The B-52 Stratofortress will no longer carry the B61-7 and B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs
|
The B-52 Will No Longer Carry Certain Nuclear Weapons. Here’s Why, 18 Jan 2020, Military.com | By Oriana Pawlyk
The B-52 Stratofortress will no longer carry the B61-7 and B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs as it prepares to carry the new long-range standoff weapon, known as LRSO. Following reports that the bomb variants had been removed from the Cold War-era aircraft’s inventory, officials at Air Force Global Strike Command confirmed the move is in line with the bomber’s transition into an era of modern warfare………. …….. Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, first pointed out the change, which went into effect in September, according to Air Force Instruction 91-111, “Safety Rules for U.S. Strategic Bomber Aircraft.”
“It’s official: B-52 bombers are no longer authorized to carry nuclear gravity bombs,” Kristensen said in a tweet earlier this week. “New Air Force instruction describes ‘removal of B61-7 and B83-1 from B-52H approved weapons configuration.'” Command officials pointed out that the move actually preceded the AFI. “The removal of nuclear gravity weapons like the B-61 and B-83 from the B-52 platform has been in effect for several years,” said Justin Oakes, public affairs director for the Eighth Air Force and Joint-Global Strike Operations Center. “The B-52 remains the premier stand-off weapons platform utilizing the air-launched cruise missile as the main nuclear deterrent. While B61s and B83s are no longer equipped on the B-52, the weapons remain in the [B-2 Spirit] inventory,” he added. Eventually, the LRSO — a nuclear cruise missile that provides an air-launched capability as part of the nuclear triad — will replace the AGM-86B ALCM, developed in the early 1980s. The command said the LRSO, expected by the early 2030s, is one of many investments to keep the B-52, known as the Big Ugly Fat Fellow, flying into the foreseeable future……..https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/18/b-52-will-no-longer-carry-certain-nuclear-weapons-heres-why.html |
|
A new law in USA pushes regulators to approve new nuclear reactor plans
- NRC taking steps toward regulatory path for advanced reactors
- Barrasso says nuclear industry shrinking
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects its first application for a new generation of advanced nuclear reactors in a few weeks, as it works to implement a 2019 law meant to spur such technologies, agency officials told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Wednesday.
The 2019 law, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (P. Law 115-439), introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and signed by President Donald Trump in 2019, was cosponsored by the top Democrat on the Senate environment panel, Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), and seven other Democrats…….(subscribers only) https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/regulators-urged-to-spur-advanced-nuclear-power-under-new-law
California fights NASA over toxic Santa Susana nuclear site
California, NASA Clash Over Cleanup at Nuclear, Rocket Site, https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-nasa-clash-over-cleanup-at-nuclear-rocket-site
- California says the space agency is not adhering to past agreements
- NASA needs to redraft a cleanup plan, toxics agency says
California’s toxics agency is opposing a revised NASA cleanup plan to remove contamination at a former rocket and energy research site where a partial meltdown happened decades ago, calling the federal agency’s proposal irregular, infeasible, and legally deficient.
It’s the latest fight in a long tussle over the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, a 2,850-acre site in Simi Valley near Los Angeles, where an estimated 17,000 rockets engine tests occurred. The lab, which operated from 1948 to 2006, was also home to 10 nuclear reactors where the Energy Department and what is now the Boeing Co. did energy research.
The site experienced a partial nuclear meltdown in 1959, but evidence wasn’t revealed until 20 years later. Cleanup work has been ongoing since the 1960s.
Cesium-137
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration agreed to a consent order in 2010 with the state Department of Toxic Substances Control requiring soil remediation of the site, which was contaminated with 16 radiologicals like cesium-137, and 116 chemicals.
A final environmental review was completed in 2014, but the space agency issued a separate draft cleanup plan in October based on new data showing more contamination.
The draft plan provides options for how much soil would be excavated. One option, the one that reflects the agreement in original administrative order on consent with the state, calls for excavating 870,000 cubic yards, an increase from the 500,000 cubic yards estimated in the 2014 plan to meet the standard agreed upon with the state. The other options call for removing lesser amounts, down to 176,500 cubic yards. The plan also considers a no-action alternative.
NASA said in the draft supplemental environmental impact statement that it hasn’t chosen a preferred option yet.
In a letter sent to NASA Jan. 8, the Department of Toxic Substances Control asked the space agency to revise its cleanup plans to reflect the original administrative order on consent, known as an AOC.
State Agency Rejects Other Options
“NASA must also be aware that DTSC is not open to considering NASA cleanup alternatives which are non-compliant with the AOC,” the letter said. “DTSC also will not renegotiate the binding AOC soil cleanup commitments to accommodate challenges NASA claims will be posed by the [Santa Susana Field Laboratory] cleanup implementation.”
The letter criticized some of NASA’s options as irregular because they called for decreased cleanup when contamination had ncreased. It called excavating less contaminated soil than called for in the 2010 agreement infeasible.
“NASA has failed to provide a rational explanation or data to support the [DSEIS] irregularities and unexplained reversal,” DTSC wrote, calling the plan “legally deficient.”
In its draft cleanup plan, NASA said it would be hard to find adequate backfill to support vegetation in areas that were excavated.
A NASA spokeswoman said Jan. 14 that the agency was reviewing comments made about the draft plan and valued input from all stakeholders.
“NASA is eager to work with DTSC and the community to implement a cleanup that is based in science, technically achievable, and is protective of the surrounding community and the natural environment,” Jennifer Stanfield wrote in an email.
NASA didn’t immediately respond to a question about other cleanup sites where revisions to agreements were being sought. DTSC couldn’t immediately say if the space agency had sought changes at other state cleanup sites.
Groups Back Cleanup Agreement
Community, environmental, and justice groups say the 2010 plan reached with the state is adequate and that NASA has no authority to decide how much contamination it must remove.
New estimates pointing to more contamination than previously thought also mean NASA should redouble cleanup efforts, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, and Committee to Bridge the Gap said in a comment letter to NASA about its draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS).
“The decision by the Trump Administration NASA to issue this DSEIS sets the stage for abandoning huge amounts of chemically hazardous material and would consign this important land in Southern California, set in the midst of millions of California residents, to never be cleaned up,” the groups wrote.
The new plan wasn’t a surprise. A NASA inspector general report issued in March said the cleanup would take too long and would be too costly and stringent. The Department of Energy is also seeking to reduce its cleanup obligations.
For its part, the toxics agency plans to issue a final environmental impact report this summer that “fully complies with and implements” the 2010 agreement, DTSC spokesman Russ Edmondson said in an email.
To contact the reporter on this story: Emily C. Dooley at edooley@bloombergenvironment.com, To contact the editors responsible for this story: Gregory Henderson at ghenderson@bloombergenvironment.com; Sylvia Carignan at scarignan@bloombergenvironment.com; Renee Schoof at rschoof@bloombergenvironment.com
Power creates hubris; and the United States of America is one of nine nations inflicted with nuclear hubris
If an attack of any sort kills “hundreds of thousands or even millions” of people—their deaths are instantly belittled if they aren’t Americans. Common Dreams, by Robert C. Koehler, 17 Jan 2020
When I do so, an internal distress signal starts beeping and won’t stop, especially when the issue under discussion is war and mass destruction, i.e., suicide by nukes, which has a freshly intense relevance these days as Team Trump plays war with Iran.
What doesn’t matter, apparently, is any awareness that we live in one world, connected at the core: that the problems confronting this planet transcend the fragmentary “interests” of single, sovereign entities, even if the primary interest is survival itself.
The question for me goes well beyond democracy—the right of the public to have a say in what “we” do as a nation—and penetrates the decision-making process itself and the prevailing definition of what matters . . . and what doesn’t. What doesn’t matter, apparently, is any awareness that we live in one world, connected at the core: that the problems confronting this planet transcend the fragmentary “interests” of single, sovereign entities, even if the primary interest is survival itself.
I fear that this country’s geopolitical thinking and decision-making are incapable of stepping beyond the concept of violent (including thermonuclear) self-defense, or even, indeed, acknowledging that consequences emerge from such actions that go well beyond the strategic considerations that summon them.
Recently, for instance, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, keeper of the annually updated Doomsday Clock, which serves as an international warning signal on the state of global danger from nuclear war and climate change, published an essay by James N. Miller, former undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration, defending the fact that the U.S. government maintains a policy that allows “first use” of nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. ……..
Miller’s essay, titled “No to No First Use—for Now,” set off, as I say, an internal distress signal that wouldn’t shut up, beginning with the fact that the essay addressed simply this country’s self-granted permission to use nuclear weapons first, before the other guy did, under “extreme circumstances,” if it so chose. What was missing from this essay was any suggestion that nuclear disarmament—no use ever—deserved consideration. This was not up for discussion. ……..
let me make an introduction. James Miller, meet Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the organization that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.
“At dozens of locations around the world—in missile silos buried in our earth, on submarines navigating through our oceans, and aboard planes flying high in our sky—lie 15,000 objects of humankind’s destruction,” Fihn said during her acceptance speech. “Perhaps it is the enormity of this fact, perhaps it is the unimaginable scale of the consequences, that leads many to simply accept this grim reality. To go about our daily lives with no thought to the instruments of insanity all around us. . . .
“As fellow Nobel Peace Laureate, Martin Luther King Jr, called them from this very stage in 1964, these weapons are ‘both genocidal and suicidal.’ They are the madman’s gun held permanently to our temple. These weapons were supposed to keep us free, but they deny us our freedoms.
“It’s an affront to democracy to be ruled by these weapons. But they are just weapons. They are just tools. And just as they were created by geopolitical context, they can just as easily be destroyed by placing them in a humanitarian context.”
And I return to that question I posed earlier: Why?
Why is this level of thinking not present at the highest levels of our government? Power is an enormous paradox. We’re the greatest military superpower on the planet, and this fact is consuming our ability to think and act in a rational and humane manner. Power creates hubris; and the United States of America is one of nine nations inflicted with nuclear hubris. We can tell other nations (e.g., Iran) what to do, but we’re not about to do it ourselves.
Feel safe yet? https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/16/nuclear-hubris
 |
ReplyForward
|
U.S. Senate must reaffirm that the power to make war rests with Congress, NOT the President
 The U.S. Public Doesn’t Want War With Iran.  TheSenate Must Reaffirm That. Hassan El-Tayyab, Truthout, January 12, 2020 As early as this coming week, the U.S. Senate may vote on whether to join the House of Representatives in asserting the rightful role of the U.S. Congress in deciding whether the president is authorized to wage war against Iran.
It’s not looking likely that the Senate will vote on the same bill passed by a bipartisan majority of 224-194 in the House on Thursday because Republicans leadership may not allow this bill to get out of committee. The passage of that bill, H.Con.Res.83, which was introduced by Rep. Elissa Slotkin, was a critical move by Congress at this moment of escalating tensions, making clear that the House doesn’t want more military aggression against Iran. Senate Republicans should obey the law and bring this up for a vote, as the War Powers Act of 1973 explicitly states that this concurrent resolution is privileged and must be brought to the floor. If not, the Senate will have the chance to vote on Senator Tim Kaine’s Iran War Powers Resolution, S.J.Res.68, regardless. A Symbolic Victory in the House or Something More?The bill passed by the House on Thursday invoked the War Powers Act of 1973 to limit the president’s ability to launch unauthorized war against Iran by forcing him to obtain congressional authorization before taking further military action. Three Republicans voted in favor of the resolution, including Republicans Reps. Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney of Florida as well as Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. It was less than many supporters of the bill had hoped for, as a similar provision to the FY2020 Defense policy bill had 27 Republicans vote in support, but it was still a significant statement of bipartisanship in support for congressional war powers……….. The Senate Vote AheadNow that the House has spoken out, the question of Iran War Powers goes to the Senate, which is expected to vote on Sen. Kaine’s Iran War Powers Resolution either this week or next. Kaine’s resolution was structured as a joint resolution and will not face the same legal criticisms as Rep. Slotkin’s concurrent resolution, since there is no question that a joint resolution can be enacted into law……… A Momentous Moment While we wait for the Senate to act, it’s important to reflect on the importance of this House vote and this moment. The War Powers Act reaffirms what’s already in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and makes explicitly clear where war powers reside – Congress. The law was passed in 1973, not just as a rebuke to President Nixon for bombing Cambodia in secret and the unpopular Vietnam war, but to also ensure that Congress going forward had a mechanism to force votes and debates on where and when we go to war. It’s a welcome sign to see members reasserting a constitutional power that has been left on the shelf to gather dust for decades without use. The House has made it clear that Trump does not have the authority to attack Iran. The House vote also showed that members of Congress are with the American people, who according to recent polling, overwhelmingly want no war with Iran and a diplomacy-based approach for easing tensions. …….https://truthout.org/articles/the-u-s-public-doesnt-want-war-with-iran-the-senate-must-reaffirm-that/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=fb6a8c04-9558-40e1-acbf-c48a6b025c64 |
|
U.S. Republican law-maker opposes Canada storing high-level nuclear waste near Lake Huron
Resolution calls on Canada to nix proposal to bury nuclear waste near the Great Lakes
State Rep. Gary Howell, R-North Branch, has introduced a resolution to prevent the Canadian government from proceeding with the proposed construction of an underground nuclear waste repository on the shores of Lake Huron. Howell serves as chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. The Resolution is cosponsored by State Rep. Shane Hernandez, R-Port Huron.
Howell’s House Concurrent Resolution 12 calls on Congress to prevent Canada’s most dangerous nuclear waste from being buried near the shores of Lake Huron. The nuclear waste dump is being proposed by the Ontario Power Generation Company for a site directly across the lake from Michigan’s Thumb.
“It is not in the best interest of the people of the United States or Canada to allow this outrageous proposal to proceed,” Howell said. “This would be high-level nuclear waste from every nuclear plant in Canada. The waste would be placed at Kincardine, Ontario less than a mile from the Lake Huron shore and only 1,300 feet below the lake level – making for a potential catastrophe waiting to happen. We cannot jeopardize the safety of our citizens – especially when the Great Lakes provide drinking water for more than 40 million people.
“This is a high-risk venture that could have long-term devastating effects on millions of lives,” Howell said. “To construct an underground waste repository in limestone, the very first of its kind, would be totally irresponsible. Limestone has never been tested to demonstrate that it will work in practice. The potential damage to the Great Lakes from any leak of radioactivity far outweighs any benefits that could be derived from disposing of radioactive waste at this site.
“The ecology of the Great Lakes is valuable beyond measure to the health and economic well-being of our entire region,” Howell said. “I strongly urge Congress to take every legal action possible to prevent this from happening. Just look at Germany – it is spending billions of dollars right now to dig up low-to-intermediate radioactive waste stored in a salt mine due to a leakage and other environmental concerns. This proposal involves much more serious high-level nuclear waste – the worst of the worst. We don’t need to create these types of problems on the Great Lakes.”
If adopted, House Concurrent Resolution 12 would be sent to the President of the United States, the members of the Michigan congressional delegation, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Canadian officials
Donald Trump’s latest unwise move -setting up a massive nuclear crisis with Iran
Trump is setting up a massive nuclear crisis with Iran, The Week,
First, the fog of war created by the president’s decision to assassinate Soleimani led to tragedy, as Iran seems to have accidentally shot down a planeload of innocent civilians. While most of the blame goes to whichever incompetent Iranian operator pulled the trigger, the reality is that all 176 of those people, including 63 Canadians, would be alive today if the U.S. had not carried out its hit on Soleimani. For another, we should remember that a month passed between the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the outbreak of WWI.
More importantly, just because both the Trump administration and senior Iranian leadership seem to share an aversion to full-scale war and pulled back from the brink this time doesn’t mean that the Soleimani killing was costless for the U.S.
The day after the Iranian response, the seldom-seen Teleprompter Trump showed up to deliver a short, sober speech. “As long as I’m president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” President Trump said on Wednesday. He said this before saying “good morning” to the assembled crowd. The specter of an Iranian nuke is still, ostensibly, the overriding goal of American policy vis-à-vis Iran. Yet everything that Trump has done since the day he took office has made an Iranian nuclear breakout more likely.
https://theweek.com/articles/888687/trump-setting-massive-nuclear-crisis-iran
We must halt war funding and slash the giant Pentagon budget.
As We Work to Prevent Iran War, It’s Time to End All Our Wars, We must halt war funding and slash the giant Pentagon budget.LAUREN WALKER / TRUTHOUT, 21 Dec 19
Progressives are rightly mobilizing in force against with Iran. Preventing another war is certainly imperative. In addition, we must recognize it is past time to end the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With a foreign policy that is increasingly synonymous with war, will profit-minded Pentagon contractors and a politicized military leadership win another year of pointless world domination, as if it’s all a big game of Risk?
Pentagon contractors saw their stock prices — and their CEOs’ stock holdings — spike after the Trump administration courted war by killing Iranian military commander Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani. And those same contractors checked a major item off their Christmas lists in early December with the bipartisan passage of a military spending bill that provides another year of funding for endless war and another year of champagne-popping profits. The Pentagon spending deal was made just days before The Washington Post published a harrowing account of how military leaders covered up the failure of the war in Afghanistan, painting the clearest picture yet of how the military has misled the public for nearly 20 years.
The spending bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, handed $738 billion to the military, including $71.5 billion in war funding, as part of a prior agreement that puts the Pentagon on a path toward record-breaking spending. Just days before news of the “Afghanistan Papers” broke, the negotiation cut a handful of critical antiwar provisions that were included in an earlier House-passed version.
This calls for a do-over. In February, budget negotiations for 2021 will begin. The game is rigged, in that total military spending for 2021 was already set at $740 billion by the 2019 Bipartisan Budget Act. Apologists for the forever wars and Pentagon profiteers are guaranteed at least one more year of soaring Pentagon spending.
But while the money will be spent, the stakes are still life and death. The 2021 budget could spell the end of the wars if Congress sees fit to finally take on its rightful role as the sole declarer of wars……..
Progressive Measures Left on the Cutting Room FloorThe 2020 military budget negotiations left some game-changing progressive measures on the cutting room floor. Those measures are exactly what progressives need to dust off and rally behind.
A House version of the bill that passed over the summer included the same egregious level of spending, but it also imposed some long-overdue limits on presidential war powers, including measures that would have prevented further U.S. complicity in the war in Yemen, limited presidential power to start a war with Iran, and made major steps toward finally ending the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House version also would have prevented the president from shifting military funds to build a wall at the southern border; prevented spending on a new class of more “usable” nuclear weapons; and protected the right of trans people to serve openly in the military. Despite its major flaw — a deeply excessive Pentagon budget — the House version would have done a lot to minimize the damage.
None of those progressive provisions made it into the final deal. Instead, the most progressive advance in the new bill is a provision for paid parental leave for federal employees. The leave policy is an important and welcome change, and long overdue, but it was also a hastily passed, partial measure that leaves much to be desired.
First, End the Wars
Barring another Trump stunt to throw a bone to hungry progressives, the military budget for 2021 must involve a tougher negotiation that results in real changes to Pentagon and presidential war powers. No parade of partial victories is worth the continuation of endless war, or the bankrupting of our nation that the $6.4 trillion (and counting) federal war budget represents.
The country has been at war in Afghanistan for 18 years, the longest war in U.S. history, and so far, the 21st century has been a story of constantly expanding Pentagon power. The war budget for 2020 — for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere — is $71 billion, though it’s widely acknowledged that the war fund has also become a convenient way for military leaders to skirt legal spending limits. A new war with Iran would only increase the feeding frenzy….
Any meaningful reining in of the Pentagon budget must start with ending the wars, both because of the savings inherent in finally bringing the troops home (and the contractors, weaponry and entire machinery of war with them), but also because a reduced Pentagon budget will depend on establishing a common perception of our relative safety in the world. As long as the country remains at war, the Pentagon is politically untouchable. …….https://truthout.org/articles/as-we-work-to-prevent-iran-war-its-time-to-end-all-our-wars/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=08b186de-b971-4949-b6b1-4ce07a2e3cf6
Donald Trump plays with possible nuclear crisis in Iran
|
Trump risks nuclear crisis in Iran, The Hill, BY REBECCA KHEEL – 01/06/20 President Trump is increasingly facing the possibility of a nuclear crisis with Iran, as Tehran takes its biggest step back from the 2015 nuclear deal.
Iran’s decision to stop adhering to limits in the Obama-era nuclear agreement comes just days after Trump authorized a drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, posing a major test of the Trump administration’s gambit to withdraw from the international accord. While Iran hasn’t kicked out nuclear inspectors, and has even left open the possibility of coming back into compliance, experts say Sunday’s announcement by Tehran brings the deal closer to collapse than ever before……. Iran had set an early January deadline for its next step away from the deal, even before last week’s U.S. strike in Baghdad killed Soleimani, the Quds Force leader. But his unexpected death has ratcheted up tensions between the United States and Iran, stoking fears about a military confrontation and making any step away from the nuclear deal now that much more fraught. “The degree of their abandonment of the JCPOA may have come about as a result” of Soleimani’s death, Takeyh said, using the acronym for the official name of the deal. On Sunday, Iran announced it would no longer adhere to the deal’s limits on uranium enrichment. Trump responded to the news Monday by tweeting in all caps that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon!”….. Despite saying it was no longer bound by the deal’s limits, Iran did not immediately announce actions to increase its uranium enrichment and reiterated its pledge to come back into compliance with the deal if it gets sanctions relief. Iran also maintained that its nuclear program is not a weapons program. Iran also said it would continue cooperating with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. The IAEA said Monday its “inspectors continue to verify and monitor activities in the country.”….https://thehill.com/policy/defense/477047-trump-risks-nuclear-crisis-in-iran |
|
Trump urges Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China to dump the Iran nuclear deal
Trump urges dumping of Iran nuclear deal, news.com.au, 9 Jan 2020,
The decision by the UK and other signatories to try to maintain the Iran nuclear deal has been criticised by US President Trump. US President Donald Trump has called on the world’s major powers to abandon the “defective” Iran nuclear deal.
Trump said the “time has come” for Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China to dump the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Under the deal, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear programme and allow in international inspectors in return for the easing of economic sanctions.
But at a White House press conference on Wednesday, in which he gave his reaction to the overnight Iranian attacks on air bases housing US forces in Iraq, Trump said the “very defective JCPOA expires shortly anyway and gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout”.
Trump said the US would immediately impose “additional punishing economic sanctions” on Tehran until Iran changes its behaviour,” citing the nuclear programme.
Since Trump pulled out of the deal in 2018 and started a “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions against Iran, tensions have steadily escalated.
“Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end its support for terrorism. The time has come for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China to recognise this reality,” the President added.
“They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal – or JCPOA – and we must all work together towards making a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place.”
However, just hours before Trump’s remarks, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the deal remains the “best way of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran. https://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/trump-urges-dumping-of-iran-nuclear-deal/news-story/535d6f4704348e8ebac6f0e96f45403c
Trump’s unpredictability on Iran adds to weapons proliferation dangers
Trump’s unpredictability is making nuclear-nonproliferation advocates nervous as the US takes an aggressive posture against Iran, Business Insider, DAVE MOSHER, JAN 8, 2020,
- Tensions between Iran and the US have escalated dramatically in recent weeks, most notably with President Donald Trump ordering the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
- Trump has vowed potentially disproportionate attacks against Iran if the country retaliates against Americans.
- Nuclear-weapons experts aren’t immediately concerned about a “tactical” (or limited) nuclear strike against Iranian targets, but they said Trump as president made it a much likelier possibility.
- If the US or its allies used even one nuclear weapon in combat, it would end a 75-year streak of nonuse, with global and lasting consequences.
- “It’s possible people around the world will get together to ban these things. But I think the reality is that we’d see nuclear weapons used not on a frequent basis, but on a more regular basis,” one researcher said…… https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-iran-attack-tactical-nuclear-weapons-war-consequences-2020-1?r=US&IR=T
Fact check: Amy Klobuchar falsely claims Iran is ‘announcing’ it will develop a nuclear weapon https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/fact-check-klobuchar-iran-nuclear-weapon/
Trump’s plan to systematically remove environmental protection
Trump’s 2020 plan: Change the rules on rules, Kelsey Brugger, E&E News reporter Greenwire: Friday, January 3, 2020 In the first half of 2020, Trump officials are hurrying to fundamentally change the way environmental rules are crafted.The administration plans to finalize regulations that could hamstring future presidents from making rules that rely on public health studies or fail to fully consider the benefits to Americans.
Trump’s regulatory plan released last fall showed hundreds of “economically significant” actions that the administration plans to finalize this year. Of those, at least 18 are noteworthy environmental rules — on air pollution and emissions to drilling and water quality.
But it’s Trump’s rules on the rulemaking process itself that could have the most lasting impact, according to experts.
For example, EPA’s proposed rule, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” could restrict the scientific evidence used to write air pollution rules.
The Trump administration also plans to change the way cost-benefit analyses are calculated, weakening future limits on power plant emissions, for example. Both rules are expected to advance in early 2020.
“Those are foundational,” said Betsy Southerland, a former longtime senior EPA career staffer and member of the Environmental Protection Network. “If they are finalized, from now on all environmental rules cannot count co-benefits and cannot use public health studies, then they can paralyze future rulemaking while the litigation slowly winds forward.”
It would take considerable time for a new administration to reverse those rollbacks, and certain Trump actions could get lost in the morass. The Obama EPA similarly could not undo some George W. Bush-era Clean Air Act permits that allowed aging facilities to continue to operate.
But time is running out.
The administration is up against a May deadline: Any regulations completed after that point would be subject to review under the Congressional Review Act. If 2021 ushers in a new president and a left-leaning Congress, the pair could undo many of Trump’s controversial triumphs.
Generally, not much happens in the federal government during an election year, when administrations tend to enter “political lockdown.” But in the Trump era, “unprecedented” is typical. And Trump continues to campaign on aggressive deregulation………
n 2020, the administration is expected to complete several environmental priorities.
The changes most concerning to Southerland included the WOTUS rewrite, the Affordable Clean Energy repeal and other pesticide reviews that are being done under the Toxic Substances Control Act, she said. “They are racing to finalize all of the damaging rollbacks in 2020,” she said.
Other drafts expected to be released in the coming weeks or months include the National Environmental Policy Act, which Trump ordered to be revised to ease permitting requirements when he first entered office; the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which would revoke past findings of mercury emissions and other pollutants; and the clean car standards, a joint effort of EPA and the Department of Transportation.
That two-part effort would weaken Obama-era fuel economy standards and prevent California from setting its own stricter standards (Greenwire, Nov. 20, 2019).
The Trump mantra, in a large part, has simply been to undo what Obama did…….Twitter: @kelseybrugger Email: kbrugger@eenews.net https://www.eenews.net/stories/1061984181
Tennessee Valley Authority unfairly fired a nuclear whistleblower
|
Labor department rules TVA cooked up cause to fire nuclear whistleblower, Jamie Satterfield, Knoxville News Sentinel Jan. 3, 2020 The U.S. Department of Labor says the Tennessee Valley Authority fired a nuclear engineer who blew the whistle on safety concerns and lied about it.The labor department is ordering TVA to give Beth Wetzel her job back and shell out more than $200,000 in back pay, lost bonuses and benefits, compensatory damages and legal fees.
TVA said it fired Wetzel for badmouthing supervisor Erin Henderson, but the labor department ruled Wetzel properly raised safety concerns about the nuclear program and – when asked by a TVA attorney – gave her “honest” opinion Henderson was too inexperienced for her post and ignored safety complaints…….. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/03/labor-department-tva-cooked-up-cause-fire-nuclear-whistleblower/2794793001/ |
|
|
The escalation of nuclear tension between USA and Iran
Timeline: How tensions escalated with Iran since Trump withdrew US from nuclear deal
President Trump’s decision to leave the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran was followed by an escalation of rhetoric, sanctions and attacks between the countries. George Petras, Jim Sergent, Janet Loehrke, Karl Gelles and Javier Zarracina, USA TODAY, 3 Jan 2020,
July 25, 2015
Iran, the United States and other nations approve a deal in which Iran agrees to shift its nuclear program from weapons production to peaceful commercial use for 10 years. Iran allows international inspectors on its nuclear weapons sites.
In exchange, the United States and the United Nations Security Council lift energy, trade, technology and financial sanctions against Iran.
The pact, established during the tenure of President Barack Obama, is an executive agreement, not a treaty, which means it isn’t formally approved by Congress. Republicans oppose the deal and question its legality.
Leaving the deal
October 2016
Presidential candidate Donald Trump says Iran should write the United States a thank you letter for “the stupidest deal of all time.” Trump says the United States will withdraw from the deal if he’s elected.
May 8, 2018
President Trump announces the withdrawal from the Iran deal. Iran, France, Britain and Germany say they will stay in the pact.
US increases pressure
August-November 2018
The United States reimposes economic sanctions targeting Iran’s energy, financial, shipping and shipbuilding industries. Iran says it will take unspecified actions regarding the nuclear deal if Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China don’t help it engage in international trade.
April 8, 2019
Trump says he will designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards as a foreign terrorist organization. The Pentagon opposes the change, saying it increases the possibility of retaliation against American military and intelligence personnel.
April 22
May 5
John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, says the United States will send an aircraft carrier strike force and Air Force bombers to the Middle East. The deployment shows Iran that “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”
Iran retaliates
May 8
Iran says it will increase its production of enriched uranium and heavy water.
May 12
Four oil tankers – two from Saudi Arabia, one from the United Arab Emirates and one from Norway – are attacked in the Persian Gulf. The United States says Iran is behind the attacks.
June 13
Two oil tankers – one from Norway, the other from Japan – are attacked in the Gulf of Oman. The United States blames Iran, which denies responsibility.
June 20
Iran shoots down a U.S. surveillance drone it says violated Iranian airspace. The U.S. Central Command says the aircraft was in international territory.
June 20
Trump orders retaliatory attacks against Iran but cancels the strikes shortly before they are to be launched. Four days later, he imposes more sanctions against Iran.
July 1
Iran says it’s exceeded the amount of low-enriched uranium it was allowed to build under the 2015 agreement.
US-Iranian tensions rise………
Jan. 2 2020
Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani and five others are killed in a U.S. drone strike at Baghdad airport. U.S. officials call it a “defensive action,” saying Soleimani planned attacks on U.S. diplomats and troops. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/03/us-iran-conflict-since-nuclear-deal/2803223001/
-
Archives
- May 2026 (57)
- 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 