nuclear-news

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

Danube’s record low levels force shutdown of Hungary’s only nuclear plant

Laura Gozziand, Paul Kirby,Europe digital editor, 30 July 26, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0nqv05g0do

Hungary’s only nuclear power plant will be forced to shut down entirely for the first time due to record low water levels of the River Danube, Prime Minister Péter Magyar has said.

The Soviet-era Paks power plant uses the Danube for cooling but the water level is so low that the suction nozzles cannot reach it.

Magyar warned Hungary’s energy supply could become “critical” from Monday due to the Paks shutdown and the ongoing heatwave, which will see temperatures hover around 37C for a week.

Like much of Europe, Hungary has seen very low rainfall and high temperatures for much of the summer.

The waters of the Danube have fallen to the lowest levels for 30 years in several countries, including neighbouring Serbia and Romania.

Magyar asked Hungarians to limit activities that required significant energy consumption between the peak times of 17:00 and 22:00, including charging electric cars and using air conditioning equipment.

A “rotational shutdown regime” was also possible if the other combined efforts were not enough to maintain the balance of the national grid, Magyar said, adding the government would compile a list of electricity and water consumers whose consumption could be limited.

August 5, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Nuclear Watchdog Sues for Plutonium Pit Production “Special Study”

Jay Coghlan, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, 4 Aug 26, https://nukewatch.org/nuclear-weapons-watchdog-complaint-nnsa-pit-production-special-study

Santa Fe, NM – Nuclear Watch New Mexico has sued the Department of Energy under the Freedom of Information Act for its Special Study of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Leadership and Management of the Plutonium Pit Production Mission. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is the semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency within DOE.

Plutonium “pits” are the radioactive cores or “triggers” of nuclear weapons. Their
expanded manufacturing has been the chokepoint of resumed industrial-scale nuclear
weapons production by the U.S. Crucially, no future pit production is to maintain the
safety and reliability of the existing stockpile. Instead, it is all for new-design nuclear
weapons for the new arms race. These new weapons can’t be tested because of the
existing global testing moratorium, thereby perhaps degrading confidence in the
stockpile. Or new-design nuclear weapons testing could prompt the U.S. to resume
testing, which would have severe international proliferation consequences.
Plutonium pit production is the NNSA’s most expensive and complex program to date.
However, the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly
stated that the agency has no credible costs estimates and no “Integrated Master
Schedule” for simultaneous production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
in northern New Mexico and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. In fact,
DOE and NNSA have been on the GAO’s “High Risk List” for project mismanagement
and waste of taxpayers’ dollars since 1991. At more than $30 billion, the plutonium pit
plant at SRS is on track to become the most expensive building in U.S. history. A
comparable amount will be spent at LANL on facility upgrades and related projects, for
which the NNSA fails to keep total aggregated costs.

Even the Department of Energy recognizes how deeply troubled NNSA’s plutonium pit
production program is. In August 2025 DOE Deputy Secretary James Danly ordered the
“Special Study” completed within 120 days (i.e., mid-December 2025). On December 16,
2025, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. John Garamendi, both members of the Armed
Services Committees, unsuccessfully demanded the Special Study.
Nuclear Watch New Mexico filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the Special
Study on December 22, 2025. Having received no substantive response, in April 2026 we
requested expedited processing because of an open public comment period for a Pit
Production Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (that we had to sue NNSA for
to begin with). Having received no further response from DOE we have therefore filed
this litigation in the Washington, DC federal court.

Nuclear Watch New Mexico’s counsel is Jules Zacher, who has successfully represented
us in two previous FOIA lawsuits. Apart from his legal practice, Mr. Zacher is also
chairman of the Board of Directors of the Council for a Livable World, founder of
Citizens for Transparency and on the Executive Board of the Center for Ethics and Rule
of Law at the University of Pennsylvania. He commented, “This Special Study has not
been classified to my knowledge and was completed before the end of 2025. The
American taxpayer deserves to see it. It’s an exorbitant amount of money he and she is
being asked to bear for a deeply troubled and provocative program.”
Jay Coghlan, Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, added, “There is a massive
coverup by DOE and NNSA over their plutonium pit production program. To grease
expanded nuclear weapons production, they have rescinded nuclear safety regulations,
illegally restricted the access of the independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,
and are withholding crucial documents from the American taxpayer. We hope this
lawsuit will help to bring NNSA’s plutonium house of cards tumbling down.”

August 5, 2026 Posted by | - plutonium, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

AUKUS: Its single point of obsolescence

A multi-decade submarine programme passing through that many hands is its own kind of risk. It helps that Burnham voted for Trident renewal in 2016 when Jeremy Corbyn voted against. This is not a man who wandered into submarine policy for a photograph.

By Vince Hooper | 1 August 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tba-hooper-for-midday-saturday,21376

A timeline is not a delivery date, and a single shipyard carrying the weight of both a national deterrent and a trilateral alliance remains exactly what the title suggests: a single point of obsolescence, writes Professor Vince Hooper.

ANDY BURNHAM HAS BEEN PRIME MINISTER for ten days and has already discovered the one town in England that Whitehall cannot ignore.

On Thursday he travelled to Barrow-in-Furness, a Cumbrian settlement of fewer than 70,000 people that happens to be the only place in Britain capable of building a nuclear submarine. He announced £8.4 billion for the Dreadnought program.

He spoke of reindustrialisation, apprenticeships, and the dignity of skilled work. He told the shipyard workers that security is about who builds it, not only what we build. It was a sentence that could have been lifted from a mayoral stump speech in Salford, which is more or less where it came from.

Australian readers may be forgiven for assuming this has nothing to do with them. It does. The money is for Dreadnought, Britain’s nuclear deterrent, but the sheds it flows into are the same sheds that must deliver SSN-AUKUS, the attack submarines on which Australia’s undersea future has been staked.

Every Dreadnought hull and every SSN-AUKUS hull must pass through the same facility, fitted by the same workforce, in a town that cannot currently house the workers it already has.

The UK Defence Committee warned in April that investment in upgrading Barrow had already slipped and that any further failure could delay SSN-AUKUS with serious consequences for credibility with AUKUS partners.

Lord Case, chairing the cross-government Team Barrow effort, conceded that the broader ecosystem, from housing and schools to transport and healthcare, was not keeping pace. The ambition is one boat every eighteen months. The most recent Astute-class boats have each taken more than a decade from keel to commissioning. One trusts the PowerPoint is more optimistic than the precedent.

The £8.4 billion covers Delivery Phase 4: sea trials for HMS Dreadnought and construction milestones for HMS Valiant. It preserves the possibility of SSN-AUKUS steel being cut in 2027 without the yard falling into the kind of gap that turned the Astute programme into a thirteen-year crawl from keel to operational status.

BAE has achieved a forty per cent productivity increase at the yard over three years, which is impressive until you remember that two submarine programmes are now competing for the same finite pool of welders, engineers and shed space.

The productivity gains occurred inside what economists would politely call a monopoly supplier. Apply a Herfindahl-Hirschman index to British submarine construction and you arrive at 10,000, the theoretical maximum. In any other sector that number would trigger an antitrust inquiry. In Barrow it triggers a prime ministerial visit. There is no second yard.

For Canberra, the risk compounds across the Atlantic. A July 2026 GAO report found that at least thirty-seven per cent of the U.S. Navy’s fast-attack submarine fleet is in maintenance at any given time. American Virginia-class production runs at 1.1 to 1.2 hulls per year; the AUKUS plan requires 2.33.

The U.S. Navy has told Congress it will not reach even two hulls annually before 2032. Under the National Defence Authorisation Act, the President cannot legally sell a nuclear-powered submarine to a foreign partner unless he certifies to Congress that the transaction will not degrade domestic undersea capabilities.

Australia is counting on three to five Virginia-class boats from the early 2030s as a bridge while it waits for SSN-AUKUS to arrive. If Washington cannot build enough hulls to satisfy its own fleet, the certification becomes politically impossible and the bridge collapses before it carries a single boat south.

On the British side, the Defence Committee heard in December that four of six commissioned Astute-class hulls were at low readiness; by late June, Navy Lookout reported that none was at sea. None.

The capability gap between Collins-class retirement and SSN-AUKUS delivery is not a scheduling inconvenience. It is a window in which Australia could find itself without a credible undersea force, which is an unusual position for a country that has just committed the largest defence expenditure in its history to acquiring one.

The political choreography is worth reading as closely as the engineering. Burnham has installed John Healey, the defence secretary who resigned in June over Starmer’s failure to fund the department, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, placing the man who quit over the defence budget in charge of the national finances, which is either poetic justice or an exceptionally dry joke.

He has given Defence to Wes Streeting, a right-flank Labourite who has affirmed the inherited commitment to three per cent of GDP on defence by the next parliament, and made Ed Miliband, until last month the energy secretary, his Foreign Secretary, the post from which Britain’s end of the AUKUS relationship is diplomatically managed.

Miliband’s previous experience of trilateral partnerships was largely confined to climate summits. The £8.4 billion itself was already committed under the Defence Investment Plan, and sits above a £4.7 billion shortfall in the broader £298 billion spending envelope that Burnham must find in his first budget.

Today’s announcement repackaged existing commitments inside a jobs narrative tailored for a prime minister whose political capital is northern, industrial, and built on a decade of telling Westminster it does not understand the provinces.

Burnham is Britain’s sixth prime minister in a decade, as he himself acknowledged in his first speech from Downing Street. A multi-decade submarine programme passing through that many hands is its own kind of risk. It helps that Burnham voted for Trident renewal in 2016 when Jeremy Corbyn voted against. This is not a man who wandered into submarine policy for a photograph.

As signalling, the visit works. As reassurance that AUKUS remains on track, it falls rather short.

The Defence Investment Plan reconfirmed up to twelve SSN-AUKUS boats inside a £63.6 billion nuclear ring-fence, but attached no programme cost. That omission speaks volumes in a language Canberra understands fluently.

Pillar 2 of the partnership (hypersonics, AI-enabled undersea surveillance, autonomous undersea vehicles) is advancing more quietly and with less industrial risk, but it is Pillar 1’s submarines that define whether AUKUS is a programme or a slogan. There is an uncomfortable irony in that division. Australia’s first SSN-AUKUS boat is not expected until the early 2040s, a platform being designed today for a battlespace nearly two decades away.

The very Pillar 2 technologies the partnership is developing (autonomous detection, seabed sensor networks, AI-enabled surveillance) could reshape undersea warfare before the first hull enters service, making crewed submarines less decisive than the programme assumes.

The UK Government plans to cut steel on its first SSN-AUKUS boat at Barrow next year, a timeline that will reassure some in Canberra if it holds.

But a timeline is not a delivery date, and a single shipyard carrying the weight of both a national deterrent and a trilateral alliance, while the ocean it is building for changes around it, remains exactly what the title suggests: a single point of obsolescence.

August 5, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ukraine strike on Iran, a cynical Zelensky sales pitch

Finian Cunningham, July 31, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/07/31/ukraine-strike-iran-cynical-zelensky-sales-pitch/

Zelensky’s attack on Iran is aimed at boosting that illusion of Ukraine acting as a benefactor for Western security when, in reality, it is recklessly inciting more war – all to satisfy the corrupt money racket.

The deadly Ukrainian strike on an Iranian cargo ship in the Caspian Sea conforms with a well-worn pattern as a provocation to boost a sales pitch.

The drone attack on July 25, which killed one Iranian mariner and injured several others, was hailed by Ukraine’s puppet president Vladimir Zelensky as “very good” and a blow to Iran-Russia war shipments, even though Western media reported that a civilian cargo vessel was hit.

Three days later, on July 28, Zelensky was warmly received in the White House by U.S. President Donald Trump, following the funeral for war hawk Senator Lindsey Graham.

That funeral, by the way, was less a Christian service than a Satanic ritual of ghouls bidding their farewells to a fellow war-pervert and believer in blood sacrifice of innocents. Zelensky and Israeli genocider Netanyahu surrounded by Washington’s war criminals and Epstein associates was chilling in brazen evil presence.

Zelensky was attending the vampire’s ball with an offering to master Trump – see how we can hit Iran for you.

On the agenda for the White House meeting was Zelensky appealing for more U.S. Patriot air defense batteries and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Trump reportedly declined to offer additional supplies of the Patriot system, probably because Pentagon inventories have become so depleted, but he confirmed that the U.S. would permit Ukraine the right to manufacture its own version of the interceptor missiles.

Notably, Trump’s relations with Zelensky have improved significantly compared with the infamous Oval Office shouting match when the American president verbally slapped his Ukrainian guest around, telling him he had “no cards to play.”

Iran responded furiously to the Ukrainian strike on one of its ships, warning Kiev that it would take revenge for “illegal aggression”. Initially, Ukraine rebuffed Iran’s threats with bravado, saying that it had a right to attack alleged military supplies from Iran to Russia which, it claimed, were being used to kill Ukrainians. Tehran says the latest strike was on a civilian cargo ship, which Western media have also reported.

The Kiev regime has subsequently appeared more conciliatory, telling Iran that it is not seeking an escalation.

Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly said that his Ukrainian counterpart, Andriy Sybiha, assured him the attack on the Iranian vessel was unintentional and that Kyiv did not want the dispute to escalate.

So what was all the gloating a few days before by Zelensky about?

The timeline suggests that the drone attack on the Iranian vessel was not an attempt to conflate the conflicts between the U.S. and Iran and the NATO proxy war with Russia, as some analysts contended.

Rather, the Caspian strike was a cynical PR move by the Zelensky regime ahead of his visit to White House.

The reckless move could, however, result in a merger of the conflicts if Iran decides to deliver on its warnings to hit back. Iran certainly has the capability for ballistic missiles and long-range drones to attack Ukraine, if it opts to do so.

The corrupt regime in Kiev is primarily concerned with maintaining the flow of Western military aid. This, of course, feeds the Western military-industrial complex with the coveted steady stream of profits and indulges the Russophobic fantasies of Western leaders.

Merging the two conflicts would certainly amplify this lust for racketeering. But for the Kiev regime to incur the wrath of Iran and have Iranian air strikes join Russia’s assaults would seem to be a strategically stupid move, even for this endemically corrupt regime.

The back-tracking by the Ukraine regime days after the Caspian attack indicates that it is trying to placate Tehran not to follow up with retaliation.

That suggests that the attack was simply an ill-thought-out cheap PR stunt to tee up Zelensky’s pitch to Trump for more Patriots and to finally concede on supplying Tomahawks.

This is a classic pattern by the criminal cabal in Kiev. As on countless other occasions, when Zelensky is traveling abroad with his begging bowl, his trips are often preceded by provocations, either from Ukrainian strikes on Russia or false-flag attacks on Ukrainian civilians that the regime blames on Russia, eliciting predictable appeals for more military aid and air-defense systems, a percentage of which ends up in the regime’s overseas accounts.

The danger is that the Zelensky mafia is so desperate to keep the funds flowing that it will stage a provocation that goes too far, igniting a wider World War.

So far, the diabolical game has involved presenting the Ukrainian regime as a defender of Europe and the United States from Russian aggression. Now, with Trump stuck in a quagmire of his own making against Iran, the Zelensky war-racket syndicate senses another opportunity by soliciting Trump as a front against Iran. Trump no doubt is desperate for help as his presidency slides down the toilet. Hence his warmer rapport with Zelensky.

Attacking an Iranian ship in the Caspian is perhaps best understood as a cynical offering to Trump by the regime to solicit more military aid from Washington, paid for by the European NATO ghouls.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has recently taken to describing Ukraine as a “security provider” for the West. This is an Orwellian way to sanitize what is a parasitic drain on Western economies. Zelensky’s attack on Iran is aimed at boosting that illusion of Ukraine acting as a benefactor for Western security when, in reality, it is recklessly inciting more war – all to satisfy the corrupt money racket.

Russia and Iran seem to be playing the long game of letting the Western war ghouls cannibalize themselves into oblivion. Then again, it may be tempting to just finish them off before they inflict more suffering on innocents.

August 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Climate change exacerbates nuclear risks in the Arctic. And we are not ready

The Arctic under a nuclear umbrella. A main source of increased nuclear dangers in the Arctic is the intensified geopolitical competition among interested nuclear-armed powers. Increased cooperation between Beijing and Moscow and the expansion of NATO to encompass seven of the eight Arctic states have reshaped Arctic geopolitics around growing competition between Russia and, increasingly, China on one side, and the United States and NATO on the other. This happens as the entire Arctic region now finds itself under a nuclear umbrella.

These strategic changes in the Arctic extend beyond deterrence calculus and into an urgent need for regional cooperation.

By Nikita Gryazin, Iren Marinova | Analysis | July 29, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/07/climate-change-exacerbates-nuclear-risks-in-the-arctic-and-we-are-not-ready/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Nuclear%20risks%20in%20the%20Arctic&utm_campaign=20260730%20Thursday%20Newsletter

Editor’s note: This article is published as part of a continuing collaboration between the European Leadership Network and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 

Climate change is transforming the Arctic: Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, and changing maritime accessibility are opening new territories, resources, and shipping routes while reshaping the region’s strategic landscape. These changes have placed the Arctic at the center of a geopolitical competition between Russia, NATO states, and increasingly China. But the significance of these developments extends beyond economic interests and regional rivalry.

The Arctic hosts critical military infrastructure, strategic nuclear assets, and key pathways for power projection, making it a geopolitical magnifying glass in the evolving global security environment. But while climate change is widely recognized as a threat multiplier in the Arctic, regional governance has not yet adapted to this new reality. Climate change, geopolitical competition, and nuclear risk are typically treated as separate policy challenges, managed by separate institutions with different mandates. The global climate governance institutions approach the Arctic primarily through a focus on climate change effects and environmental management, while the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the bedrock of the global nuclear order, addresses nuclear risk through the traditional pillars of non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. At the regional level, the Arctic Council, the leading intergovernmental forum for Arctic governance and cooperation, explicitly excludes military security from its mandate. The result is a growing governance gap that no longer reflects the magnitude and complexity of issues in the Arctic.

The governance of the Arctic remains organized around institutional silos that treat climate, security, and nuclear issues as separate rather than mutually reinforcing threats. This disconnect leaves policymakers ill-prepared to manage the security consequences of a rapidly changing Arctic as global tensions are rising and the nuclear order is already under strain. Addressing the governance deficiency in the Arctic is now both a regional and a nuclear risk-reduction imperative. It requires a complementary risk-reduction dialogue—potentially structured as a Track 1.5 mechanism—alongside Arctic-specific planning within NATO, greater attention to regional risks through the NPT process, and renewed bilateral risk-reduction channels.

The Arctic under a nuclear umbrella. A main source of increased nuclear dangers in the Arctic is the intensified geopolitical competition among interested nuclear-armed powers. Increased cooperation between Beijing and Moscow and the expansion of NATO to encompass seven of the eight Arctic states have reshaped Arctic geopolitics around growing competition between Russia and, increasingly, China on one side, and the United States and NATO on the other. This happens as the entire Arctic region now finds itself under a nuclear umbrella.

This strategic competition carries important nuclear dimensions.

The Arctic remains central to Russia’s second-strike nuclear deterrent, hosts critical military infrastructure, including early-warning systems and two-thirds of its sea-based nuclear forces. The region also serves as a key operating environment for Russia’s strategic submarines, which have historically relied on Arctic ice cover for concealment from NATO anti-submarine warfare assets, using the region’s unique acoustic environment and under-ice operating conditions to reduce detectability. Climate change has begun to erode the very geography underpinning this strategy. At the same time, China has expanded its economic, scientific, and military footprint in the region through closer cooperation with Russia and growing interest in Arctic shipping routes and resource development.

For the United States, the Arctic is central to homeland defense and nuclear deterrence, serving as a key theater for missile warning, strategic surveillance, and submarine operations. In response to Russia’s growing Arctic posture, NATO has significantly expanded its own presence through exercises, deployments, and anti-submarine warfare activities.

Finland and Sweden, by joining NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively, have altered deterrence dynamics and the broader nuclear balance in the Arctic. Their accession has changed the Nordic region from being a peripheral space of nuclear restraint to becoming a strategically integrated frontline of the alliance’s deterrence posture. For decades, both Nordic countries remained non-aligned and staunch promoters of non-proliferation, and even NATO members Denmark and Norway maintained cautious policies on the peacetime stationing of nuclear weapons on their territories. The extension of NATO’s nuclear umbrella resulting from their accession has marked a critical strategic shift in the Arctic. While nuclear stationing in the region remains politically sensitive, NATO’s expansion across the European Arctic increases the strategic significance of the High North and heightens the potential for escalation surrounding Russia’s Arctic-based nuclear assets.

In early 2026, the US administration’s coercive rhetoric over Greenland generated significant political tensions across the North Atlantic. But the Greenland crisis, combined with general shifts in US foreign policy towards Europe in the last year, has raised serious concerns among European allies over the long-term credibility of the US nuclear umbrella. The Nordic interest in complementary European deterrence arrangements involving France and the United Kingdom has also intensified as a result.

Nuclear dangers in the Arctic. A less predictable Arctic means a less predictable deterrence environment. Melting ice and increased maritime access raise the likelihood of submarine detection, close military encounters, and miscalculation between nuclear-armed powers operating in increasingly contested waters. These strategic changes in the Arctic extend beyond deterrence calculus and into an urgent need for regional cooperation.

Novaya Zemlya, the archipelago hosting Russia’s nuclear test infrastructure, sits atop a far older problem. Between 1955 and 1990, the Soviet Union conducted 224 nuclear detonations there, releasing a total of around 265 megatons of explosive energy, and scuttled more than 100 decommissioned nuclear submarines in the surrounding Barents and Kara seas. Plutonium and cesium from both sources are detectable in regional sea sediments and soil beneath glaciers. Permafrost, which used to keep much of this contamination stable, is now thawing. Researchers showed that the Arctic’s Cold War nuclear legacy is one of the least-understood consequences of global warming, as radioactive isotopes locked in frozen soil for decades are now finding new pathways in the environment. Novaya Zemlya remains largely closed to independent researchers, and Russia has offered minimal transparency about current contamination levels at the test site.

The Arctic is also increasingly becoming a theater for nuclear signaling. Russia has repeatedly invoked its nuclear capabilities in the context of confrontation with NATO, embracing more aggressive forms of signaling and appearing more willing to blur the thresholds surrounding potential nuclear use. The result is a region where climate disruption, military competition, and nuclear deterrence are becoming mutually reinforcing pressures.

A fragmented governance system frozen in place. Existing governance institutions have not yet adapted to the rapidly evolving nature of these multifaceted threats in the Arctic. The region’s governance remains reliant on a fragmented and complex ecosystem of international treaties, UN bodies, and regional forums that primarily dictate shipping, resource management, and environmental protection. But the unique complexity of challenges in the Arctic and the rising geopolitical tensions require a more integrated approach.

Geopolitical tensions have removed many of the mechanisms that historically helped manage Arctic issues. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Arctic Council has been largely paralyzed, scientific cooperation has deteriorated, and global arms control structures have continued to erode. No treaty governs nuclear activities in the region, and the collapse of US-Russia arms control frameworks has left few institutional safeguards in place.

These overlapping gaps compound one another: Regional governance relies on multiple different institutional arrangements; the Arctic Council cannot discuss military activity; and the NPT review process does not address region-specific escalation risks. This results in a structural blind spot that leaves states without agreed rules of the road at precisely the moment when the risk of miscalculation is rising. The absence of any dedicated forum that brings together climate scientists, arms control experts, and defense officials means that the linkages between environmental change and nuclear risk remain invisible to policymakers until a crisis makes them undeniable.

Closing the governance gap.

Read more: Climate change exacerbates nuclear risks in the Arctic. And we are not ready

 The disconnect between siloed governance bodies and self-reinforcing risks in the Arctic demands concrete responses across several institutional levels. Despite its current constraints, the Arctic Council remains the region’s most successful institutional forum for circumpolar cooperation. Institutional bridges should be built around it as a cornerstone. But cooperation through the Arctic Council has been resilient precisely because its mandate explicitly excludes military security and instead focuses on scientific cooperation, sustainable development, and participation of indigenous populations.

Rather than expanding the Arctic Council’s mandate to encompass military security, the Arctic states should instead focus on closing the governance gap between climate change, geopolitical competition, and nuclear risks. This could be achieved through a complementary Arctic risk-reduction dialogue, potentially structured as a Track 1.5 mechanism, that operates alongside the Arctic Council and brings together foreign ministers, defense officials, coast guards, scientific experts, and representatives of indigenous communities. It could potentially be convened by an Arctic state with a strong record of regional diplomacy, such as Norway or Iceland, or a UN-affiliated body. The purpose would be to bring together experts in different areas to discuss the changing and multi-faceted threat environment in the Arctic.

Initially, such a forum could focus on practical areas of shared concern, including maritime incidents, search and rescue, environmental problems, critical infrastructure, and nuclear risk mitigation. Creating formal channels of communication would provide a venue for identifying and managing the increasingly interconnected climate, geopolitical, and nuclear threats emerging in the Arctic.

Complementary institutional responses should be established above the immediate regional level as well. Building on the Strategic Concept’s recognition of climate change as a threat multiplier, NATO should translate this commitment into Arctic-specific planning by incorporating climate-driven deterrence instability into its strategic planning and pursue dedicated Arctic incident-prevention protocols, including direct communication channels modelled on existing incidents-at-sea agreements, to reduce the risk of miscalculation.

At the multilateral level, the NPT review process should give greater attention to the interconnected nuclear risks in the Arctic by encouraging voluntary transparency, expert assessment, and reporting on climate-related vulnerabilities, radioactive contamination and nuclear legacies in the region, including at sites such as Novaya Zemlya. Finally, even amid the current political environment, the United States and Russia should prioritize the Arctic by pursuing or renewing Arctic risk-reduction channels, including incidents-at-sea arrangements and joint environmental monitoring of thawing contaminated sites. While these are minimal confidence-building measures that do not require broader arms control consensus, they could meaningfully reduce the risk of miscalculation and escalation.

Rapid warming in the Arctic has opened the door to intense geopolitical competition in the High North at the same time that the region is being placed under a broader nuclear umbrella. In the Arctic, these issues can no longer be addressed as separate concerns but rather as reinforcing one another and heightening regional and global insecurity. Existing governance institutions in the region must adapt to these new security challenges.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, climate change, Reference | Leave a comment

EU considers emergency meeting as nuclear shutdown leaves Hungary facing energy crisis

By Sandor Zsiros, 31/07/2026, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/07/31/eu-considers-emergency-meeting-as-nuclear-shutdown-leaves-hungary-facing-energy-crisis

Hungarian PM Péter Magyar has warned of an energy crisis after record-low Danube water levels forced the shutdown of the Paks nuclear plant, which supplies nearly half the country’s power.

The European Commission says it is prepared to convene an emergency meeting of its Electricity Coordination Group over the shutdown of Hungary’s Paks nuclear plant, as the country’s prime minister warned of a looming energy crisis.

“Although the operator has emergency measures in place to guarantee nuclear safety, an event of this kind could further strain the regional electricity balance,” the Commission’s spokesperson, Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, told Euronews. “The Commission stands ready to convene an ad hoc meeting of the Electricity Coordination Group.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar has warned that the country could face an energy crisis as early as next week, after Paks – which supplies almost half of Hungary’s energy needs – was taken offline following record-low water levels in the Danube, which is used to cool the reactors. It is the first time the plant has been shut down completely since it opened 42 years ago.

“This means 2,000 megawatts will be lost from Hungarian energy production from Monday at the latest, while demand for residential and public consumption continues to rise because of the heat,” Magyar said on Thursday evening.

The government has asked the public and businesses to cut energy use during the peak hours between 5pm and 10pm, urging people to avoid using air conditioning and washing machines in particular.

Magyar explained that the government has also drawn up an emergency plan to limit consumption at industrial facilities on a rotational basis. The output of other power plants in Hungary will also be increased.

“Given the severity of this unprecedented situation, we are asking everyone – large consumers and the public alike – to act responsibly,” he said. “It is in our common interest to avoid unplanned outages and the kind of unexpected system collapse seen in Western Europe and the Balkans.”

András Perger, an expert at the Hungarian NGO Energiaklub, told Euronews that the country stands to lose 25–30 percent of its energy output from Monday, describing the situation as a serious test of Hungary’s energy supply.

“From Monday, when consumption is expected to rise and the Paks plant remains offline, a more serious situation will begin,” Perger said. “This will be a serious test for Hungarian and regional supply alike.”

He added that some of Hungary’s demands could be met through imports from neighbouring countries, though the availability of hydroelectric power is itself limited in the region.

In Romania, the shutdown of one reactor poses less of a problem, given that nuclear energy makes up a smaller share of the country’s energy mix.

“Although the situation in Hungary is stretched, I don’t expect this to cause serious regional problems,” Perger said.

Friends of the Earth Hungary, an environmental NGO says the development around the Paks Nuclear Plant is not an isolated incident but a climate adaptation challenge.

“Hungary needs to speed up its transition into a more resilient, decentralised energy system that relies less on climate-vulnerable infrastructure and more on energy savings, flexibility and renewable energy,” Executive President Ákos Éger said in a statement sent to Euronews.

The Commission’s Itkonen said Brussels is closely monitoring the electricity supply situation in both Hungary and Romania, though she stressed there are currently no immediate energy security concerns.

According to the Commission, the Electricity Coordination Group could aim to facilitate information-sharing and coordinate next steps among countries in the region. The process will be watched closely as Hungary heads into what officials on both sides describe as a critical test of the country’s energy resilience.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Vice President of the European Commission Teresa Ribera warns that modular nuclear reactors are still projects, not an immediately available energy solution

Any significant national support must also be analyzed from the perspective of state aid. The Commission’s competition services check whether the government compensates only the necessary costs and risks or whether the mechanism guarantees excessive revenues, disproportionately transfers losses to taxpayers, or grants a producer an advantage that competitors cannot obtain.

Informat.ro Călin Nicolescu, 21 July 2026,

Small modular nuclear reactors can become a component of the European energy system, but they do not yet represent a solution that can be used immediately to reduce emissions or cover the increase in electricity consumption, said the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, Teresa Ribera. She urged governments not to delay investments and reforms already necessary while waiting for technologies that still need to be demonstrated and commercially implemented.

In short Teresa Ribera says that the choice of the energy mix, including the share of nuclear energy, belongs to each member state. The Commission must ensure compliance with common safety, competition, and public money usage standards. Small modular reactors benefit from European research programs and a Commission strategy aimed at launching the first projects in Europe in the early 2030s. Ribera warns that modular reactors remain, for now, projects in development. Governments should not postpone investments in grids, energy efficiency, renewable sources, or emission reductions until 2035. Building new reactors and extending the operation of existing plants often requires public funding, guarantees, and the state taking on part of the project risk. The Commission will check whether these forms of support produce overcompensations, subsidized prices, or advantages that affect competition among energy technologies and consumer access to electricity.

Teresa Ribera responded to a question about the future of nuclear energy and small modular reactors during the inaugural session of the sixth edition of the summer course “The great current challenges of the European Union,” held in San Sebastián. The Executive Vice-President said that opinions on nuclear energy differ profoundly among states and that European policy must respect each country’s right to establish its own electricity production mix.

Some governments have decided to build reactors, modernize existing plants, or extend their operational lifespan, while others base their strategy on renewable sources, storage, interconnections, and reducing consumption. The role of the Commission is not to impose the same energy structure on everyone, but the institution verifies compliance with European nuclear standards, safety requirements, and state aid legislation.

Small modular reactors, known by the acronym SMR, are designed for lower capacities than conventional nuclear plants. Their components are expected to be manufactured to a greater extent in industrial units and transported to the site for installation or assembly, a model that the industry claims can standardize construction and reduce some delays and costs. The Commission estimates that such reactors could provide electricity and heat for industry, urban heating systems, hydrogen production, and large consumers such as data centers.

Ribera insisted, however, on the gap between technological potential and commercial availability. The modular reactors currently being discussed are still projects, and the first European installations are expected for the early 2030s, not to address immediate energy needs. The European strategy adopted in March 2026 aims to accelerate the development and commissioning of the first projects during this period, confirming that the technology is still ahead of extensive commercial implementation………………………………………………….

The issue of public cost occupied an important part of Ribera’s response. Building new nuclear plants and extending the operation of existing ones typically required both public funding and guarantees through which the state takes on part of the project risks. These interventions may be necessary to attract capital into a sector with very high initial investments and long timelines, but they raise questions about the advantages granted to the producer and the effect on the market.

The Commission announced that it will create a guarantee of 200 million euros to support private investments in the first commercial units based on innovative nuclear technologies. The guarantee is intended to reduce risk for investors and should be seen as a tool for preparing the first projects, not as sufficient funding for building an entire fleet of reactors.

Any significant national support must also be analyzed from the perspective of state aid. The Commission’s competition services check whether the government compensates only the necessary costs and risks or whether the mechanism guarantees excessive revenues, disproportionately transfers losses to taxpayers, or grants a producer an advantage that competitors cannot obtain.

Ribera specifically warned about the possibility that public funding could influence electricity prices. Guaranteed contracts, support schemes, and risk coverage can provide stability to a nuclear project, but they can affect competition with renewable sources, storage, or other technologies if the support is not proportional and transparent.

The Commission’s analysis does not start from the idea that nuclear energy should be treated identically to any ordinary investment. Plants involve special safety requirements, very long operating periods, and obligations regarding decommissioning and waste. These characteristics may justify specific mechanisms, but do not eliminate the obligation of states to demonstrate the necessity, proportionality, and effect of support on the market.

The European strategy presents SMRs as a possible internal source of low-emission energy, capable of supporting energy security and decarbonizing hard-to-electrify industries. The Commission estimates that the installed capacity of these reactors in the EU could reach between 17 and 53 GW by 2050, but these figures are development scenarios, not capacities already under construction or guaranteed.

The first projects will need to show whether modular production can reduce the costs and delays that have affected many conventional nuclear plants. The economic advantages depend on the standardization of models, the number of units ordered, the capacity of factories, coordinated authorization, and the existence of a sufficiently large market for repeating the same design.

The debate on SMRs is therefore conducted on two levels. The Commission is investing in preparing a technology that could become important in the coming decades, but warns that projects should not be presented as an already available alternative to the investments that need to be made now.

The message conveyed by Ribera in San Sebastián was that technological neutrality does not mean suspending decisions until all options reach maturity. States can support nuclear energy and modular reactors, but they must continue in parallel to reduce emissions, modernize infrastructure, and expand sources that can produce results before the first European SMRs come into operation.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Japan begins 22nd release of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater into ocean

  July 31, 2026, https://en.people.cn/n3/2026/0731/c90000-20483845.html

Japan on Thursday began a new round of discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea, marking the 22nd such release since the controversial operation began in 2023.

According to the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO), about 7,800 tonnes of wastewater containing approximately 1.3 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium will be released into the ocean.

The latest discharge, also the fourth round of wastewater release for fiscal 2026, is scheduled to continue through Aug. 17.

In the fiscal year that began in April, TEPCO plans to release a total of about 62,400 tonnes of wastewater in eight rounds.

Struck by a 9-magnitude earthquake and the ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima nuclear plant suffered core meltdowns that released radiation, resulting in a level-7 nuclear accident, the highest on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

Despite concerns and opposition from the international community, Japan unilaterally launched the ocean discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi plant in August 2023. So far, TEPCO has completed 21 rounds of discharges, and around 165,000 tonnes of wastewater have been released into the sea. 

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

China makes major nuclear expansion move, adds four new projects in $25 billion energy investment

China’s latest nuclear expansion will also feature the upgraded Hualong One Version 2.0 technology at the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province.

Interesting Engineering, By Bojan Stojkovski, Aug 01, 2026

China is moving forward with a major expansion of its nuclear energy capacity after approving four new power projects expected to attract more than $25 billion in total investment.

The newly approved facilities include Phase II of the Jinqimen Nuclear Power Plant in Zhejiang Province, Phase III of the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province, the Zhuanghe Nuclear Power Plant in Liaoning Province, and the Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province.

Together, the projects will add eight new nuclear power generating units, according to media reports, as China continues to increase its reliance on nuclear energy as part of its broader energy strategy.

Six-unit nuclear base in Zhejiang with upgraded reactor technology

The Jinqimen Nuclear Power Plant is set to become the fourth nuclear energy base in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, as China continues expanding its low-carbon power infrastructure. The plant’s Phase II development will use Version 2.0 of Hualong One, China’s domestically developed third-generation nuclear reactor technology, while also allowing participation from private capital. ……

China’s latest nuclear expansion will also feature the upgraded Hualong One Version 2.0 technology at the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province, according to CGN Power Co. Each reactor unit at the facility will have a generating capacity of 1,217 megawatts, with the six-unit plant expected to produce more than 55 billion kWh of electricity annually once fully operational. 

Meanwhile, the Zhuanghe Nuclear Power Plant in Liaoning Province and the Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province represent new nuclear development sites, according to statements from the companies involved.

The Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province will feature two Guohe One reactors, China’s independently developed third-generation nuclear technology, according to SPIC Industry-Finance Holdings Co. Each unit will have a generating capacity of 1,543 megawatts, marking another addition to China’s expanding nuclear power infrastructure.


Moreover, with an investment of around $18 billion, the Laiyang plant is expected to become China’s largest nuclear power station by installed capacity once all six units are completed. The project also marks the beginning of large-scale, standardized construction of Guohe One reactors, China’s independently developed third-generation nuclear technology…………………..https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-makes-major-nuclear-expansion-move

August 4, 2026 Posted by | China, politics | Leave a comment

Burnham is wrong – increased nuke spending will lose more jobs than create

July 30, 2026, https://cnduk.org/press-release-burnham-is-wrong-increased-nuke-spending-will-lose-more-jobs-than-create/

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has made his inaugural trip as Prime Minister to BAE’s shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness, announcing a £8.4 billion contract for the latest phase of Britain’s Dreadnought nuclear-armed submarine programme.

Ahead of the trip, Burnham made the claim that the spending would help revitalise the economy and local community.

“Keeping this country safe is the first responsibility of any government – but security is not only about what we build; it is about who builds it, and who benefits from it,” Burnham said ahead of the trip. Downing Street said that this phase of contracts would support 18,000 extra jobs in nuclear weapons sector and 22,000 additional apprentices by 2035.

“To every young person across the country, I want you to know that there is a path for you into a reindustrialised Britain, and it starts with the apprenticeships we are funding through this investment today,” Burnham added.

Successive British governments have claimed that hikes to military spending will result in improving the economy.

However, the government’s own data shows that the ‘defence’ industry is jobs-poor. For the same level of spending, double the number of jobs are created in social care for instance. This is because the vast majority of the spending goes on the weaponry and on profits for the arms companies like BAE.

Burnham has gone along with the Defence Investment Plan – of which £64 billion has been allocated to nuclear weapons. This is being funded through at least £7 billion in cuts to public services. Research by the Transition Security Project has found that this will result in a net loss of at least 10,000 jobs.

CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said:

“Spending billions of pounds on nuclear weapons is not keeping us safe. In fact, Britain’s role in replacing its nuclear submarines and buying the US F-35A nuclear-capable fighter jets is only increasing the risk of nuclear weapons being used. The government is making Britain less safe because of its aggressive, expansionist nuclear and foreign policy. British bases like RAF Fairford are now a target because the government has continued to allow Trump to use this base to illegally bomb Iran.

“On the economic front, the argument that Burnham is making – that more money for nuclear and military spending will revitalise the economy – is totally false and not backed up by facts. The Defence Investment Plan – precisely because it is based on cuts to far more jobs-rich areas like health, transport and education – will result in a net loss of jobs. This will only drive social deprivation even further.

“Right now, thousands of people are dying in this country because of the underfunding to our health service and because of the total lack of preparedness to tackle the climate-driven extreme heatwave.

“The British government needs to fundamentally shift direction. It needs to focus on diplomacy and dialogue, and scrap its nuclear weapons and cut back its military spending. It needs to prioritise funding our hospitals, schools, and mitigating climate change. That should be the priority of this government, not preparing for the next war that could lead to a nuclear confrontation.”

August 4, 2026 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Kremlin Still Key for US Atomic Power Despite Looming Import Ban


The vulnerability is growing more urgent as Washington promotes a nuclear
revival driven by power demand from data centers and electrification. The

US nuclear industry remains heavily dependent on Moscow for the enriched
uranium that fuels reactors generating about a fifth of the nation’s
electricity, highlighting the challenge of meeting a 2028 deadline to end
Russian purchases.

US reactor operators bought about 3.28 million
separative work units, or SWUs, of Russian enrichment services in 2025,
equal to almost 26% of their total purchases, according to data published
Wednesday in the Energy Information Administration’s latest uranium
marketing report. That compares with 17% a decade earlier.

 Bloomberg 30th July 2026,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/kremlin-still-key-for-us-atomic-power-despite-looming-import-ban

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Russia, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

What links Palestine Action arrests with Burnham’s nuclear weapons splurge?

MASS arrests of peaceful Palestine solidarity demonstrators in London were the backdrop to Andy Burnham boasting of his commitment to enlarging Britain’s nuclear arsenal in Barrow-in-Furness this week.

The left has a lot of work to do to turn the existing majority against British complicity in Israeli genocide, and the growing hostility to military partnership with a Donald Trump-led United States, into a more consistent rejection of the militarist agenda being forced down the country’s throat.

Not many will see a connection between the Palestine Action ban and Trident renewal, and many will even oppose the former while supporting the latter.


But the ban on Palestine Action — itself part of a wider project to suppress public solidarity with Palestine, from new police powers to outlaw protests to the prosecutions of peace movement leaders like Ben Jamal, Chris Nineham, Alex Kenny and Sophie Bolt — was never a random act of repression.

Nor — though this view is common on the left — was it primarily about banning criticism of Israel or a result of pressure from the Israeli state or its supporters, though of course both welcomed it.

The huge Palestine solidarity movement is a threat because it exposes the ugly truth about British foreign policy and the role the British military plays in the world.

A state which tries to warn international courts off investigating genocide is no defender of international law or human rights.

The armaments companies that help supply the weaponry for that genocide are complicit in it. They are also the beneficiaries of Labour’s militarist splurge.

And a military which actively assists the army committing the genocide — through the way bases like RAF Akrotiri act as staging posts for weapons supplies, or all those RAF surveillance flights over the killing fields of Gaza — is not a force for good in the world.


Early in the course of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, militarist pundit Paul Mason urged that it be reined in because outrage over Palestine would undermine support for the military more widely and for Britain’s interventions in other conflicts, notably Ukraine.

He was right to worry, though actually the implications of our complicity in Israeli war crimes, and more recently in the illegal US-Israeli war launched against Iran, are not widely enough recognised.

British military power is not used to deter aggression, but to enable it. Our principal allies are the most warlike countries on Earth, the readiest to resort to violence and the likeliest to plunge us into a new world war.

Once that is understood, the reckless rearmament drive — which itself is the result of pressure from President Trump — is much harder to justify. It makes Britain and the world more dangerous.

And support for rearmament rests anyway on shaky foundations. A plurality of the public oppose increased arms spending if it means tax rises or public service or welfare cuts.

Constant government hysteria has failed to instil war fever in the general public. Half of young people (aged 16-29 in a major poll this spring) say they would never fight in a war and ministers admit to a recruitment and retention crisis in the armed forces.

The causes are complex, with MPs like Clive Lewis pointing out rightly that many young people see little worth fighting for given Britain’s grotesque inequality and lack of decent jobs or affordable housing. But the success of the Palestine movement in opening eyes to the truth about our foreign policy and our allies should not be disregarded.
The ruling class wants war, or at least a population ready to be sacrificed in defence of the US-led imperialist order should war be required to shore it up.

That explains the rearmament drive. It also explains the continued repression of dissenting voices. Authoritarianism and militarism go hand in hand: we must oppose both.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Common Sense & the Pentagon Budget

time and reason strongly suggest that the U.S. “defense” budget is out of control, unsustainable and absent of accountability.

Eisenhower said the following:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed“

By Dennis Laich
Eisenhower Media Network, July 31, 2026, https://consortiumnews.com/2026/07/31/common-sense-the-pentagon-budget/

July 31, 2026

For Americans, the courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront one at home — the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex, writes Dennis Laich.

The first sentence of Thomas Paine’s classic 1776 essay, Common Sense, urged the American people to challenge the legitimacy of the English Crown, something that had never been challenged before.

He wrote:

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them a great favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” 

Two hundred and fifty years later, time and reason strongly suggest that the U.S. “defense” budget is out of control, unsustainable and absent of accountability.

Only the American people can rein it in

The “defense of custom” in this case will come from the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (MICC) of which President Eisenhower warned us in 1961 in his farewell address, and drove home the consequences of in his famous “Cross of Iron” speech in 1953. In his address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower said the following:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

All of these forces benefit by exaggerating threats to our national security which justify a huge U.S. “defense” budget, larger than the next eight nations (most of whom are allies) in the world combined, while American citizens lack health care, childcare and other basic needs.

The defense industry’s lobbyists team up with U.S. politicians, who receive campaign financing from the industry, to draft the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which sets military policy, the expensive weaponry to be purchased and the overall military budget

The industry takes the ensuing windfall and puts it toward stock buybacks, which increase the share price, making the rich richer; dividend payments for shareholders; eight-figure annual compensation packages for corporate executives; and the continual political graft (campaign contributions and lobbyists) that keeps the wheel spinning. Incredibly, some contracts stipulate that only the contractor may repair and maintain equipment. 

The most embarrassing example of this practice is the F-35 Stealth Fighter, which is grossly over budget, behind schedule and is only 25 percent fully mission capable.

The principal beneficiaries of the MICC’s practice of vastly overstating foreign threats are the Pentagon and the invertebrate senior uniformed bureaucrats who occupy it and secure lucrative post-retirement employment with the MICC.

The massive Pentagon budget provides the Pentagon with a premier position within both the government and society. Money talks in America, but few members of Congress choose to talk about the $39 trillion national debt to which military spending is a major contributor.

Unfortunately, the uniformed bureaucrats lack the courage to stand up against a draft dodger and a Rambo-wannabe in order to protect their profession or the institution of the military.

Government employees, including military officials, are fired for specious reasons and no one, not even those who were fired, dare speak up regarding the negative impact on morale, discipline and readiness. Nor do they speak up when the U.S. supports genocide in Gaza, extrajudicial murders in the Caribbean, or attacks the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

These recent developments will serve to accelerate a decline in the U.S. military’s performance. Since WWII, the U.S. has won one war (the first Gulf War), lost four (Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran) and tied one (Korea). Iran may be as much an embarrassment as a loss.

The United States has failed to achieve its stated objectives in any recent war, despite having a military budget larger than the next eight countries combined and being easily the most defensible of any peer nation (with two friendly, stable nations to its north and south and oceans on its east and west). What football coach could keep his job with a 1-4-1 record?

Additionally, the Pentagon cannot tell the American taxpayer where the money went, since it is unable to pass a financial audit as required by law — something every other department of the federal government is able to do.

Now, they are requesting a 50 percent increase in the defense budget to S1.5 trillion. This is equivalent to your child asking for more money a day after receiving his/her allowance. When you ask what happened to the money he/she received yesterday, the child can’t answer the question, but you give him/her more money regardless.

This represents a level of arrogance and incompetence that the American people should not be asked to tolerate.

Thomas Paine understood something that seemed impossible in 1776. On paper, the American colonies had no chance against the greatest empire on Earth. Britain possessed the world’s most powerful military, immense wealth, and overwhelming resources.

The colonies had none of those advantages. What Paine recognized as “common sense” was that wars are not won by budgets alone. They are won by legitimacy, purpose, and the willingness of a free people to defend their own liberty.


The $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request represents more than S9,000 per individual taxpayer.

If we Americans are tired of seeing our tax dollars spent on endless wars, bombing campaigns, and military excess while our own communities struggle with the costs of health care, child care, education, and infrastructure, then the time has come to do what Thomas Paine asked Americans to do 250 years ago: challenge the assumptions that have become accepted simply because they are old. The courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront one at home — the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex — and reclaim a government that serves the American people rather than the interests of perpetual war.

Major General Dennis Laich, U.S, Army, retired, is executive director of the Eisenhower Media Network, an organization of expert former military, intelligence and civilian national security officials who have an independent, alternative story to tell.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Suffolk nuclear power plant on alert over wildfire.

 Firefighters are racing to contain the Suffolk fire before the wind
changes direction and starts blowing smoke and flames towards the Sizewell
B nuclear plant. Westerly winds have so far pushed the blaze across the
heathland towards the coast, away from most human habitation and the power
station. But from early evening the wind is forecast to shift, pushing the
blaze and fumes first southwards and then south west. This could
potentially take them inland towards settlements like Leiston and the area
around Sizewell.

A nuclear industry source warned that if smoke started
blowing towards Sizewell B, it could force the station to shut down. There
is a risk of the smoke clogging the filters of the site’s heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which draws air from
outside.

This week, Sizewell B has restarted one reactor after refuelling
and plans to restart the second within days. On Thursday, EDF said Sizewell
had so far not been impacted by the blaze, but said it was “continuing to
monitor the situation”. As well as changing direction, the breeze is also
set to double in speed overnight – increasing from around 5mph on
Thursday to between 10 and 12mph through Friday, according to weather
website

Windy.com whose forecasts are based on the European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. ‘Low risk’ to under-construction
Sizewell C. The fire poses a “low risk” to Sizewell C, a nuclear power
plant being built next to Sizewell B, due to its distance from the fire and
the watercourses in between. A spokesman said: “Our sites and offices
remain open and operating as normal. “We are continuously assessing smoke
conditions and any impacts on the road network to help keep people safe and
ensure emergency services have priority access. “We remain ready to
support the local community, working closely with the local council, police
and fire and rescue service.”

 Telegraph 30th July 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/30/wildfire-in-suffolk-just-four-miles-nuclear-power-plant/

August 4, 2026 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Venture Capitalists Money Floods Into U.S. Nuclear Startups as AI Power Demand Explodes

By Haley Zaremba – Jul 31, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/VC-Money-Floods-Into-US-Nuclear-Startups-as-AI-Power-Demand-Explodes.html

  • Global VC funding for nuclear fission and fusion startups has already topped $4.5 billion across 81 companies in 2026, on pace to beat 2025’s $6.2 billion record.
  • Big Tech figures including Sam Altman and Bill Gates are pouring money into fusion to keep up with AI’s ballooning electricity demand.
  • Critics warn the startup boom is skipping voluntary safety guardrails and pulling attention from proven large-scale reactor technology.

Venture capitalists are taking a major interest in nuclear energy start ups. Funding is surging for both nuclear fusion and fission firms as the technology becomes an increasingly essential part of a feasible pathway toward sustainable energy security in the face of the artificial intelligence boom.

According to reporting by Axios, global investment in both fission and fusion has topped USD $4.5 billion across 81 companies in 2026 so far. At this pace, by year’s end, this year will shatter 2025’s previous record of $6.2 billion for 93 companies.

Data center hyperscalers are driving up energy demand projections to previously unthinkable levels that will require an all-of-the-above approach to energy development that is likely to prominently feature nuclear energy as a round-the-clock source of zero-emissions electricity. In the United States, the public and private sectors alike are extremely bullish on the technology and clearly eager to usher in a new nuclear era. As a result, the majority of this year’s funding surge is going to U.S. companies.

Big Tech has taken a particular interest in expanding nuclear energy deployment and technological advancement to feed its own ballooning energy needs. Some of the tech sector’s biggest names, including Bill Gates and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, are major investors in and advocates of nuclear fusion as an answer to AI’s ballooning energy problem. “There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” he said at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “It motivates us to go invest more in fusion.”

The Trump administration, too, is a major proponent of nuclear energy expansion, with a particular focus on next-gen nuclear technologies as part of a broader push to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy” and “produce lasting American dominance in the global nuclear energy market.” To this end, Executive Order 14301, signed by Trump in May 2025, mobilizes significant resources from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program to fast-track the testing and commercialization of advanced nuclear technologies in order to bring them to scale.

These advanced technologies include nuclear fusion as well as small modular reactors (SMRs) which hold major promise for overcoming some of the hurdles that have been causing nuclear energy to fall out of fashion in the United States. Traditional nuclear power plants are enormously costly and face long timelines and miles of red tape to come online. The country’s most recent traditional nuclear power plant, Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, finally came online years late and billions over budget. The hope is that modular and alternative technologies won’t face the same issues, as they can be built offsite relatively cheaply.

SMRs are still an emerging technology. While one SMR design has been officially approved for development in the United States, and many more firms are seeking approval for their plans, zero SMRs have yet come online in the country. “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission took about six years to approve the first advanced small reactor design, from fission developer NuScale,” Axios reports. “President Trump has sought to accelerate the process, aiming for 18 months. But that still could give first movers a major advantage in locking down contracts with data centers and electric utilities.”

With the backing of both the federal government and Silicon Valley, it’s no surprise that nuclear startups are going gangbusters. But while the increasing fragmentation and privatization of the nuclear energy sector could be great for innovation and expansion of the technology, it also poses some key drawbacks. For one thing, nuclear startups have so far shown a concerning disregard for voluntary safety guidelines that were tacitly accepted in the nuclear sector until now.

In addition to safety concerns, some critics have argued that a focus on cutting-edge nuclear energy technologies and startups may be diverting energy and funding from proven technologies that would better serve nuclear power capacity addition goals. A recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal argued that “The administration is chasing unproven technology when it could encourage Wall Street investment in large-scale reactors,” and, as a result, Trump’s nuclear renaissance is stalling.

August 3, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »