Not surprising: Biden hid report on Ukraine scandal, docs reveal
07 Oct 2025 , https://www.sott.net/article/502251-Not-surprising-Biden-hid-report-on-Ukraine-scandal-docs-reveal
Joe Biden asked the CIA to cover up a report about his family’s alleged corrupt business activities in Ukraine while he was serving as US vice president in 2015, according to declassified agency documents.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe published the mostly redacted records on Tuesday.
One of the documents was a government email sent to the agency and dated February 10, 2016.
“Good morning, I just spoke with Vice President / National Security Adviser and he would strongly prefer the report not/not be disseminated. Thanks for understanding,” it said.
The sender’s name was redacted, leaving just the title PDB Briefer. The Presidential Daily Brief is a top secret document for daily distribution to the US president and a small number of top level approved officials.
The report in question said that Ukrainian officials in the administration of then President Pyotr Poroshenko “expressed bewilderment and disappointment” at Biden’s December 2015 visit.
These officials viewed the alleged ties of the US Vice President’s family to corruption in Ukraine as evidence of a double-standard within the US Government towards matters of corruption and political power.
Biden’s convicted felon son, Hunter, held a lucrative position on the board of Ukrainian energy conglomerate Burisma Holdings during his father’s vice presidential term.
The elder Biden has publicly admitted to pressuring Kiev into firing a prosecutor general who was investigating the company in 2016. However, he denied ever taking bribes or having knowledge of Hunter’s foreign business affairs.
In December of last year, Biden signed a broad pardon for his son, u-turning on prior promises not to do so. The pardon shields Hunter from any prosecution for crimes committed between 2014 and 2024.
Rampant corruption in Ukraine has led US officials to voice concerns over potential embezzlement of aid. Recent opinion polls say the majority of Ukrainians see the problem as getting worse.
Trump dreams of nuclear as he axes grid projects

By FRANCISCO “A.J.” CAMACHO , 10/06/2025, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2025/10/06/trump-dreams-of-nuclear-as-he-axes-grid-projects-00594623
The Trump administration is wiping out projects meant to ensure the reliability of the electric grid — while pinning many of its promises of energy affordability on a nuclear moonshot.
The moonshot includes a goal to make three advanced reactors go critical by July 4, 2026. A prime player is the nuclear startup Oklo, which the White House is promoting as central to its aims of powering artificial intelligence and energy-sucking data centers, as I wrote in a recent deep dive.
Meanwhile, the administration is rolling back funding for power transmission projects that energy planners call essential to grid reliability as electricity demand rises. The Department of Energy’s latest plans to cancel $8 billion in clean energy funding include more than two dozen grid improvement projects, including a $464 million grant for Minnesota to build a transmission line that would deliver 28 gigawatts of power to the Midwest, write Josh Siegel, Kelsey Tamborrino, Jessie Blaeser and James Bikales.
In short, the Trump administration is cutting support for projects based on existing technology that would get more low-cost renewables on the grid, while doubling down on expensive — even speculative — nuclear power. Nuclear is a rare exception to the Trump administration’s fealty to fossil fuels.
As Zack Colman and Catherine Allen write today, states that rely heavily on wind and solar power typically have lower power costs than the national average. Nuclear remains expensive, with small modular reactors such as the one Oklo is pursuing still unproven commercially in the U.S. Oklo’s reactor doesn’t even exist yet — federal regulators rejected its first application.
Oklo maintains that its “fast reactor” technology can be cheaper, faster and safer to deploy than existing nuclear reactors. (The technology’s fundamentals have been tested with mixed results in labs across the globe and are commercially used in Russia.) CEO Jacob DeWitte said he has not been in touch with Energy Secretary Chris Wright — who once sat on Oklo’s board — since Wright joined the Cabinet.
Nuclear ‘meme stock’?
Former Obama-era Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Allison Macfarlane has called Oklo’s regulatory record “extremely frustrating,” adding that regulators “asked [Oklo] questions over and over. They never got answers.”
Even so, Oklo executives have secured federal pilot project awards, stood beside President Donald Trump in the Oval Office and broken ground on a would-be reactor on DOE land in Idaho. (They may even get access to plutonium fuel reprocessed from the nation’s weapons stockpile, as Zack wrote last week.) That’s a level of White House backing that other companies with plentiful regulatory approvals and proven commercial deliverables aren’t getting. Democrats have pointed to Oklo’s ties to Wright as one potential explanation.
Some financial analysts and industry observers compare Oklo’s $138 share price to meme stock, saying it has gone viral regardless of its fundamental value.
The grid’s nuts and bolts
All of this is happening as grid operators warn of a widening gap between available power and surging electricity demand from AI.
Trump agencies have eliminated tens of billions of dollars in clean energy and climate funding in total, write Zack and Catherine, echoing investor and industry anxieties from the 2024 election cycle. In July, DOE canceled a nearly $5 billion loan guarantee for a transmission line that would bring 5,000 megawatts of renewable energy in the Midwest to dense population centers in the East.
The clawbacks could add up to higher utility bills, said Rob Gramlich, president of the consulting firm Grid Strategies.
“Whether one loves or hates wind and solar, they are what most utilities are relying on to provide large amounts of low-cost power and some amount of firm capacity for the next few years,” Gramlich said.
Support of Trump’s Gaza peace plan ignores major flaw
7 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow, https://theaimn.net/support-of-trumps-gaza-peace-plan-ignores-major-flaw/
Chicago Tribune’s (my local paper) support of Trump’s Gaza peace plan ignores major flaw… no call for a Palestinian state.
Everyone should join the Chicago Tribune’s hope for an end to the 2 year Israeli genocidal ethnic cleansing of 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza. In its editorial, ‘Why we support Trump’s proposal for peace in Gaza between Israel and Hamas’, the Trib called Trump’s 20 point plan “substantive”, not “Trump’s prior musings about U.S. control of Gaza or fanciful talk of Trump-branded resorts.”
The Trib’s substantive claim does not include creation of a Palestinian state, an entity recognized by 157 of the UN’s 193 countries (81%), but not the US. Israel’s 2 yearlong destruction of Gaza and gobbling up their West Bank land with hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers, makes Palestinian statehood impossible.
Creation of a Palestinian state should be recognized by the US and made Point 1 of Trump’s 20 point plan. But one must scroll down to point 19 before gleaning even a hint of a Palestinian state far in the future:
19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.
If there was any doubt this precludes a Palestinian state, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed after release of the plan that it did not call for a Palestinian state. To show his disdain for the plan, Netanyahu ignored Trump’s demand Friday to immediately cease bombing the now obliterated Gaza by killing over 190 Palestinians over the 3-day weekend.
The US should cease being an outlier by becoming country 158 to recognize the state of Palestine. It should further cut off all military aid to Israel until it enters into serious negotiations with both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (the rulers of Gaza and West Bank respectively) to create a Palestinian state that will live in peace with neighboring Israel. That is precisely what Trump’s proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF) should be tasked with.
That, and not the Trump peace plan that likely precludes there ever being a Palestinian state, would truly be substantive.
Patrick Lawrence: Power and Justice

You just know Trump’s name is written into this document, and at his insistence, in the cause of his vulgar pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize he will never get. But never mind this. The Gaza Peace Plan released Monday reads as if Netanyahu dictated it.
Trump. – If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas.
By Patrick Lawrence , ScheerPost, October 5, 2025
Those were an eventful few days as the General Assembly convened at the United Nations Secretariat in New York Sept. 22. France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco and Andorra formally recognized the state of Palestine on the first day of the General Debate, Sept. 23. Britain, Canada, Australia and Portugal had done so two days earlier. With Spain, New Zealand, Finland, Ireland, Norway and other nations also recognizing, virtually the whole of the Western bloc except the United States now accepts Palestine as a sovereign state.
The imperium fades further into its corner. Always good.
And eventful days have followed all the new endorsements of the sovereignty of the Palestinian people. President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, presented a grandly titled Gaza Peace Plan at the White House on Monday, Sept. 29. After several days of suspense and speculation, Hamas responded to this document on Friday. This was not the wholesale acceptance of the 20–point plan Trump seemed to think it was (or wish it was): No, this was skilled statecraft on Hamas’s part — “a responsible position in dealing with the plan proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump,” as the Hamas statement describes itself. “Responsible,” as I read the text, means responsible to the long-suffering Palestinians in Gaza and responsible to the principles of the Palestinian cause.
What do we have here? How shall we understand these apparently disparate events? In my view, we witness a running confrontation between power and justice. This seems to me the defining struggle of our time, and it sharpens as we speak.
You hear a lot of different things about those recognitions at the U.N. in support of a Palestinian state. “What a mockery,” Ali Abunimah, the principled director of The Electronic Intifada, wrote on “X” as heads of state stood at the podium and made these announcements. “Now they just need an actual state.” The Nation called the West’s declarations of support for an independent Palestine “a despicable sham.”
OK, there is a case here. These countries, one and all, call for a two-state solution, and a deader letter I cannot think of. Britain and France pile so many conditions atop their declarations — political candidates in the not-yet-realized Palestine will be vetted, Hamas (never mind its popularity) will be barred from any role in government, textbooks will be censored etc. — that you have to wonder what they mean by “sovereignty” and “self-determination.” Britain and France continue to arm Israel as it terrorizes the people we know as Palestinians.
But those many blurting these out-of-hand dismissals have it wrong, in my view. I am not in the habit of approving of anything Keir Starmer or Emmanuel Macron does, but in this case the British prime minister and the French president, odious “centrists” that they are, deserve what we used to call — alas, for the days when there was a serious left — critical support. The West ex-the United States has finally joined the global majority: Four-fifths of the U.N.’s 193 members now support a Palestinian nation.
No, I am with what many West Bank Palestinians have said since the General Debate convened. A woman named Raya, as quoted in the above-linked document: “Recognition is considered a good and unexpected step, but it will have no real value unless it is followed by serious and practical measures.…” From Alia: “It’s not about if they recognize us or not. It’s about if there is even something left to recognize.” And from Samia: “Recognition of Palestinian statehood is great but will be futile if the genocide on Gaza and occupation do not come to an end.”
See what I mean by critical support?
Flawed as all the statements of recognition are, they seem to have uncorked the bottle wherein the justice genie reposed. This is not to be missed. The walkout when Bibi Netanyahu spoke was even more fun to watch than last year’s. So was the straight-no-chaser language with which heads of state denounced the Israelis’ genocidal barbarities. Gustavo Petro, the Colombian president, described Zionist Israelis as Nazis and called for the U.N. to organize an international force to break the Israeli blockade and stop the savagery.
Petro is right: The Israeli–American peace plan notwithstanding, it is ultimately going to take armed intervention to stop the Zionists’ terror spree. A head of state has finally put this thought on the table.
While the General Assembly proceeded with its business, the Spanish and Italians dispatched naval vessels to sail with the aid flotilla of 50–odd ships then making its way to the waters off Gaza. The Israelis intercepted these vessels late last week — illegally, in international waters — and their crews were deported. But a new flotilla of 11 vessels instantly set sail across the Mediterranean. Also last week, Pedro Sánchez, the Spanish premier, announced that U.S. ships and planes transporting arms and matériel to Israel will be barred from transiting through Spanish ports and air bases. These moves cannot be seen as unrelated to developments on the diplomatic side.
You didn’t have to be at the U.N. last month (and I wasn’t) to understand the gravity of these events — to feel the explosive energy in the air inside and outside the Secretariat. You could see it in the real-time videos posted on social media. The world, the non–West naturally in the lead, was at last declaring, “Enough!” Taking the occasion to its essence, this was a full-frontal confrontation with power in the cause of global justice. One dramatic scene stays with me even now: When Gustavo Petro resumed his seat after speaking, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was videoed standing above him and holding his head in a fraternal embrace.
“This historic moment,” the Brazilian president exclaimed when it was his turn at the podium. So it was.
And then what?
Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly had a difficult time settling on a flight plan when he flew from Tel Aviv to New York, given he is wanted under international law for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Norway, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Ireland and the Netherlands are among the nations that indicated they would honor the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant were he to enter their territory. How was it he was allowed into the Secretariat at all, it was logical to wonder.
We can surmise that part of the Israeli prime minister’s purpose in attending this year’s General Assembly — where he called those who walked out when he spoke “an antisemitic mob” — was openly to flout international law and, per usual, everything the U.N. stands for. The subtext from the moment Bibi arrived in Manhattan was clear: There is no question of the global majority bringing the Israeli terror machine to justice, he wanted to demonstrate, and power, not law, will remain what makes the world go around.
And this is how I read Netanyahu’s summit with President Trump on Monday — their fourth since Trump reassumed office in January. The 20–point plan they released has all kinds of things going on in it, but, taking a step back, it is fairly understood as a reply to the global majority’s just-stated desire for a humane and moral order. Read for its larger meaning, this is a declaration that we — we, all of us — live in a lawless world now and that legitimacy, international institutions, and (certainly not) common notions of justice count for nothing. Force alone counts in the world Trump and Bibi propose to stand astride like the co-emperors who ruled the ancient world after Constantine established an eastern capital in 330 AD.
The text of this document can be read here, courtesy of the BBC. In broad outline — and a broad outline is all there is to it at this point — it calls for an immediate ceasefire, after which — within 72 hours — Hamas is to release all remaining captives still alive and the bodies of the dead. In exchange, Israel will release 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences and 1,700 Palestinians taken prisoner since the events of Oct. 7, 2023. Then Hamas is to disarm, and the Israelis are to begin a phased withdrawal of their troops, but these will continue to occupy “for the foreseeable future” an expanding buffer inside the Gaza Strip’s eastern border.
Then come the longer-term provisions. “Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone” in which Hamas will have no presence or role. “Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza.” And then the question of government and administration.
Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee… made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body headed and chaired by Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
You just know Trump’s name is written into this document, and at his insistence, in the cause of his vulgar pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize he will never get. But never mind this. The Gaza Peace Plan released Monday reads as if Netanyahu dictated it, and I will offer odds he did. This thing is written loosely such that it gives Bibi all the room he needs to betray it now that he endorses it. This would, of course, be in keeping with every other agreement with Hamas and/or the United States that Netanyahu has accepted to date.
Hamas, as widely reported, did not formally receive the peace plan until after it was made public and, of course, had no role in its composition. This was intended as a take-it-or-leave-it offer such that, as Bibi and Trump made clear as they stood at opposing podiums Monday afternoon, Hamas’s leaders may as well have guns pointed to their temples.
Bibi:
If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President, or if they supposedly accepted and then basically do everything to counter it, then Israel will finish the job by itself.
Trump, following this remark:
Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas.
And for good measure, Trump again Friday on Truth Social, his digital bullhorn, warned Hamas that it had until Sunday to accept the plan:
If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas.
Tell me, is this statecraft, or is this power using the threat of genocide as blackmail? Corollary question: Is the overarching proposal here that a regime guilty of the most savage acts of barbarity at least since the Reich shall now proceed on with impunity — no responsibility for its crimes, no answerability to the institutions of global justice?
As to the question of statehood, Hamas’s longstanding demand and the vital preoccupation of the 100–plus nations attending the General Assembly just days earlier, there is no provision at all in this plan unless we count this (and I cannot):
While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA [the Palestinian Authority] reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.
It is simply unbelievable to me that these two grotesquely irresponsible people would expect anyone to take this kind of language at all seriously. Try to count the escape hatches in this provision, which is No. 19 of the 20 comprising the plan. I identify at least three, maybe four……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I cannot honestly read this moment with any certainty. On Thursday, bang in the middle of these proceedings, Israel Katz, the Zionist state’s defense minister and another of the fanatics in the Netanyahu government, announced that if the half-million residents remaining in Gaza City do not evacuate they will be considered terrorists; the implications of this status will be evident. What is our question: Will the Netanyahu regime hold to the “peace plan,” or how long will it take for Bibi to abrogate it? In the day since Hamas announced its openness to negotiation based on the plan, let me remind you, Israel has not stopped the bombing. …………………………………………………………………….
There is absolutely zero interest in the wishes of Palestinians in this plan. No mention at all of the West Bank or the escalating cruelties of diabolic settlers as they steal ever more Palestinian land. And not to be missed, indifference to what the majority of humanity just made clear at the General Assembly.
This is power announcing its utter contempt for anything other than raw force — forms of force that see no need any longer to disguise themselves.
There is no discounting the significance of events last week at the U.N. and outside its gates. The world has broken its silence. At the highest levels of government in the non–Western majority, it is learning — I can no longer bear this co-opted phrase, but here goes—to speak truth to power. Power and justice are, so to say, now on the record as in open conflict. This is not nothing. There is more to come. I have no trouble anticipating which will finally, however far in the future, win out over the other. https://scheerpost.com/2025/10/05/patrick-lawrence-power-and-justice/
Kremlin welcomes Trump’s comments to extend nuclear arms pact
The Kremlin has welcomed U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments about Russia’s offer to extend the last remaining nuclear arms treaty with the United States, saying it raises hope for keeping the pact alive after it expires in February
ByVLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press, October 7, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/kremlin-welcomes-trumps-comments-putins-offer-extend-new-126253222
MOSCOW — MOSCOW (AP) — The Kremlin on Monday welcomed U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments about Russia’s offer to extend the last remaining nuclear arms treaty with the United States, saying it raises hope for keeping the pact alive after it expires in February.
Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared his readiness to adhere to nuclear arms limits under the 2010 New START arms reduction treaty for one more year, and he urged Washington to follow suit. When asked about the proposal, Trump said Sunday it “sounds like a good idea to me.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov welcomed Trump’s statement, noting that “it gives grounds for optimism that the United States will support President Putin’s initiative.”
While offering to extend the New START agreement, Putin said its expiration would be destabilizing and could fuel proliferation of nuclear weapons. He also argued that maintaining limits on nuclear weapons could also be an important step in “creating an atmosphere conducive to substantive strategic dialogue with the U.S.”
The Russian leader reaffirmed the offer Thursday, noting that Russia and the U.S. could use the one-year extension to work on a possible successor pact.
Such an agreement will involve complex talks that could deal with battlefield nuclear weapons and prospective strategic weapons systems that Russia has developed, Putin said.
“We haven’t forgotten about anything that we have planned, the work is ongoing and it will produce results,” he declared at a forum of international foreign policy experts.
He mentioned the longtime U.S. push for including China in any prospective nuclear arms control pact but emphasized that it’s up to Washington to try to persuade Beijing to do so. China has rejected the idea, arguing that its nuclear arsenals are far smaller than those of the U.S. and Russia.
Putin also argued that the nuclear arsenals of NATO members Britain and France should be included in a prospective agreement.
He noted at the forum that some in the U.S. oppose New START’s extension, and “if they don’t need it, we don’t need it either. We feel confident about our nuclear shield.”
Putin’s offer came at a time of heightened tensions between Russia and the West, with concerns rising that fighting in Ukraine could spread beyond its borders.
The New START, signed by then-U.S. President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev, limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers. The pact also stipulates the need for on-site inspections to verify compliance, although inspections were halted in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and never resumed.
The treaty was originally supposed to expire in 2021 but was extended for five years.
Arms control advocates long have voiced concern about the treaty’s looming expiration and the lack of dialogue to secure a successor deal, warning of the possibility of a new nuclear arms race and the increased risk of a nuclear conflict.
Trump Swears At Netanyahu As Israel’s Standing in the U.S. Continues to Decline
Dimitri Lascaris. Oct 07, 2025, https://reason2resist.substack.com/p/trump-swears-at-netanyahu-as-israels?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2811845&post_id=175468550&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
After Trump and Netanyahu presented an ultimatum to the Palestinian resistance on September 30, Hamas issued a statement in which it accepted key parts of the ultimatum but diplomatically rejected other parts.
Hamas also signalled its strong willingness to negotiate the points of contention.
Hamas’s response prompted Trump to demand an end to Israel’s bombing of Gaza, but Netanyahu refused to comply. Israeli forces continue to this day to murder Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu reportedly told Trump that Hamas has rejected the Trump ‘peace plan’. Relying on an anonymous source, Axios claims that this prompted a fiery response from Trump.
Despite the theatrics, Hamas and Israeli negotiators have convened in Egypt. New negotiations are said to have begun.
Against this backdrop, the Washington Post just issued a poll showing that Israel’s standing among American Jews continues to plummet.
In the latest episode of Reason2Resist, I argue that, whatever happens in the negotiations in Cairo, Israel has lost the propaganda war, and it is only a matter of time before the U.S. government is forced to rein in its rabid Israeli attack dog.
I also discuss a new, $10 million lawsuit that he and four other Canadian lawyers have filed against Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU). The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of 10 current and former students of the Lincoln Alexander School of Law. They allege that TMU’s administration falsely accused them of antisemitism.
Trump warns of new strikes if Iran revives nuclear work

6 Oct 25, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202510063564
US President Donald Trump warned that Washington would bomb Iran again if it restarts its nuclear program, speaking on Sunday at a ceremony marking the 250th anniversary of the US Navy at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia.
“We’ll have to take care of that too if they do,” Trump said, referring to Tehran’s potential resumption of nuclear activity. “You want to do that, it’s fine, but we’re going to take care of that and we’re not going to wait so long,” he told sailors gathered at the base.
Trump praised the June 22 US airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities — codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer — as perfectly executed, saying American B-2 bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles hit every single target.
The operation targeted three key Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, following an Israeli air campaign that began on June 13 against Iranian military and nuclear-related sites.
“The B2s, what they did. Those beautiful flying wings, what they did, they hit every single target. And just in case, we shot 30 Tomahawks out of a submarine,” Trump said at the event.
Iran had been within a month of developing a nuclear weapon before the strikes, Trump said, adding that US forces had prevented Tehran from crossing that threshold.
“They were going to have a nuclear weapon within a month,” Trump said. “And now they can start the operation all over again, but I hope they don’t because we’ll have to take care of that too if they do, I let them know that.”
Operation was decades in the making
Trump told the audience that B-2 pilots informed him the Pentagon had been planning such an operation for 22 years, saying no previous president had “the guts to do it.”
Trump’s comments come as his administration presses Iran to halt uranium enrichment and curb its ballistic missile program, demands Tehran has repeatedly rejected.
The president’s warning suggests Washington is prepared for further confrontation if Iran resumes nuclear activity, highlighting a renewed phase of military and diplomatic brinkmanship between the two countries.
The case for some non-nuclear subs
by Lieutenant Commander Jim Halsell, U.S. Navy*, Australian Naval Institute, 5 Oct 25
The United States will require more than its existing inventory of nuclear-powered submarines to ensure victory in a conflict with China. The Navy should augment its existing submarine force with a fleet of conventionally powered submarines capable of launching cruise missiles.
By producing smaller, more cost-efficient submarines with the help of allies, the U.S. submarine force could mitigate the relatively low number of nuclear-powered submarines available for a conflict. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The problem with the makeup of today’s submarine force is that these deep-diving, fast-driving, nuclear-powered submarines are expensive. These ships are both too expensive to build in sufficient quantity to meet operational requirements and too costly, in terms of dollars and capabilities, to risk losing in combat.
The cost per hull of a new Virginia-class SSN was originally $2.8 billion, but following the incorporation of the Virginia Payload Module in the USS Arizona (SSN-803) and follow-on Block V boats, that cost now exceeds $4 billion.4 In comparison, Japan spent an estimated $536 million per hull for its Sōryū-class submarines, which feature air-independent propulsion (AIP), allowing them to operate for weeks without snorkeling.5 Japan’s newer Taigei-class submarines are being built at an even cheaper $473 million per hull.6
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Much of the disparity stems from the prohibitive cost of nuclear propulsion systems. Conventional submarines are cheaper not only to build, but also to maintain, benefiting from simpler refueling logistics and a dramatically lower cost threshold.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Allied Collaboration
One of the most compelling opportunities presented by the development of a U.S. conventionally powered submarine would be the chance to design and build it in partnership with key Indo-Pacific allies. Japan, South Korea, and Australia have decades of experience operating and constructing nonnuclear-powered submarines, and they are getting better with each iteration. ……………………………………………………………. https://navalinstitute.com.au/the-case-for-some-non-nuclear-subs/
Hegseth Says Four ‘Narco-Terrorists’ Killed in Latest US Attack on Venezuela Boat
Trump claims attacked boat had enough drugs to kill 25,000-50,000 people
by Jason Ditz | October 3, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/10/03/hegseth-says-four-narco-terrorists-killed-in-latest-us-attack-on-venezuela-boat/
A day after President Trump informed Congress that the US is in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels, the US carried out yet another strike on a Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean Sea, alleging it was loaded with drugs.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced the attack on social media, claiming the attack on the small boat killed four “narco-terrorists.” President Trump went on to claim, without evidence, that the boat was loaded with enough drugs to kill 25,000 to 50,000 people and was “entering American territory.”
In reality, the boat attacked was off the coast of Venezuela, far from US territorial waters. Secretary Hegseth further claimed that the US had intelligence the four were affiliated with a “designated terrorist organization” but did not specify which nor show the evidence.
The US has attacked multiple Venezuelan boats in recent weeks, with US officials saying the goal of the strikes is regime change in Venezuela as opposed to the war on drugs. Along with the airstrikes of boats, a US destroyer boarded and seized a Venezuelan boat in mid-September, which the Venezuelan government insists was a tuna fishing vessel.
The administration’s strikes are fueling growing opposition within Congress, with ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee Sen. Jack Reed (D – RI) saying the strikes were unconstitutional, and Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY) saying that “blowing them up without knowing who’s on the boat is a terrible policy, and it should end.”
Sen. Jim Risch (R – ID), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that he believes Trump is allowed to attack the boats by virtue of “his general powers under the Constitution.” Many in the Senate, however, argue there is a legal process to be followed, and the unilateral attacking of boats isn’t it.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D – AZ) was concerned in particular about the legality of the strikes under international law, wondering of the officers involved in the strikes “What situation did we, did the White House, just put them in?”
Though President Trump informed Congress after the fact of the strikes by way of claiming a general armed conflict, there is as yet no indication Congressional leadership intends to bring the question of the ongoing US strikes to a vote.
Jason Ditz is Senior Editor for Antiwar.com. He has 20 years of experience in foreign policy research and his work has appeared in The American Conservative, Responsible Statecraft, Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Washington Times, and the Detroit Free Press.
Trump says Putin’s offer on nuclear arms control ‘sounds like a good idea’

By Andrea Shalal, October 6, 2025, Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Chizu Nomiyama, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-putins-offer-nuclear-arms-control-sounds-like-good-idea-2025-10-05/
- Summary
- Putin proposed voluntary limit on nuclear arsenals last month
- US-Russian ties strained despite Trump-Putin summit in August
- Putin warned US against sending long-range missiles to Ukraine
WASHINGTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to voluntarily maintain limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons “sounds like a good idea.”
Putin last month offered to voluntarily maintain limits capping the size of the world’s two biggest nuclear arsenals set out in the 2010 New START accord, which expires in February, if the U.S. does the same.
“Sounds like a good idea to me,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House, when asked about Putin’s offer.
Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia last week had said Moscow was still waiting for Trump to respond to Putin’s offer to voluntarily maintain the limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons once a key arms control treaty expires.
Any agreement on continuing to limit nuclear arms would stand in contrast to rising tensions between the United States and Russia since Trump and Putin met in Alaska in mid-August given reported incursions of Russian drones into NATO airspace.
Speaking in a video clip released on Sunday, Putin warned that a decision by the United States to supply long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine for strikes deep into Russia would destroy Moscow’s relationship with Washington.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance said last month that Washington was considering a Ukrainian request to obtain missiles that could strike deep into Russia, including Moscow, though it is unclear if a final decision has been made.
Trump, who has expressed disappointment in Putin for not moving to end the war in Ukraine, was not asked directly on Sunday about the prospect of supplying Tomahawks to Ukraine.
“This will lead to the destruction of our relations, or at least the positive trends that have emerged in these relations,” Putin said in a video clip released on Sunday by Russian state television reporter Pavel Zarubin.
One U.S. official and three other sources told Reuters that the Trump administration’s desire to send long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine may not be viable because current inventories are committed to the U.S. Navy and other uses.
Trump is touring a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, the George H.W. Bush, off the coast of Virginia on Sunday, and will give a speech on a second carrier, the Harry S. Truman, later.
Tomahawk cruise missiles have a range of 2,500 kilometres (1,550 miles). If Ukraine got the missiles, the Kremlin and all of European Russia would be within target.
45K gallons of radioactive water to be dumped into Hudson River from Indian Point nuclear plant

Shane Galvin Oct. New York Post, 2, 2025,
Roughly 45,000 gallons of radioactive water from a defunct plant north of New York City will be discharged into the Hudson River after a federal court ruling struck down a state environmental law.
US District Judge Kenneth Karas sided with company Holtec International over New York State in a ruling issued last week that reversed the 2023 “Save The Hudson” law which sought to prevent the company from muddying the Hudson’s waters.
Holtec sued the Empire State last year, arguing that only the federal government had the right to regulate discharge of the Indian Point plant’s nuclear waste, which amounted to the 45,000-gallon sum, The New York Times reported……………………………………..
Indian Point, which sits on the Hudson River about 35 miles north of Manhattan, was closed in 2021 after years of public outcry from the local community over environmental concerns…………………… https://nypost.com/2025/10/02/us-news/45k-gallons-of-radioactive-water-to-be-dumped-into-hudson-river-from-indian-point-nuclear-plant/
After Bombing Boats, Trump Tells Congress US Is in ‘Armed Conflict’ With Drug Cartels.

“This is not stretching the envelope,” said a retired judge advocate general lawyer. “This is shredding it. This is tearing it apart.”
October 3, 2025, Jessica Corbett, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-venezuela
President Donald Trump’s administration claimed that the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels in a confidential notice to Congress this week intended to justify his deadly bombings of alleged smuggling boats in the Caribbean.
Democrats in Congress and legal officials have been challenging the legality of the three military strikes Trump announced last month. A woman who identified herself as the wife of one of the at least 17 people extrajudicially killed in the US bombings said her husband was a fisher.
“Congress was notified about the designation by Pentagon officials on Wednesday,” according to The Associated Press, one of several outlets that obtained the notice. The New York Times reported that it “was sent to several congressional committees.”
NewsNation‘s Kellie Meyer posted the full memo on social media: https://x.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1973817299053269376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1973817299053269376%7Ctwgr%5Eed7e0a4e5fa28e5d3a356b95835b5dd3057f6b22%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-venezuela
After citing a relevant section from the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024, the notice describes decades of law enforcement efforts to stem the flow of illicit narcotics into the United States as “unsuccessful,” and says that cartels “illegally and directly cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens each year.”
“The president determined these cartels are nonstate armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States,” the document continues. Trump also “determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations” and directed the US Department of Defense, which he has dubbed the Department of War, “to conduct operations against them.
“The United States has now reached a critical point where we must use force in self-defense and defense of others against the ongoing attacks by these designated terrorist organizations,” adds the memo, which notes the second strike on September 15.
Lawmakers and legal experts again challenged the administration’s claim that, as the notice put it, Trump directed the bombings under “his constitutional authority as commander in chief and chief executive to conduct foreign relations.”
As the Times reported:
Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities”—the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes—against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.
Noting that it is illegal for the military to deliberately target civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities—even suspected criminals—Mr. Corn called the president’s move an “abuse” that crossed a major legal line.
“This is not stretching the envelope,” he said. “This is shredding it. This is tearing it apart.”
New York University School of Law professor Ryan Goodman, who served as special counsel to the general counsel of the Defense Department during the Obama administration, said on social media that Corn was “completely right.”
“Drug cartels not = ‘armed conflict,‘” Goodman added, stressing that the “people killed” in such strikes “are civilians.”
Rutgers University law professor Adil Haque similarly pushed back on social media, saying: “The United States is not in a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with drug cartels. Cartels are not organized as armed groups, nor are they engaged in intense hostilities. These are dangerous criminal organizations and should be confronted using law enforcement tools.”
Members of Congress also publicly weighed in, including Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI), who said that “every American should be alarmed that President Trump has decided he can wage secret wars against anyone he labels an enemy. Drug cartels must be stopped, but declaring war and ordering lethal military force without Congress or public knowledge—nor legal justification—is unacceptable.”
At least two of the strikes have occurred off the coast of Venezuela, elevating fears of an armed conflict with the country.
“Trump’s actions are illegal, unconstitutional, and dangerous,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in response to the new memo. ”He is leading us willy-nilly into war with Venezuela. I have ‘determined’ that this is a terrible idea.”
Money to oversee nuclear weapons safety will start running low after 8 days, Energy secretary says

The National Nuclear Security Administration will need to ramp back its work, which ranges from maintaining the weapons arsenal to international non-proliferation efforts.
Politico, By Kelsey Tamborrino, 10/03/2025
Energy Secretary Chris Wright is warning that the agency within the Energy Department that oversees the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile has only enough funding to operate at full strength for about eight more days because of the ongoing government shutdown.
“Eight more days of funding, and then we have to go into some emergency shutdown procedures, putting our country at risk,” Wright said Thursday evening on Fox News, referring to the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Prior to federal cuts imposed earlier this year, NNSA had more than 65,000 federal workers and contractors across the country responsible for a wide range of activities from maintaining the nuclear arsenal to international non-proliferation work and overseeing the U.S. Navy’s nuclear operations.
In its recent shutdown plan, the Energy Department said it would maintain the NNSA’s weapons-focused staff who operate “critical control operations systems,” as well as employees who work on tasks such as stemming the spread of nuclear weapons, but it did not offer figures on how many people that includes…………………………………………………………….
The shutdown poses the second risk this year to the NNSA, after cuts instituted by Elon Musk’s DOGE removed too many people, forcing DOE to call back some terminated workers at the NNSA. Those DOGE appointees were reportedly unaware of the NNSA’s role in overseeing national security………………………………………………………. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/03/nuclear-energy-nnsa-00592883
Under Trump, Criticism Is Now Criminal

Jim Naureckas, FAIR, October 3, 2025
After the killing of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump (9/10/25) escalated his war on free speech, calling for criminalizing criticism of himself:
“It’s a long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.
This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.“
To spell it out: “Demonizing”—which is to say, criticizing—people with whom you disagree is “directly responsible” for Kirk’s death. Note that this is about criticizing people that you disagree with—”you” presumably being one of “those on the radical left”—as Trump has built a wildly lucrative political career out of demonizing those he disagrees with, and he’s not about to stop now. It’s the “wonderful Americans” like Kirk whom you aren’t supposed to criticize.
Trump promises “this kind of rhetoric”—the “radical left” kind—will “stop,” because the government will “find each and every one who contributed to this atrocity.” This includes all those who used their speech to “go after our judges,” cops and “everyone else who brings order.”
This is, in short, a declaration that the idea of free speech is over—despite Trump going on to list “free speech” first among “the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died.” Where once you had the right to criticize those who “bring order,” now such reckless rhetoric is punishable as direct support for “terrorism”—a word that under the US legal system authorizes draconian police powers……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://fair.org/home/under-trump-criticism-is-now-criminal/
Can Warriors Stop Endless Wars?
The Role of Veterans in Movements for Peace and Justice
By William D. Hartung. Tom Dispatch, September 30, 2025
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the former “Fox and Friends” cohost, claims to be obsessed with making the Pentagon and the military services about “the warfighter.” His main approach to doing so is a deeply misguided campaign to reduce “distractions” like commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion (the dreaded “DEI”). No matter that the purpose of DEI is to combat White supremacist attitudes, misogyny, and anti-gay and anti-trans violence in the ranks.
All such forms of discrimination are, in fact, already present in the U.S. military, and the way to build a cohesive defense force is certainly not by allowing them to run wild and be seen as acceptable or “normal” behavior. The best way to build a stronger, more unified military would, of course, be to make people feel welcome regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or gender identification. That would, in fact, be the only way to build a military that reflects the nation it’s charged with defending. DEI, after all, is not an irritating slogan. It’s an attempt to right historic wrongs in the service of a more effective military and a more unified populace. And it’s one thing to suggest that current approaches could be made more effective, but quite another to demonize them in the name of forging “better” warfighters.
In short, the Hegseth method is bound to prove destructive. Count on this, in fact: it will only weaken our military, not strengthen it. The result, if Hegseth’s efforts succeed, will indeed be a Whiter, more aggressive armed forces, and quite likely one significantly more loyal to the current occupant of the Oval Office than to the Constitution.
Ex-Warriors for Peace
Thankfully, Hegseth’s vision is not shared by many of the veterans of America’s disastrous post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. The eye-opening documentary What I Want You to Know presents the views of just such veterans about their service and about the meaning of the conflicts they fought in. Almost to a person (no, not “a man”!), they said the following four things:
– They don’t know why they were sent to the places where they fought
– They did not believe the U.S. could win the war they were sent to fight
– Their government lied to them
– They were forced to do things that will haunt them for the rest of their lives
It took courage for such veterans to go on camera and offer the unvarnished truth about the disastrous wars they helped to fight. They are, of course, far from alone, but as one of the producers of the film told me, many veterans are reluctant to discuss such feelings and insights publicly. Some don’t want to reflect on the idea that the wars they fought in were disastrously misguided and didn’t end in anything resembling an American victory. Others fear political retribution. Still others prefer to keep such conversations among their fellow vets, in large part because they feel that people who haven’t served can’t fully understand what they went through.
It’s little wonder that many vets keep their feelings about their long years in service within a close circle of friends and other veterans. But whether they choose to speak out publicly or not, a striking number of them are now either antiwar or “war skeptical,” questioning whether some of our recent conflicts were faintly worth fighting in the first place.
Don’t misunderstand me on this. There are indeed veterans speaking out against such unnecessary, unjust wars (past or future). Fifteen of them, for instance, contributed chapters to Paths of Dissent, a volume edited by Quincy Institute co-founder Andrew Bacevich and U.S. Army veteran Daniel Sjursen. A description of a 2023 webinar marking the release of the book caught its main theme perfectly:
“[T]hese soldiers vividly describe both their motivations for serving and the disillusionment that made them speak out against the system. Their testimony is crucial for understanding just how the world’s self-proclaimed greatest military power went so badly astray.”
There are also entire organizations, including Veterans for Peace (VFP), Common Defense, and About Face: Veterans Against the War, devoted to ensuring that such endless wars remain over and crafting an American foreign policy grounded in diplomacy and defense rather than in a quest for global military dominance. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Isn’t it finally time for a respectful national dialogue about what constitutes an adequate defense and how to balance military preparations with other urgent national needs? Of course, having any such conversation, given the present deep divisions in American society, will be a challenge in its own right. But the alternative is a continuation of some variation of the devastating wars of the post-9/11 period, and such new and perilous conflicts will involve boots on the ground, air strikes, or the endless arming of repressive regimes. https://tomdispatch.com/can-warriors-stop-endless-wars/
-
Archives
- April 2026 (275)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


