Final push for anti-nuclear signatures before Ohio’s nuclear bailout referendum
|
Anti-Nuclear Bailout Group Making Final Push For Signatures Before Monday’s Deadline https://www.statenews.org/post/anti-nuclear-bailout-group-making-final-push-signatures-mondays-deadline
By ANDY CHOW 18 Oct 19, Petitioners are giving one last push into the drive that would put Ohio’s nuclear bailout law before voters. The referendum effort must file enough valid signatures, 265,774, by Monday afternoon in order to qualify for next year’s ballot.
Opponents of the law say it’s a corporate bailout for FirstEnergy Solutions. They’re also against the coal subsidies and the cuts to green energy policies. That’s why they want to put the law on the ballot for a potential repeal. Among those opponent organizers is Rachael Belz, executive director of Ohio Citizen Action, which advocates for community involvement and corporate responsibility. Belz says they’re planning an all-out blitz to gather last-minute signatures around the state. “I feel optimistic. We’re gonna push as hard as we can up until the last minutes to make sure that this gets on the ballot,” says Belz Pro-nuclear bailout groups will continue to have their own canvassers out trying to get people not to sign the petition along with ads against the referendum. There are other looming issues. The anti-bailout group leading the charge, Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, has filed a lawsuit in federal court asking a judge to extend their time. The group argues a requirement for them to file paperwork about their petitioners made them vulnerable against their opposition. Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts also says in the lawsuit that it took too long for the Ohio Attorney General’s Office to approve the petition language, so they’re asking for an additional 90 days. Pro-nuclear bailout groups have filed a case in the Ohio Supreme Court arguing that the new bailout law creates a tax, and is therefore immune to a referendum attempt. |
|
Nuclear shill Rick Perry switching from DOE Secretary to Small Nuclear Reactor Salesman
Perry to Resign as DOE Secretary, With Nuclear Weapon Programs on 
Autopilot, OCTOBER 18, 2019, BY DAN LEONE,Rick Perry on Thursday announced his resignation as the Donald Trump administration’s first secretary of energy after more than two-and-a-half years on the job. In a published letter to President Donald Trump, Perry said he would resign “later this year”…(subscribers only) https://www.exchangemonitor.com/perry-resign-doe-secretary-nuclear-weapon-programs-autopilot/
Energy Wire 17th Oct 2019, Energy Secretary Rick Perry will head back to Europe next week as part of an effort to boost the U.S. advanced nuclear industry’s ability to export its technologies across the globe.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/10/17/stories/1061299145
Anti nuclear activism revival in Washington
Fear of a new nuclear arms race revives hotbed of anti-nuclear action, President Trump’s plans for escalation kick off a new chapter in Washington’s long history with nuclear proliferation and resistance. CrossCut, by Kevin Knodell. October 18, 2019, As worries of nuclear war resurface and new concerns about the health impacts of America’s atomic arsenal emerge, Washington state’s long-lived but largely dormant anti-nuclear movement is again raising its voice.
On Sept. 29, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility held a town hall on Washington’s history with nuclear weapons that brought together anti-war, environmental and Indigenous rights activists. Activists marched on the Federal Building in Seattle the following day to protest Trump’s nuclear policies.
“We’re a little more alarmed than in the past, so we’re working hard to affect Congress and also working to build a movement of people,” said Dr. Joe Berkson with Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility. “The issue is the new nuclear arms race. There’s an expansion, the current administration wants to expand into new nuclear weapons and redo the whole nuclear weapons arsenal for a large amount of money, and we are opposed to that.”
On Sept. 29, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility held a town hall on Washington’s history with nuclear weapons that brought together anti-war, environmental and Indigenous rights activists. Activists marched on the Federal Building in Seattle the following day to protest Trump’s nuclear policies.
“We’re a little more alarmed than in the past, so we’re working hard to affect Congress and also working to build a movement of people,” said Dr. Joe Berkson with Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility. “The issue is the new nuclear arms race. There’s an expansion, the current administration wants to expand into new nuclear weapons and redo the whole nuclear weapons arsenal for a large amount of money, and we are opposed to that.”
Berkson and others hope to draw on that history to broaden the conversation about nuclear weapons from the abstract fears of nuclear war to the tangible impacts the weapons have had on communities and on the environment. Activists hope to give new life to anti-nuclear activism in Washington.
“We’ve focused a lot of times on the environmental issues but now we’re really looking to hit home with the health issues,” said Twa-le Abrahamson of the Spokane Tribe.
Spokane and Yakama people have dealt with the radioactive contamination from Hanford that has poisoned their lands and, activists say, caused health problems for tribal members living on their reservations.
Abrahamson noted Trump administration has made deep cuts to cleanup efforts at Hanford and moved to roll back regulations on nuclear waste handling.
“We get some impacts on the daily. And our water has been contaminated forever, so forever we’ll have transportation of that waste,” she said. “Nobody talks about that. They want to act like that’s a history, but we have that going through our communities.”
For years, anti-nuclear activists have continuously protested against the U.S. Navy’s ballistic missile submarines stationed at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, which some nuclear weapons watchdogs believe houses 1,300 nuclear warheads. Berkson claimed the base, located near Hood Canal, is home to about one-third of America’s nuclear arsenal and is the third-largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world.
But the actual numbers — and locations — of America’s nuclear weapons are hard to nail down.
“It is U.S. government policy that we can neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location” said Sheila Murray, a spokesperson for Navy Region Northwest, noting that for safety and security the information is tightly guarded.
Activists argue that those weapons and other large military facilities make Western Washington an attractive target for strikes by rival nuclear powers. As Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un traded insults, some Seattleites worried that the city would be in Kim’s crosshairs.
New fears of nuclear conflict have spurred a wave of activism among younger Americans. Jeanelle Sales, a University of Washington student with the campus chapter of Beyond the Bomb, became active after a nuclear false alarm in her home state of Hawaii. The thought that her friends and family could have been caught in the blast terrified her. “It was a major wake up call for me,” she said.
Among the activists’ concerns is the Trump administration’s keen interest in tactical or “low yield” nuclear warheads that are easier to deploy and which produce smaller explosions. The fear among activists is that these weapons could make a nuclear strike much more likely……https://crosscut.com/2019/10/fear-new-nuclear-arms-race-revives-hotbed-anti-nuclear-action
Ohio’s Fascist Pro-Nuke Attack on Democracy Comes Due on Monday
By Harvey Wasserman, 18 Oct 19A terrifying series of gestapo-style assaults, petiton buying, bribery, mass media manipulation and systematic intimidation has smacked into the attempt of Ohio citizens to repeal a billion-dollar bailout for two dangerously failing atomic reactors on Lake Erie.The unprecedented assault threatens the referendum process in Ohio and across the nation.It also threatens to keep on line two very old, dangerously decayed reactors where melt-downs and explosions could forever contaminate the Great Lakes region and more. (For a full explanation, hear this one-hour discussion at:The story may end Monday, October 21, when signatures are due to qualify an anti-nuclear referendum for the fall 2020 ballot.It begins with the July passage by the gerrymandered Ohio Legislature of HB6, a massive bailout scheme designed to subsidize the Perry and Davis-Besse nukes, plus two fifty-year-old coal burners, one of them in Indiana. HB6 does support ten small solar facilities. But it also kills an extremely popular, effective energy efficiency program along with larger subsidies for wind and solar energy in general.The bailout is vehemently opposed by a large majority of Ohioans, including most of its usually pro-corporate media. Commercial, industrial and environmental groups did mount a massive campaign meant to stop the bill from passing. But with help from Democrats in both houses, the Legislature narrowly approved the bailouts.Almost immediately, a referendum was filed for repeal. With 265,000 signatures due by October 21, Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts began hiring canvassers.Ohio’s GOP Secretary of State delayed the process as long as possible. He waiting a full 20 days before turning down the first petition submission. He then waited another 20 to certify the second.But as soon as the referendum supporters began gathering signatures, pro-nuke forces attacked with a fascist assault unlike any other in US history.First they began running an astonishing wave of TV ads claiming the referendum was a plot by Chinese Communists to take over Ohio’s electrical grid. The ads feature (they are still running!) hordes of goose-stepping Chinese soldiers, sinister footage of China’s dictator, shuttered US factories, and more.Accompanied by high-gloss mass mailings, the pro-nuke forces are also running saturation radio ads warning Ohioans to shun all signature gatherers lest they be tracked by sinister communists out to ruin their lives and credit. A toll-free number is offered to those willing to call in the location of any repeal supporters.But the pro-nuke gestapo has also leapt from mere media manipulation to physical intimidation. When the referendum-gatherers hit the streets, they were confronted by industry “blockers” to tangibly prevent them from doing their job. In one case (as filmed on a security camera) a blocker smacked the cell phone out of the hands of a signature gatherer as he tried to photograph her. Gatherers have widely reported close-up verbal assaults. In some cases as many as three paid blockers have surrounded a single signature gatherer to prevent anyone from coming near to signing a petition.Because many of the signature gatherers are hired employees, they’re required to register contact information with the state. The pro-nuke mob has assaulted them with threatening phone calls. In some cases they’ve reportedly offered substantial cash payments and airline tickets if they leave the state. One signature gatherer reported being offered $2500 (!) for the day’s accumulated sign-up sheets, which would presumably then be shredded.Under the circumstances, many now wonder if the pro-referendum forces have been able to accumulate the required 265,000 signatures, plus the many more needed for a traditional cushion. The Republican Secretary of State is certain to discard as many signatures as he can, especially with the micro-managed scrutiny of the nuclear industry.The ramifications of such an outcome are staggering. It could signal the death of the popular referendum, a cornerstone of the democratic process.It could also mean two old, uncompetitive, uninsured, un-inspected crumbling atomic reactors highly likely to explode will continue to threaten the entire Great Lakes region for years to come.————-Harvey Wasserman’s People’s Spiral of US History is at solartopia.org. His California Solartopia show is broadcast at KPFK/Pacifica-90.7FM in Los Angeles. The Green Power & Wellness Show is podcast at prn.fm.
8-10 years for Southern California Edison to demolish San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
The permit will allow Edison contractors to begin removing major structures at the facility, located on an 85-acre chunk of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton owned by the Department of the Navy. SONGS is home to 3.55 million pounds of used-up nuclear fuel, between the Pacific and Interstate 5…..
Ultimately, the federal government has the final say about where used-up commercial nuclear fuel should go. But since a permanent site has not been found, nuclear waste at plants like SONGS have been piling up for decades. …….
A provision within the commission’s vote added a special condition to the permit concerning the demolition of two spent fuel pools where used-up nuclear waste is stored.
Under the provision, Edison will not get rid of the pools until it funds an independent third-party review of an inspection and maintenance plan regarding the condition of canisters in dry storage and forwards the findings to the Coastal Commission. Edison also agreed to start the plan by March 31, 2020 — seven months earlier than scheduled.
In return, the commission agreed to not sit on the report and vote on a recommendation by Coastal Commission staff by July 2020.
The proposed demolition of the pools at Units 2 and 3 dominated much of the discussion that dragged out for most of the day.
While fuel inside a nuclear reactor typically loses its efficiency after about four to six years, it is still thermally hot and emits a great deal of radiation. To keep the fuel cool, nuclear plant operators place the used-up waste in a metal rack and lower it into a deep pool of water, typically for at least five years. Once cooled, the fuel is often transferred to a dry storage facility.
Some speakers supported removal of the pools but others insisted they must remain to make sure the canisters holding the waste can be retrieved and inspected.
While fuel inside a nuclear reactor typically loses its efficiency after about four to six years, it is still thermally hot and emits a great deal of radiation. To keep the fuel cool, nuclear plant operators place the used-up waste in a metal rack and lower it into a deep pool of water, typically for at least five years. Once cooled, the fuel is often transferred to a dry storage facility.
Some speakers supported removal of the pools but others insisted they must remain to make sure the canisters holding the waste can be retrieved and inspected………
The dismantlement will be carried out by a general contractor selected in December 2016 — a joint venture of AECOM and Energy Solutions called SONGS Decommissioning Solutions. The decommissioning will be paid for by $4.4 billion in existing trust funds, The money has been collected from SONGS customers and invested in dedicated trusts. According to Edison, customers have contributed about one-third of the trust funds while remaining two-thirds has come from investments by the company.
Some of the work can begin before the waste transfers are completed, provided they are “geographically separate from locations where fuel storage and transfer operations occur,” Dobken said.
After transfers were suspended for a little more than one year after the August 2018 incident involving the 50-ton canister, Edison resumed moving canisters in July. Workers have moved 35 canisters to dry storage thus far, with 38 more to go. Transfer operations are expected to be completed by mid-2020…….
SONGS is far from the only nuclear plant with waste on-site. About 80,000 metric tons of used commercial fuel has piled up at 121 sites in 35 states because the federal government has not found a repository where it can be stored. Federal authorities were supposed to begin taking custody of spent fuel in 1998. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/story/2019-10-17/coastal-commission-oks-permit-to-begin-dismantlement-at-san-onofre-nuclear-plant
A single bird grounds America’s Navy ‘Doomsday’ plane
Navy ‘Doomsday’ plane built to withstand nuclear attack grounded after striking single bird, By JESSICA SCHLADEBECK, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |OCT 18, 2019 The Navy’s “Doomsday Plane,” designed to withstand even a nuclear attack, suffered millions of dollars in damages after striking a single bird as it practiced a landing maneuver earlier this month at a Maryland air station.
The E-6B Mercury was supposed to only touch down momentarily before immediately taking off again from the Patuxent River Naval Air station – but a bird was sucked into one of the plane’s four engines while it attempted the “touch and go” move, according to Military.com….. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-bird-strike-navy-plane-nuclear-attack-grounds-20191018-c5jhcnyoufa2nf2ryaxb3bupo4-story.html
Jane Fonda arrested with Sam Waterston in climate change protest
“We can do this!” Waterston, 78, said during the protest. “We need something to push for that’s as big as the problem.”
“This is an ongoing action to draw attention and a sense of urgency to the climate crisis,” Fonda said before her arrest. “Make no mistake, change is coming, whether we like it or not. Change is coming by disaster, or change is coming by design.”
The actors were seen with zip ties around their wrists by police following a demonstration in Washington, D.C, in front of the Library of Congress.
“We can do this!” Waterston, 78, said during the protest. “We need something to push for that’s as big as the problem.”
“This is an ongoing action to draw attention and a sense of urgency to the climate crisis,” Fonda said before her arrest. “Make no mistake, change is coming, whether we like it or not. Change is coming by disaster, or change is coming by design.”
The actors were seen with zip ties around their wrists by police following a demonstration in Washington, D.C, in front of the Library of Congress. …… https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/jane-fonda-arrested-with-sam-waterston-in-climate-change-protest/ar-AAIZPb1?ocid=spartandhp
America’s Nuclear Doomsday Submarines
 Meet the Ohio-Class: America’s Nuclear Doomsday Submarines, National Interest, by Sebastien Roblin 16 Oct 19,”………. The most deadly of the real-life kaiju prowling the oceans today are the fourteen Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines, which carry upwards of half of the United States’ nuclear arsenal onboard.
If you do the math, the Ohio-class boats may be the most destructive weapon system created by humankind. Each of the 170-meter-long vessels can carry twenty-four Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) which can be fired from underwater to strike at targets more than seven thousand miles away depending on the load.
As a Trident II reenters the atmosphere at speeds of up to Mach 24, it splits into up to eight independent reentry vehicles, each with a 100- or 475-kiloton nuclear warhead. In short, a full salvo from an Ohio-class submarine—which can be launched in less than one minute—could unleash up to 192 nuclear warheads to wipe twenty-four cities off the map. This is a nightmarish weapon of the apocalypse. ………. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-ohio-class-americas-nuclear-doomsday-submarines-88386
|
|
Risks of nuclear transportation
|
Safer nuke shipments? Critics split on whether tech has cut nuclear transportation risk, reno gazette journal, Scott Sonner, Associated Press Oct. 14, 2019 “…… Today, radioactive shipments are hauled in double-walled steel containers inside specialized trailers that undergo extensive testing and are tracked by GPS and real-time apps.But whether shipping technology has evolved enough to be deemed safe depends on whom you ask.
The Trump administration’s revival of a decades-old plan to move the nation’s most dangerous radioactive waste to a remote spot in the Nevada desert has reignited a long-running fight in the courts and Congress over how to safely get the hazardous remnants of decades of bomb-making and power generation to a permanent resting place. “It seems to me, that part of the gist of the government’s argument is that, ‘We’ve been doing this a long time. We know what we are doing. You have to trust us,’” noted U.S. District Judge Miranda Du who’s considering a lawsuit Nevada filed against the Energy Department over waste being sent there. For its part, the government says there are no safety concerns………. But there have been close calls, said Robert Halstead, an analyst who has studied the dangers of transporting radioactive waste for 35 years and is head of Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects. A truck crash in 1971 killed a driver and propelled a cask full of nuclear waste into a ditch in Tennessee. The container was damaged, but no radioactive material leaked. More recently a Tennessee contractor revealed earlier this year it may have mislabeled low-level nuclear waste – items such as contaminated equipment or workers’ clothing – that potentially was sent to Nevada over six years without the proper safeguards. The Energy Department responded by announcing in July it will review all radioactive waste packaging and shipping. Perhaps the greatest point of disagreement is whether the “rigorous testing” is rigorous enough. It would be dangerous and expensive to run tests involving explosions, fire or other hazards on a real cask of spent nuclear fuel. So it’s never been done in the United States. “What isn’t clear is: ‘What are the conditions under which the package would fail?” said Edwin Lyman, head of the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has studied the hazards of nuclear shipments for 25 years. There’s enough high-level nuclear waste awaiting disposal in the U.S. to fill a football field 65 feet deep. Few states want to house it within their borders. To solve the long-time problem, the Trump Administration has revived a decades-old plan to move the nation’s most dangerous radioactive waste from around the country to a site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. It was proposed to hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel in a maze of tunnels bored into an ancient volcanic ridge. Nevada doesn’t want it. The state and its congressional delegation have been fighting the project and other attempts to store nuclear waste in Nevada for decades, and the Yucca Mountain project was shelved in 2010 under pressure from then-Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and President Barack Obama. U.S. Rep. Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat who helped defeat a GOP-led effort to restore funding to Yucca Mountain last May, called it “the latest attempt to force nuclear waste down Nevada’s throats.” Meanwhile, the state has sued the federal government over the half metric ton of plutonium secretly shipped from South Carolina to the Nevada National Security Site. That site is separate from but close to the Yucca Mountain site. While U.S. leaders battle over where to ship the nuclear waste, the government says it has upgraded transportation containers and the way it hauls the material………..https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2019/10/14/critics-split-whether-tech-has-cut-nuclear-transportation-risk/3978815002/ |
|
The U.S. Supreme Court has shut down South Carolina’s attempt to complete a nuclear fuel facility
|
Supreme Court Lets US Stop Work on $8B SC Nuclear Fuel Plant
The U.S. Supreme Court has shut down South Carolina’s attempt to complete a nuclear fuel facility. https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-10-15/supreme-court-lets-us-stop-work-on-8b-sc-nuclear-fuel-plant, Oct. 15, 2019 BY JEFFREY COLLINS, Associated Press COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The federal government does not have to restart construction on a nuclear fuel facility in South Carolina that it abandoned after spending nearly $8 billion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The justices refused without comment to hear South Carolina’s appeal of a lower court decision last October that allowed the U.S. Energy Department to stop building the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site near Aiken. Work on the plant started nearly two decades ago. Its goal was to take plutonium used in nuclear weapons built during the Cold War and convert it into a fuel called MOX to run nuclear plants around the world. The facility was over budget and behind schedule nearly from the start. It was still decades away from completion when President Barack Obama’s final budget in 2016 pulled funding. Republicans in South Carolina asked President Donald Trump to restart the project, but his administration has refused. South Carolina then sued the federal government, saying the government had promised to remove the 11 metric tons (24,250 pounds) of plutonium from the state by 2021. Without the MOX plant in place, there was no guarantee the government would keep its end of the deal, state officials argued. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said he was disappointed with the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear its appeal but said state officials “will continue to do everything necessary to protect the citizens of our state and hold the federal government accountable under the law.” Federal officials said they should be free to consider any alternatives they want. The plan now appears to be to seal the plutonium and bury it in the western U.S. desert. The Energy Department first disclosed in January 2019 that it had sent a half ton of plutonium to Nevada in 2018. Two months ago, Wilson said a full ton of plutonium had been removed from South Carolina to meet a federal court-imposed deadline of Jan. 1, 2020. He didn’t say where the other half-ton went. In August, Nevada lost its own federal appeals court fight to block any more shipments of weapons-grade plutonium to a site near Las Vegas. |
|
U.S. presidential candidates should state their position on nuclear weapons
Candidates should state position on nuclear weapons, https://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20191014/column-candidates-should-state-position-on-nuclear-weapons David Wright, The upcoming Democratic Party presidential debate in Ohio provides an opportunity for candidates to address an issue that a majority of Ohio voters want to hear about: their plans for U.S. nuclear weapons policy.
A recent Zogby Analytics poll found that more than 80% of Ohio residents believe it is critical that the candidates state their positions on this issue.
They are right to want to hear the candidates’ views. Ohioans understand that the risk of nuclear war remains one of the greatest threats to civilization, and security experts warn that the potential for a nuclear war is greater than it has been in decades.
The good news is that the next president could make America safer by changing U.S. nuclear policy.
Under current policies, the United States could start a nuclear war by mistake. How? Let me explain the chain of events.
The Pentagon keeps its 400 land-based missiles on hair-trigger alert so they can be launched quickly upon warning of a Russian missile attack before they could be destroyed by incoming Russian missiles. If the military received such a warning, the president would have less than 10 minutes to decide whether to launch U.S. missiles. But that warning is generated by computers based on radar and satellite data, all of which are fallible. Indeed, there have been false alarms over the years due to a range of technical and human errors. This tight time span in which to make a decision increases the risk of starting a nuclear war based on a false warning. U.S. missiles cannot be recalled or destroyed in flight, even if the Pentagon belatedly realized that the warning had been false.
Keeping missiles on hair-trigger alert is not only dangerous, it is also unnecessary. Most U.S. nuclear weapons are hidden at sea on submarines where they are safe from attack, so the United States can wait to see if a nuclear attack is actually happening before it retaliates. Debate moderators should ask the candidates if they would remove U.S. missiles from hair-trigger alert and eliminate the possibility of starting a nuclear war by mistake.
The next president also could reduce the chance that the United States would deliberately start a nuclear war. Current policy permits the United States to use nuclear weapons first in a non-nuclear conflict with Russia, China or North Korea — all of which are nuclear-armed. Doing so would almost certainly provoke a devastating nuclear response against the United States.
Moderators should tackle that topic as well. They should ask the candidates whether, if elected, they would clearly state that the only purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack and establish a policy that the United States will never use nuclear weapons first. Such a policy also would make America safer by making it less likely that our adversaries would attack us with nuclear weapons first out of fear that a U.S. nuclear strike was imminent.
The Zogby survey polled Ohioans about this “first use” issue, too. When asked if there were any acceptable circumstances for the United States to use nuclear weapons first, nearly two-thirds said no.
Finally, the United States has long relied on verifiable international agreements to constrain its adversaries’ nuclear forces. Today the United States and Russia still possess 92% of all nuclear weapons, yet the United States recently pulled out of a longstanding nuclear arms treaty with Russia and has threatened to walk away from the landmark treaty that limits long-range nuclear weapons. Debate moderators should ask the candidates if they are committed to maintaining such agreements, how they would reinvigorate U.S.-Russian negotiations and how they would address North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Voters want to know, but they will only if debate moderators ask the right questions. The presidential candidates must clarify what they would do, if elected, to reduce the nuclear threat and guarantee national — and international — security.
David Wright, co-director and senior scientist in the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, grew up in Lima and attended Miami University and Ohio State University.
Urgent need for diplomacy with Iran
|
Both authors held high positions at the State Department in previous administrations. This month, six years ago, we were in the midst of secret talks with Iran that led to the comprehensive nuclear agreement. It was a moment when diplomacy carried considerable risk, and considerable promise. Today, the promise has faded, and the risk is accelerating. The consequences of the Trump administration’s foolish decision to abandon that nuclear deal last year, with no evidence of Iranian noncompliance, were predictable — and predicted. We are now at a very dangerous point. The story of how we got here is one of faulty expectations on both sides. Iran thought it could wait out President Trump, and the United States would simply return to the deal under a new president in 2021. But the pressure of economic sanctions, unilaterally reimposed by the United States, has been more formidable than Iran anticipated. …….. If we stay on this trajectory, we will soon go off the cliff. The policy questions debated in Washington are too often about whether or not to wear a seatbelt. Instead, we ought to put our hands back on the wheel of diplomacy and steer toward an off-ramp before it is too late. If we stay on this trajectory, we will soon go off the cliff. The policy questions debated in Washington are too often about whether or not to wear a seatbelt. Instead, we ought to put our hands back on the wheel of diplomacy and steer toward an off-ramp before it is too late. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/opinion/iran-nuclear-deal.html |
|
|
USA anxiety over its nuclear weapons stashed in Turkey
The US is rethinking the 50-plus nuclear weapons it keeps in Turkey, Quartz, By Tim Fernholz, 14 Oct 19, Turkish forces are pushing into northern Syria, replacing and sometimes even firing on the US troops retreating at Donald Trump’s orders.
The question of whether Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is really a US ally was put to US defense secretary Mark Esper on Fox television this morning. “No, I think Turkey, the arc of their behavior over the past several years has been terrible,” he said.
Which brings up a problem: The US is storing perhaps 50 air-dropped thermonuclear bombs at its Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, less than 100 miles from the Syrian border where this conflict is taking place.
The nuclear stockpile dates back to the Cold War, when the US sought to keep a sufficient supply of atomic weapons deployed in Europe to deter potential Soviet aggression. Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy also host similar arsenals, and the US trains the participating nations in the use of the doomsday devices.
Today, these bombs remain in place largely because of inertia, and the hope that countries like Turkey will see the depot as sufficient reason not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. It doesn’t seem to be working: Last month, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he could “not accept” efforts to prevent Turkey from developing its own atomic bombs.
But instability in Turkey and the region, along with Ankara’s close relationship with Russia, have had American strategists talking about re-locating their weapons for years. (The US does not officially discuss the arsenal, but there is no indication that the stockpile has been removed.)……..https://qz.com/1727158/us-rethinking-the-50-plus-nuclear-weapons-it-keeps-in-turkey/
The truly dangerous situation of USA’s nuclear weapons
|
US nuclear weapons policies are alarmingly dangerous. https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/us-weapons, 13 Oct 19, The United States tested the first atomic device in July of 1945. Seven years later, it exploded the first thermonuclear weapon—designed in part by Richard Garwin, who now serves on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the following years, the United States amassed many thousands of nuclear weapons, each capable of immense destruction. At the height of the Cold War, the United States maintained roughly 30,000 nuclear bombs and warheads, though the total number of weapons has fallen, thanks in part to US-Soviet and US-Russian treaties and agreements. The policies governing when, where, and why the United States would use nuclear weapons remain unconscionably risky. The US arsenalAs of 2019, the US arsenal contained some 4,000 nuclear weapons, about half of which are deployed and ready to be delivered. Their destructive capabilities range widely: the most powerful weapon—the “B83”—is more than 80 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The smallest weapon has an explosive yield of only 2 percent that of the Hiroshima bomb. Such “low-yield” weapons are designed to be used on the battlefield, increasing the likelihood they may actually be used.
The country’s weapons are deployed in submarines and in 80-foot-deep missile silos across the American west. Others are stored at air force bases, where they can be loaded on long-range bombers. Some 150 US bombs are deployed at airbases in five European countries. The arsenal’s primary purpose is “deterrence”—i.e., it’s intended to dissuade others from launching a nuclear attack. However, current policies allow the United States to use nuclear weapons first against Russia, China, or North Korea, effectively beginning a nuclear war.
New weaponsOver the coming years the Pentagon plans to spend more than a trillion dollars maintaining and rebuilding the entire US nuclear arsenal, which is both unnecessary and unwise. US weapons are maintained and upgraded on an ongoing basis and many don’t require replacement. Certain types should be eliminated altogether because they are redundant and provocative.
The main outcome of the Pentagon’s spending spree may be to spark an arms race with Russia and China, which would be expensive and dangerous—especially in the absence of strong arms control agreements.
PoliciesThe risk of nuclear war has as much to do with policy as it does to do with the weapons themselves. In the United States, the President is granted sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. He or she doesn’t need to consult with anyone beforehand and can issue a launch order with very few checks and balances. It’s also US policy that nuclear weapons can be used first in a non-nuclear conflict with a nuclear-armed state, i.e. not only in retaliation. If the United States crossed the nuclear threshold and started a nuclear war, it would open up our country to a retaliatory attack. Additionally, 400 land-based missiles are kept on hair-trigger alert, meaning they’re maintained in a ready-for-launch status. Current policy allows the United States to launch these missiles on warning of an incoming attack, despite a long history of false alarms and close calls. Collectively, these and other policies increase the risk of nuclear war. Better policies would reduce that risk. |
|
“The Columbian” jeers the U.S. Department of Energy, over nuclear wastes
In Our View: Cheers & Jeers: storing nuclear waste, The Columbian,
Jeers: To the U.S. Department of Energy. The Western Governors’ Association is right to decry federal plans regarding the storage of radioactive nuclear waste. Among the complaints: Governors were not consulted before a plan to ship contaminated items to Carlsbad, N.M., was unveiled.
For decades, the federal government has shirked its duty for cleaning up contaminated sites such as the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Federal officials need to better engage with the states that have unwittingly become experts in dealing with contaminated waste. https://www.columbian.com/news/2019/oct/12/in-our-view-cheers-jeers-bo-tax-storing-nuclear-waste/
-
Archives
- May 2026 (62)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 