nuclear-news

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

USA Commerce Department sanctioned seven Pakistani companies – alleges links to nuclear trade

Axios 29th March 2018,  The Commerce Department this week sanctioned seven Pakistani companies for
alleged links to nuclear trade. Their place on an “Entity List”
requires them to obtain special licenses to do business with the U.S. This
move follows other U.S. penalties against Pakistan, including a successful
push to put Pakistan on a “gray list” of countries not doing enough to
stem terrorist financing and a freeze on all U.S. security assistance to
Pakistan.

But Commerce’s action should not be seen as part of the
existing campaign to pressure Pakistan to crack down harder on terrorists.
Why it matters: Commerce’s move does underscore Washington’s concerns
about Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation record — even as nuclear
watchdog groups cite improvements in Pakistan’s nuclear security.
https://www.axios.com/nuclear-security-worries-drive-latest-us-penalties-on-pakistan-1522259525-d5bea2f2-a2aa-47e6-a5e8-b376e8e3853a.html

April 2, 2018 Posted by | Pakistan, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Vogtle nuclear reactors, years overdue, $billions overbudget – who pays?

Savannah Now 30th March 2018, The first of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro was
supposed to open two years ago today, with the second following last year.
Instead, what’s now the nation’s only new nuclear project grinds on,
five years behind schedule and billions of dollars overbudget.

Construction continues at a pace of $91 million a month, with ratepayers largely on the
hook for those costs. But the issue of who pays for Vogtle isn’t yet a
done deal, with legal challenges pending, including one challenge brought
to court by a former Georgia governor. And ethics watchdogs are examining
the regulators, finding what they say are cozy relationships with the
utility and slack record keeping.
http://www.savannahnow.com/news/20180330/as-plant-vogtle-build-continues-so-do-appeals-to-stop-it

April 2, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

USA”s Environment Protection Agency shows its employees how to downgrade climate change

Leaked Memo: EPA Shows Workers How To Downplay Climate Change

Point 5: Suggest that humans are only responsible “in some manner.”, HuffPost, By Alexander C. Kaufman , 30 Mar 18The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday evening sent employees a list of eight approved talking points on climate change from its Office of Public Affairs ― guidelines that promote a message of uncertainty about climate science and gloss over proposed cuts to key adaptation programs.

 An internal email obtained by HuffPost ― forwarded to employees by Joel Scheraga, a career staffer who served under President Barack Obama ― directs communications directors and regional office public affairs directors to note that the EPA “promotes science that helps inform states, municipalities and tribes on how to plan for and respond to extreme events and environmental emergencies” and “works with state, local, and tribal government to improve infrastructure to protect against the consequences of climate change and natural disasters.”
 But beyond those benign statements acknowledging the threats climate change poses are talking points boiled down from the sort of climate misinformation EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has long trumpeted.
 “Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner,” one point reads. “The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.”
 The other states: “While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”

The email was sent under the subject line: “Consistent Messages on Climate Adaptation.” ………

The delivery of the talking points comes a week after Pruitt announced plans to restrict the agency’s use of science in writing environmental rules, barring the use of research unless the raw data can be made public for other scientists and industry to scrutinize. That directive would disqualify huge amounts of public health research conducted on the condition that subjects’ personal information will remain private. Two former top EPA officials called the move an “attack on science” in a New York Times op-ed published Monday.

Last year, the EPA reassigned the four staffers in the policy office who worked on climate adaptation, shuttered its program on climate adaptation and proposed eliminating funding for programs that deal with rising seas and warming temperatures.

Pruitt personally oversaw efforts to scrub climate change from EPA websites, and staunchly defended President Donald Trump’s decision last June to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. In October, Pruitt proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, one of the only major federal policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency had also suggested zeroing out funding for most of its major climate and regional science grant programs, only to see Congress reject most of the cuts in the budget bill passed last week.

The assertions made in the new EPA talking points are not rooted in science. Ninety-seven percent of peer-reviewed research agrees with the conclusion that emissions from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and industrial farming are enshrouding the planet in heat-trapping gases, and are the primary causes of rising planetary temperatures. A research review published in November 2016 found significant flaws in the methodologies, assumptions or analyses used by the 3 percent of scientists who concluded otherwise.

But for the past three decades, a Big Tobacco-style misinformation campaign funded primarily by oil, gas and coal interests has fueled political debate over the integrity of the scientific consensus……..https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/epa-climate-adaptation_us_5abbb5e3e4b04a59a31387d7

March 31, 2018 Posted by | climate change, environment, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Another nuclear power station to bite the dust- Davis-Besse

Davis-Besse nuclear power plant to shut down permanently in 2020, The Blade, ByTom Henry | BLADE STAFF WRITER 

FirstEnergy Solutions, a subsidiary the corporation founded to manage anticipated bankruptcy filings for its economically failing nuclear and coal divisions, has confirmed in a news release distributed Wednesday that Davis-Besse will be shut down permanently in 2020 and that FirstEnergy’s other nuclear stations will be shut down permanently in 2021 if there are no buyers or remedies found by their respective dates.

The timetable for each permanent closure is determined by refueling schedules.

Commercial-scale nuclear reactors must be refueled every 18 months to two years, depending on the isotope of uranium in their fuel. Davis-Besse emerged this week from what a senior FirstEnergy executive previously described as its last refueling outage.

FirstEnergy Solutions has a Monday deadline looming for a $100 million debt-principal payment.With combined debt estimated at $3.5 billion and losses mounting daily on the competitive side of its business because of the budget drains from its nuclear and coal-fired plants, the utility has turned to a combination of hedge funds managed by four high-powered private investor groups to help move it forward with a regulated growth strategy……..http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2018/03/29/Davis-Besse-nuclear-power-plant-to-shut-down-permanently-in-2020.html

March 31, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Plan to revive Texas Consolidated Nuclear Waste Storage Facility

Texas Consolidated Nuclear Waste Storage Facility to Be Revived http://www.powermag.com/texas-consolidated-nuclear-waste-storage-facility-to-be-revived/03/29/2018 | Sonal Patel 

Waste Control Specialists (WCS) and Orano USA intend to revive licensing of a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) in Andrews County, Texas, where spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from reactors across the country can be stored until a permanent repository is developed.

The companies said on March 13, 2018, they intend to form a joint venture that will ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to resume its review of the CISF license application, which WCS originally submitted in April 2016. In that application, WCS requested NRC authorization to store up to 5,000 metric tons of uranium for a period of 40 years at its Texas Compact Waste facility.

In April 2017, however, the company requested that the NRC temporarily suspend all safety and environmental review activities as well as public participation activities associated with the license application. The company cited “a magnitude of financial burdens” that made pursuit of licensing unsupportable.

One issue was that the NRC’s estimate of the cost of the application review—$7.5 million—was “significantly higher” than WCS originally estimated. Costs associated with a public participation process and a potential adjudicatory hearing were also estimated to be “considerable.” WCS also said a cost-sharing agreement it had in place with one of its partners was “depleted” and it could not be “extended.” At the same time, WCS has faced significant operating losses in each of its operating years, and the cost of actively pursuing the project only serves to increase those losses, it said.

WCS said on its website in March that a joint venture with Orano USA—formerly AREVA Nuclear Materials—would leverage the French company’s decades of expertise in used fuel packaging, storage, and transportation. Scott State, CEO of WCS, noted that WCS’s proposed solution was an “industry-driven near-term solution” that will use “proven storage technology and procedures to expand the capabilities and operations at the WCS site to include consolidated interim storage of commercial used nuclear fuel.” Sam Shakir, CEO of Orano USA, in a statement said the WCS-Orano USA joint venture “will provide safety, flexibility and value for used nuclear fuel titleholders and reduce U.S. taxpayer liabilities for ongoing storage, while plans for a permanent federal repository continue.”

WCS’s Texas Compact Waste Facility in western Andrews County has been operational since early 2012. Owned and licensed by the State of Texas, it is the only commercial facility in the U.S. licensed in the past 40 years to dispose of Class A, B, and C low-level radioactive waste. It primarily serves Texas and Vermont, which are member states of the Texas Compact Commission, but it is also available to 34 other U.S. states that have no access to a compact disposal facility. However, irradiated SNF discharged from commercial nuclear reactors is classified as high-level radioactive waste.

A Boost for Consolidated Interim Storage

As POWER reported, the nation lacks a long-term nuclear waste strategy, and nearly a third of the nation’s SNF is in dry storage in about 2,080 cask or canister systems at 75 reactor sites scattered across 33 states. U.S. SNF pools have reached capacity limits, forcing nuclear generators to load about 160 new dry storage canisters each year.

Nuclear generators currently recover costs for SNF storage and management by suing the Department of Energy (DOE), which, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), was contractually obligated to dispose of SNF by January 1998. The DOE, however, cannot fulfill its obligation because no permanent repository exists—or is even in sight. (For an in-depth look at the current state of nuclear waste management, see “A Break in the Nuclear Waste Impasse?” in POWER’s March 2018 issue.)

Beyond Yucca Mountain—the long-stonewalled Nevada repository identified by amendments to the NWPA in 1987—the law allows for only two other nuclear waste options: to build one or more interim storage facilities to temporarily consolidate SNF across the nation until a permanent repository is completed; or use federally monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facilities, in which the DOE could store nuclear waste from commercial nuclear plants pending permanent disposal or reprocessing.

While no MRS facilities have been proposed to date, only two private companies have filed NRC applications for an interim spent facility: WCS and Holtec, a Camden, New Jersey–based supplier of SNF management equipment.

Holtec Gains Recognition

Earlier this month, the NRC affirmed acceptance review of Holtec’s March 2017-submitted license application for its proposed CISF in Lea County, New Mexico, which it calls “HI-STORE CIS.” The NRC said it could issue a 40-year license by July 2020 or earlier for the CISF that could store up to 10,000 canisters in the below-ground storage system.

On March 26, Holtec International reported that its HI-STAR 100MB cask, which could serve to transport hundreds of multipurpose canisters in storage across the U.S. to its proposed HI-STORE CIS facility in New Mexico, won an international competition for deployment in China.

Holtec’s vice president of Business Development, Joy Russell, said in a statement on March 12 that Holtec’s HI-STAR transportation systems have been used for 12 years now. In 2006, the 1976-closed Humboldt Bay Power Plant south of Eureka, California, became the first plant to feature subterranean storage. Ameren’s Callaway plant deployed the first canister based on Holtec’s HI-STORM UMAX storage system, which it plans to use at the New Mexico CISF. In January 2018, a seismically hardened version of the HI-STORM UMAX canister was lowered into a fortified cavity at the San Onofre nuclear plant.

“The successful deployment of under-ground-storage technology and Holtec’s actions licensing the HI-STORE CIS facility are true demonstrations that consolidated interim storage is achievable,” Russell said.

—Sonal Patel is a POWER associate editor (@sonalcpatel, @POWERmagazine)

March 28, 2018 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Subsidy for nuclear power stations as a national “emergency”?

FirstEnergy seeks emergency lifeline for U.S. nuclear, coal plants, Scott DiSavino, Valerie Volcovici, MARCH 30, 2018 ,   NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. power company FirstEnergy Corp (FE.N) urged the federal government on Thursday to evoke little-used emergency powers to help it keep several struggling nuclear and coal-fired power plants open, a move critics blasted as an attempt at a corporate bailout.

FirstEnergy’s FirstEnergy Solutions unit called on U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry to use the emergency powers to order PJM Interconnection, the regional power grid operator, to negotiate a contract that would compensate owners of coal and nuclear plants for the benefits such as reliability and jobs those units provide.

On Wednesday, the company said it would shut several nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania in the next three years without some kind of relief.

PJM, in response, rejected the need for an emergency order to help FirstEnergy. “Nothing we have seen suggests there is any kind of emergency from these units retiring,” said Vincent Duane, senior vice president at PJM, calling the problem “fundamentally a corporate issue.”……… https://www.reuters.com/article/us-firstenergy-nuclear-coal/firstenergy-seeks-emergency-lifeline-for-u-s-nuclear-coal-plants-idUSKBN1H52ET

March 28, 2018 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Will Trump’s new national security adviser John Bolton steer Trump in the direction of attacking North Korea?

John Bolton’s Radical Views on North Korea, The president’s new national-security adviser doesn’t seem to think the current strategy is likely to work.The Atlantic, Joshua Roberts / Reuters URI FRIEDMAN,  MAR 23, 2018,  The Trump administration’s plan for dealing with North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program currently consists of two main components: an international campaign of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the Kim regime, plus direct nuclear talks this spring between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. The president’s new national-security adviser, John Bolton, doesn’t seem to believe that either of these approaches is likely to work.

Bolton is instead one of the most prominent proponents of a radical idea, which some hardline U.S. officials in Congress and the White House have refused to rule out but have not recommended with Bolton-like conviction: striking North Korea now, and risking the most destructive war in living memory, to prevent it from threatening the United States with nuclear weapons later.
……….. Once ensconced in his West Wing office, Bolton could surprise everyone and become a convert to a North Korea policy of pressure and engagement. But Bolton’s firm belief in the purifying power of regime change, his confidence in the efficacy of war and distrust of measures short of war, suggest he’s more likely to steer the Trump administration in an even more hardline direction. And that doesn’t just apply to North Korea. Bolton has asserted that Iran “is nearly as imminent” a threat because the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal has given the Iranians access to money to purchase nuclear hardware from North Korea. What’s at stake in North Korea and Iran, he claims, is nothing less than whether nuclear weapons become “commonplace” throughout the world. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/john-bolton-north-korea/556370/

March 27, 2018 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

How America could come to terms with a nuclear-armed North Korea

The Strategic Wisdom of Accommodating North Korea’s Nuclear Status

What if Washington came to terms with a nuclear North Korea but remained on the peninsula? The Diplomat , By Graham W. Jenkins, March 28, 2018  

As the North Korean “crisis” continues to unfold, any negotiations, including the possible (albeit unlikely) Trump-Kim summit, represent a significant strategic opportunity for coming decades — even if today’s official policy goals are never achieved.

Pyongyang and Washington must come to terms with two realities: North Korea will not surrender its nuclear arsenal; the United States will not withdraw its support for South Korea. But once the U.S. policymaking apparatus accepts this, the aperture of the possible widens. By tacitly acquiescing to North Korea’s nuclear status — and in the process, securing concessions on advance warning and notifications, among other subjects — the United States could partially supplant China as a patron (in a limited sense), simultaneously shoring up peninsular stability and presenting China with a new security challenge on its own border, requiring the diversion of forces and materiel……..

There are significant drawbacks to outright recognition of North Korea as a nuclear state. Even though by withdrawing from the NPT, North Korea did not violate international law per se, openly admitting that any country can a) exercise Article X and withdraw from the NPT and then b) develop and test a nuclear arsenal, without suffering consequences for it, sets a troubling precedent, to put it mildly. But it is still possible to pursue a policy of splitting the needle: quietly accepting (not officially, but through nonofficial or track II diplomatic efforts) North Korea’s nuclear status while refusing to officially condone it. Such a tacit form of acceptance would also allow the United States to potentially extract concessions from Pyongyang and allow it to maintain its nuclear arsenal, all of which would serve to reduce its reliance on China as a client state, and instead allow it to chart a more independent path, but one in which the United States, China, and South Korea would still be able to deter any major crises.

……… It’s important, too, to condition any U.S. acknowledgement on North Korea making concessions. There is a broad range of requests that would represent positive policy outcomes, depending on the executive branch’s preferences. Advance notice of missile and nuclear testing (or even adherence to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), establishing a “hotline” linking Pyongyang, Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo for crisis management, visible human rights changes like work camp prisoner releases or allowing humanitarian workers into the country, withdrawing artillery from the Kaesong Heights – some combination of these or others should be sufficient to justify changing U.S. policy toward North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

It’s rare that a nation is presented with a win-win-win scenario, but if bold enough to accept this manageable additional risk, the United States can emerge from this missile crisis in a stronger strategic position than before, with an adversary forced to reinforce an additional front and with our own hand strengthened. While the Trump-Kim summit – and indeed, any diplomatic efforts whatsoever – might now be a flight of fancy, with the ascension of John Bolton to national security advisor, negotiations remain the single best means of resolving the current Korean crisis. The United States stands to gain much: not least of all, avoiding a needless war.

Graham W. Jenkins is an all-source intelligence analyst with a federal contractor, conducting structured analysis and assessments in support of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/the-strategic-wisdom-of-accommodating-north-koreas-nuclear-status/

March 27, 2018 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Over 100 U.S. nuclear security experts urge Trump not to scrap Iran nuclear deal

National security veterans urge Trump not to scrap Iran nuclear deal, By Zachary Cohen, CNN March 27, 2018  Washington (CNN)A bipartisan group of more than 100 US national security experts — including nearly 50 retired military officers and more than 30 former ambassadors — is urging President Donald Trump to remain in the Iran nuclear deal as sources say it is becoming increasingly likely he will withdraw.

The statement titled “Keep the Iran deal — 10 Good Reasons Why” calls on Trump to “maintain the US commitment to the Iran nuclear deal” as doing so will “strengthen America’s hand in dealing with North Korea, as well as Iran, and help maintain the reliability of America’s word and influence as a world leader.”
“Ditching it would serve no national security purpose,” the statement said.
Penned by a group that calls itself the National Coalition to Prevent an Iranian Nuclear Weapon, the coordinated message comes as US officials are taking a two-track approach to the deal — negotiating with allies to make changes demanded by Trump even as they prepare to walk away from the international agreement.
Trump set a May 12 deadline — the next date by which he has to waive sanctions against Iran or leave the deal — for the US and its European allies to agree on changes to address what he sees as its flaws………https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/experts-trump-iran-nuclear-letter/index.html

March 27, 2018 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Who REALLY benefits from uranium mining in Grand Canyon country?

Uranium in Canyon Country: Part 2 of 2: Who benefits from uranium mining? Grand Canyon News, By Erin Ford , 27 Mar 18,   GRAND CANYON, Ariz. — There are currently 831 mining claims in the roughly 1 million acres withdrawn by former Interior Secretary in 2012, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

There may be a healthy profit to be made on the claims, as legal action by mining industry groups and a recommended review of the ban by the Forest Service seems to indicate. But who is making the profit?

The BLM’s report indicates that only about 2 percent of the 831 mining claims are held by U.S.-based companies – those belong to Liberty Star Uranium and Metals in Tucson, Arizona. The rest, discounting privately-held claims (5 percent), belong to foreign-based companies. Of the remaining 93 percent, companies based out of Canada hold 712 claims (86 percent) and a UK-based Vane Minerals holds 60 claims (7 percent).

Uranium production in the U.S. has not been a profitable enterprise since the bottom fell out of the uranium market in the early 1990s. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), there are currently 61 nuclear-based power plants in the U.S. — no new plants have been commissioned since the near-catastrophic incident at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island facility in 1979. The end of the Cold War in 1991 meant that proliferation of nuclear weapons was suspended, a pact that remains largely in place. As a result, demand for uranium fell sharply, prices bottomed out and uranium extraction became a pricey enterprise with low return on investment.

………Where’s the profit?

In a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), Energy Fuels Inc., a Canadian company with a 12 percent stake in uranium mining claims around Grand Canyon, asserts that the commercial uranium stockpile was 6 percent higher than 2015 levels.

If demand is lower and supplies are higher, how do these companies plan to profit off increased mining activity?

The answer may lie in three things: President Donald Trump’s energy dominance agenda, potential U.S. Supreme Court ruling and Energy Fuels’ petition to the DOC……….

Who benefits?

Energy Fuels, Inc. recently filed a petition with the DOC for relief under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. In simplest terms, the company is asking the administration to issue a buy American requirement by limiting uranium imports as a threat to national security. The premise is the same as the tariffs to be potentially imposed on steel and aluminum imports — to revive a U.S.-based industry by steeply taxing competitors or eliminating them altogether.

But Reimondo points out that uranium mining isn’t a strong economic driver in northern Arizona, and even if it was, the U.S. doesn’t reap any rewards. The government, which receives royalty payments from industries that extract minerals or other commodities from federal lands, doesn’t receive royalties from uranium mining.

Comparatively, the tourism and travel economy pumps more than 900 million into the region each year, and supports nearly 20,000 jobs, according to a joint 2011 report by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Forest Service and BLM. The report also estimates that uranium mining could support only about 650 local jobs — and those jobs aren’t permanent. Once a mine is depleted, on-site jobs will evaporate. Energy Fuels says its Canyon mine, which is currently permitted to operate near Red Butte about six miles from the South Rim, is expected to employ about 60 people at peak production.

“Mining does not drive our economy here,” said Coconino County Supervisor Art Babbott in an interview. “Access to public lands, that’s what is our important economic driver here.” https://www.grandcanyonnews.com/news/2018/mar/27/uranium-canyon-country-part-2-2-who-benefits-urani/

 

March 27, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Women lead in USA campaign to protect the world from a U.S. nuclear trigger finger

The Fight for Nuclear Deterrence Goes Local CityLab, ALASTAIR BOONE, SARAH HOLDER,  

Some cities and states are taking their own initiative to protect the world from a U.S. trigger finger. And they’re mostly led by women.

Dropping an atomic bomb doesn’t happen as fast as it does in the movies. There’s no room with a red, shiny “nuclear button” primed for the pressing. But in the U.S., launching a nuclear weapon does depend on just one trigger finger: The President’s.

Peace builders, activists, and congressional leaders have tried unsuccessfully to take away this unilateral ability since the Cold War, when nuclear war with Russia felt imminent daily. Now, the threat looms again, as tensions between North Korea and the U.S. simmer—and a new group of local legislators are taking the lead.

A broad coalition of representatives, delegates, and state senators from eight states (California, Georgia, Vermont, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Iowa) have begun pushing resolutionsthat put additional pressure on Congress to stop the president’s first-strike powers. And cities such as Northampton, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and counties across Washington State have drafted local resolutions of their own.

 As it turns out, almost all of them are sponsored by women. This is no coincidence. In fact, women have been leading nuclear deterrence efforts since the height of the Cold War………https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/nuclear-disarmament-women/555854/?utm_source=twb

March 27, 2018 Posted by | USA, weapons and war, Women | Leave a comment

US navy’s Virginia attack submarines will now be able to fire nuclear weapons

THE Pentagon’s current nuclear weapons deterrence range has received a huge boost following deadly changes to its attack submarines. News.com.au, Matthew Dunn@mattydunn11, 28 Mar 18 

ONCE a conventionally armed attack submarine, the US navy’s Virginia-class underwater vessels will now be capable of firing nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

US navy director of undersea warfare Rear Admiral John Tammen said the enhancement would see the submarine shifting into a nuclear deterrence role, reports The Maven.

“While Virginia-class submarines can use conventional deterrence to keep adversaries in check, a sub-launched cruise missile with a nuclear warhead would be incorporated into Virginias and give national command authority additional escalation control,” he said.

The current administration called for the weapon in the Nuclear Posture Review, with hopes it would benefit the Pentagon’s current nuclear weapons deterrence range. Currently only larger ballistic missile submarines are equipped to fire nuclear weapons.

As it stands, Virginia-class attack submarines are armed with tomahawks, which are long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missiles, and torpedoes, which are self-propelled weapons with explosive warheads.

Admiral Tammen said adding nuclear weapons capability would give combatant commanders new options to access high-risk areas and coastal regions previously unreachable by surface ships……….http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-navys-virginia-attack-submarines-will-now-be-able-to-fire-nuclear-weapons/news-story/5a75d91972ac05155aa6d25a1fbcbacc

March 27, 2018 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA has fewer nuclear warheads now, but more capable ones

US nuclear stockpile decreasing in size, but not capability, Defense News, By: Daniel Cebu , 27 Mar 18 WASHINGTON — The number of nuclear warheads kept in U.S. stockpiles decreased by nearly 200 since the end of the Obama administration, according to information released by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Federation of American Scientists. This reduction brings the total number of warheads down to 3,822 as of September 2017.

While this downsizing may seem to contradict the Trump administration’s position on U.S. nuclear posture, these reductions reflect “a longer trend of the Pentagon working to reduce excess numbers of warheads while upgrading the remaining weapons,” according to Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at FAS………https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/03/27/us-nuclear-stockpile-decreasing-in-size-but-not-capability/

March 27, 2018 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

New USA national security adviser John Bolton wants to bomb Iran and tear up the nuclear deal

Trump’s new top security adviser wants to bomb Iran and tear up the nuclear deal, Business Insider BEN BRIMELOW, MAR 24, 2018,  

  • Former US ambassador to the UN and noted foreign policy hawk John Bolton has been selected by President Donald Trump to become his newest national security advisor.
  • Bolton has expressed extremely hawkish views on Iran, including advocating for direct military action against the country and the tearing up of the nuclear deal on multiple occasions.
  • Because of his hawkish views, some consider Bolton’s appointment a betrayal of Trump’s base, since he campaigned on a platform of non-intervention.

John Bolton: We Must Bomb Iran Now

Newly appointed national security advisor John Bolton is perhaps the most hawkish, andpotentially “dangerous,” person that will be in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Bolton, who served as the US ambassador to the UN under former President George W. Bush, tried to distance himself from his previous comments after the announcement of the new position – but if the past is any indication, he will likely continue to be a major defence hawk.

Especially when it comes to Iran.

Bolton has long expressed a firm belief that military action is needed to contain Iran and prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons, as well as keep its influence in the region in check. In 2008, Bolton suggested that the US should conduct airstrikes in Iran as retaliation for them aiding insurgents in Iraq……….https://www.businessinsider.com.au/john-bolton-trump-bomb-iran-tear-up-nuclear-deal-2018-3?r=US&IR=T

March 25, 2018 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

President Trump’s new national security adviser brings the world closer to the nuclear brink

Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous, NYT   By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, MARCH 23, 2018

The good thing about John Bolton, President Trump’s new national security adviser, is that he says what he thinks.

The bad thing is what he thinks.

There are few people more likely than Mr. Bolton is to lead the country into war. His selection is a decision that is as alarming as any Mr. Trump has made. His selection, along with the nomination of the hard-line C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, as secretary of state, shows the degree to which Mr. Trump is indulging his worst nationalistic instincts.

Mr. Bolton, in particular, believes the United States can do what it wants without regard to international law, treaties or the political commitments of previous administrations.

He has argued for attacking North Korea to neutralize the threat of its nuclear weapons, which could set off a horrific war costing tens of thousands of lives. At the same time, he has disparaged diplomatic efforts, including the talks planned in late May between Mr. Trump and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. He not only wants to abrogate the six-party deal that, since 2015, has significantly limited Iran’s nuclear program; he has called for bombing Iran instead. He has also maligned the United Nations and other multilateral conventions, as Mr. Trump has done, favoring unilateral solutions.

Over a 30-year career in which he served three Republican presidents, including as United Nations ambassador and the State Department’s top arms control official, Mr. Bolton has largely disdained diplomacy and arms control in favor of military solutions; no one worked harder to blow up the 1994 agreement under which North Korea’s plutonium program was frozen for nearly eight years in exchange for heavy fuel oil and other assistance. The collapse of that agreement helped bring us to the crisis today, where North Korea is believed to have 20 or more nuclear weapons. ……….

Mr. Bolton is certain to accelerate American alienation from its allies and the rest of the world. Congress may not be able to stop his appointment, but it should speak out against it and reassert its responsibilities under the Constitution to authorize when the nation goes to war.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/john-bolton-trump-national-security-adviser.html

March 25, 2018 Posted by | politics, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »