nuclear-news

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

US, China And Russia Race To Build Nuclear Reactors On The Moon: Report

New Delhi:

The United States, China and Russia are racing to develop nuclear reactors for the Moon as they prepare for future space exploration. The countries believe nuclear power will be important for building permanent lunar bases, exploring resources and supporting missions deeper into space

The US aims to launch a lunar nuclear reactor by 2030, while Russia and China are working towards a joint project by 2036. The plans could power future Moon bases but have also raised safety concerns.

NDTV, Edited by: Siddhi Singh, Oct 04, 2026

New Delhi:

The United States, China and Russia are racing to develop nuclear reactors for the Moon as they prepare for future space exploration. The countries believe nuclear power will be important for building permanent lunar bases, exploring resources and supporting missions deeper into space.

According to The New York Times, NASA in August asked contractors to prepare a nuclear reactor that can survive a space journey and operate without maintenance near the Moon’s south pole. The agency aims to have the reactor ready for launch by December 2030.

Russia, meanwhile, plans to develop a lunar reactor called Selena by 2036 as part of its secretive partnership with China. The project is intended to provide power to lunar stations led by China…………………………………………………….

Safety Concerns Over Nuclear Power In Space

Despite the plans, scientists have warned that rushing to build lunar reactors could create serious risks. Rocket launch failures could cause accidents involving nuclear reactors and potentially spread radioactive material. Experts have also pointed out that installing and maintaining a reactor on the Moon would be challenging.

Unlike reactors on Earth, lunar reactors would be difficult to protect with containment structures, and experts say areas around them may need to be restricted to reduce radiation risks to astronauts and equipment.

As per The New York Times report, both the US and Russia plan to send their reactors to the Moon in an inactive state, reducing some risks during transport. However, experts say accidents cannot be ruled out, even with safety reviews.

Who Owns The Moon?

The race has also raised questions about access to the Moon and its resources. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty states that no country can claim the Moon as its territory. However, questions remain over whether countries can restrict access to areas around their lunar bases and whether they can own the resources they extract from the Moon.

NASA accelerated its plans amid fears that a nuclear reactor built by China and Russia could establish a restricted zone on the Moon, limiting where American astronauts and rovers could travel. Space law experts have questioned whether such zones, even if created for safety reasons, would conflict with the principle of free access to space under the Outer Space Treaty.

The US, China and Russia have yet to prove that their proposed reactors can be installed and operated on the Moon. Their timelines could also change as technical and safety challenges are addressed. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-china-and-russia-race-to-build-nuclear-reactors-on-the-moon-report-12137354

October 7, 2026 Posted by | China, Russia, space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Tories vow to change law to override SNP on new nuclear power.

 Shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie will announce today that a Tory Government would bring in a law to ensure “no part of Great Britain misses out on plans for new nuclear renewal.” The Conservatives will pledge to override Holyrood and lift the SNP’s ban on new nuclear if they win the next
general election.

Shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie will announce at the
party’s conference today that a Tory Government would bring in a law to
ensure “no part of Great Britain misses out on plans for new nuclear
renewal.”

The Labour UK Government currently wants to host small modular
nuclear reactors in Scotland. But the SNP Scottish Government, which holds
powers over planning, has blocked it due to its opposition to nuclear. Mr
Bowie said: “The SNP’s effective ban on new nuclear energy in Scotland
flies in the face of common-sense. “The SNP’s luddite approach is costing
jobs in Scotland, harming our energy security and ending Scotland’s rich
and powerful association with the nuclear industry. “If John Swinney and
SNP ministers want to have a fight over any plans that would deliver
thousands of jobs and protect energy security, then I say bring it on.”

 Scotsman 5th Oct 2026, https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/tories-vow-to-change-law-to-override-snp-on-new-nuclear-power-9264927

October 7, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hegseth calls US-built nuclear submarines the ‘apex predator’ of the seas. But are they right for Australia?

Ben Doherty.4 Oct 26, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/oct/04/hegseth-apex-predator-nuclear-submarines-right-for-australia-aukus-ntwnfb

Some experts argue Virginia-class submarines government is buying second hand are good for fighting American wars, but not for defending Australia

On stage for his “arsenal of freedom tour”, the US secretary of defense – who prefers the appellation “secretary of war” – was ebullient.

“This Virginia-class submarine is a paragon of American engineering and fighting spirit,” Pete Hegseth roared, standing at Newport News shipyards where those boats are being built.

“It is the apex predator of the undersea domain, the most advanced and lethal submarine ever built.”

There are few who would argue with the Virginia’s lethality. Australia is set to buy three of these boats, secondhand, from the US navy, beginning in 2032.

But is it the right submarine for Australia?

Hegesth’s words, for all of their rhetorical bellicosity, were revealing: “American … fighting spirit”; “apex predator”; “ensuring America is free and safe and powerful”.

Virginia-class submarines – nuclear-powered and conventionally armed – are very good at travelling undetected fast and staying underwater for a very long time (limited, essentially, only by the capacity of the crew to stay submerged).

They are an attack submarine, an outstanding offensive platform for hunting and destroying a far-distant adversary, able to traverse thousands of miles of deep ocean undetected.

But Australia’s National Defence Strategy, released this year, says the nation’s “strategy of denial” – which aims to deter conflict before it begins – was “focused on safeguarding Australia’s interests in our primary area of military interest”. This includes the immediate region encompassing the north-east Indian Ocean through maritime south-east Asia into the Pacific as well as Australia, its populated offshore territories and its northern approaches.

A growing chorus of naval experts is arguing that the Virginia-class submarines are the wrong boats for this country.

The waters to the north of the Australian continent – from where any potential threat is overwhelmingly likely to approach – are shallow, best suited to a submarine far smaller than Virginia’s nearly 8,000 tonnes of displacement, some say.

A smaller, more nimble submarine, quieter when operating under battery, is a better platform for that role, they say. In addition, smaller submarines are cheaper and easier to crew: Australia could afford more of them, increasing the potency of its force.

The argument runs thus: the Virginias, and the even larger Aukus-class submarines set to follow, are nuclear-powered submarines perfectly suited to fighting a distant war on behalf of the US. But they are the wrong boats to defend Australia.

Defence or ‘projecting power’?

Dr Andrew Gaczol spent a decade as an international political analyst and policy officer at the Australian Department of Defence. He told an independent inquiry into Aukus coordinated by the Australian Peace and Security Forum that the Australian public had been provided only two arguments in support of the Aukus deal, “and neither stand up to serious scrutiny”.

The primary argument put forward is that of defence of Australia.

Gaczol told the inquiry it was unnecessary to have submarines with unlimited range to defend the nation’s waters or conduct defensive operations in the region.

“The latest state-of-the-art Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) conventional diesel-electric submarines are more suitable as they are smaller, quieter when submerged and better suited to the relatively shallow waters of the Australian continental shelf and the waters to Australia’s north,” he said.

The second argument propounded for Aukus is the need for Australia – as a nation reliant on trade – to maintain open sea lanes around it.

Given the small number of attack submarines the Aukus deal will ultimately provide, critics argue they will not be able to protect Australia’s seaborne approaches.

Navies around the world operate on “the rule of threes”, which states that for every three of a complex platform you possess, only one can be relied upon to be operational at any given time. Essentially, of three submarines, one is on active deployment, one is training or conducting exercises, and one is in maintenance, dry dock or recovering from operations.

Australia plans to buy three Virginia-class submarines from the US, to be supplemented – when they are designed and built – by up to five submarines of the Aukus class. By the end of the 2040s, eight submarines would give Australia, at any time, a fleet of two, perhaps three submarines on active deployment.

“I can’t see how such a small number of vessels will be able to keep open all of Australia’s trade routes all of the time,” Gaczol told the inquiry.

“As a counterpoint, I note that the US navy has over 60 nuclear submarines and are currently unable to force open the strait of Hormuz.”

Gaczol says he supports Australia having submarines, but that the Virginia and Aukus-class boats were not ideal for Australia’s defence. The benefit of Australia’s geography – a vast landmass protected by thousands of kilometres of ocean – mean “the chances of Australia being actually sort of invaded are virtually nil”.

The oceans to Australia’s north are also relatively shallow – under 200 metres deep across parts of the Indonesian archipelago and South China Sea – meaning large nuclear submarines “are more easily detected” than smaller and quieter conventional boats.

As deep-water boats that can travel anywhere around the globe at high speed, nuclear submarines are unnecessary for defending Australia, Gaczol says, and are instead about “projecting power into another part of the world”.

“To put it colloquially, that’s not protecting our patch. That’s going into someone else’s patch and poking them in the eye,” he says.

Gaczol believes the acquisition of Virginia-class submarines suits US imperatives, not Australia’s.

“The only scenario I can really see these boats being applicable for is to chase Chinese submarines in the South China Sea should it come to a conflict there. Effectively, our force will be an adjunct of the US Navy.”

‘Best deal on offer’

Former South Australian senator Rex Patrick, an ex-submariner and resolute Aukus critic, is familiar with the aphorism “quantity is a quality of its own”.

He says while there was undoubted advantage to buying large attack submarines – greater payloads, more torpedoes, more capability to transport special forces soldiers – “there’s always a trade-off”.

“If the cost of buying one large nuclear submarine is that you could buy four other submarines for the same price, that’s a trade-off you have to consider.”

Aukus is forecast to cost up to $368bn by the 2050s – $33m a day for 30 years on a conservative estimate. Few, if any, major defence projects of this complexity run on time, or on budget.

And Aukus is dependent not only on Australia’s efforts to build a nuclear-powered submarine fleet from scratch: it is reliant on the US – beset by tenaciously laggard boat-building – to construct enough Virginia-class boats to spare three for Australia; and it needs the UK’s sole submarine-building yard to design and build the first of the new Aukus-class boats on which Australia’s domestically built boat will be constructed.

For far less than the slated cost of the Aukus deal, Australia could buy 20 conventionally powered air independent propulsion submarines, Patrick says.

“If you had 20 submarines, you’d have seven boats in the water, in seven different locations, and seven times the magnitude of problem for the other commander,” he says.

Patrick notes Canada, with the longest coastline in the world and facing many of the same geopolitical challenges as Australia, recently announced it would buy 12 air independent propulsion submarines from German shipbuilder TKMS for a reported $33bn.

The Australian government, though, insists Aukus is “the best deal on offer”.

In June, the defence minister, Richard Marles, told the Shangri-La dialogue Australia had made the deliberate choice to increase the weight of its naval spending: more than 40% of Australia’s defence budget is now directed towards the country’s maritime domain.

“For a three-ocean nation, this is a strategic necessity,” Marles said. “Ninety-eight percent of Australia’s traded goods passes through Australian ports. Ninety percent of our fuel is imported. Our economic sovereignty, in the most basic sense, is a maritime proposition.”

And Marles argued an increasingly militarised region demanded a collective response.

“The free and open passage of goods, energy and data across the seas is not just Australia’s economic lifeblood – it is the economic lifeblood of this entire region.”

In a Lowy essay, former special envoy for defence Luke Gosling wrote that nuclear submarines will give the Australian defence force “a regionally superior capability that will help it to deter war and, if it must fight a war, to win”.

“Threatening to aggressors, lethal if provoked, but not overtly provocative, nuclear submarines are the ‘goldilocks’ long-distance capability.”

Amid a rising drumbeat of concern over Aukus, Labor senator Raff Ciccone rose in the Senate in June to argue Australia’s strategic environment had changed dramatically and the country “must respond to the world as it is”.

“Nuclear-powered submarines are the only platforms that can provide Australia with the ability to deter threats to our maritime supply chains, on which our way of life depend,” he said.

“They alone have the speed, the endurance and the stealth necessary to effectively provide this deterrence. They are the bolt cutters that will ensure that we are never wrapped in chains.”

October 6, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trident’s £3m jobs are a costly defence of Britain’s fading status.

3rd October, By Samuel Rafanell-Williams, Scottish CND

ALICE laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Prime Minister. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

In order to complete our new Dreadnought submarine programme, 65,000 jobs will be required by 2030. This number has been quoted by the Prime Minister in Parliament, so it must be
true. The current cost of the Dreadnought programme is newly estimated at £240 billion by UK CND.

Scottish CND’s estimate in our Reclaim Our Clyde
campaign two years ago was £200bn. So if we divide our more conservative
£200bn by 65,000 jobs, we get just over £3,000,000 per job. Let me spell
out that astonishing sum again: £3 million per job.

CND has some good ideas
on what we might use that money for, such as: 220,000 extra nurses; 3.7m
affordable homes; Tuition fees for 8m students; Install solar panels on
every home. My pick would be ending world hunger. How many enemies would we
have then?

There is little doubt that the world is becoming more dangerous.
A well-used anecdote over the past century is that “generals are always
fighting the last war”. While this may be true of Donald Trump’s illegal
assault on Iran, the Ukraine war is surely quite the opposite.

Ukraine is
changing warfare techniques every few weeks. They are fighting the next
war. The drone technologies they invent are cutting edge for a couple of
months, then become obsolete. The state-of-the art Chieftain Mk 3 tanks we
sent them are unused and irrelevant. Russia’s expensive nuclear bombers
were seriously exposed in the “Operation Spiderweb” drone attack by
Ukraine in June 2025. Who is to say the UK’s own nuclear facilities are not
equally vulnerable? Russia, America and China are major powers. We are not.


The only one of six Astute-class nuclear submarines that is currently
seaworthy is the one launched last month on its sea trials. The rest,
almost new, are docked and awaiting repairs. The former prime minister Tony
Blair notes in his memoirs that deciding to renew the Anglo-American
Trident submarine fleet at Faslane had nothing to do with defence, but was
to consolidate our position as a major power.

This was evidenced this week
by Chancellor John Healey (formerly head of the Ministry of Defence)
announcing that £6bn would be spent on building three floating docks at
Faslane, in order to accommodate more nuclear submarines. This is only part
of the £15bn set aside for further developments at Faslane as part of
Project Royal Oak.

For context, £6bn is five times what the Scottish
Government spends annually on housing. To put it another way, a chronic
housing crisis in Scotland and beyond, among other social harms that could
be remedied with the more than £200bn spent on Trident renewal, is simply a
price the British government is willing to pay to sustain its ability to
destroy the northern hemisphere.

The National 3rd Oct 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/26604113.tridents-3m-jobs-costly-defence-britains-fading-status/

October 6, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s former defense minister launches ‘Manhattan Project’ for killer robots

By Katie Livingstone, Sep 30, 2026, https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2026/09/30/ukraines-former-defense-minister-launches-manhattan-project-for-killer-robots/?utm_source=defensenews.beehiiv.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=market-intel-us-navy-awards-rtx-s-raytheon-24-4b-for-sm-6-missiles-amid-stockpile-concerns

LVIV, Ukraine — Ukraine needs a “new Manhattan Project,” former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov told a standing-room-only crowd of self-proclaimed tech nerds on Saturday at IT Arena here, the country’s biggest annual technology conference.

Then he played an AI-generated clip of what he meant: a robopunk mix of humanoid and crab-like ground robots skittering across a barren front line, doing work that is still too complicated for the robots Ukraine fields today.

The video laid out Fedorov’s vision for an Army of Robots, a force of two-legged upright and other ground robots that would take over many of the front line’s most dangerous but necessary jobs from soldiers.

“Our idea is to combine engineers, startups and capital into one ecosystem so we can launch humanoid-like robots on the battlefield,” Fedorov told Defense News in an exclusive interview after his presentation.

“We want to eventually substitute our infantry with these robots.”

To get there, Fedorov is calling on specialists in robotics, AI, sensors and autonomous systems to pool their talent in the kind of concentrated wartime push that built the first atomic bomb, and to focus it on the machines he says will one day replace Ukraine’s infantry.

The 35-year-old aims for the group to have its first confirmed battlefield result from a humanoid-like robot within six months and, within a year, an assault in which robots take on the most dangerous parts of a mission with no infantry alongside them.

To hit the six-month mark, there isn’t time to spend on research and development, he said, so he will begin by investing in companies with weapons that have already been tested and shown some market viability.

Fedorov wants Ukraine to seize the initiative in the war’s next technological cycle before Russia – whose far larger army and industrial base let it scale new weapons quickly – gets there first.

“Russia always thinks about new strategies, how to hack our frontlines,” he said. “We need to be the first side to hack our frontlines.”

Robots are only one of the defense tech areas that the former minister plans to develop within the new project.

“It could be robots, it could be autonomous systems,” he said. “We will have three key directions: sensors and robots, cheaper anti-jet-Shahed missiles, and AI strike drones and missiles.”

Under Fedorov’s plan, members of the Army of Robots will identify a battlefield problem, find a technical solution and a team, provide resources for development, test the product with troops in real conditions and scale what works.

It is the same model he used for the Army of Drones, which he started in 2022 as Ukraine’s digital transformation minister and which opened the market to Ukrainian drone makers, launched government procurement and operator training and helped form the first strike drone units.

“The Army of Drones … changed everything in our country and in the world and, I think, in the future of the world,” he said. “Now we are trying to build the same ecosystem for robots.”

Ukrainian troops already lean heavily on ground robots for assaults and basic tasks, carrying out more than 25,000 logistics and evacuation missions in August – 3.3 times more than in January, according to the Defense Ministry.

But most of the futuristic robot designs featured in Fedorov’s video, humanoids included, are not yet used in combat in Ukraine today, and the ground robots that are in use almost always have a human operator at the controls, usually over Starlink.

Fedorov said the ambitious effort will involve multiple companies working on different stages of the product lifecycle, with some making components, some assembling complete robots and others developing software to run them.

“We have some funds for these first companies,” Fedorov said, declining to name names. “It means that we have two or three companies that will be our partners in these directions.”

The Army of Robots will include a venture fund to invest in technology teams, its own defense-tech companies and a research and development arm, according to a press statement issued after the announcement.

The initiative comes weeks after Fedorov announced that he was starting a new defense company, with Palantir CEO Alex Karp as its first investor.

Fedorov told Defense News the company will start with a corporate fund and may later launch its own venture fund.

The biggest challenge facing the development and deployment of these next-gen robots is the necessary speed of innovation, Fedorov said.

Ukraine has to field these robots fast enough to save its infantry and stay ahead of Russia, which he said has learned to copy Ukraine’s battlefield innovations and scale them rapidly.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is heading into another winter of Russian strikes with air-defense interceptors in short supply.

The weekend Fedorov made his announcement, Russian drones hit kindergartens and university buildings in Kyiv, struck a large civilian hospital and destroyed a food market and multiple gas stations outside the city, killing at least three people and injuring dozens in a combined aerial attack that lasted days.

“We don’t have enough time,” he said. “We need to achieve these results as soon as possible.”

October 6, 2026 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

All US bombers leave UK air base on concerns of suspected terror plots.

by Azhar Sukri, msn, 3 Oct 26

October 6, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Cut ties with Palantir’, say UK’s health workers

Protesters at more than 40 locations across England demanded an end to spy-tech firm Palantir’s role in the National Health Service.

Ana Vračar, October 2 2026, https://breakthroughnews.org/2026/10/02/cut-ties-with-palantir-say-uks-health-workers/

On Thursday, October 1, health workers, patients, and activists protested Palantir’s role in the National Health Service (NHS) at more than 40 locations across England. Their demonstrations were part of a global week of action demanding that governments cut ties with the spy-tech firm over human rights and privacy concerns.

Rallies took place in front of Palantir’s London headquarters, as well as in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and many more cities.

“Palantir’s tools are used by the Israeli military in Gaza and by ICE to track and surveil migrants in the US,” campaign groups – including Just Treatment, Health Workers for a Free Palestine, Medact, and Global Justice Now – stated. “A company profiting from human rights violations has no place in the NHS or in any of our public services.”

Palantir’s track record opposes core health values

Palantir currently holds a £330 million (approximately USD 436 million) NHS contract and has rolled out the service’s Federated Data Platform (FDP), managing sensitive patient data. The project has drawn criticism from virtually every group involved in the NHS: data workers say it lags behind local systems; patients share privacy and data ownership fears; and health workers insist Palantir’s record opposes the very values their profession embodies.

“I cannot stay true to that [Hippocratic] oath and tolerate Palantir continuing to profit from, and grow its malign business model through an NHS contract,” said physician Rhiannon Osborne from Medact at Thursday’s rally. “Every pound we give them helps to legitimize and sustain human rights abuses and erosion of democratic rule of law across the world.”

A central concern is the company’s support for Israel throughout the genocide in Gaza. “When we strive to save every possible life, they champion their ability to kill and celebrate their role in the repeated war crimes committed by Israel – including unprecedented deliberate attacks on the doctors, nurses, and paramedics I worked with,” pediatric neurologist Omar Abdel-Mannan stated. “No moral government should tolerate their involvement in our NHS or indeed any of our public services.”

Campaigners repeated calls for Prime Minister Andy Burnham to end the contract as soon as possible. Under an exit clause in the original agreement, that moment could arrive as early as February 2027. Campaigners and several commissions are pressing the government to notify Palantir of its intention to withdraw ahead of this date.

“The government only has two months to say no to Palantir and the momentum is all with us,” Good Law Project activists said at the rally in London. “All the energy is to say no to Palantir, say no to their global human rights abuses, say no to their crap technology that doesn’t work and get Palantir out of the NHS.”

Unions back appeal to bar Palantir from public sector contracts

Calls to break Palantir’s grip on public services resonate beyond Britain. On September 28, more than 120 groups and unions called upon European governments and the European Commission to “scrap all existing public sector contracts with the US tech company Palantir.” As reported by the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), the appeal seeks to end current agreements and bar the firm from future public contracts. It also urges governments to develop “alternative data solutions compatible with public service,” echoing NHS data workers’ recommendations.

“Palantir’s ramping up of ‘war-related’ support for Israel during the genocide in Gaza and the apparent disdain of its leadership for democracy are just two clear signs that this company serves the interests of the rich and powerful, not the general public,” said Tim Bierley of Global Justice Now. “Yet it has been allowed to embed dubious technologies across our public services, giving it access to sensitive data and creating worrying new technical dependencies.” 

“The UK must work with other countries to end dependence on companies involved in human rights abuses, and end the outsourcing of the public sphere to a dangerous class of big tech oligarchs.”

October 6, 2026 Posted by | health, UK | Leave a comment

Why the Iran War Equation Is Changing, and Why a Third War May Be Closer Than It Seems

October 1, 2026, Mohammad Amin Ahmadi, https://www.juancole.com/2026/10/equation-changing-closer.html

Tehran (Special to Informed Comment; Feature) – It appears that the main actors involved in the previous 40-day war are increasingly moving toward another confrontation for their own reasons. The regional equation has changed significantly in recent weeks, and that change is making the continuation of the current ceasefire less attractive. Iran is under growing economic pressure because it cannot export its oil normally. The Houthis have moved closer to controlling the approaches to Bab el-Mandeb. Israel is approaching an important election. And the United States is facing a decision over whether to continue the current stalemate or return to major military operations.

The argument here is simple: when the equation changes, the policies that made sense under the previous equation may stop making sense. The longer the new conditions continue, the stronger the incentives for the main actors to change them.

Iran Has an Incentive to Break the Siege

Iran’s most immediate problem is economic. The US-led naval blockade and the disruption around the Strait of Hormuz have sharply reduced Iran’s ability to sell and export oil. in September Iran was facing one of the most severe economic crises in its history, with the blockade and sanctions causing shortages of foreign currency, declining imports and rising prices. Trump has also said that the blockade has prevented Iranian oil exports.

For Iran, the calculation is straightforward. If Iran cannot sell its oil, it cannot maintain normal economic activity. If the blockade continues, the economic cost will continue to rise. Therefore, Tehran has an increasing reason to change the situation rather than simply continue under the same conditions.

A political agreement could restore oil exports and reduce the pressure. But if negotiations fail, Iran could also consider military action to break the blockade and reopen its export routes. That does not mean Iran has decided to start another war. It means that the economic situation is creating a direct incentive to take stronger action. If military force becomes the chosen way to break the siege, the result could be a new phase of war.

Bab el-Mandeb Is Creating a Second Front

The biggest change in the regional equation, however, may be taking place in Yemen. The Houthis have recently expanded along Yemen’s Red Sea coast. They captured Mocha and then moved toward the islands around Bab el-Mandeb. On September 11, Houthi forces reached Perim, or Mayun, Island in the strait, after government forces withdrew. Other reports said the group had also reached the Hanish islands. These positions are important because Bab el-Mandeb is a major shipping route connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden.

This matters because Iran already has leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. If the Houthis consolidate their positions around Bab el-Mandeb, an Iran-aligned force could also threaten the second major maritime route linking Middle Eastern energy producers to global markets.

That would change the strategic calculation for every major actor in the region. Saudi Arabia is particularly exposed. Its East-West pipeline normally allows it to move oil from the eastern fields to Yanbu on the Red Sea, bypassing Hormuz. But on September 13 drone attacks had shut the pipeline, which can carry around four million barrels per day. Saudi oil production had also fallen sharply, while available stocks at Yanbu were limited.

Saudi Arabia is therefore losing some of its ability to bypass the crisis. If Hormuz remains heavily disrupted while Bab el-Mandeb becomes another pressure point, the ability of Gulf producers to move oil to international markets becomes much more vulnerable. For the Houthis, this creates an opportunity to increase their leverage. For Iran, it creates a potentially valuable second pressure point. For Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States, it creates a reason to prevent the new situation from becoming permanent.

Brent crude has already moved above $100 a barrel, while oil flows through Hormuz remain below normal levels. If both Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb were simultaneously subjected to serious military pressure, the effect on oil markets would be much larger than the disruption of either route alone.

Israel and the United States Also Have Reasons to Act

The third change is political. Israel’s national election is scheduled for October 27. Recent polling shows a highly competitive race, with no clear path for either major bloc to form a government. Reuters reported that the opposition bloc was ahead in polling averages, although the final political balance remains uncertain.

The election does not mean that Israel will choose war, but it creates a deadline. If the Israeli government believes that the regional balance is changing against it, waiting may become less attractive. A government facing an election has a reason to consider whether it should change the strategic situation before the political environment changes.

The United States faces a similar problem, although for different reasons.

President Donald Trump said on September 17 that he was approaching a “big decision” over whether to resume major attacks on Iran. Trump has also said that he hopes the war is nearing its end, but his latest comments show that a return to major military operations remains under consideration. Washington therefore has two reasons to reconsider the current situation: continuing the war is costly, while waiting gives Iran and the Houthis more time to strengthen their positions.

This is the central point of the changing war equation. Iran has a growing reason to break the economic blockade. The Houthis have a reason to consolidate their gains around Bab el-Mandeb. Saudi Arabia has a reason to restore secure oil-export routes. Israel has a political deadline and a reason to prevent further deterioration of its strategic position. And the United States has to decide whether the current stalemate is preferable to another military operation.

The actors are not simply waiting for the previous war to end. They are responding to a new set of conditions, and those conditions are giving them new reasons to change the status quo. The danger is not that another war could begin without anyone having a reason to fight. The opposite is true. Several actors now have their own reasons to change the current situation, and some of those reasons directly conflict with the interests of the others. As the equation continues to change, maintaining the status quo becomes harder. That is what makes a third war more plausible than it appeared only a few weeks ago.

October 6, 2026 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Governors take a nuclear wrong turn

  by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/10/03/governors-take-a-nuclear-wrong-turn/

Connecticut’s reckless drive for more nuclear power

by Stanley Heller, CT Mirror, September 30, 2026

Connecticut’s governor joined other New England governors in a “summit” on September 30 to push for more nuclear power.  Supposedly there’s a crisis, a need for lots more electricity for data centers so they can embrace the wonders of AI. 

There’s a crisis, all right, but it’s not some desperate need for AI. Instead, it’s the fires, droughts, glacier breakdowns and extreme weather all over the world –symptoms of collapsing climates.

Over the last year the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection held  four webinars to encourage building nuclear power plants in Connecticut.  Their pitch was that new “advanced” reactors are much safer, that smaller ones can be built rapidly and that nuclear waste is not an immediate problem.  The legislature set aside $5 million to foster sites all over Connecticut.

The supposed advance is the SMR, the “small modular reactor,” a uranium-power fission plant that is lots smaller than giants like Millstone or the closed Indian Point facility.  SMR boosters say assembly line construction of SMRs will save lots of money and that they are so fail-safe they need little or no safety areas around them.

The problem is corporations planning to build SMRs are mostly start-up companies that have had no experience in nuclear power at all, which have no orders, no revenue, no profit, and no actual reactors.  Not a single SMR has been built in the U.S.  If fact, there are only three in the whole world.  Nuclear power has an impressive track record of being incredibly slow to bring online (17 years on average) and has a consistent record of being many times more expensive than initially planned.

Take the example of NuScale Energy.  It began as a university research project. In 2020 it was the first (and only) SMR to receive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) design approval. It received $600 million from the U.S. Department of Energy.  NuScale planned to build reactors in Idaho and go online in 2030.  But costs started to skyrocket, partners pulled out and the whole project was cancelled. Its stock price has gone down over 80% in the last year.

One huge and obvious problem with fission is radioactive waste. In the nuclear power process, radioactive uranium is mined, then enriched and formed into rods, and the uranium goes through a process that splits its atoms and gives off energy. That’s done until the rods are no longer productive. Then they are classified as “spent.” However, spent rods are incredibly radioactive and intensely hot. So these rods are put in cooling ponds of the facility for years. Then they have to be stored indefinitely because there’s no agreed upon way to dispose of them permanently.

Nuclear power waste has been around for more than 80 years, but in all that time there has been no way found to discard it. There was a plan to put 90,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste deep under Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but state leadership became vehemently against it. Nevada’s official position is that the area is “seismically and volcanically active, porous and incapable of geologically containing the waste.”  The Yucca Mountain “repository” was cancelled 15 years ago. 

The Trump Administration is trying to open “campuses” that would both create nuclear power and take in nuclear waste from all over the country and put it deep underground. Some legislatures support the idea but once the citizenry realizes what they’d be accepting expect tumultuous opposition.

Putin forces did just that in June of this year within the Chernobyl exclusionary zone, partially destroying a building used for receiving containers of radioactive waste.  There are ways to build facilities holding the casks to a HOSS standard (hardened on-site storage) similar to what is used in building nuclear missile silos, but they’ve never been required in the U.S.  So we’re just left with hope — hope that a foreign military or terrorist group won’t one day try to blow up a field of casks.

Another problem is that we’re finding that extreme heat can lead to nuclear reactor shutdowns.  During heat waves river water levels drop so the water level is too low to be  drawn upon for use in the plants.  Witness Hungary in August 2026.  It had to shut down its nuclear reactors due to low water levels for the first time in its history.  Romania shut down its nuclear plant, too.

We don’t need nuclear. What we do need is to stop rushing toward the climate cliff. We know how to do it.   Use solar, wind, water, batteries and conservation to meet our electrical needs and swiftly stop burning fossil fuels.

Stanley Heller is Administrator of Promoting Enduring Peace which was founded in New Haven in 1952. He’s also a member of Jewish Voice for Peace.

October 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons in space would break law, says Britain

By Tom Dunlop, 29 sept 26 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/nuclear-weapons-in-space-would-break-law-says-britain/

Orbital weapons of both kinds pose a growing threat to the space-based services Britain and its allies depend on, and any attempt to put nuclear weapons in orbit would be highly destabilising and contrary to international law, the Ministry of Defence stated in a written answer.

Lord Coaker, Minister of State at the department, was answering Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, the Green Party peer, who asked what assessment the government had made of the danger of orbital weapons, kinetic and otherwise, following what she described as the disclosure by the United States of its aggressive space capacity, and what steps ministers plan to take to prevent a new arms race in space.

The minister replied: “The Government recognises that orbital weapons, both kinetic and non-kinetic, pose a growing threat to critical space-based services vital to the UK and its allies. We are concerned by reports of efforts to deploy nuclear weapons in space, which would be highly destabilising and contrary to international law. The Government supports a behaviour-based, risk-reduction approach to maintain a safe, secure and sustainable space environment. We work closely with international partners to promote responsible conduct, uphold existing legal frameworks and prevent escalation.”

He continued: “Through the UK Space Strategy and Defence Investment Plan, the Government is investing in the resilience and protection of UK and allied space assets to ensure freedom of action in space and safeguard long-term sustainability. We remain committed to international cooperation and the development of norms that reduce risk and preserve stability in this increasingly contested domain.”

The same minister had declined a week earlier to say whether Britain itself has anything in orbit. Lord Lee of Trafford, the Liberal Democrat peer, asked on 22 September whether the United Kingdom has any weapons in space, and if not whether there are plans to deploy any.

Coaker replied: “We do not comment on specific Defence capabilities, including whether such capabilities are deployed in space, nor on future operational plans where doing so would risk undermining national security. We do however recognise that space is important to military operations and is becoming more congested, contested, and competitive. The Government is committed to collaborating with allies and partners to promote internationally agreed norms, avoid unintentional escalation and conflict, and ensure that space remains open, safe, and sustainable.”

He added: “In addition, the UK’s national security depends on freedom of action in space, including the ability to protect UK and allied space assets. As set out in the UK Space Strategy and Defence Investment Plan, the Government is investing in capabilities to strengthen resilience and support the protection of UK interests in space, while continuing to operate responsibly and in accordance with international law.“September 29, 2026 

October 5, 2026 Posted by | space travel, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

EU coldly kills Zelensky’s 2027 membership demand

Ukraine’s January deadline is impossible and Kiev will receive no privileges or shortcuts, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos has said.

2 Oct, 2026, https://www.rt.com/russia/646656-eu-kills-ukraine-membership-deadline/

The EU has rejected Vladimir Zelensky’s demand that Ukraine be admitted to the bloc by January 2027, with Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos saying Kiev must meet all membership requirements and will receive no exemptions.

Speaking to Italy’s Corriere della Sera ahead of an enlargement policy review scheduled for next week, Kos said getting into the club depended on reforms rather than political deadlines.

“Accession is based on merit: it’s clear that this date is not possible,” she said, noting that the January date had been set only by Zelensky.

Kos acknowledged that Kiev views membership as a security guarantee and said helping Ukraine was the EU’s “duty.” However, she stressed that candidates need to meet demanding requirements on the rule of law, economic convergence, and adoption of EU legislation, and that there are “no privileges or discounts in the accession process,” and “no shortcuts.”

Kos instead backed gradual integration before full membership and said she hoped Ukraine could make further progress in accession talks by year’s end.

Zelensky has previously rejected alternatives to full EU membership. In May, he called German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s proposal for associate membership “unfair,” arguing that Ukraine could not participate in the bloc without voting rights.

Kiev received candidate status in 2022, but accession requires unanimous support from all 27 member states. Several EU members have consistently opposed Ukraine joining the bloc, including Hungary, which has repeatedly resisted accelerated admission and recently blocked the inclusion of any language on fast-tracking Ukraine from an EU summit conclusion.

Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar has suggested Ukraine’s accession could take 10 to 15 years and linked progress to Kiev’s treatment of its ethnic Hungarian minority.

Corruption has also remained a significant obstacle to Kiev’s bid. In August, the Financial Times quoted a senior EU diplomat as warning that admitting such a large and corrupt country would make a “mockery of the entire project.”

Ukraine ranked 104th out of 182 countries in Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index.

Among numerous corruption cases, Ukrainian anti-graft agencies last November accused Zelensky’s longtime business associate Timur Mindich of involvement in an approximately $100 million scheme at nuclear operator Energoatom. Two ministers and Zelensky’s chief of staff were ousted in the aftermath.

Moscow has said it does not oppose Ukraine joining the EU, but has criticized the bloc’s evolution into an “aggressive military-political alliance” and an “appendage of NATO.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also argued that Ukrainian accession could weaken the EU and destabilize the bloc.

October 5, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The Mask of Civilization, the Face of Apartheid: Netanyahu at the UN

October 2, 2026, Reza Fani Yazdi Informed Comment, https://scheerpost.com/2026/10/02/the-mask-of-civilization-the-face-of-apartheid-netanyahu-at-the-un/

From the heart of a Middle East that has bled for decades under the boots of colonialism, indiscriminate bombardments, systematic assassinations, and the medieval sieges imposed by the Zionist regime, Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly was nothing less than the naked embodiment of “the most brazen form of inversion of truth, fascist propaganda, and systematic justification of genocide.”

Before being portrayed as a political event, this speech was a nauseating spectacle: an “accused man wanted by the International Criminal Court” making his escape, as it were, from the defendant’s seat in a criminal court to the podium of the United Nations General Assembly.

What follows is my examination of the criminal rhetoric of this man accused of genocide.

The Greatest Inversion in History: The Accused Perpetrator Posing as Prosecutor

The height of audacity in Netanyahu’s speech lies in his deliberate and deranged reversal of the roles of “perpetrator and victim.” A man for whom the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) found reasonable grounds to issue an arrest warrant on allegations including the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity—the killing and systematic infliction of suffering upon hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza—stands calmly behind the podium and calls the victims of his own war machine “terrorists,” while presenting himself as a “defender of civilization.”

This is linguistic colonialism at its most extreme: 78 years of occupation, the bombing of hospitals and refugee camps, and the massacre of tens of thousands of innocent women and children are called “legitimate self-defense,” while the resistance of a people fighting to reclaim their land and human dignity is branded “barbarism.”

An accused man who should have the handcuffs of justice around his wrists stares the world in the face and mocks every standard of human rights.

Invoking Ancient Myths to Legitimize Ethnic Cleansing

Netanyahu’s reliance on the Torah and on narratives dating back thousands of years to justify modern colonialism, illegal settlements in the West Bank, and the occupation of the Golan Heights is a blatant affront to the United Nations Charter and international law.

If geographical borders and the sovereign rights of nations are to be rewritten on the basis of ancient religious scrolls, then no place on Earth will ever be secure.

This approach lays bare the fascist, racist, and apartheid nature of the Tel Aviv regime—a regime founded upon the “dispossession of the indigenous population” and “ethnic cleansing,” and one that brazenly links its crimes to supernatural commandments in an attempt to portray the spilling of human blood as permissible.

Emboldened by Imperialism and Brazen Defiance of the International Community

Netanyahu’s arrogant and insulting tone toward representatives of countries who walked out of the United Nations chamber in protest against the presence of a war criminal—and his branding of them as “moral cowards”—is the product of years of ironclad immunity granted to him by the United States and by Western colonialism and global imperialism.

He proudly speaks of violations of the airspace of countries across the region, targeted assassinations, the bombing of facilities, and wars on multiple fronts.

Such a complete abandonment of even the pretense of diplomatic restraint demonstrates the extent to which the international legal order has surrendered before naked force and imperial vetoes.

The silence or implicit support of Western governments for such positions makes them complicit in every drop of blood spilled in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and throughout the Middle East.

Projecting Severe Domestic Crises into Regional Terror and Conflict

Netanyahu bellows about “strategic victories” and the “end of insecurity” while the settler society under his rule struggles with profound psychological crises, economic deterioration, structural protests, and political deadlock.

In order to postpone his domestic trials on corruption charges and prevent the collapse of his fragile coalition, he must keep the machinery of war permanently running and drag the region toward the precipice of a global war.

Bringing technological devices—such as Starlink—to the podium of the United Nations General Assembly and issuing threats against the great nation of Iran is a vulgar spectacle staged by a politician who knows that once the war ends, the final chapter of his political life and his inevitable downfall will begin.

Wait Until the Dawn of Your Downfall Breaks

History has demonstrated with unmistakable clarity that no occupying empire has ever achieved immortality through cluster bombs, indiscriminate killing, rhetoric at the United Nations, and the support of its Western patrons.

What came from the throat of this wanted criminal in New York was not the voice of strength or authority. It was the terrified roar of a declining project and a decaying structure confronted by the iron will of the peoples of the region.

Gaza, Lebanon, and a steadfast Iran stand as living witnesses that the Zionist killing machine will ultimately drown in the quagmire of its own structural crimes.

October 5, 2026 Posted by | Israel, PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

Constellation, Amazon agree nuclear-focused power purchase deal

WNN, Thursday, 1 October 2026

A 20-year power purchase agreement signed by tech giant Amazon will enable Constellation to add 190 MW of capacity and extend the operating life of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Maryland in the US.

Constellation said that the agreement will allow USD3 billion of investment, with the additional 190 MW being added to the existing 1,790 MW output of the Calvert Cliffs Clean Energy Center between 2030 and 2032.

It said: “In addition to making the uprate possible, Amazon’s long-term commitment will help provide Constellation with the revenue certainty to relicence the plant for another 20 years and make progress toward the development of new [?] clean energy power plants at the site.”

The agreement with Amazon covers 690 MW of power and “the parties have also entered into a related retail supply agreement to support Amazon operations” in the 13-state PJM regional grid………………………….

n November last year Constellation outlined plans for the Calvert Cliffs Clean Energy Center, including the power uprates for the two pressurised water reactors, and 20-year life extensions for the units which were connected to the grid in 1975 and 1976, respectively, and which would otherwise shut down in 2034 and 2036. Calvert Cliffs is Maryland’s only nuclear power plant and produces about 40% of Maryland’s total power generation and 80% of the state’s [?] clean power generation……………………

The agreement with Constellation, which operates the largest fleet of nuclear facilities in the US, is the latest in a series of power purchase deals and other investments in nuclear energy by tech giants and other end users, who need reliable 24/7 low-carbon power for things like data centres. Amazon was among a group of major energy users that signed a pledge last year supporting the goal of at least tripling global nuclear capacity by 2050.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/constellation-amazon-agree-nuclear-focused-power-purchase-deal

October 5, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Palisades investigation indefinitely halts refueling (Is Holtec competent?)

October 1, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/palisades-refueling-indefinitely-halted-by-investigation/

On September 26, 2026, the Detroit Free Press(opens in new tab) headlined its news story “Nuclear regulators probe fuel assembly installation mishap at Palisades”.  The news article regards the occurrence of a nuclear fuel handling mishap at the very end of August 2026 involving Holtec International’s mishandling of a used radioactive nuclear fuel assembly that was one of 136 scavenged used radioactive fuel assemblies being reloaded into the Palisades reactor core as part of the company’s “recommissioning” following certified permanent cessation of power operations  by its former owner/operator, Entergy Corp, and last legitimate holder of the Palisades operating license in Covert, Michigan on the shore of Lake Michigan. Palisades was permanently ceased operations on May 20, 2022.

As some background, Holtec acquired ownership of Palisades as a “possession only” license transfer from Entergy Corp as approved by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  The Palisades license transfer included a Decommissioning Trust Fund  approximately $552 million was finalized making Holtec the new owner on June 22, 2022 solely for the purpose of decommissioning the reactor, decontamination and clean up  of the reactor site.  However, in an unprecedented move not recognized by NRC regulatory guidance, Holtec announced that was no longer pursuing the decommissioning of the reactor as previously certified to the federal agency but instead on September 23, 2023 formally filed on September 23, 2023 with the NRC to to refurbish and “recommission” Palisades back into commercial power operations to the end the original initial license renewal period, and even provided an exemption if NRC granted Holtec with an reactor operating license, out to March 24, 2031. Furthermore, on June 23, 2025, Holtec filed a formal Letter Of Intent (LOI) to the NRC announcing that it would be seek a second 20-year renewal of the operating license extending it out to 2051.

When Entergy Corp certified the permanent cessation of  operations, the nuclear operator was required to completely defuel the reactor core from the reactor pressure vessel transferring all of the used fuel to the spent fuel storage pool, including the most recent refueling.

The fuel mishandling event involved just one of 136 highly radioactive fuel assemblies from the reactor’s  most recent refueling cycle where restart commenced on October 10, 2020 before the Palisades previous owner/operator, Entergy Corp, permanently ceased power operations on May 20, 2022. The used fuel being loaded into Palisades  by Holtec was  operational for 578 days and therefore is extremely radioactive. When the mishandling accident happened, Holtec was salvaging used nuclear fuel assemblies that was  stored in the spent fuel pool. Each one of these used fuel assemblies contains 214 highly radioactive fuel rods. The full reactor core complement  for the Palisades reactor  constitutes 204 fuel assemblies. Only 68 fuel assemblies are will unused new fuel in the reloading.

When Holtec started reloading the Palisades reactor core using the highly radioactive nuclear fuel assembly was being moved in the reverse direction from the nuclear power plant’s spent fuel storage pool shielded under 40 feet of water through a water filled fuel transfer channel back into the reactor containment building to be reloaded into the water filled reactor core in an opened reactor pressure vessel. There it was apparently misplaced by Holtec International operators such that radioactive fuel assembly tilted over, out of alignment in the reactor core and detached from the reactor’s fuel handling machinery. Holtec must now get a license amendment approved procedurally explaining how it will retrieve the misplaced and highly radioactive fuel assembly and evaluate if it can be still be used in the reactor core.

The irradiated nuclear fuel handling accident went unreported to the public for weeks by both Holtec International, now turned unlicensed and inexperienced reactor operator, and the NRC.  When confronted, both the company and the regulator claimed that the mishap had not risen to the level of a publicly reportable safety event.  However, the mishandling of highly radioactive nuclear fuel is not a minor event without accountability. Palisades already represents a highly controversial and genuinely contested unprecedented effort to refuel and restart the world’s first “permanently closed” nuclear power plan.

The fuel mishap accident represents a warning , a red flag, question the competence of Holtec safety culture and competence. Palisades should not be allowed to balk on fulfilling a 2020 joint decommissioning agreement(opens in new tab) made between  Entergy Nuclear and Holtec International, and certified to the  NRC on conditions of the reactor license transfer. The joint agreement recognized Palisades to permanently cease operations, permanently defuel, decontaminate, decommission and site mitigation. Holtec International has radically reversed its intention to decommission the reactor and instead proceeded to restore the previous power operating license to be followed by the submission of an application to the NRC for a twenty-year operating license extension out to 2051(opens in new tab).

October 5, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

Japan says it’s time for ‘taboo-free’ discussions about acquiring nuclear weapons

Defence minister says non-nuclear principles should be revisited given the current global security ‘crisis’

Maroosha Muzaffar, Independent UK, Wednesday 30 September 2026

Japan’s defence minister renewed calls for opening a debate on acquiring nuclear weapons, saying Tokyo could not afford to rule out security options as tensions with China, Russia and North Korea continued to intensify.

“The idea that we aren’t even allowed to have a discussion on this matter is a bit at odds with my sense of crisis,” Shinjiro Koizumi said in a TV interview on Monday.

He argued that Japan should discuss its nuclear policy “without taboos”, including the possibility of revisiting its long-standing non-nuclear principles and of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.

The principles, adopted in 1967, commit Japan to not possessing or producing nuclear weapons, or permitting their introduction to its territory.

Mr Koizumi said the government wasn’t currently committing to any policy, but that options shouldn’t be excluded before they were properly debated. At a press conference on Tuesday, he stressed the need to explain the changing security environment to the public, particularly as Japan was the only nation ever to suffer nuclear attacks in wartime. Japan was attacked with atomic bombs by the US towards the end of World War II, causing unprecedented death and destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Mr Koizumi argued that Japan should “carefully explain” changes in the global security situation as well as the actions of neighbouring countries so that the public could share his government’s assessment of the risks.

“I believe it’s safe to say that there are absolutely no grounds for

optimism regarding the security environment surrounding Japan,” he said.

Pointing to the nuclear capabilities of China and Russia and the expanding nuclear arsenal of North Korea, he asked whether Japan could ensure peace by simply avoiding discussion of topics it found difficult…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Nagasaki mayor Suzuki Shiro, in contrast, described nuclear weapons as an “absolute evil” at the same commemoration, warning against relying on nuclear deterrence and calling on the federal government to uphold the non-nuclear principles.

The issue of nuclear-powered submarines is also moving closer to the mainstream of Japan’s defence debate.

Mr Koizumi said earlier this month that Tokyo wasn’t ruling out acquiring such vessels, shortly after a US navy official expressed support for the idea.
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/japan/japan-nuclear-weapons-shinjiro-koizumi-takaichi-b3058770.html

October 5, 2026 Posted by | Japan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »