively weakening existing nuclear safety regulations, including a May 2025 executive order directing the NRC to reconsider core radiation exposure standards, to accelerate domestic nuclear expansion.
- As the NRC has offloaded some regulatory responsibilities to the INPO, companies that decline membership now effectively operate outside both layers of oversight — raising serious public safety concerns.
While most countries manage their nuclear energy as a public sector, controlled and maintained by the state, the United States takes a uniquely American – which is to say, privatized – approach. As the tech sector becomes increasingly involved in nuclear energy and in the energy industry as a whole thanks to the insatiable energy needs of the AI boom, the nuclear energy landscape is changing. While there are some benefits to letting private interests compete in the nuclear energy sector in significant numbers, there are also considerable drawbacks, including the safety and oversight of these ventures. This is extremely concerning considering what can happen when nuclear energy goes wrong.
And the United States is no stranger to nuclear accidents. In 1979, a partial nuclear meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania released radioactive materials into the environment. While the accident was relatively minor, causing no detectable harm to the public or the plant’s workers, it was a wakeup call for the nation. In response, The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, or INPO, was created as a sort of watchdog organization to ensure safety compliance in nuclear plants across the United States.
But the appetite for such compliance has flagged considerably in the intervening years. While joining the INPO has always been voluntary, every single nuclear power plant operator has always joined. Until recently, that is. A study released earlier this month by Politico’s E&E News found that a growing number of nuclear startups are declining to join the INPO.
These companies are balking at the invasivement of the organization, and the economic costs of compliance – but those hurdles are the whole point. When it comes to nuclear safety, rigor is key. And investigations have found that the INPO actually saves money for nuclear plants in the long run by diagnosing potential issues early, and thereby avoiding snags and shutdowns.
But Silicon Valley apparently doesn’t see it that way. “These entities are businesses, and they’re trying to make money,” Scott Morris, an industry consultant and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) official, told E&E. “Any infrastructure that you put around that entity that is not directly contributing to its bottom line, it’s going to be questioned.”
But Big Tech is not solely to blame for a backslide in nuclear safety measures. In fact, their priorities are reflective of a larger sea change trickling down from the Oval Office. The Trump Administration is hell-bent on a domestic nuclear power revival, and is actively seeking to undermine existing safety regulations in order to fast-track the sector’s expansion
An executive order issued in May of last year mandates that the NRC “reconsider reliance on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ standard,” among other requirements, in order to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy.”
As a part of the reorganization of the NRC, the government has actually offloaded additional responsibilities to the INPO, making membership more important for public safety than ever before – and effectively making previous mandates under the NRC completely optional for nuclear energy startups that decline to join the INPO.
“The NRC has delegated some of its regulatory authority, so to speak, to INPO, specifically in the realm of operations and maintenance training programs,” Morris went on to explain. “The NRC and INPO are not duplicative; they’re complementary.”
While safety is the largest potential casualty of the privatization and Big Tech takeover of the domestic nuclear energy sector, it is not the only drawback. “If you don’t have a financial stake in the nuclear race,” Futurism recently wrote, “you might notice this arrangement comes with side effects like chronic understaffing and public subsidies of private profit.”
Trump prefers collapsing world economy to admitting defeat in his criminal Iran war
Trump is now a shell of the former war president who gloried in bombing 7 nations and snatching Venezuelan President Maduro to capture his oil. He’s trapped with no way out except admitting defeat by ending the war on Iran’s sensible terms.
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/trump-prefers-collapsing-world-economy-to-admitting-defeat-in-his-criminal-iran-war/
That was some phony 2 week ceasefire President Trump agreed to with Iran. When Iran refused Trump’s impossible demands presented by amateur US diplomats Vance, Witkoff and Kushner, Trump essentially resumed the war with his imaginary blockade of all Iranian shipping delivering the world’s oil.
Trump still hasn’t ruled out resuming his murderous but ineffective bombing campaign or launching a possible ground invasion to extract Iran’s enriched uranium or snatch its oil infrastructure on Kharg Island. He’s sending 10,000 more ground troops to bolster the 50,000 waiting around to either to nothing, or face major destruction if dropped into Iran.
To show the extent of US war failure, 6,000 troops aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush and accompanying warships had to skip the short route through the Mediterranean to go around the much longer southern Africa route, due to the Houthis’ threat to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. As a result Trump won’t have his 60,000 troop force in place till early May.
Trump must know he has no path to anything remotely resembling victory. No regime change. No end to nuclear enrichment. No end to Iran’s missile stockpile. Most importantly, no reopening to the Strait of Hormuz and renewed flow of Middle East oil.
He’s also likely still controlled by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who convinced Trump to launch the war on February 28 and has been sabotaging the ceasefire with his ghastly bombing of Lebanon. While Trump desperately wants out of the lost war, Netanyahu demands it continue till Iran is destroyed as an Israeli rival. Why Trump remains under Netanyahu’s control is both horrifying and may forever remain a mystery.
Trump is now a shell of the former war president who gloried in bombing 7 nations and snatching Venezuelan President Maduro to capture his oil. He’s trapped with no way out except admitting defeat by ending the war on Iran’s sensible terms.
But Trump’s lifelong delusion of his invincibility in anything he does prevents him from facing the reality of the unfolding world catastrophe he initiated.
At present, Trump resuming murderous war and precipitating worldwide economic collapse appear more likely than seeking peace, albeit certifying US defeat. Unless Congress acts to defund Trump’s $200 billion request to continue this catastrophe, or the Cabinet, led by Veep Vance, removes Trump via the 25th Amendment, things will only get dramatically, possibly infinitely worse.
It seems Washington needs to be reminded of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Bulletin, By Olamide Samuel | Analysis | April 16, 2026
After more than 40 days of US-Israeli strikes on Iran and Iranian retaliation across the Middle East, Pakistan helped broker a fragile two-week ceasefire announced on April 7, alongside a temporary re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz and a promise of direct talks in Pakistan the following week. The ceasefire created just enough diplomatic space for the highest-level direct negotiations between the United States and Iran in recent memory.
But when the Islamabad talks collapsed after 21 hours of diplomacy on April 12, Washington almost immediately went back to coercion, with President Donald Trump threatening a blockade of Iranian ports and more strikes.
The fact that both sides agreed to talk, even momentarily, demonstrates their recognition that military escalation and economic coercion could very well spiral out of control and result in severe and unforeseen consequences………………………..
It is quite perplexing that a significant part of what Washington demands of Tehran has already been written into a treaty Iran signed a long time ago—the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a non-nuclear-weapon state party since 1970. Although Tehran is to blame for Washington’s undermined confidence in the NPT, bombing Iran and issuing blockade threats won’t lead to a better non-proliferation arrangement. As state parties to the NPT will convene this month in New York for the treaty’s review conference, it’s about time to remind the Trump administration of the non-proliferation obligations Tehran already agreed to.
Existing obligations. The NPT strictly constrains Iran’s nuclear activities: Article II bars the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Article III requires safeguards, limiting a state’s ability to “quickly achieve a nuclear weapon.” And even if Article IV affirms the rights of states to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear energy, it allows so only if that activity remains within the treaty’s non-proliferation obligations.
Of course, Washington has other demands that go beyond the NPT’s obligations. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Washington’s actions have consistently narrowed the already fragile space for Iranian cooperation with IAEA inspections at the very moment when more visibility and more access are needed. But when Vance now says Iran must renounce not only the bomb but also the “tools” that would allow it to move quickly towards one—tools that reportedly include enrichment capacity, major nuclear facilities, and highly enriched uranium stockpiles—he is in effect describing the function the JCPOA once served, albeit in more maximalist form. That 2015 agreement was designed to lengthen breakout time, constrain enrichment, and make the restraint verifiable. The UN Security Council had endorsed that agreement, and Iran was complying with it until the first Trump administration unilaterally walked away from it in 2018…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/it-seems-washington-needs-to-be-reminded-of-the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Washington%20needs%20to%20be%20reminded%20of%20the%20Nuclear%20Non-Proliferation%20Treaty&utm_campaign=20260416%20Thursday%20Newsletter
The Art of the Deal Is War
April 11, 2026, ScheerPost Staff, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/11/the-art-of-the-deal-is-war/
In a moment that was supposed to signal de-escalation, the United States and Iran announced a temporary two-week ceasefire—only for it to begin unraveling almost immediately. Within hours, accusations of violations surfaced, Israeli airstrikes hit Lebanon, and the fragile illusion of diplomacy gave way to a more familiar reality: war continuing under a different name. As makes clear, this is not an end to conflict—it is a transition into a more dangerous and uncertain phase.
Ben Norton’s latest analysis cuts through the fog with clarity and urgency. His reporting lays out a pattern that is as old as U.S. foreign policy itself: agreements made publicly, undermined privately, and ultimately discarded when they no longer serve imperial interests. Norton points to immediate violations following the ceasefire announcement, particularly Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon, which Tehran argues was explicitly included in the terms of the deal. Washington denies this. Both sides claim victory. Both cannot be telling the truth.
At the heart of Norton’s analysis is a deeper indictment—not just of this ceasefire, but of a broader strategy. The so-called diplomacy surrounding Iran, he argues, often functions less as a path to peace and more as a tactical pause: a chance to regroup, rearm, and reposition. This aligns with a long historical record in which negotiations are used as cover for escalation rather than resolution. From the collapse of the nuclear deal to repeated ceasefire breakdowns in Gaza, the pattern is consistent—and deadly.
But this moment is not just about broken promises. It is about shifting global power. Norton highlights how Iran has leveraged its strategic position—particularly control over the Strait of Hormuz—to exert real pressure on global energy markets. The consequences are already rippling outward: rising oil prices, supply chain disruptions, and the early tremors of what could become a global economic crisis. Even in the unlikely event that peace were to hold, the damage has already been set in motion.
Perhaps most striking is the contradiction at the center of this ceasefire. The U.S. reportedly issued sweeping demands—limiting Iran’s military capacity, restricting enrichment, and reshaping regional alliances—while Iran presented its own conditions, including the lifting of sanctions, withdrawal of U.S. forces, and a halt to all aggression, including in Lebanon. Each side claims the other agreed. The reality, as Norton bluntly frames it, is simple: someone is lying.
This is why Norton’s video is essential viewing. It doesn’t just recount events—it exposes the mechanics of power behind them. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: What does a ceasefire mean when bombs continue to fall? What is diplomacy worth when it is used as a weapon? And how should the world respond when the architects of “peace” are the same actors perpetuating war?
For ScheerPost, reposting and amplifying this analysis is not just about sharing information—it is about challenging the narratives that normalize endless conflict. Because if this moment teaches us anything, it is that war no longer begins with declarations. It begins with agreements.
And sometimes, it never really stops.
From the very start of his video, Norton underscores a crucial reality often buried beneath headlines: this ceasefire is temporary, fragile, and possibly strategic rather than sincere. He warns that even in a “best-case scenario,” the war has already triggered a global energy shock—one that will take months, if not years, to fully unfold. Inflation, supply chain breakdowns, and rising food and fuel prices are not side effects—they are central consequences of this conflict. The war doesn’t pause when bombs stop falling; it continues through markets, shortages, and economic strain felt worldwide.
At the heart of Norton’s analysis is a deeper indictment—not just of this ceasefire, but of a broader strategy. The so-called diplomacy surrounding Iran, he argues, often functions less as a path to peace and more as a tactical pause: a chance to regroup, rearm, and reposition. He points specifically to how a two-week ceasefire could allow U.S. and allied forces to restock depleted weapons systems and prepare for the next phase of escalation. This aligns with a long historical record in which negotiations are used as cover for escalation rather than resolution.
Norton also highlights one of the most revealing contradictions: both Washington and Tehran claim the other agreed to their demands. The U.S. reportedly pushed a sweeping 15-point plan, while Iran published its own 10-point proposal, including sanctions relief, recognition of its regional position, and an end to attacks across all fronts—including Lebanon. These positions are fundamentally incompatible. As Norton bluntly frames it, one side is not telling the truth—and history suggests where skepticism should fall.
Perhaps most striking is his breakdown of what he calls Trump’s “art of the deal” in practice: agreements are made, selectively followed, and then reinterpreted to justify further escalation. It is not diplomacy—it is leverage through deception. And in this case, it may already be unfolding again.
But this moment is not just about broken promises. It is about shifting global power. Norton emphasizes that Iran has demonstrated significant leverage through its control of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. That leverage has already disrupted global markets and forced the U.S. to the negotiating table—whether in good faith or not.
This is why Norton’s video is essential viewing. It doesn’t just recount events—it exposes the mechanics of power behind them. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: What does a ceasefire mean when bombs continue to fall? What is diplomacy worth when it is used as a weapon? And what happens when economic warfare becomes indistinguishable from military conflict?
A conflict of attrition: Iran’s bet on asymmetric warfare
Destabilizing the global economy is perhaps Iran’s most visible and salient use of asymmetric warfare. Tehran has used artillery strikes, sea mines, and electronic warfare to impede transit through the Strait of Hormuz, dominating a vital maritime chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s fossil fuels and fertilizers transit.
By Spenser A. Warren | Analysis | April 7, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/a-conflict-of-attrition-irans-bet-on-asymmetric-warfare/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Iran%20s%20bet%20on%20asymmetric%20warfare&utm_campaign=20260409%20Thursday%20Newsletter
Around midnight on March 30, crewmembers on the bridge of the oil tanker Al Salmi were rocked by a large explosion. Hours later, fires still raged on the ship’s deck. The explosion was caused by an Iranian drone strike. The Al Salmi is not an adversary warship; its crew are not enemy combatants—it is a civilian vessel owned by the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.
Like others on civilian oil tankers, this attack was intended to disrupt energy supplies and threaten regional security. In short, it’s part of Iran’s asymmetric warfare effort—which includes the use of several types of disruptive technologies—over the course of its ongoing conflict with the United States and Israel.
For Iran—in overall military terms far weaker than the United States—an asymmetry strategy attempts to counter expensive, often exquisite US capabilities with cheaper, lower-tech weapons and tactics designed to target critical American vulnerabilities. Most visibly, this strategy has included the use of mines, drone boats, and anti-ship missiles to close the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, Iran has used drone strikes against US assets and those of its regional partners, cyberwarfare, and missile strikes against economic and civilian targets in Israel and the Gulf States. These drone attacks deplete the stockpiles of interceptor missiles defending US and allied bases and infrastructure, degrading air-defense capabilities and increasing political and economic pressure against continued American engagement.
The Trump administration appears to have been taken off guard by at least some of Iran’s tactics, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. A degree of uncertainty is unsurprising given the nature of both asymmetric warfare and disruptive technologies. However, such tactics have been at the center of Iranian strategy for decades, and analysts have explicitly predicted the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a US-Iran war.
Thus far, Iran’s warfare has to some degree degraded American and Israeli capabilities, increased pressure on Washington, and hampered the global economy. While Iran has employed emerging or evolving technologies as part of its efforts, it is also using older technologies to significant effect. But Tehran’s strategy has serious limits, and the United States and Israel have exacted a significant toll on Iran’s military capabilities over the course of the war, now in its sixth week. Overall, this war has shown both the ways that weaker opponents can leverage asymmetric advantages to significant effect and how stronger opponents may still be able to limit the ultimate impact of asymmetric tactics.
Use of asymmetric warfare and disruptive tech. Recognizing its marked conventional imbalance against countries such as the United States and Israel, Tehran has been preparing to fight such a war for years and thus developing a range of technologies and strategies. Iran’s war effort has one overarching goal: survival. To try to achieve it, Iran has pursued tactics that appear to be aimed at three instrumental sub-goals: it has sought to degrade American and Israeli offensive capabilities; attempted to increase political pressures to end the war quickly; and sought to disrupt the global economy to increase economic pressure on Washington.
To target American, Israeli, and partner assets, Iran has used both ballistic missiles and drones. Coming into the war, Iran had a large and diverse missile force that included short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Some estimates placed the number of the Iranian ballistic missile arsenal at around 3,000. Recently, Iran showcased a possibly extended range for some of its ballistic missiles, firing two at a joint US-UK base at Diego Garcia, well beyond the stated maximum range of their capabilities. At this range, Iranians could strike parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia, as well as naval targets in the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean, previously thought safe. To conduct the attempted strike, it’s possible that Iran modified space-launch assets. However, the reliability of such strikes is questionable: One of the two missiles broke up during flight, while the second proved vulnerable to air and missile defenses from Diego Garcia.
Iran’s drone arsenal, which dates to the 1980s, has yielded significant innovations despite producing mostly cheap and expendable, drones. The low cost of these systems, combined with their accuracy and reliability, has allowed Iran to deploy large numbers of them against specific targets, overwhelming defenses. This means Iran can launch enough drones to make a survival rate of only 10 to 20 percent acceptable.
Israel, the United States, and other American partners in the Persian Gulf have succeeded in intercepting many Iranian missiles and drones, limiting the effectiveness of Iran’s strikes. But the interceptions have taken a significant toll on American and partner forces. The United States reports a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) intercept success rate of 90 percent. But this level of effectiveness comes at a high burn rate, potentially using more than 30 percent of its total stockpile of THAAD interceptors in the first 96 hours of Operation Epic Fury alone.
The financial burden of interception alone is staggering. Iran’s Shahed-136 and several other of its variants are estimated to cost between $20,000 and $50,000 per unit. Interceptor costs vary significantly depending on which system a defender is using but can involve multimillion-dollar assets. Beyond the financial bottom line, the depletion of interceptor stockpiles will take many years to rectify, substantially weakening the United States regionally and globally. A reportspecifically on Terminal High Altitude Area Defense depletion suggests that just replacing these assets could take three to eight years.
Iran initially used its improving missile force and drone capabilities to strike American bases in the region but pivoted towards softer civilian targets. Among Iran’s nonmilitary targets is water infrastructure in the Gulf. On March 8, it struck a critical desalination plant in Bahrain. This strike exhibited a level of symmetry instead of asymmetry, with the attack occurring after Iran accused the United States of striking an Iranian desalination plant. Iran’s other targets have included airports and hotels, disrupting travel, tourism, and the domestic economies of several Gulf Arab states, as well as global air travel and logistics networks.
Destabilizing the global economy is perhaps Iran’s most visible and salient use of asymmetric warfare. Tehran has used artillery strikes, sea mines, and electronic warfare to impede transit through the Strait of Hormuz, dominating a vital maritime chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s fossil fuels and fertilizers transit.
Civilian ships have reported strikes from unknown projectiles that are likely mobile or shore-based artillery. Iranian forces have also rammed vessels with explosive-laden uncrewed “kamikaze boats.”
As of March 24th, Iran has also laid approximately a dozen Maham 3 and Maham 7 limpet mines in the Strait. Further, Tehran has made extensive use of electronic warfare targeted at military and civilian assets in and around the Gulf. While the broader use of electronic warfare has had limited effects, it has proven significantly successful in targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Maritime data and intelligence company Lloyd’s List Intelligence has tracked Iranian’s global navigation satellite systems in and around the Strait, logging more than 1,700 jamming incidents affecting 655 vessels, usually lasting around three to four hours each.
The Strait of Hormuz is not completely shut. Iran is allowing shipping from some friendly or neutral states to transit the waterway, so long as vessels comply with IRGC requirements and acquiesce to their inspections. Previous Iranian strikes on neutral shipping, however, has limited the credibility of this claim. As such, the threat of Iranian strikes, concern for seafarer safety, and exorbitant insurance costs have resulted in transit grinding to a near halt.
New and old technologies. Much has been written about the impacts of emerging and novel technologies on strategic outcomes, escalation dynamics, stability, and warfighting. Some of the technologies that Iran has used, such as uncrewed speedboats, are emerging—or at least evolutionary. However, Tehran has proven that many of its old, dated technologies, such as artillery, can still be effective tools of asymmetric warfare.
Both drones and cyber capabilities figure heavily in past literature on emerging disruptive technologies. It may be difficult to describe either, as well as electronic warfare systems, as emerging or novel today. But Iran’s capabilities are evolutionary, with its drone, cyber, and electronic warfare systems becoming increasingly advanced and effective over the past several decades. This is particularly true for Iran’s drone forces, with the country being among the pioneers of drone warfare.
Ballistic missiles, which Iran has used for strikes against US bases and softer, nonmilitary targets, are fundamentally a mid-20th century technology, even if Iran took longer to develop them. Short-range ballistic missiles and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, in particular, emerged more than 70 years ago. Similarly, sea mines are an old technology, not an emerging one, and their impact on the US-Iran war has been limited not by their technological characteristics, but by intentional American strikes against minelaying vessels.
Global impact and wider implications. Iran’s asymmetric warfare has implications beyond the ongoing war and the greater Middle East. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has led to an increase in global oil prices. And those prices are threatening to rise further if the war doesn’t end or the strait isn’t reopened. Additionally, food prices are likely to rise due to a shortage of fertilizer, as the region is one of the main producers of nitrates necessary for crops. Further, up to 20,000 seafarers and several ships are stranded in the Persian Gulf, complicating global shipping, while the inaccessibility of Middle Eastern airports has exacerbated supply chains around the world.
The conduct of the war also provides possible lessons for future conflicts. The use of cheap drones and relatively rudimentary ballistic missile capabilities to draw down interceptor stores is indicative of forthcoming issues that United States would have if fighting a larger conventional adversary unless the American defense industrial base can rapidly ramp up production. Even then, Iran’s successes with $35,000 Shahed drones against multimillion dollar interceptors indicates a balance that favors offensive capabilities in the missile-interceptor race. Conversely, the unwillingness of the United States Navy to traverse the Strait or attempt to clear it alone indicates a balance favoring defensive capabilities and Anti-Access/Area Denial (which restricts adversaries in an area by prohibiting or limiting their ability to operate at a level of acceptable risk) strategies in naval warfare. Iran has successfully limited the world’s most powerful navy’s freedom of navigation despite losing most of its own navy—as well as most of its air force—in the war’s opening days.
Iran’s asymmetric successes may provide lessons for a potential United States-China conflict, though experts should use caution when trying to understand the similarities between the current crisis and a hypothetical one in the Taiwan Strait. First, the United States is likely to bring more forces to bear on China than it has against Iran. Second, the Taiwan Strait is far wider than Hormuz, making certain capabilities that China may use less effective. Third, additional actors—including the Taiwanese and Japanese—would play a significant role, with Taiwan seeking to counter Chinese movements in the Strait and the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force potentially joining the fight, one much larger than partner navies are currently playing in the Persian Gulf. Finally, the Chinese military, especially the Chinese Navy, is far more capable than their Iranian counterparts. Despite these important differences, the United States should draw lessons about the missile-interceptor balance and the effectiveness of adversary Anti-Access/Area Denial capabilities.
Analyzing Iran’s many tactical and operational successes and their implications for future conflicts may be conducive to overstating their broader military successes. Despite blocking off the strait, depleting United States’ and partner interceptor stocks, and hitting military, political, and economic targets with kinetic and cyberattacks, Iran has had several military and political setbacks and has faced stark losses.
The United States has attacked Iranian minelaying ships attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, potentially destroying several dozen of such vessels, if the Defense Department estimates are accurate. The destruction of so much of Iran’s minelaying force has likely contributed to its inability to deploy more than maybe a dozen mines in the Strait. While Iran has continued missile strikes against American, Gulf Arab, and Israeli targets, American and Israeli precision strikes and sabotage have degraded Iran’s missile capabilities, placing a ceiling on their ultimate effectiveness.
Militarily, Iran is likely to be defeated in this war, facing mounting losses with mounting time. But the war is also taking a major strategic toll on the United States. The cost of achieving America’s shifting war aims—including the decapitation of Iran’s pre-war leadership, degrading Iran’s missile forces, and potentially weakening its ability to restart a nuclear program—has been steep. The United States has burned through a large portion of its interceptor stockpile. The war has placed a high level of stress on the U.S.S. Gerald Ford aircraft carrier and its crew, hampering its future readiness. And Iran has struck and destroyed some critical assets, most important an E-3 Sentry aircraft that is part of the airborne warning and control system. Each of these losses reduces American readiness to respond to crises or counter great power adversaries in the short to mid-term future.
I Hope The US Loses And The Empire Collapses, And Other Notes
Caitlin Johnstone, Apr 15, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/i-hope-the-us-loses-and-the-empire?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=194191543&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I don’t mind admitting that I hope the US and Israel suffer a crushing, devastating defeat in Iran. I hope this war collapses the entire US empire. My only loyalty is to humanity, and being on Team Human in today’s world means being against the US empire and against Israel.
I hope the empire falls. I hope the apartheid state of Israel is dismantled. I hope humanity is able to pry the steering wheel from the fingers of the ghouls who currently rule our world, so that we can create a healthy planet and a harmonious future together.
YouTube has banned the channel that’s been creating viral AI Lego music videos criticizing the US war on Iran. The Google-owned platform claims the Lego videos somehow constituted “violent content”, but we all know it was to facilitate the US propaganda effort by shutting down effective propaganda for the other side.
Silicon Valley is a crucial arm of US imperial control. It chooses to advance the interests of the empire at every significant juncture. It’s a branch of imperial soft power in the same way the military is a branch of imperial hard power.
The US and Israel have so normalized the assassination of national leaders that the mainstream press now discuss it as a standard military tactic. The other day The Washington Post ran an article by Marc Thiessen arguing that the US should “carry out a final barrage of leadership strikes, eliminating the Iranian officials who had been spared for the purpose of negotiations.”
“Iran’s leaders must be made to understand that their lives literally depend on reaching a negotiated settlement to Trump’s liking. If they refuse to do so, they will be killed,” Thiessen writes.
At some point one of America’s enemies is going to assassinate a US official and my replies are going to be full of shrieking, outraged Americans acting like I’m the bad guy when I say Washington had it coming.
Even if the US wasn’t directly responsible for the Strait of Hormuz situation, it would still be the last country on earth with any business whining about it. They’re openly imposing a fuel blockade on Cuba while complaining that nobody should be allowed to block shipping lanes, for Christ’s sake.
❖
The Democratic National Committee voted to reject a resolution denouncing the influence of AIPAC in US politics. Eighty percent of Democrats have a negative view of Israel today. The DNC’s main function is to keep the Democratic Party and its representation on the ballot from reflecting the will of the public.
Dear Trump supporters, send me all of your money. I have a plan to make America great again. I will end all the wars and drain the swamp. Don’t worry if it looks like I’m not doing any of those things, I’m playing 4d chess, trust the plan. Send me your life savings right now.
❖
It’s important not to let them pin this all on Trump, in the same way it’s important not to let them pin Israel’s crimes on Netanyahu. Everything we are seeing with this disastrous Iran war is the product of the entire power structure which gave rise to it, not one guy’s dopey decisions.
The warmongers in the DC swamp have been pushing war with Iran for decades. Trump is just the guy who was chosen by Zionist oligarchs and bloodthirsty empire managers to carry out the deed. He happens to be the face on the operation, but if it wasn’t him it would have been someone else.
American warmongering insanity didn’t start with Trump, and it isn’t going to end with him either. Don’t direct your rage merely at the fleeting puppets who come and go from the imperial stage as the US murder machine trudges onward. Direct it at the empire itself.
Normalizing zionist terrorism against Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran
Organizing Notes, Bruce Gagnon, April 09, 2026
Pakistan confirmed US and Iranian delegations will meet Friday in Islamabad, with V-P Vance supposedly leading the American team and Ghalibaf heading Iran’s. However, Iran informed mediators its participation is conditional on a Lebanon ceasefire—a condition Washington explicitly rejected. Trump named Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff as special envoys for behind-closed-doors negotiations.
- New footage documents the effects of the occupation’s bombing of a building in the Tellat al-Khayat area of Beirut, Lebanon.
- The Pentagon: Operation Epic Fury is currently paused, objectives have been achieved, and US forces remain on high alert.
- Sheikh Ali Reza Panahian (Iranian Twelver Shia Scholar & official): “If we leave Lebanon to its fate, God will leave us to ours. If we withdraw from the temporary Zionist regime, it will not withdraw from us. We must secure a possible agreement with the U.S. by destroying Israel”.
- Tehran Metro displays slogans and banners including the phrase ‘We will not abandon Lebanon’. A lot of anger among Iranians tonight for ceasefire violations in Lebanon. One man on the street says, ‘We don’t want this cursed ceasefire if our brothers & sisters in Lebanon are being slaughtered. They stood by us, now we should stand by them’.
- Terrorist Netanyahu: The Zionist entity announces its withdrawal from the ceasefire agreement with Iran. The ceasefire will not include Hezbollah, and we will continue striking them. Yesterday we dealt Hezbollah its biggest blow since Operation Siren (the Pager).
- The United States officially announces that the agreement does not include Lebanon and threatens Iran with escalation if it reneges on the agreement. Trump on Lebanon: ‘That’s part of a separate skirmish, okay?’ And the Trump admin says they will be discussing their 15 points, not Iran’s 10 points. (Recall the Native Americans told us that the ‘White man speaks with a forked tongue’.)
- White House spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt: ‘Iran submitted a 10-point proposal, which was ignored by the President’. JD Vance will not be able to take part in negotiations with Iran in Pakistan due to security concerns —Trump told the New York Post. That leaves perennial liars Witcoff and Kushner. Both real estate crooks and not statesmen which are needed but the US doesn’t have any.
- The ceasefire already going down the hill – fast. The death cult bombed a Chinese New Silk Roads railway INSIDE Iran. US-Israel don’t want peace. They are out to take down all BRICS+ nations. The collective west is in a war to stop the fall of the colonial genocide project. This is a war of massive desperation.
- Iranian National Security Expert Mostafa Najafi: ‘Pakistan’s mediation should be approached with skepticism and caution. It is a country heavily reliant on Saudi Arabia financially, and since Trump came to power, it has sought various ways to curry favor with Washington! It is not unlikely that what is happening in Lebanon is the result of Pakistan’s cunning, acting as a covert agent for the Saudis! The Saudis harbor animosity toward Hezbollah in Lebanon no less than that of Israel! To what extent can Pakistan be relied upon to convey messages’?
- Don’t forget Pakistan’s very popular Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister, is rotting in prison on trumped up charges because he dared support true peace in regional hotspots around the globe.
- Iran has emerged as victorious in the public mind throughout the entire world.
- New York Times: ‘Trump faces political pressure preventing him from resuming the war’. Who could be exerting pressure? The American people? Yes. Global public opinion? Yes. The Iranians, Lebanese, Palestinians, people in Yemen and Iraq? Yes. Then who wants Trump to keep the war going? Israel, Wall Street and the military industrial complex….along of course with the Epstein class. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/04/normalizing-zionist-mobster-terrorism.html
What secret report reveals about British nuclear weapons tests – veterans claimed they were harmed by the fallout
Christopher R. Hill, Professor of History, Faculty of Business and Creative Industries, University of South Wales, Jonathan Hogg, Senior Lecturer in Twentieth Century History, School of Histories, Languages and Cultures, University of Liverpoo, l April 15, 2026 https://theconversation.com/what-secret-report-reveals-about-british-nuclear-weapons-tests-veterans-claimed-they-were-harmed-by-the-fallout-280189
“The Ministry of Defence has always maintained that it never rained,” said Ken McGinley, founder of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA). “I’m sorry, you’re liars … I was there!”
McGinley, who was a royal engineer, gave this interview in January 2024, shortly before his death, as part of our Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans project.
McGinley was present during the Grapple nuclear weapons test series, conducted by the UK on the central Pacific island of Kiritimati (also known as Christmas Island) in the late 1950s. At the time, this remote atoll was inhabited by 250 villagers as well as thousands of British servicemen.
For decades, many of those present during this and other above-ground British nuclear weapons tests have argued they were harmed by radioactive fallout. McGinley founded the BNTVA in 1983 to “gain recognition and restitution” for the veterans who took part in British and American nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965.
Rain became a key symbol in their argument as one of the only tangible signs of fallout taking place. The nuclear physicist Sir Joseph Rotblat described these alleged post-blast showers as “rainout”, a phenomenon whereby rain and mushroom clouds interact, leading to the contamination of rain droplets by harmful radionuclides.
In almost all cases, any link to subsequent health issues has been denied by the UK government because of lack of evidence of widespread radioactive contamination. However, a review of the evidence – written in 2014 by anonymous government scientists in response to freedom of information requests – was recently leaked by whistleblowers.
It reveals that post-blast radiation readings increased by a factor of up to seven on the island, compared with the normal background level. In our view, this would be more than enough to satisfy the “reasonable doubt” that tribunals require for veterans to receive a war pension due to illness or injury related to their service, as stated in the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Services Pension Order.
The top secret review, first revealed publicly by the Mirror newspaper on March 14 2026, also contains new evidence of radioactive contamination of fish in the island’s waters.
The repeated dismissal of veterans’ testimony in court cases and pension appeals caused stress and trauma for many. The majority died insisting they were not deceitful or forgetful – and that it did indeed rain while they were living on Kiritimati.
Factually inaccurate’
Kiritimati was monitored for fallout by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) after each detonation over the island – the largest of which, Grapple Y, was 200 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
In 1993, environmental monitoring data was collated into a report by a team at the MoD’s Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). Known as the Clare report, this informed the UK’s official position on fallout: namely, that none occurred over populated areas and that veterans would need to prove otherwise to secure redress.
However, the 2014 review of fallout data concluded the Clare report was “incomplete and, in some cases, factually inaccurate”.
Despite this review being passed on to the MoD, however, it was kept secret for more than a decade. Following its release, the legal implications could be gamechanging. According to the 2014 review: “The instrument readings could potentially be used to challenge the validity of statements made by MoD and UK government regarding … fallout on Christmas Island.”
In a recent House of Commons debate on the issue, the UK minister for veterans and people, Louise Sandher-Jones, confirmed her commitment “to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency … They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them.”
What Merlin reveals
Behind the scenes, the release of newly declassified archival material in the publicly accessible Merlin database has added to calls for government accountability about the nuclear tests.
Compiled by the treasury solicitor during a class action against the MoD between 2009 and 2012, the database was stored at AWE until the journalist and author Susie Boniface discovered it held information about the medical monitoring of servicemen and Indigenous people. Her work led to its release in 2025.
Holding over 28,000 files, Merlin was commissioned by the MoD in response to the compensation claims made by almost 1,000 veterans from 2009. Its contents include official reports and communications, photographs, maps, safety guidelines and health monitoring information. Video footage includes the Grapple X test in November 1957.
A University of Liverpool team based in The Centre for People’s Justice and the Department of History is working with Boniface and campaign group Labrats International to catalogue and analyse the contents of Merlin – combining it with other sources, including personal testimony. Recently released files indicate nuclear fallout in the island’s ground sediment and rainwater, and heightened radioactivity in its clams.
Evidence has also emerged of radioactive waste being dropped from aeroplanes into the sea off Queensland in 1958 and 1959. Although dumping radioactive waste was surprisingly common during the cold war, this revelation raises questions about how risk and danger was understood and managed during Britain’s nuclear test programme.
The files also show workers without protective clothing around a plutonium pit at Maralinga in South Australia, site of seven British atmospheric nuclear tests in 1956-57.
The Merlin releases have galvanised claims that not so long ago may have been interpreted as conjecture. The recent releases suggest that servicemen and islanders were exposed to radioactive fallout – not just from rain showers, but from the fish they ate and the water they drank.
While a causal link with subsequent health conditions would be hard to prove, we believe it is time for the UK government to get behind a public inquiry into the full impact of Britain’s nuclear weapons testing programme.
Congress A-OK with Trump murdering thousands in Iran and crashing the world economy
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL . 17 April 2026
On Thursday the US House completed Congress’ capitulation to Trump’s deranged, failed war to destroy Iran on behalf of Israel.
The House voted 214 -213 to defeat a War Powers Resolution directing Trump to end his failed Iran war. All Democrats but 1 (Rep. Jared Golden) voted to end the war. All Republicans but 1 (Rep. Tom Massie) voted to keep up the murder and mayhem destroying Iran, Israel, Gulf States, and possibly sending the world economy into recession.
A day earlier the Senate put their ignominious approval on Trump’s madness, defeating their War Powers Resolution by a wider margin of 47-52. Again just 1 Republican (Sen. Rand Paul) voted to end the war and 1 Democrat (Sen. John Fetterman) voted to keep it killing and blowing up the world economy.
Republicans both support whatever Trump promotes and relish endless wars in furtherance of US world dominance no matter how murderous and criminal they are. One Republican representative and senator opposing Trump’s criminal wars out of 274 GOP congresspersons disgraces the Grand Old (War) Party.
Democrats are minimally better. Their War Powers vote was more connected to their opposing anything trump supports. They largely enable US military adventurism worldwide, unlimited military spending in support thereof, and acquiescing in Israeli genocide in Gaza and relentless bombing of civilians in Lebanon. They, like nearly the entire GOP, are bought and paid for by US weapons makers and the US Israel Lobby.
As criminally murderous are Trump and his war party of Hegseth, Vance and Rubio, they could not proceed without the support of Congress. By funding Trump’s endless wars, refusing to condemn them thru War Powers Resolutions and gobbling up pro war campaign cash, they ignore the majority of voters who want this madness ended.
At the rate Trump and his enabling Congress are breaking things, this may be the worst in America’s 250 years.
Trump/Newsom Attack Renewables and Push Nuclear
the Trump family’s media company announced a merger with TAE Technologies, a California-based nuclear fusion company, in a deal worth over $6 billion. So, Trump now has a vested financial interest in nuclear power.
Trump-style, Democrat Newsom has also backstabbed a 2018 comprehensive plan he had signed to phase in a 100% renewable energy-based state grid while phasing out the embrittled, hyper-expensive Diablo reactors, which are surrounded by earthquake faults.
Karl Grossman – Harvey Wasserman
Amidst Donald Trump’s wild Middle East War declarations, the tech billionaire push to nuclear reactor suicide has escalated with the shock relicensing of California’s two nuclear power plants at Diablo Canyon, now being pushed by the state’s liberal Governor Gavin Newsom, who has also joined Trump in their all-out attack against renewable energy.
Together, Trump and Newsom are pushing decrepit, virtually uninsured, militarily indefensible nuclear power plants whose drastic deregulation may now rival the dangers posed by any bombs Iran could produce
They also make no economic or ecological sense.
Despite the latest tsunami of “Nuclear Renaissance” hype, nuclear power plants are losing bigly to the worldwide surge in renewable energy. Solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal, and epic advances in battery storage continue to make the green alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear reactors—big and small—a far cheaper, safer, cleaner, more reliable, more job-producing alternative.
Despite the all-out Trump/Newsom all-out anti-green attack, as the “independent global energy think tank” Ember reported last month, “the world installed a record 814 GW of new solar and wind capacity in 2025, 17% more than in 2024 (696 GW).”
“The latest additions bring the combined global installed capacity of wind and solar to 4,174 GW (over 4 TW),” it said.
One GW (gigawatt) equals a billion watts, roughly the capacity of a big nuclear power plant; a TW is a trillion watts.
London-based Ember adds that “solar accounted for the majority of new capacity additions, with almost 4 GW of new solar added globally for every 1 GW of wind.”
Reuters reported last month: “Renewable power made up almost 50% of the world’s electricity capacity last year after a record increase in solar installations.”
Despite the nuclear power push, some 90% of Earth’s annual newly installed annual generating capacity for the past few years has been solar, wind or geothermal, with battery backup.
Nonetheless, Republican Trump says, “nuclear’s a great energy.” His flood of executive orders on nuclear power have weakened or eliminated nuclear safety regulations—making nuclear power plants more dangerous than ever—and has expedited their being built. Last year his administration finalized an $80 billion deal with Westinghouse for new nuclear power plants.
Also, last year, the Trump family’s media company announced a merger with TAE Technologies, a California-based nuclear fusion company, in a deal worth over $6 billion. So, Trump now has a vested financial interest in nuclear power.
Trump is also attacking wind turbines everywhere. He even wants a $928 million chunk of taxpayer cash spent to kill a French-proposed offshore wind project and to instead fund Texas gas/oil projects, some of which will go for export.
Trump is joined in his all-out war on renewables by Newsom’s pro-utility rate hikes, virtually killing California’s once-booming rooftop photovoltaics industry, costing thousands of jobs and billions in extra rate payments. Even a proposed “balcony solar” bill would strictly limit a technology now cheap, reliable, and enough to power the whole state, as it does on a regular basis, without the need for Diablo’s hyper-expensive billionaire-benefitted power.
Trump is also attacking wind turbines everywhere. He even wants a $928 million chunk of taxpayer cash spent to kill a French-proposed offshore wind project and to instead fund Texas gas/oil projects, some of which will go for export.
Trump is joined in his all-out war on renewables by Newsom’s pro-utility rate hikes, virtually killing California’s once-booming rooftop photovoltaics industry, costing thousands of jobs and billions in extra rate payments. Even a proposed “balcony solar” bill would strictly limit a technology now cheap, reliable, and enough to power the whole state, as it does on a regular basis, without the need for Diablo’s hyper-expensive billionaire-benefitted power.
Trump-style, Democrat Newsom has also backstabbed a 2018 comprehensive plan he had signed to phase in a 100% renewable energy-based state grid while phasing out the embrittled, hyper-expensive Diablo reactors, which are surrounded by earthquake faults.
Trump has promised many millions to cover a loan to keep Diablo operating. But state legislators fear he may leave them holding much of the bag. They could vote to turn down the NRC’s 20-year license extension, and close Diablo instead in 2030.
But Newsom, who’s term-limited this year, will be pushing hard, even as his Diablo betrayal underscores global economic failure of nuclear power.
The two nuclear power projects in the U.S. since 2000 have been fiscal fiascoes. Construction of two plants in South Carolina was halted, the would-be plants abandoned, wasting $9 billion while producing zero electricity. Two plants at Vogtle, Georgia, opened seven years late, costing nearly $40 billion, more than double their original price. Projected cost estimates for the ceaselessly hyped “Small Modular Reactors” vastly exceed current prices for proven battery-backed solar, wind and geothermal.
And from the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants in California to the Palisades plant in Michigan to the Indian Point plants in New York and onto Ukraine and Iran, the perils of nuclear power are clear.
Coupled with nuclear war, nuclear power—hyped as “Atoms for Peace” in the last century—and the more than 400 nuclear power plants worldwide that are now in operation, 94 of them in the United States, constitute lethal threats. The ability of the human species to survive on this planet is being put in nuclear danger, and not just at Diablo Canyon.
Kevin Kamps, executive director of Don’t Waste Michigan, the statewide anti-nuclear coalition founded in the mid-1980s, commented in an interview: “The nuclear industry’s massive campaign contributions to help get its preferred politicians elected in the first place, and it’s even more massive lobbying expenditures to influence office holders and government bureaucrats, explains its stranglehold on law and regulation—it’s the best pro-nuclear democracy money can buy, to paraphrase Greg Palast,” said Kamps. (Palast is the author of the book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.)
“The industry barbarians are so running rampant through the ‘Halls of Power,’ we might as well just hand over the keys to the U.S. Treasury to the nuclear lobbyists and their bosses,” says Kamps.
“Nearly $400 billion in nuclear power bailouts, at federal taxpayer expense, was authorized in just three bills—the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 as well as the absurdly named, downright dangerous ADVANCE Act of 2024 (“Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy”). The three bills, signed into law by President Biden, teed up the current even more outrageous giveaways under Trump, not to mention the regulatory free fall, without a parachute, regarding safety, security, health, and the environment.”
“Such collusion,” said Kamps, “between safety regulators, industry, and government officials, was the root cause of the still unfolding Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe that began in 2011, the Japanese Parliament officially concluded after its year-long independent investigation, the first in its history.”
“After successfully lobbying Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer to champion the unprecedented zombie reactor restart of the infamous, closed Palisades reactor, and to grant Holtec $300 million of state taxpayer funding for its trouble, the head of the University of Michigan nuclear engineering department was downright giddy.” Todd Allen, as reported in Stateline, said: “You’re starting to see a lot of states transition to a position where they’re supportive of nuclear. And compared to 30 years ago, the amount of federal support for nuclear is unbelievable.”
Said Kamps: “It is unbelievable, in a shocking, horrifying, insanely exorbitant, and extremely risky sense.”
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, emasculated by Trump, has just extended the operating licenses of the two Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants by 20 years.
They are now more than 40 years old—with 40 years the length of time nuclear regulators originally set as the limit for a nuclear power plant running before its innards became embrittled by radioactivity leaving them prone for accidents. And. indeed, both Diablo Canyon plants are now deeply embrittled.
Further, the earthquake faults that surround the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants could easily trigger a catastrophic accident. Indeed, the other major industry in the area of the Diablo Canyon plants are hot spas.
The plants were to be shut down, Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025, but California Governor Newsom, a Democrat, led in undoing that arrangement.
In the middle of the U.S., the Palisades nuclear plant was closed in 2022, after five decades of operation, and Holtec International got a contract to decommission it. But then Holtec turned around and said it would instead restart the plant. It would be first restart of a closed nuclear power plant in U.S. history.
Last week, Don’t Waste Michigan warned of “dire consequences” in a little more than a year following a restart. It issued a report by Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer with 55 years experience, that cited a document of Holtec contractor, Framatone, that said “if Palisades is allowed to restart, the steam generators will degrade quickly.”
Gundersen said Framatone “determined that Palisades cannot operate safely even after just the first 14.5 months. Holtec’s contractor admits the likelihood of damage will increase ‘exponentially’ after that point if Palisades is restarted.”
The proposed restart has been made possible by $3.12 billion in federal grants and loans and funds from the state of Michigan with Michigan Governor Whitmer, a Democrat, a major advocate of a Palisades restart.
As Roger Rapoport, an author and journalist who has long reported on nuclear power and also Palisades, wrote last month in the Detroit Free Press, how Holtec International’s purported “unprecedented milestone in U.S. nuclear energy” may be turning into a millstone. Holtec is attempting the first-ever reopening of a nuclear plant permanently closed for decommissioning—the Palisades reactor….Twenty-one months into the project, Holtec has announced delay after delay while continuing to draw vast public subsidies…”
Currently, “Holtec seeks exceptions from Nuclear Regulatory Commission for work on a reactor so noncompliant that no government agency would even consider approving its construction today….After multiple delays…Holtec, a New Jersey company with zero nuclear reactor operating experience, is back in line at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking forgiveness for unpermitted welding on the 55-year-old Palisades reactor pressure vessel containment head.”
This “follows a controversial NRC exemption related to re-sleeving approximately 1,400 cracked tubes at the plant’s ancient steam generators…”
Meanwhile, in New York at the site of the Indian Point nuclear power plants—25 miles from New York City—U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, formerly CEO and founder of a fracking company, joined last month with Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York calling for the reopening of the two plants.
One plant was shut down in 2020 and a second in 2021 because of safety concerns related to the plants being located in the most densely populated area of the U.S. Some 22 million people live within 50 miles of the nuclear plants. The two plants began operating in 1974 and 1976.
Holtec also got the contract to decommission these plants. Holtec International President Kelly Trice declared interest in his company restarting them instead, at a cost of $10 billion. “I’m getting so many people asking me from New York if this is possible,” he said. “The answer is yes.”
Even on Long Island, east of New York City, where the Long Island Lighting Company proposed nearly 60 years ago to build seven to eleven nuclear power plants, suddenly a pro-nuclear voice has emerged. There was strong opposition from the grassroots and from the government of Suffolk County, where the plants were to be located, and the scheme was blocked, along with the opening of the one plant built, at Shoreham.
Among issues raised in the decades-long battle against nuclear power on Long Island was how the eight million people on Long Island could evacuate in the event of a major nuclear plant accident—considering that the only ways off Long Island are several bridges and tunnels into New York City.
But, last week, John Duffy, treasurer and business manager of Local 138 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, wrote in Long Island Business News a piece which included the heading that “let’s repower Shoreham.”
Even on Long Island, east of New York City, where the Long Island Lighting Company proposed nearly 60 years ago to build seven to eleven nuclear power plants, suddenly a pro-nuclear voice has emerged. There was strong opposition from the grassroots and from the government of Suffolk County, where the plants were to be located, and the scheme was blocked, along with the opening of the one plant built, at Shoreham.
Among issues raised in the decades-long battle against nuclear power on Long Island was how the eight million people on Long Island could evacuate in the event of a major nuclear plant accident—considering that the only ways off Long Island are several bridges and tunnels into New York City.
But, last week, John Duffy, treasurer and business manager of Local 138 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, wrote in Long Island Business News a piece which included the heading that “let’s repower Shoreham.”
She also, in her state of the state address this year, called for the construction of five gigawatts of new nuclear power in the state—the equivalent of five large nuclear power plants. And her Public Service Commission last year approved $33.3 billion to be paid by every electric ratepayer in New York State as a subsidy for four nuclear power plants in upstate New York, including Nine Mile Point 1, the oldest nuclear power plant now running in the United States.
Meanwhile, overseas, in the wars in Ukraine and Iran, nuclear power plants have become examples of what Dr. Bennett Ramberg, an internationally known expert on nuclear proliferation, wrote about in his book “Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril,” first published in 1980. In it he wrote that “despite multiplication of nuclear power plants, little public consideration has been given to their vulnerability in time of war.”
When Putin sent troops pouring through Belarus into northern Ukraine in 2022, they quickly assaulted the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which exploded in 1986. The core of Unit 4 has been covered with a $2 billion sarcophagus funded by European nations.
Since then, Russia has used drones at the Chernobyl site which have punctured the sarcophagus. And has also attacked the six-reactor Zaporyzhia nuclear plant site in Ukraine.
In Iran, there have been attacks at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Just last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that “following information from Iran of a projectile incident on Tuesday evening, the IAEA can confirm that a structure 350 metres from the Bushehr NPP reactor was hit and destroyed.” IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said: “Although there was no damage to the reactor itself nor injuries to staff, any attack at or near nuclear power plants violates the seven indispensable pillars related to ensuring nuclear safety and security during an armed conflict and should never take place.”
But they are taking place—and can be expected to continue because, indeed, nuclear power plants can be “weapons for the enemy” and, indeed, this largely remains an “unrecognized military peril.”
A measure of the impacts of a nuclear plant disaster are detailed in the book “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment.”
Published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009, it was authored by three noted scientists: Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr. Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor was Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.
The book is based on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports—5,000 documents. It concluded that based on the records that were scrutinized, some 985,000 people died largely of cancer caused by the Chernobyl accident in nations that underwent radioactive fallout from the disaster. That was between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projected, would follow. And they have.
Contrary to the industry hype, all atomic reactors emit planet-killing radioactive Carbon 14. They directly heat the planet, destroy our lakes, rivers and oceans with chemicals and radiation, kill millions of fish per year. They create radioactive waste for which there is no safe place on this planet. Their “normal” radiation releases ceaselessly harm and kill untold thousands of downwind neighbors.
And with the planet-killing new “Nuclear Renaissance” now in play, there will be more and more deaths from nuclear power—unless there is a stop put to this failed, deadly, hyper-expensive technology, with our species finally taking the true Solartopian road with energy we can live with.
Harvey Wasserman wrote the books Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth and The Peoples Spiral of US History. He helped coin the phrase “No Nukes.” He co-convenes the Grassroots Emergency Election Protection Coalition at www.electionprotection2024.org Karl Grossman is the author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and Power Crazy. He the host of the nationally-aired TV program Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman (www.envirovideo.com)
-
Archives
- May 2026 (62)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 