nuclear-news

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

Biden administration lies on Ukraine war are monstrous

 https://heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com/ 6 Aug 24

Notice mainstream news has imposed a virtual blackout of news about US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. One can watch 24/7 and see nary a story on a war that could go nuclear in a heartbeat.

Couple of reasons for this. Mainstream news understands the US is suffering a staggering defeat in its effort to save its proxy state Ukraine in order to weaken Russia. Neither Republican nor Democratic media want to touch covering America’s dysfunctional war policy. Bleeding only leads when it’s the other side doing all the bleeding.

A second reason is media fatigue from the Biden administration endless lies for all 30 months of this war without a single truth worth reporting.

The original and biggest lie was the one that kicked off this war on February 24, 2022. Biden claimed Russian President Putin woke up one morning and decided to recreate the Soviet Union…starting by gobbling up Ukraine.

The truth is the US had been provoking the Russian invasion starting with President George W. Bush’s 2008 pledge to entice Ukraine into NATO to weaken, isolate Russia. Russia allowing this senseless US provocation to go on for 14 years is something America would never have done if the situation were reversed. It took the US about 14 hours to respond militarily to Russian missiles in Cuba 60 years earlier.

Biden’s next big whopper was framing the resulting conflict as democracy versus authoritarianism. He proclaimed Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky ‘The 21st Century Churchill’, saving Ukrainian democracy from Russian authoritarianism.

But for the past 30 months Zelensky has snuffed out every vestige of the touted Ukraine democracy. He’s cancelled elections under martial law, essentially making him president for the war’s life. No wonder he’s doing nothing to negotiate its end. When the war ends, so does Zelensky’s grasp on power, and possibly his life.

Additionally, Zelensky has banned opposition parties, squelched Ukraine’s free press, curtailed religious freedom and erased any hint of Russian culture among Ukrainian citizens so inclined.

But Biden’s most monstrous lie was that he’d do nothing in supporting Ukraine that could trigger nuclear war, something he said was a real possibility.at the war’s start. For 30 months he’s done the opposite, steadily arming Ukraine with nuclear capable F-16 fighters, Abram tanks and long-range missiles that can hit the heart of Russia. Telling Ukraine to be cautious not to provoke nuclear war with them is akin to giving matches to a kid, then telling him to use them judiciously.

There are many more in Biden’s blizzard of lies over the US proxy war in Ukraine. The saddest for the dying country of Ukraine being sacrificed on the altar of Biden’s lust to weaken, isolate Russia is this. “We will stand with Ukraine forever. We will never abandon Ukraine to Russian aggression.” Biden abandoned Ukraine 30 months ago. The US press and citizenry, weary of Biden’s endless lies on Ukraine, have moved on.

August 9, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

World-Ending Maneuvers? Inside the Nuclear-Weapons Lobby Today

A prime example of the power of the nuclear weapons lobby is the Senate ICBM Coalition. That group is composed of senators from four states — Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming — that either house major ICBM bases or host significant work on the Sentinel. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the members of that coalition have received more than $3 million in donations from firms involved in the production of the Sentinel over the past four election cycles.  Nor were they alone. ICBM contractors made contributions to 92 of the 100 senators and 413 of the 435 house members in 2024. Some received hundreds of thousands of dollars.

TomDispatch, By Hekmat Aboukhater and William D. Hartung August 7, 2024

The Pentagon is in the midst of a massive $2 trillion multiyear plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles, bombers, and submarines. A large chunk of that funding will go to major nuclear weapons contractors like Bechtel, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. And they will do everything in their power to keep that money flowing.

This January, a review of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program under the Nunn-McCurdy Act — a congressional provision designed to rein in cost overruns of Pentagon weapons programs — found that the missile, the crown jewel of the nuclear overhaul plan involving 450 missile-holding silos spread across five states, is already 81% over its original budget. It is now estimated that it will cost a total of nearly $141 billion to develop and purchase, a figure only likely to rise in the future.

That Pentagon review had the option of canceling the Sentinel program because of such a staggering cost increase. Instead, it doubled down on the program, asserting that it would be an essential element of any future nuclear deterrent and must continue, even if the funding for other defense programs has to be cut to make way for it. In justifying the decision, Deputy Defense Secretary William LaPlante stated: “We are fully aware of the costs, but we are also aware of the risks of not modernizing our nuclear forces and not addressing the very real threats we confront.”

Cost is indeed one significant issue, but the biggest risk to the rest of us comes from continuing to build and deploy ICBMs, rather than delaying or shelving the Sentinel program. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry has noted, ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” because they “could trigger an accidental nuclear war.” As he explained, a president warned (accurately or not) of an enemy nuclear attack would have only minutes to decide whether to launch such ICBMs and conceivably devastate the planet.

Possessing such potentially world-ending systems only increases the possibility of an unintended nuclear conflict prompted by a false alarm. And as Norman Solomon and the late Daniel Ellsberg once wrote, “If reducing the dangers of nuclear war is a goal, the top priority should be to remove the triad’s ground-based leg — not modernize it.” 

This is no small matter. It is believed that a large-scale nuclear exchange could result in more than five billion of us humans dying, once the possibility of a “nuclear winter” and the potential destruction of agriculture across much of the planet is taken into account, according to an analysis by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

In short, the need to reduce nuclear risks by eliminating such ICBMs could not be more urgent. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ “Doomsday Clock” — an estimate of how close the world may be at any moment to a nuclear conflict — is now set at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it’s been since that tracker was first created in 1947. And just this June, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a mutual defense agreement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, a potential first step toward a drive by Moscow to help Pyongyang expand its nuclear arsenal further. And of the nine countries now possessing nuclear weapons, it’s hardly the only one other than the U.S. in an expansionist phase. 

Considering the rising tide of nuclear escalation globally, is it really the right time for this country to invest a fortune of taxpayer dollars in a new generation of devastating “use them or lose them” weapons? The American public has long said no, according to a 2020 poll by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, which showed that 61% of us actually support phasing out ICBM systems like the Sentinel.

The Pentagon’s misguided plan to keep such ICBMs in the U.S arsenal for decades to come is only reinforced by the political power of members of Congress and the companies that benefit financially from the current buildup. 

Who Decides? The Role of the ICBM Lobby

A prime example of the power of the nuclear weapons lobby is the Senate ICBM Coalition. That group is composed of senators from four states — Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming — that either house major ICBM bases or host significant work on the Sentinel. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the members of that coalition have received more than $3 million in donations from firms involved in the production of the Sentinel over the past four election cycles.  Nor were they alone. ICBM contractors made contributions to 92 of the 100 senators and 413 of the 435 house members in 2024. Some received hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The nuclear lobby paid special attention to members of the armed services committees in the House and Senate. For example, Mike Turner, a House Republican from Ohio, has been a relentless advocate of “modernizing” the nuclear arsenal. In a June 2024 talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which itself has received well over a million dollars in funding from nuclear weapons producers, he called for systematically upgrading the nuclear arsenal for decades to come, while chiding any of his congressional colleagues not taking such an aggressive stance on the subject.

Although Turner vigorously touts the need for a costly nuclear buildup, he fails to mention that, with $305,000 in donations, he’s been the fourth-highest recipient of funding from the ICBM lobby over the four elections between 2018 and 2024. Little wonder that he pushes for new nuclear weapons and staunchly opposes extending the New START arms reduction treaty.

In another example of contractor influence, veteran Texas representative Kay Granger secured the largest total of contributions from the ICBM lobby of any House member. With $675,000 in missile contractor contributions in hand, Granger went to bat for the lobby, lending a feminist veneer to nuclear “modernization” by giving a speech on her experience as a woman in politics at Northrop Grumman’s Women’s conference. And we’re sure you won’t be surprised that Granger has anything but a strong track record when it comes to keeping the Pentagon and arms makers accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse in weapons programs. Her X account is, in fact, littered with posts heaping praise on Lockheed Martin and its overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat aircraft.

Other recipients of ICBM contractor funding, like Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers, have lamented the might of the “far-left disarmament community,” and the undue influence of “anti-nuclear zealots” on our politics. Missing from the statements his office puts together and the speeches his staffers write for him, however, is any mention of the $471,000 in funding he’s received so far from ICBM producers. You won’t be surprised, we’re sure, to discover that Rogers has pledged to seek a provision in the forthcoming National Defense Authorization Act to support the Pentagon’s plan to continue the Sentinel program.

Lobbying Dollars and the Revolving Door

The flood of campaign contributions from ICBM contractors is reinforced by their staggering investments in lobbying. In any given year, the arms industry as a whole employs between 800 and 1,000 lobbyists, well more than one for every member of Congress. Most of those lobbyists hired by ICBM contractors come through the “revolving door” from careers in the Pentagon, Congress, or the Executive Branch. That means they come with the necessary tools for success in Washington: an understanding of the appropriations cycle and close relations with decision-makers on the Hill.

During the last four election cycles, ICBM contractors spent upwards of $226 million on 275 extremely well-paid lobbyists. For example, Bud Cramer, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama who once sat on the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, netted $640,000 in fees from Northrop Grumman over a span of six years. He was also a cofounder of the Blue Dog Democrats, an influential conservative faction within the Democratic Party. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that Cramer’s former chief of staff, Jefferies Murray, also lobbies for Northrop Grumman.

While some lobbyists work for one contractor, others have shared allegiances. For example, during his tenure as a lobbyist, former Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Trent Lott received more than $600,000 for his efforts for Raytheon, Textron Inc., and United Technologies (before United Technologies and Raytheon merged to form RX Technologies). Former Virginia Congressman Jim Moran similarly received $640,000 from Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.

Playing the Jobs Card

The argument of last resort for the Sentinel and similar questionable weapons programs is that they create well-paying jobs…………………………………………………………………….

Unwarranted Influence in the Nuclear Age

Advocates for eliminating ICBMs from the American arsenal make a strong case.  (If only they were better heard!) For example, former Representative John Tierney of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation offered this blunt indictment of ICBMs:

“Not only are intercontinental ballistic missiles redundant, but they are prone to a high risk of accidental use…They do not make us any safer. Their only value is to the defense contractors who line their fat pockets with large cost overruns at the expense of our taxpayers. It has got to stop.”

The late Daniel Ellsberg made a similar point in a February 2018 interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

“You would not have these arsenals, in the U.S. or elsewhere, if it were not the case that it was highly profitable to the military-industrial complex, to the aerospace industry, to the electronics industry, and to the weapons design labs to keep modernizing these weapons, improving accuracy, improving launch time, all that. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower talked about is a very powerful influence. We’ve talked about unwarranted influence. We’ve had that for more than half a century.”

Given how the politics of Pentagon spending normally work, that nuclear weapons policy is being so heavily influenced by individuals and organizations profiting from an ongoing arms race should be anything but surprising. Still, in the case of such weaponry, the stakes are so high that critical decisions shouldn’t be determined by parochial politics. The influence of such special interest groups and corporate weapons-makers over life-and-death issues should be considered both a moral outrage and perhaps the ultimate security risk.

Isn’t it finally time for the executive branch and Congress to start assessing the need for ICBMs on their merits, rather than on contractor lobbying, weapons company funding, and the sort of strategic thinking that was already outmoded by the end of the 1950s? For that to happen, our representatives would need to hear from their constituents loud and clear.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, Songlands (the final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, and Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America’s Wars: The Untold Story.  https://tomdispatch.com/world-ending-maneuvers/


August 8, 2024 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Canada’s future generations: affordable clean energy vs. legacy nuclear debt?

For the sake of today and tomorrow’s young, Canada needs to follow a ‘sustainable renewables path to net zero’ using all of our people and financial resources.

Our government must not saddle the generations to come with the debt for nuclear ‘white elephants’ when affordable, clean, renewable power can meet our needs now and theirs in future, writes Gail Wylie.

BY GAIL WYLIE | August 1, 2024,  https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2024/08/01/canadas-future-generations-affordable-clean-energy-vs-legacy-nuclear-debt/429822/

Canadians concerned about climate change want Canada to meet its obligations to future generations by addressing climate change rapidly and responsibly. This requires us to implement current technologies for efficiency, renewable power, modern storage, and electrical grid options.

Instead, the federal government has placed inordinate bets on nuclear power expansion. This includes tens of millions of dollars in funding and loans for experimental small modular reactors, and $50-million in federal predevelopment funding to assess new generation opportunities for Bruce Power’s facility. Nuclear expansion, however, fails Canada’s decarbonization goals of speed and affordability, and takes limited resources away from lower cost, proven climate solutions.

On affordability, Ontario’s lowest cost decarbonized power sources are: efficiency 1.6 cents per kWh, solar plus storage 10 cents per kWh, onshore wind plus storage 10.5 cents per kWh and Quebec water power 5.2 cents per kWh. Nuclear falls among higher costs at 10.5 cents per kWh in 2024, rising to 13.7 cents projected with refurbishments for 2027, and future new nuclear reactors 24.4 cents per kWh.

Ontarians are still paying down the original $38.1-billion in debt and liabilities from Ontario Hydro in 1999 when its finances were over-extended during the period of expanded nuclear power facilities. 

The lengthy approval and construction times and costs for new nuclear are a further caveat highlighted by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report. France renationalized Électricité de France in 2023 facing $70-billion in debt, including the Flamanville reactor at 19.1 billion euros and 17-year completion for 2024. The United Kindgom’s Hinkley Point C which began in 2018 is delayed to 2027 projecting costs of $44-billion. The first of two Vogtle U.S.A. reactors, going live in 2023, took 10 years at $35-billion in cost estimate for the pair. International banks have rebuffed plans by 22 countries at COP28 to “triple nuclear power by 2050,” indicating the lack of a business case for such investment.

The hope of faster, cheaper small modular reactors (SMRs) is fading as the lead developer, NuScale, lost its Utah Utilities investor as projections rose from $3-billion in 2015 to $9.3-billion in 2023. Two SMR designs in New Brunswick are also unlikely to be commercialized.

Future generations who will pay for the power capacity being built in this decade cannot afford these unnecessary financial risks and delays of expanding nuclear assets. The young urgently need affordable housing with energy prices ensuring ‘affordable to heat, cool, and cook-in housing.’

The federal government falsely claims “no path to net zero without nuclear.” The industry mantra of nuclear reliability over renewables “when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow” has been debunked by science-based modelling studies. The Suzuki Foundation’s report, Shifting Power: Zero-Emissions Electricity Across Canada by 2035, and Mark Jacobson’s work at Stanford University, A Solution to Global Warming: Air Pollution, and Energy Insecurity for Canada, both outline the mix of solutions for reliable, affordable, rapid decarbonization across this country by 2035 without new nuclear. The International Renewable Energy Agency’s 2024 analysis confirms that affordable, worldwide transition is attainable with renewables. 

Shrinking battery costs for power storage (kWh in 2022 costing US$159 down as low as $59 currently) and modern electrical grid technologies facilitate renewables’ reliability as reflected in energy strategist Michael Barnard’s analysis. Outages at New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station during peak winter periods in 2021 and 2022/23, and its 2024 extended maintenance, reflect nuclear’s vulnerability.

Dealing with nuclear waste is the other elephant in the room with financial and environmental impacts for generations in perpetuity. Phasing out nuclear power—not expanding it—reduces future costs.

So why is Canada not on a renewables path to net zero? Are we too balkanized to co-operate, leading Ontario to expand gas and nuclear power after rejecting Quebec’s 2019 20-year offer of five cents per kWh hydro power?

Or is this the ‘siren song’ of the nuclear lobby, funded with ratepayers’ money, seducing governments with the caché of ‘top tier’ status in the international nuclear club?  Nuclear-armed club members—U.K., France, the United States, and Russia—need civil nuclear as a ‘nuclear supply chain.’ Canada does not!

August 8, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Majority of Americans Oppose Using US Troops To Defend Israel

By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com,  https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/07/majority-of-americans-oppose-using-us-troops-to-defend-israel/

The majority of Americans oppose the idea of US troops being used to defend Israel if it comes under attack by Iran, according to a poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that was released on Tuesday.

The poll, conducted from June 21–July 1, 2024, found that 56% of Americans oppose US troops defending Israel, while 42% support the idea. Support for defending Israel is stronger among Republicans, with 53% in favor and only 32% of Democrats in favor.

The survey also found that 55% of Americans oppose US troops defending Israel if it comes under attack by a neighboring country.

The results come as the Biden administration is vowing to defend Israel from an expected Iranian reprisal attack for the killing of Hamas’s political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran. A major coordinated attack launched by Iran and its allies could result in American casualties, and the US support for Israel risks a major regional war.

The US defended Israel from an Iranian attack in April, which came in response to the Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria. The Biden administration intervened directly to protect Israel and is pledging to do so again without any authorization from Congress or any debate on the matter.

The Chicago Council showed the lowest level of support for defending Israel among Americans since the Chicago Council began asking the question in 2010. In 2015, 2018, and 2021, the majority of Americans (53%) supported the idea.

The Chicago Council attributed the lower level of American support for defending Israel to Israel’s onslaught in Gaza. “The unrelenting Israeli attacks against Gaza have likely dampened American willingness to defend Israel, especially among Democrats,” reads an article published on the Chicago Council website.

August 8, 2024 Posted by | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Majority of Americans support more nuclear power, but future of large-scale nuclear is uncertain

 A majority of U.S. adults remain supportive of expanding nuclear power in
the country, according to a Pew Research Center survey from May. Overall,
56% say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. This
share is statistically unchanged from last year. A line chart showing that
a majority of Americans continue to support more nuclear power in the U.S.


But the future of large-scale nuclear power in America is uncertain. While
Congress recently passed a bipartisan act intended to ease the nuclear
energy industry’s financial and regulatory challenges, reactor shutdowns
continue to gradually outpace new construction.

Americans remain more
likely to favor expanding solar power (78%) and wind power (72%) than
nuclear power. Yet while support for solar and wind power has declined by
double digits since 2020 – largely driven by drops in Republican support
– the share who favour nuclear power has grown by 13 percentage points
over that span.

 Pew Research 5th Aug 2024

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/05/majority-of-americans-support-more-nuclear-power-in-the-country/

August 8, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

What do Americans really think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Bulletin, By Scott D. Sagan, Gina Sinclair | August 5, 2024

In mid-August 1945, within weeks of the end of World War II, Americans were polled on whether they approved of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  An overwhelmingly high percentage of Americans—85 percent—answered “yes.” That level of approval has gone down over the years, with (depending on the precise wording of the question) only a slim majority (57 percent in 2005) or a large minority (46 percent in 2015) voicing approval in more recent polls.

This reduction in atomic bombing approval over time has been cited as evidence of a gradual normative change in public ethical consciousness, the acceptance of a “nuclear taboo” or what Brown University scholar Nina Tannenwald has called “the general delegitimation of nuclear weapons.” 

This common interpretation of US public opinion, however, is too simplistic. Disapproval has indeed grown over time, but most Americans remain supportive of the 1945 attacks, albeit wishing that alternative strategies had been explored. These conclusions can be clearly seen in the results of a new, more complex public opinion survey, conducted for this article, that asked a representative sample of Americans about their views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, examined alternative strategies for ending the war, and provided follow-on questions to determine how the public weighs the costs and benefits of different strategies. 

Scratch beneath the surface, and the American public today, as in 1945, does not display an ethically based taboo against using nuclear weapons or killing enemy civilians, but rather has a preference for doing whatever was necessary to win the war and save American lives…………………………………………………………………………………………….

US public opinion in 2015 and 2024. A 2015 replication of the 1945 Roper poll found that 14.4 percent of Americans felt the United States should not have used atomic bombs at all, that 31.6 percent thought a bomb should have been dropped in a demonstration strike on an unpopulated area, but that almost no one (less than 3 percent) wanted to use more bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender.

For this article, we replicated the 1945 Roper poll again with a representative sample of 2,000 Americans on June 21, 2024, but then asked follow-on questions to help us determine what the public really meant when answering the survey. Such follow-on questions are necessary to understand the public’s deeper set of commitments and preferences. Did those opposing any use of the atomic bombs really support such a policy even if it meant ending the war without a Japanese government surrender? Or would they support dropping the bomb if Japan did not surrender? Would those who favor a demonstration strike today support bombing cities if the demonstration strike failed to compel Tokyo to surrender, or did they oppose atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki under all circumstances? In short, what do Americans really think, now, about using nuclear weapons in 1945?

Options and alternatives. The percentage of respondents who said that the United States shouldn’t have used any atomic bombs at all increased from 4.3 percent in 1945, to 14.4 percent in 2015, to 36.7 percent in 2024. The percentage of respondents who preferred the demonstration strike option decreased from 31.6 percent to 20.9 percent. Public support for use of the two bombs, as the United States did in 1945, followed the same general trend, decreasing to 19.4 percent.  But what do these trends reveal about US opinion? Our follow-on questions were designed to measure the public’s true willingness to use nuclear weapons and kill enemy civilians…………………………………………………

In short, when reminded of the Japanese refusal to surrender, the strong majority (82.33 percent) of those who originally favored the demonstration strike then accepted nuclear or conventional attacks on Japanese cities.

Why these preferences? The basic finding that over 36 percent of Americans said today that the United States should not have used any atomic bombs cannot reasonably be interpreted as an indication of a widespread nuclear taboo. It may be a positive trend, but it is not a robust opinion. Indeed, less than half of those respondents maintained that position after they were reminded (as was the case in 1945) that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender prior to the atomic bomb attacks.

Instead, our 2024 Roper Poll replication provides three valuable insights about American public opinion. First, much of US public is, in fact, still supportive of the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Adding the answers from the different follow-on questions, reveals that 41.3 percent of all respondents were ultimately willing to use a nuclear bomb on one or more cities, and many more Americans (over 25% of all respondents) reported that they didn’t know what their preferences were in this wartime scenario. These findings are inconsistent with the existence of a nuclear taboo and underscore that large hawkish instincts lurk within the U.S. public.

A second novel finding relates to the public’s willingness to attack cities and thereby violate the basic law of armed conflict and the just war principle of non-combatant immunity. While only 41.3 percent of respondents were ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons against cities, many other respondents favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan. Reasons given by respondents who had at first stated that they opposed nuclear attacks, but then favored continued conventional bombing once reminded that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender included: “Because if humane tactics don’t work, then you gotta do what you Gotta do;” “Since they refuse to heed to the warning, then they deserve war;” and “If Japan doesn’t surrender than it’s time to show them what we can do.”

Altogether, adding advocates of conventional bombing with advocates of nuclear attacks, 51.25 percent of all respondents chose to attack Japanese cities and kills civilians on a massive scale. This shows that the non-combatant immunity principle, contrary to the claims of some experts, does not have strong “stopping power” at least among the public. These findings challenge the theories of scholars such as Charli Carpenter, Alexander Montgomery, Steven Pinker, Neta Crawford, and Ward Thomas, who posit that a decrease in willingness to use nuclear weapons is a result of broader acceptance of the just war principle of non-combatant immunity.

………………………………………………….. many responses in the 2024 Roper Poll revealed something else: a notable percentage of respondents (15.92 percent) cited their beliefs on the importance of US isolationism and avoiding any engagement in foreign affairs.

……………………………………………These findings about contemporary views of the 1945 atomic bombing are consistent with previous research demonstrating that large segments of the American public are willing to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran, in order to avoid US military fatalities, or against a terrorist organization planning chemical weapons attacks on the United States. …………………………………

The American public does not hold a strong nuclear taboo and indeed, may be more of a goad than a constraint on any future president who is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons in trying wartime conditions. While the laws of armed conflict and just war doctrine may still be a constraint on nuclear use, their powers are more likely to exercised by the moral compass of individual political leaders or the legal training of senior military officers, not through the deeply problematic instincts of the American public. https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/what-do-americans-really-think-about-the-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=DayNewsletter08052024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_WhatAmericansReallyThink_08052024

August 7, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

The pictures worth a thousand words

Canada and the Atom Bomb Exhibition

Canada’s little-known role in atomic bombings on display

By Anton Wagner, 4 Aug 24, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/08/04/the-pictures-worth-a-thousand-words/

The Hiroshima Nagasaki Day Coalition launched a “Canada and the Atom Bomb” photo exhibition inside Toronto City Hall on August 2. The exhibition of 100 photographs reveals the Canadian government’s participation in the American Manhattan Project that developed the atom bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. 

The exhibition can be viewed in its entirety online at the Toronto Metropolitan University website.

It documents how the Eldorado Mining and Refining Company extracted uranium ore at Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories in the late 1930s and shipped the ore to its refinery in Port Hope, Ontario, for sale to the Americans. 

Images by the Montreal photographer Robert Del Tredici focus on the Dene hunters and trappers at Great Bear Lake who were hired by Eldorado to carry the sacks of radioactive ore on their backs for loading onto barges that transported the ore to Port Hope. Many of them subsequently died of cancer. 

Before his death in 1940, the Dene spiritual leader Louis Ayah had prophesied that such an illness would befall the Dene because of white men mining on Dene territory. Ayah also prophesied a nuclear holocaust that would end human civilization. 

Prime Minister Mackenzie King hosted President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Quebec City in 1943 where they agreed to have Canada participate in the production of the atom bomb. 

The exhibition highlights this participation by the Canadian government, scientists, industry, and nuclear research laboratories. Posters from the Hiroshima Peace Museum show the death and destruction in the two bombed cities. The exhibition includes five images by Yoshito Matsushige, the only photographer who took pictures in Hiroshima the day the atom bomb exploded overhead.   

“Canada and the Atom Bomb” concludes with photographs showing the efforts by peace activists to persuade Toronto City Council to participate in the world-wide movement to abolish nuclear weapons. In 2017, City Council reaffirmed Toronto as a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone and called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to have Canada ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Setsuko Thurlow accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in Oslo, Norway, in December 2017. A Hiroshima survivor, Thurlow, now 92, attended the opening of the “Canada and the Atom Bomb” exhibition on August 2. She will also speak at the annual August 6 commemoration at the Toronto City Hall Peace Garden to urge that Canada sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Anton Wagner is with the Hiroshima Nagasaki Day Coalition.

August 6, 2024 Posted by | Canada, culture and arts | Leave a comment

US Congressmen Say ‘No War With Iran!’

“Israel’s dramatic escalation is completely compatible with its past efforts to drag the U.S. into another war,” one expert said of the Israeli assassination of a Hamas leader in Iran.

Jessica Corbett, Aug 04, 2024

Amid mounting fears of a regional war in the Middle East, a pair of Democratic congressmen joined the growing chorus warning against the U.S. engaging in an armed conflict with Iran.

In response to U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introducing a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on social media Saturday that “the U.S. must not be dragged into a war with Iran.”

“The Iraq War was the biggest American blunder of the 21st century,” Khanna added. “Every candidate running this cycle must be clear on where they stand on this.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said early Sunday: “I agree with Ro Khanna. No war with Iran! Let’s all get on record with this.”

Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, urged Khanna to introduce a related war powers resolution, arguing that “we really could use a clear vehicle like this to increase the pressure for no U.S. military intervention in a disastrous war with Iran.”

“We’re a miscalculation or a miscue away from an event that could draw the U.S. and Iran into a direct military conflict.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-iran-war

August 6, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Where Is the Biden Plan to End the War in Ukraine?

On the face of it, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.

Biden team blows off deadline for Ukraine war strategy

Perhaps the administration can’t admit it doesn’t have one.

Anatol Lieven, Aug 02, 2024,  https://responsiblestatecraft.org/biden-ukraine-strategy/

Almost 100 days have now passed since the Congress passed $61 billion in emergency funding for Ukraine, a measure that included a condition that required the Biden Administration to present to the legislative body a detailed strategy for continued U.S. support.

When the funding bill was passed with much fanfare on April 23, Section 504, page 32 included the following mandate:

“Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall submit to 18 the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on 20 Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a strategy regarding United States support for Ukraine against aggression by the Russian Federation: Provided, That such strategy shall be multi-year, establish specific and achievable objectives, define and prioritize United States national security interests…”

It is now August and There is still no sign on the part of the Biden Administration of any intention to submit such a strategy to Congress. This inevitably leads to the suspicion that no such strategy in fact exists. It also suggests that without a massive change of mindset within the administration, it is not even possible to hold — let alone make public —serious and honest internal discussions on the subject, as these would reveal the flawed and empty assumptions on which much of present policy is based.

This relates first of all to the requirement “to define and prioritize United States national security interests.” No U.S. official has ever seriously addressed the issue of why a Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine that was of no importance whatsoever to the U.S. 40 years ago (when Soviet tank armies stood in the center of Germany, 1,200 miles to the West) should now be such a threat that combating it necessitates $61 billion of U.S. military aid per year, a significant risk of conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia, and a colossal distraction from vital U.S. interests elsewhere.

Instead, the administration, and its European allies, have relied on two arguments. The first is that if Russia is not defeated in Ukraine, it will go on to attack NATO and that this will mean American soldiers going to fight and die in Europe. 

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of any such Russian intention. Russian threats of escalation and (possibly) minor acts of sabotage have been outgrowths of the war in Ukraine, and intended to deter NATO from intervening directly in that conflict — not actions intended to lay the basis for an invasion of NATO.

Moreover, given the acute difficulties that the Russian military has faced in Ukraine, and the Russian weaknesses revealed by that conflict, the idea of them planning to attack NATO seems utterly counter-intuitive. For Russia has been “stopped” in Ukraine. The heroic resistance of the Ukrainian army, backed with Western weapons and money, stopped the Russian army far short of President Putin’s goals when he launched the war. They have severely damaged Russian military prestige, inflicted enormous losses on the Russian military, and as of today, hold more than 80% of their country’s territory.

The Biden administration has issued partly contradictory statements about the purpose of U.S. aid to Ukraine: that it is intended to help Ukraine “win”, and that it is intended to help “strengthen Ukraine at the negotiating table.” They have not however fulfilled their legal obligation to define to Congress what “winning” means, nor why if the war will end in negotiations, these negotiations should not begin now — especially since there is very strong evidence that the Ukrainian military position, and therefore Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, are getting worse, not better.

As Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro have written in response to the latest US despatch of weapons to Ukraine:

“[A]daptation and adjustment do not constitute strategy, and reactive escalation absent a strategy is not sound policy. Escalating U.S. involvement in this conflict—or any conflict—should be guided by an idea about how to bring the war to an end.”

As with U.S. campaigns in Vietnam and elsewhere, the administration and its allies have tried to play the “credibility” card: the argument that it is necessary to defeat Russia in Ukraine because otherwise, China, Iran and other countries will be emboldened to attack the United States or its allies. But like the line about Russian ambitions beyond Ukraine, this is simply an assumption. There is no actual evidence for it at all.

It can, with equal or greater validity, be assumed that the governments of these countries will make up their minds according to calculations of their own interests and the military balance in their own regions.

The final administration line of argument is a moral one: that “Russian aggression must not be rewarded” and that “Ukrainian territorial integrity must be restored.” Since, however, any realistic negotiations towards a peace settlement will have to involve de facto recognition of Russian territorial gains (not de jure recognition, which the Russians do not expect and even the Chinese will not grant), this statement would seem to rule out even the idea of talks. On the face of it therefore, the Biden administration would appear to be asking the American people to spend indefinitely tens of billions of dollars a year on an endless war for an unachievable goal.

If this is a mistaken picture of the administration’s position, then once again, it has a formal obligation under the bill passed by Congress in April to tell the American people and their elected representatives what their goals in Ukraine in fact are. Then everyone will be able to reach an informed judgment on whether they are attainable, and worth $61 billion a year in American money.

Unfortunately, it seems that the administration’s actual position is to kick this issue down the road until after the presidential election. Thereafter, either a Harris administration will have to draw up new plans, or a Trump administration will do so. But given the length of time it takes a new administration to settle in and develop new policies, this means that we could not expect a strategy on Ukraine to emerge for eight months at best.

If the Ukrainians can hold roughly their present lines, then this approach could be justifiable in U.S. domestic political terms (though not to the families of the Ukrainian soldiers who will die in the meantime). There is however a significant risk that given the military balance on the ground, and even with continued aid, Ukraine during this time will suffer a major defeat. Washington would then have to choose between a truly humiliating failure or direct intervention, which would expose the American people to truly hideous risks.

There is an alternative. Since President Biden will in any case step down next January, he could take a risk and try to bequeath to his successor not war, but peace. In terms of domestic politics, to open negotiations with Russia now would deprive Donald Trump and JD Vance of a campaigning position, and would spare a future Democrat administration (if elected) from a very difficult and internally divisive decision.

The first step in this direction is for the Biden administration clearly to formulate its goals in Ukraine, and — as required by law — to submit these goals to the American people.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Mass Media Goons Are Still Reporting That Biden Is Getting Tough On Netanyahu

Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 03, 2024,  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/mass-media-goons-are-still-reporting?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=147305961&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Another day, another Axios article falsely asserting that President Biden is really getting tough on Benjamin Netanyahu. 

In a write-up titled “Biden warns Netanyahu against escalation as risk of regional war grows,” Barak Ravid reports that while Biden has pledged to support Israel against any strikes from Iran in retaliation for its insanely escalatory assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, he also told Netanyahu that he “expects no more escalation from the Israeli side” from here on out.

“President Biden privately demanded in a ‘tough’ call Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stop escalating tensions in the region and move immediately toward a Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal,” writes Ravid, citing two US officials who as usual remain unnamed.

“At the end of the meeting with Netanyahu in the Oval office last Thursday, Biden became emotional, raised his voice and told Netanyahu he needs to reach a Gaza deal as soon as possible, three Israeli officials with knowledge of the meeting told Axios,” Ravid reports.

Ravid writes:

“One U.S. official said Biden complained to Netanyahu that the two had just spoken last week in the Oval Office about securing the hostage deal, but instead Netanyahu went ahead with the assassination in Tehran.

“Biden then told Netanyahu the U.S. will help Israel defeat an Iranian attack, but after that he expects no more escalation from the Israeli side and immediate movement toward a hostage deal, the U.S. official said.”

Sure, sure. This time Biden really means it when he draws a firm line with Israel, unlike all those other times when this administration has continued to back Israel’s psychopathic actions unconditionally since October 7.

Commentators on US foreign policy are less than impressed with this report.

“It’s the umpteenth installment of ‘Biden is secretly mad at Bibi’: he became emotional! He raised his voice!” tweeted The Economist’s Gregg Carlstrom. “Can’t imagine anyone takes these self-serving leaks seriously. Least of all Netanyahu, who has ignored Biden with impunity for ten months”

“Biden reportedly told Netanyahu he’ll help defeat an Iranian attack, but expects no more escalation from Israel, warning Netanyahu that he shouldn’t count on the US to bail him out again,” tweeted Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, adding, “Fine, but given Biden’s record, why should Netanyahu believe him?”

Barak Ravid has made an entire career out of writing up these anonymously sourced White House press releases about how badass and un-genocidal the president is and packaging them as real news stories. Here are some of the headlines from Ravid’s reporting since October:


Biden “running out” of patience with Bibi as Gaza war hits 100 days

Scoop: Biden in “frustrating” call told Bibi to solve Palestinian tax revenue issue

Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi: Change Gaza policy or we will

White House temperature is “very high” ahead of Biden-Bibi call

“We won’t support you”: Inside Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi

Israel and U.S. deeply divided in meeting on key Rafah operation issues

Biden and Bibi “red lines” for Rafah put them on a collision course

Biden-Bibi clash escalates as U.S. accused of undermining Israeli government

Biden and Netanyahu hold first call in a month amid public split

Biden breaks with Netanyahu but sticks with Israel

Biden on hot mic: Told Bibi we needed “come to Jesus” meeting on Gaza

Biden, in rare criticism, warns Netanyahu that Israel risks losing global support

Biden, in rare criticism of Bibi, says pause in Gaza fighting should have come sooner

Scoop: Blinken warns Israeli officials global pressure will grow longer war goes on

Israeli minister lambasted at White House about Gaza and war strategy

Scoop: Biden tells Bibi he’s not in it for a year of war in Gaza

Blinken unloads on Bibi: “You need a coherent plan” or face disaster in Gaza

Scoop: White House cancels meeting, scolds Netanyahu in protest over video

Netanyahu irked by “critical” Harris comments

This is just one guy, from just one outlet. These “Biden is very upset with Netanyahu and wants him to be different” reports have been coming out throughout the US media since the early weeks of this ongoing mass atrocity, all of which are flatly contradicted by the White House taking zero meaningful action this entire time to rein in Israel’s demented genocidal aggressions.

And to be clear, none of this is actually news. “Anonymous sources say X, Y and Z about how the president’s feelings are feeling” is not a news story. These reports serve no purpose other than to create distance in the eyes of the American public between the genocidal monster Benjamin Netanyahu and the president who is unconditionally supporting his genocidal atrocities in every way possible. They are PR spin and nothing more, which would be surprising to anyone who still believes the mainstream western press exist to report the news instead of promulgate propaganda for the advancement of the information interests of the western empire.

All they’re doing here is trying to wash this administration’s hands of the horrors that are being inflicted in the middle east with the direct facilitation of this administration. Don’t let them. All the monstrous actions being perpetrated by Israel today are just as much the fault of the US government as they are of Israel itself. This is who they are. Make them own it.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Israel, media, USA | Leave a comment

Burying radioactive nuclear waste poses enormous risks

by David Suzuki, July 31, 2024,  https://rabble.ca/environment/burying-radioactive-nuclear-waste-poses-enormous-risks/
The spent fuel will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and contamination and leaks are possible during storage, containment, transportation and burial.

As the consequences of burning dirty, climate-altering fossil fuels hit harder by the day, many are seizing on nuclear power as a “clean” energy alternative. But how clean is it?

Although it may not produce the emissions that burning fossil fuels does, nuclear power presents many other problems. Mining, processing and transporting uranium to fuel reactors creates toxic pollution and destroys ecosystems, and reactors increase risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and radioactive contamination. Disposing of the highly radioactive waste is also challenging.

In this case, the NWMO has already paid Indigenous and municipal governments large sums to accept its plans — ignoring communities that will also be affected along transportation routes or downstream of burial sites.

According to Canadian Dimension, industry expects to ship the wastes “in two to three trucks per day for fifty years, in one of three potential containers.” None of the three containment methods has been subjected to rigorous testing.

Even without an accident, trucking the wastes will emit low levels of radiation, which industry claims will produce “acceptable” exposure. Transferring it from the facility to truck and then to repository also poses major risks.

Although industry claims storing high-level radioactive waste in deep geological repositories is safe, no such facility has been approved anywhere in the world, despite many years of industry effort.

Canadian Dimension says, “a growing number of First Nations have passed resolutions or issued statements opposing the transportation and/or disposal of nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario, including Lac Seul First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Grassy Narrows First Nation, Fort William First Nation, and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations.”

Five First Nations — including Grassy Narrows, which is still suffering from industrial mercury contamination after more than 60 years — have formed the First Nations Land Alliance, which wrote to the NWMO, stating, “Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace.”

Groups such as We the Nuclear Free North are also campaigning against the plan.

All have good reason to be worried. As Canadian Dimension reports, “All of Canada’s commercial reactors are the CANDU design, where 18 months in the reactor core turns simple uranium into an extremely complex and highly radioactive mix of over 200 different radioactive ingredients. Twenty seconds exposure to a single fuel bundle would be lethal.”

The spent fuel will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and contamination and leaks are possible during storage, containment, transportation and burial. Industry, with its usual “out of sight, out of mind” approach, has no valid way to monitor the radioactive materials once they’re buried.

With 3.3 million bundles of spent fuels already waiting in wet or dry storage at power plants in Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba, and many more to come, industry is desperate to find a place to put it all.

Even with the many risks and no site yet chosen for burial, industry and governments are looking to expand nuclear power, not just with conventional power plants but also with “small modular reactors,” meaning they could be spread more widely throughout the country.

Nuclear power is enormously expensive and projects always exceed budgets. It also takes a long time to build and put a reactor into operation. Disposing of the radioactive wastes creates numerous risks. Energy from wind, solar and geothermal with energy storage costs far less, with prices dropping every day, and comes with far fewer risks.

Industry must find ways to deal with the waste it’s already created, but it’s time to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels. As David Suzuki Foundation research confirms, renewable energy from sources such as wind and solar is a far more practical, affordable and cleaner choice.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | 1 Comment

US nuclear plant unfit for quick resurrection, former lead engineer says

By Timothy Gardner, WASHINGTON, Aug 2 2024, (Reuters)

– The first U.S. nuclear plant to ever try reopening after undergoing preparations for permanent closure is not fit to restart anytime soon because it sidestepped important safety work for years before retirement, a former official at the reactor said.

Power company Entergy (ETR.N), opens new tab closed the Palisades reactor in Michigan in 2022, after the plant generated electricity for more than 50 years. Privately-held Holtec International bought Palisades shortly after and has since secured a $1.52 billion conditional U.S. loan guarantee to restart. Holtec seeks to open the plant in about a year.

The fate of Palisades is closely watched by the nuclear industry as at least two other shuttered plants, including a unit at Constellation Energy’s (CEG.O)
, opens new tab Three Mile Island, consider reopening…………

“I’m pro-nuclear, but they selected the wrong horse to ride to town on,” said Alan Blind, who was engineering director at the Palisades plant from 2006 to 2013 under Entergy.

Blind said the plant got exemptions from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nuclear safety regulator, allowing it to fall short of safety design standards that more modern plants must adhere to because it was nearing retirement.

Those safety standards include prevention of cooling systems being clogged by the breakdown of insulation on pipes, defense against earthquakes, and reduction of risks to fires, Blind said, adding he had been monitoring the plants’ exemption requests since his retirement.

“I’m worried that the NRC will not insist that the generic safety issues be the fixed before they allow Palisades to restart,” Blind told Reuters………………………………………………………..

The Biden administration’s Loan Programs Office at the Department of Energy issued Holtec a conditional $1.52 billion loan guarantee in March to restart Palisades. … https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-nuclear-plant-unfit-quick-resurrection-former-lead-engineer-says-2024-08-02/

August 4, 2024 Posted by | safety, USA | 2 Comments

Kamala: We need a ceasefire and arms embargo NOW!

 https://www.codepink.org/kamalastopisrael 2 Aug 24

Over the past weeks, we’ve seen Vice President Kamala Harris’s image being portrayed as more sympathetic to Palestinians in comparison to Joe Biden. But in reality she repeats so many of the same anti-Palestinian talking points and hasn’t done anything to move us towards a ceasefire. It’s time to put pressure on the VP! Sign the petition below!

Vice President Kamala Harris, 

As Vice President of the United States, your job is to serve the people, and the majority of Americans want a permanent ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We are disgusted with how our hard-earned money is being used to annihilate innocent people in Palestine! 

You have strategically presented yourself as distinct from President Biden, especially with regard to Israel’s genocide campaign in Gaza, though you are part of the same administration. We have not been fooled, and we know you are not powerless. We know you can take significant action to stop Israel’s genocide, and you haven’t.

We will not blindly praise you — as others have — for calling for a ceasefire “for at least six weeks” in March of 2024. At that point, 30,000 Palestinians had already been murdered by Israel and we were five months into the genocide. 

In the past, you have had no problem meeting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), taking in hundreds of thousands of Zionist campaign contributions, and speaking at their events. We understand the true purpose of this lobby group is to ensure continued U.S. funding of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and imperialism in the Middle East. We reject the influence of foreign governments in American politics and see your relationship with AIPAC as a stark contradiction to your supposed support of a ceasefire in Gaza. 

Most recently, you condemned protests in D.C. opposing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress — the man spearheading the worst genocide we’ve seen in recent history. Policing Americans who are rightfully angry about war crimes and the mass murder of innocent children was a true display of your immorality, and proved your alignment with Biden’s policies on Israel. What’s worse is that you characterized these protests as anti semitic, showing us your complete lack of understanding for what’s really happening. 

Sharing stories of how you as a young girl helped plant trees for Israel is a deliberately tone-deaf attempt at greenwashing Israel’s occupation, given the ecological devastation the IOF have waged on the Palestinian people, land, water and vegetation for 76 years, culminating in the utter devastation of Gaza in recent months. How can you be so selfishly blind to the reality on the ground?

Considering your stances, we have no reason to believe you are not following Biden’s policies on Israel. In order to salvage what political credibility you may have left, it is imperative that you use your capacity as Vice President to push for a ceasefire and an end to U.S. arms sales to Israel. We demand you release a statement explicitly distancing yourself from Biden’s support for genocide, and call for an arms embargo on Israel. 

August 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Is Manitoba willing to accept nuclear waste risks? 

ANNE LINDSEY. 2 Aug 24.

ANYONE driving Highway 17 from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay will pass through Ignace a couple of hours east of Dryden.

A modest Canadian Shield town with about 1,300 inhabitants, Ignace was built on the forest industry, but like so many northern Ontario towns, today actively seeks other economic opportunities.

The alert traveller will also notice many roadside signs between Kenora and Thunder Bay, proclaiming “No Nuclear Waste in Northwest Ontario.” The issue has reached a critical juncture recently in this area.

Hosting Canada’s high-level nuclear waste repository is one of the economic development opportunities being explored by Ignace.

On July 10, Ignace Town Council voted in favour of being a “willing host” for this massive storage hole in the ground and the accompanying transfer facility for the highly radioactive and toxic “spent” fuel from existing and future reactors.

The taxpayer-funded Nuclear Waste Management Organization or NWMO (consisting of the owners of Canada’s nuclear waste and charged by the federal government to find a repository site) provided Ignace a half-million dollar signing bonus, in addition to NWMO’s many donations and monetary contributions to local initiatives leading up to the vote.

Problems abound with this “willingness” declaration, not the least of which is that the site in question is not even in Ignace or in the same watershed. The Revell batholith site, 45 kilometres west of Ignace, lies on the watersheds of both theRainy River which flows into Lake of the Woods, and thence to the Winnipeg River and Lake Winnipeg, and the English River which flows north through Lac Seul and into Lake Winnipeg.

The waste will remain dangerous for literally millennia. Burying irretrievable nuclear waste in an excavated rock cavern that is deep underground where groundwater flows through the rock and eventually links to surface bodies has never been tested in real life. The industry relies on computer models to persuade us that future generations will not be at risk.

The waste will have to be transported to Revell, mostly from southern Ontario and New Brunswick — several massive shipments daily for 40 years for the existing waste — along the often-treacherous route skirting Lake Superior. It must then be “repackaged” in a surface facility into burial canisters.

Little is publicly known about what this entails, but any accidents and even routine cleaning will result in radioactive pollution to the surrounding waters posing a more immediate risk.

First Nations along the downstream routes have expressed their opposition to this project. Chief Rudy Turtle of Asubpeeschoseewagong (Grassy Narrows) was clear in his letter to the CEO of NWMO: “The water from that site flows past our reserve and into the waters where we fish, drink, and swim. The material that you want to store there will be dangerous for longer than Canada has existed, longer than Europeans have been on Turtle Island, and longer than anything that human beings have ever built has lasted. How can you reliably claim that this extremely dangerous waste will safely be contained for hundreds of thousands of years?”

His views are echoed by neighbouring chiefs, and other Treaty 3 First Nations have rejected nuclear waste transportation and abandonment through and in their territories. Wabigoon First Nation, the closest to the Revell site, will hold its own community referendum on willingness to host the site this fall. It’s not known how much money or other inducements NWMO has offered for a signing bonus.

In 1986, a citizens group in the Eastern Townships of Quebec successfully lobbied politicians on both sides of the border to reject a U.S. proposal for a massive nuclear waste repository in Vermont, on a watershed flowing into Canada.

Around the same time, Manitoba citizens convinced our government to oppose another proposed U.S. nuclear waste site — with potential for drainage to the Red River. And eventually, the NDP government of Howard Pawley passed Manitoba’s High-Level Radioactive Waste Act, banning nuclear waste disposal in this province.

Where does Manitoba stand today? We don’t know, even though the Revell site is not far from Manitoba and the water is flowing this way.

No single town should be making decisions with such profound risks to all of our health and futures. People who depend on Manitoba rivers and lakes (including Winnipeggers, via our water supply from Shoal Lake) should be part of this decision. Now is the time for our elected officials on Broadway and Main Street to become active stakeholders and demand a voice in the nuclear waste “willingness” question.

Anne Lindsey is a longtime observer of the nuclear industry and a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba Research Associate. This article was written in collaboration with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Trump could win back the nuclear codes. Biden should put guardrails on the nuclear arsenal—now.

By Tom Z. Collina | July 30, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/trump-could-win-back-the-nuclear-codes-biden-should-put-guardrails-on-the-nuclear-arsenal-now/?utm_source=Newsletter+&utm_medium=Email+&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08012024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_GuardrailsNuclearArsenal_07302024

On January 6, 2021, then-President Donald Trump inspired a mob attack on the US Capitol to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration. Not only was this an unprecedented attack on American democracy, but it represented a serious national security threat. Many saw and see this as one of many examples of an unstable President Trump acting in dangerous, irrational ways. And throughout his time in office, Trump—like all presidents in the nuclear age—had the unilateral authority to launch the US nuclear arsenal.

At any moment, Trump could literally have ended the world with a phone call. Congressional approval is not needed, and the secretary of defense cannot stop a presidential order to unleash the US nuclear arsenal. The system is built for speed, not deliberation. The whole process, from presidential order to the launch of one or hundreds of nuclear warheads, would take just minutes.

The danger that Trump would do something catastrophic was so acute that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately looked for ways to prevent the “unstable president from … accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” according to a letter Pelosi wrote in January 2021 to House Democrats in the wake of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley was convinced that Trump had suffered “serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election” and took the extraordinary step of ordering his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from the president. “No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley reportedly told the officers. “You never know what a president’s trigger point is.”

Pelosi and Milley had plenty of reasons to worry that Trump could start a nuclear war. In August 2017, in a thinly veiled nuclear threat, Trump warned North Korea that it would be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” Trump mocked Kim Jong Un, the North’s leader, writing “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” According to then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, Trump privately discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and suggested he could blame a US strike on another country.

Actually, however, Milley was not correct when he told his staff that he was part of the formal procedure to launch nuclear weapons. As former Defense Secretary William J. Perry and I wrote in our 2020 book, The Button, policy established during the Cold War puts decisions about the use of nuclear weapons solely in the hands of the civilian president, not Congress and above all not the military. All the president need do is call the Pentagon’s War Room—using the nuclear “football” or some other means—and identify himself and give the order to launch. The president may choose to consult with senior advisors such as Milley but is not required to.

Milley broke these rules, as others broke them before him. During the Watergate crisis, then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger was so concerned about President Richard Nixon’s mental state and alcohol consumption that he told military commanders that if Nixon ordered a nuclear strike, they should check with him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger first. Sen. Alan Cranston phoned Schlesinger, warning him about “the need for keeping a berserk president from plunging us into a holocaust.”

Should Milley, Schlesinger, or any military leader, let a clearly unstable president start a nuclear war just to follow protocol? Of course not. But officials should not have to break the rules to do the right thing. The United States needs to change the policy that put Milley and Schlesinger in an impossible spot.

With just six months left in office, President Biden can fix the system for himself and all future presidents. To do so, Biden should announce the White House will share authority to use nuclear weapons in any first strike with a select group in Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, not the president. The first use of nuclear weapons is clearly an act of war. In a situation where the United States has already been attacked with nuclear weapons, the president would retain the option to act unilaterally.

President Biden would have to make such a policy change by executive order. Passing congressional legislation would be more durable but is unlikely in the current political environment. If Trump wins the election, he would likely reverse Biden’s order. But if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, the new policy could be strengthened over time with legislation.

Such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A launch could be ordered only if the United States had already been attacked with nuclear weapons or if Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check to executive power. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine.

As an important part of his legacy, President Biden must put guardrails on presidential authority to start nuclear war now before the next dangerous leader gets elected—whomever and whenever that may be. We must never again entrust the fate of the world to just one fallible human. This is not about whose finger should be on the button. This is about making good policy that can keep Americans—and people around the world—alive, regardless of whom US voters happen to put in the White House.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »