nuclear-news

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

Can quake-prone Japan ever embrace nuclear energy again?

Japan Times, By River Akira Davis and Hisako Ueno. The New York Times 4 Nov 24

A decade after one of the most devastating atomic energy disasters in history, Japan was finally getting closer to reviving nuclear power.

Around 2022, a majority of the public began to express support for restarting the nation’s nuclear plants, most of which have remained offline since an earthquake and tsunami caused a nuclear meltdown in Fukushima Prefecture in 2011. The governing Liberal Democratic Party pushed forward with plans to not only restart idled plants, but also build new ones.

The LDP made an urgent call to advance nuclear energy, which it said would help the heavily fossil-fuel-dependent country meet growing energy demands and fulfill its pledge to cut carbon emissions.

Then, this year, a series of disasters reminded many in Japan of their deep fears about nuclear energy, and the LDP lost their majority in the influential lower chamber of parliament. The fate of nuclear power in the country is again uncertain.

In January, the country’s deadliest earthquake in over a decade struck the Noto Peninsula. More than 400 people died, and many buildings were damaged, including an idled nuclear power plant.

In August, a tremor in southern Japan prompted experts to warn that the long-anticipated Nankai Trough megaquake, predicted to kill hundreds of thousands, could be imminent.

“With earthquakes erupting across the country, it is so clear that nuclear power is a harm to our safety,” said Hajime Matsukubo, secretary-general of the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center in Tokyo. “This was made evident in 2011 and again during the Noto earthquake.”

A poll conducted by the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper a few months after the Noto earthquake revealed that 45% of respondents opposed restarting Japan’s nuclear plants, surpassing the 36% who supported it.

After the LDP’s losses in parliamentary elections Sunday, the party has less than a month to form a minority government or recruit other allies to regain a majority. The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, which won the second-most seats behind the LDP in the recent election, strongly opposes plans for Japan to build new nuclear reactors.

Within the next five months, Japan will release a revised energy plan that will define the nation’s target energy mix heading toward 2040. That means that the nascent government — in whatever shape it ultimately assumes — will be forced to confront two long-standing questions that have proved largely impossible to reconcile.

Is nuclear energy, widely considered [?] clean and [?] affordable, the best option for Japan — a nation heavily dependent on fossil fuels yet prone to frequent earthquakes and tsunamis? And if so, how can government leaders sell this to a populace still haunted by the memories of nuclear disaster?…………………………………………………………………………….  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/11/02/japan/society/nuclear-fears-quake-prone-japan/

November 6, 2024 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

US Bombers Arrive in Middle East as Part of New Deployment for Israel

The US has reportedly warned Iran not to respond to Israel’s attack

by Dave DeCamp November 3, 2024,  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/11/03/us-bombers-arrive-in-middle-east-as-part-of-new-deployment-to-protect-israel/

US B-52 bombers arrived in the Middle East on Saturday as part of a new deployment to “defend” Israel amid speculation over whether or not Iran will respond to Israel’s October 26 attack.

“B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers from Minot Air Force Base’s 5th Bomb Wing arrived in the US Central Command area of responsibility,” US Central Command wrote on X.

The Pentagon announced it was beefing up its military presence in the region on Friday, saying Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered the “deployment of additional ballistic missile defense destroyers, fighter squadron and tanker aircraft, and several US Air Force B-52 long-range strike bombers to the region.”

The Pentagon said the purpose of the deployment is the “protection of US citizens and forces in the Middle East, the defense of Israel, and de-escalation.” The US also recently deployed a THAAD missile defense system and about 100 troops to Israel.

Iranian officials have been vowing there will be a response to Israel’s attack, which killed four Iranian soldiers and one civilian. Israel launched the airstrikes on Iran in retaliation for the October 1 Iranian missile barrage that was fired into Israel in response to a string of Israeli escalations and assassinations in the region.

Axios has reported that Israeli intelligence suggests Iran is planning to launch a major attack from Iraqi territory and that it could happen before the US presidential election on November 5. However, a report published by The Wall Journal on Sunday said that Iran didn’t want to influence the US election and would likely wait until after.

The Journal report, which cited unnamed Arab and Iranian officials, said Iran has told Arab diplomats it’s planning a complex response against Israel that would involve more powerful warheads and other weapons not used in its previous attacks on Israeli territory. One source said Iran would likely target military facilities again “but much more aggressively than last time.”

Another Axios report said the US warned Iran that if it attacked, the US wouldn’t be able to restrain Israel. “We told the Iranians: We won’t be able to hold Israel back, and we won’t be able to make sure that the next attack will be calibrated and targeted as the previous one,” a US official told Axios.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US nuclear weapons could be sited in RAF Lakenheath in spring, CND protest hears

“We are standing on the edge of the nuclear abyss. And our governments have the responsibility to keep us safe; and what are they doing? They are pushing us over the edge.”

US nuclear weapons could be sited at RAF Lakenheath as early as spring, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has warned.

The CND’s new general secretary Sophie Bolt told dozens of protesters outside the Suffolk airbase on Saturday: “We are very very concerned about the threat of a nuclear escalation between nuclear-armed Nato and nuclear-armed Russia.

“What’s happening here at this base is absolutely central to this growing nuclear threat in eastern Europe.

“It’s also the horrific genocidal war we are seeing in the Middle East because again it’s F35-A jets here and fighter pilots based here that are involved in that war.

“This base completely ties the UK to the complicity of genocide that is being carried out against Palestinian people.”

Green Party peer Jenny Jones said it is “obviously incredibly dangerous” to site nuclear bombs in Britain due to its size and international importance.

She added: “If Russia decide to get really heavy not just with Ukraine but other countries, then we could be a target even if they just think we have nuclear weapons here.

“Secondly, it’s really undemocratic. We need a public debate about the common sense or the lack of it in siting nuclear weapons in Britain.

“We should have a debate in Parliament about this and it should be a free vote as well so we can see exactly what all MPs say about this issue.”


Former Australian minister Melissa Parke, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, noted last month’s serious fire at BAE Systems nuclear submarine shipyard in Cumbria; Sellafield nuclear processing plant’s fines for cyber security failings; and maintenance issues on Britain’s nuclear fleet.

She said: “So fires, cyber security failings, maintenance problems on nuclear subs, I mean what could possibly go wrong?

“We are standing on the edge of the nuclear abyss. And our governments have the responsibility to keep us safe; and what are they doing? They are pushing us over the edge.”

Nuke Watch’s Peter Burt described detailed analysis of official documents by scientists, plane spotters and campaigners.

He said: “It’s very clear that we need to keep a close eye on what’s happening here.

“What there is no substitute for is eyes on the ground … in the same way we had in the 1980s we had the Cruise Watch Network, who kept tabs on what’s happening at Greenham Common.”

November 5, 2024 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Japanese nuclear reactor that restarted 13 years after Fukushima disaster is shut down again

A Japanese nuclear reactor that restarted last week for the first time in more than 13 years after it survived a massive earthquake and tsunami that badly damaged the nearby Fukushima nuclear plant has been shut down again due to an equipment problem

Mari Yamaguchi, 4 Nov 24, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-japanese-tokyo-fukushima-b2640761.html

A Japanese nuclear reactor that restarted last week for the first time in more than 13 years after it had survived a massive 2011 earthquake and tsunami that badly damaged the nearby Fukushima nuclear plant was shut down again Monday due to an equipment problem, its operator said.

The No. 2 reactor at the Onagawa nuclear power plant on Japan’s northern coast was put back online on Oct. 29 and had been expected to start generating power in early November.

But it had to be shut down again five days after its restart due to a glitch that occurred Sunday in a device related to neutron data inside the reactor, plant operator Tohoku Electric Power Co. said.

The reactor was operating normally and there was no release of radiation into the environment, Tohoku Electric said. The utility said it decided to shut it down to re-examine equipment to address residents’ safety concerns. No new date for a restart was given.

The reactor is one of three at the Onagawa plant, which is 100 kilometers (62 miles) north of the Fukushima Daiichi plant where three reactors melted following a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, releasing large amounts of radiation.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Japan, technology | Leave a comment

F-35 components sent to Israel from Royal Air Force base

Parts for Israel’s most advanced fighter jet have been secretly shipped from a British military base during the assault on Gaza.

Declassified UK JOHN McEVOY, 31 October 2024

  • The shipments have continued under Keir Starmer’s Labour government

Reported in partnership with Irish news site The Ditch

F-35 fighter jet parts have been secretly transported to Israel from a British air force base in Norfolk, it can be revealed.

At least seven arms shipments have been sent from RAF Marham to Israel’s F-35 airbase at Nevatim since the Gaza bombing began.

Two of the deliveries took place this summer shortly after Keir Starmer became UK prime minister.

The information is contained within cargo documents reviewed by The Ditch and Declassified.

The documents show that the UK government has not only been approving F-35 export licences to Israel, but actively facilitating their transportation through British military sites.

F-35 supplies have become particularly controversial after it emerged that Israel used one of the planes to bomb a designated safe zone in Gaza, Al-Mawasi, killing 90 people.

Campaign Against Arms Trade’s Sam Perlo-Freeman told Declassified: “The F-35 plays a major part in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and brutal bombardment and invasion of Lebanon”.

He added that “the UK is not only licensing the supply of spare parts, but actively using UK military assets to facilitate their delivery. This makes UK ministers and potentially even military personnel complicit in war crimes”.

The International Criminal Court is currently considering arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Human Rights Watch has warned that countries supplying Israel with arms could be complicit.

F-35 shipments

The seven shipments of F-35 parts from RAF Marham took place on 11 November 2023, 13 January, 21 January, 7 February, 28 April, 28 July, and 6 August 2024.

In six of those cases, the registered sender was the Lockheed Martin UK Integrated Systems office which is based in Havant, a town near Portsmouth.

Lockheed Martin is a major US arms corporation and the lead player in the international consortium that produces the F-35 fighter jets.

The Havant site is Lockheed Martin’s main headquarters in Britain, employing over 500 staff and working on the F-35 programme.


The components were transferred from RAF Marham to Heathrow Airport, and then transported to Tel Aviv on cargo flights operated by Israeli airline El Al……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Munitions for Israel

Labour suspended some arms export licences to Israel last month but will continue to allow shipments of F-35 components to Israel through “global hubs”.

The UK Ministry of Defence did not dispute that F-35 parts had been supplied directly to Israel from RAF Marham on the dates found by The Ditch and Declassified………………………………………………………………..more https://www.declassifieduk.org/f-35-components-sent-to-israel-from-royal-air-force-base/?utm_source=drip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ICYMI+-+Weekly+Roundup

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Israel, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

South has raised risk of nuclear war, North Korea says

Canberra Times, By Josh Smith, 3 Nov 24

A white paper released by North Korean state media has accused South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol of exposing his country to the danger of nuclear war through his policies toward the North.

The document, compiled by North Korea’s Institute of Enemy State Studies and released on Sunday by state news agency KCNA, criticised Yoon’s “reckless remarks” about war, abandoning elements of an inter-Korean agreement, engaging in nuclear war planning with the United States, and seeking closer ties with Japan and NATO.November 3 2024

“Its ever-worsening military moves resulted only in the paradoxical consequences of pushing (North Korea) to stockpile its nuclear weapons at an exponential rate and further develop its nuclear attack capability,” the paper said……………………………………………

The two Koreas have also clashed over balloons of trash floated since May from North Korea.

Pyongyang has said the launches are a response to balloons sent by anti-regime activists in the South…………………………..

Meanwhile, the US on Sunday deployed B-1B bombers for joint aerial drills with South Korea and Japan, in response to North Korea’s recent launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, according to South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The military exercise showed the three countries’ strong commitment to responding to the North’s nuclear and missile threats through co-operation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement.

This is the second time this year that the three countries conducted joint air drills and the fourth time in 2024 that the US deployed its strategic bombers on the Korean peninsula, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8809775/south-has-raised-risk-of-nuclear-war-north-korea-says/

November 5, 2024 Posted by | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why Nimbys are wrong about solar farms

Opponents of solar farms often say that solar panels should be put on roofs and that fields should be left for agriculture so i asked the experts on whether they agreed

By Tom Bawden, Science & Environment , November 3, 2024 ,
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/why-nimbys-are-wrong-about-solar-farms-3355702

Tory leadership loser Robert Jenrick said that solar panels are “for roofs not fields” when asked byi last month if he supported a proposed giant solar farm in his Nottinghamshire constituency.

He is by no means alone in that view, which is a common argument given by opponents of solar farms.

Those who protest against solar farm developments argue fields would be better used for growing food, while solar panels could and should be concentrated on roofs, of which there are quite literally millions in the UK.

“I’ve said that we must ban solar farms from prime agricultural land and I mean it. These facilities are despoiling our beautiful countryside and jeopardising our food security. We must end it,” Mr Jenrick added.

But since Labour came to power Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has approved four of the five biggest solar farms to be given planning permission in the UK.

Mr Miliband has vowed to take on “the blockers, the delayers, the obstructionists” who oppose large solar and onshore wind development to help the UK meet its ambitious targets to make the country’s energy supply virtually carbon neutral in just six years.

As the Government steps up its campaign to drive through new solar and wind projects, it is likely we will be seeing more projects of a similar scale too that opposed by Mr Jenrick in the coming years.


i asked experts whether it was feasible for the UK to do without new solar farms and instead confine new solar panel installations to the rooftops of households, offices and other business properties, and what effect this could have on food security.

The sale of the solar challenge

Experts were clear that there needs to be a huge and rapid increase in renewable energy generation if the UK is to have any chance of meeting its highly ambitious climate targets.

And, as the cheapest source of renewable energy – now costing less than onshore and offshore wind, according to government figures – solar will inevitably play a key role in the transformation of the UK’s energy supply.

The Conservative’s British Energy Strategy in April 2022 outlines the need for 70 gigawatts (GW) of solar power to be installed by 2035 – enough to power 20 million homes, according to National Grid.

As of June 2024, the UK only had about 17GW installed capacity (powering around 4.5million homes), meaning the country needs to quadruple its solar power generation in the next 11 years.

Two thirds of the current solar power is generated by solar farms with panels on the ground – known as “ground mount” – with the remaining third coming from the rooftops of businesses and over 1.5 million homes.

Meanwhile, government advisor the Climate Change Committee estimates that we will need 90GW of solar by 2050 (5.3 times current capacity) if we are to hit our legally binding target of becoming Net Zero.

Dr Simon Harrison, a member of the Government’s new advisory commission to help make the UK’s power generation virtually carbon neutral by 2030, told i the task is so great that it’s “going to require vastly more renewable energy generation” – meaning that “in practice both solar farms and roof top solar will be needed at scale to meet our needs”.

“There’s a significant role for both,” added Professor Rob Gross, who also sits on the commission.

What are the advantages of solar farms?

The first major advantage of solar farms is the sheer amount of energy they produce.

The 600 MW Cottam Solar farm that was granted planning permission in September would be the UK’s largest – supplying 180,000 homes, or 1,500 homes for every 5MW of energy generated.

By contrast, large solar rooftop installs, say over an airport or large of space, typically generate hundreds of kilowatts (kW) potentially up to a few megawatts (MW).

While the average solar rooftop installation size on someone’s home for their own use is typically 4kW.

So the Cottam Solar project would generate at least 200 times the electricity of the very largest commercial roof top installations and around 150,000 times as much as a typical household solar panel setup.

Tony Slade, technical director of Beaverbrook Energy, which designs, finances and builds low-carbon energy generators, told i: “Ground mounted solar farms also suffer from less ‘shading’ (blocking of direct sunlight through obstacles and obstructions) and ‘directional losses’ by being angled in the wrong direction.

“About 50 per cent of roofs face the wrong way and of those that face the right way about 25 per cent suffer from shading issues,” he said.

Are solar farms cheaper than roof panels?

Yes, in part because they benefit from economies of scale. In other words, the bigger the solar farm, the cheaper each unit of electricity will be, as more panels can benefit from the infrastructure.

Professor Gross, who is also director of the UK Energy Research Centre coalition of researchers, told i “the principal advantages are economic”.

“It is far cheaper to install each solar panel in a large array of thousands of panels than it is to install a handful of panels on a roof.

“Ground mounted is cheapest, followed by larger arrays on commercial units, followed by new build, followed by residential retrofit. All categories are getting cheaper but it is impossible to get away from the fundamentals – the cheapest solar will always be the simplest to install, in the largest arrays,” he said.

“And ground mounted developers building large schemes may also be able to negotiate the best deals for panels and equipment,” he added.

Mr Slade explains that greenfield ground mount solar panels on fields typically cost two thirds as much, per unit of energy, as large scale solar panel arrays on commercial buildings such as warehouses, shopping centres and factories – as well as new build domestic and commercial buildings, where the solar panels are fitted as part of the original construction.

Meanwhile, installing solar panels above car parks is typically twice as expensive as wind farms and retrofitting homes is about three times as expensive, he said.

What about food security?

Opponents of large solar farms often argue that the land would be better used for agriculture and that too many of them could impact food security.

But the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero firmly rebuts those suggestions, arguing the amount of agricultural land involved would make very little difference to the UK’s food production.

“Our plans to boost solar power do not risk the UK’s food security. The total area of agricultural land used for solar is very small and is often the lowest grade quality for food production.

“Even in the most ambitious scenarios, solar would still occupy less than 1 per cent of the UK’s agricultural land, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security,” the spokesperson added.

Meanwhile, in July, National Farmers’ Union boss Tom Bradshaw warned MPs against making “sensationalist” claims about food security.

“It’s a small amount of land which is being taken out of production,” he told the Politico Europe website.

The role of rooftop solar panels

“They can potentially play a very important role, accounting for perhaps 40 per cent of new installation of solar. But it’s important to be clear that rooftop and ground based are additive not competitive,” Professor Gross said.

Dr Harrison says “there are serious considerations to make on where solar is placed”, meaning that sometimes roof top solar power can be far more suitable than those in fields.

“In the simplest terms, there is more space in rural areas for solar panel installations and it is often easier to optimise their positioning for greater energy capture. But they are generally further from existing grid connections and with sometimes competing requirements for land use,” he said.

“On the other hand, rooftop solar, most commonly in urban settings, often avoids use of congested electricity networks, especially when combined with local batteries, and when used in homes tends to drive greater awareness and action by residents in other areas such as energy efficiency improvements, as well as reducing bills. In practice both will be needed at scale to meet our needs.”

The Government estimates there are 250,000 hectares of south-facing, industrial roof space across the country. That’s an area bigger than London and Manchester combined, with the potential for a vast amount of solar panels.

Even a very conservative estimate suggests that this commercial roof space could provide an area big enough to generate approximately 25GW of energy.

This amounts to nearly half the total amount recommended by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), according research by University College London for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

Mr Ramandani agrees that fields and rooftops can play different, complementary, roles in UK energy generation.

“We need about 18GW more of rooftop solar to hit 70GW by 2035 to keep us on the right path to Net Zero. So it will play a massive role,” he said.

“Rooftop solar can power people’s homes and business onsite without needing to pull from the grid, and excess generation can be stored or exported back to the grid, which supports the flexibility and security of the grid. And they operate at a smaller scale with some export to the overall grid system.

“Solar farms, meanwhile, are not onsite generation – they operate at a much bigger scale and power the grid with greater quantities of energy, which is used by the whole system and not specific to a home or business (before they export the excess generation that they don’t use or store).”

Is there a big role for household solar panels?

UK households are already waking up to solar panels, receiving record sums last year for the amount of excess energy they generated that they sold back to the grid, Ofgem said last week.

Homeowners received more than £30m for the energy they didn’t need in the year to March 2024, four times the £7.2m they made the previous year.

Although this amounted to a relatively small amount of energy – enough to power 88,000 homes – experts say there is considerable scope to increase this and they expect this to happen in the coming years.

“There is definite major role for rooftop solar in the UKs future energy mix,” said Mr Slade. “As installations become cheaper and the market for excess generation becomes fairer to the home owner rooftop domestic solar will continue to grow,” he said.

Mr Ramandani says: “Onsite solar rooftop generation takes money off consumer’s bills as they purchase less from the grid, and excess generation can be exported to the grid for income. This in turn creates a stable grid system with less demand side pressure, as well as supplementary energy generation from homes and businesses.

For a typical house, installing a PV system could lower bills by the equivalent of nearly 330 every year over the 30-year lifespan of the system, according to a study by Cambridge University and the Think Three property development company for Solar Energy UK.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Iran says it rejects nuclear weapons but will defend itself by all means

Iran International, 4 Nov 24

Iran’s Foreign Ministry said on Monday it remains committed to a peaceful nuclear program but asserted Tehran would prepare whatever it takes to defend itself against Israel.

“The official stance of Iran in rejecting weapons of mass destruction and regarding the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program is clear,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei.

“As emphasized in the recent speech by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, we will equip ourselves to the extent necessary for the defense of Iran,” he added.

For weeks, Iranian officials have ramped up their narrative that Tehran possesses the capability to produce nuclear weapons, asserting that only Khamenei’s religious fatwa prevents it from doing so.

Baghaei also claimed that the country will use all its “material and spiritual resources to respond to the recent aggressions by the Zionist regime.”

This statement comes as Iran’s leadership intensifies its stance amid escalating tensions with the United States and Israel.

Khamenei has called on officials to make every necessary preparation to defend the country against the US and Israel…………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.iranintl.com/en/202411041034

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Witnesses say the Israeli army is using facial recognition technology in its assault on north Gaza

 https://mondoweiss.net/2024/10/witnesses-say-the-israeli-army-is-using-facial-recognition-technology-in-its-assault-on-north-gaza/

Witnesses told Mondoweiss that after the army scans people’s faces, most people are detained for field interrogations. During these encounters, soldiers use what Ishaaq al-Daour describe as “psychological tactics” to unsettle the people being questioned, claiming that they know everything about their lives and that if they lie in their answers, “they will be killed.”

Witness testimony from northern Gaza shows that Israel is using facial recognition technology to organize how it conducts mass arrests and forcible displacement. Some Palestinians say the technology is also being used to carry out field executions.

By Tareq S. Hajjaj  October 31, 2024 

Ishaaq al-Daour, 32, was sheltering with his family at the UN-run Abu Hussein School in Jabalia refugee camp when the Israeli army stormed the shelter on October 20, forcing over 700 hundred people out of the school and leading them into a large ditch that had been dug in advance by the military.

“They made all of the men go down into the ditch first,” al-Daour told Mondoweiss from the Remal neighborhood in Gaza City. “Then they ordered us to climb out of the ditch one by one and stood each of us in front of a camera that had been installed nearby.”

The army made the men stand in front of the “camera” for at least three minutes per person, al-Daour said, long enough for the cameras to scan their faces and reveal personal data seemingly already stored in the Israeli military’s system. After the scans, al-Daour said the soldiers would reveal information about each individual, including their “name, age, work, family members and names, place of residence, and even their personal activities.”

“When they suspected someone, they took him away [to an unknown location” al-Daour said. As for those who had relatives who belonged to Palestinian resistance movements or who personally belonged to resistance factions, al-Daour speculated that “their fate was immediate death,” citing stories he had heard from others in Gaza, whose friends and relatives were taken at checkpoints and had not been seen again, or who returned to Gaza in body bags. 

Al-Daour is one of the thousands of people who were expelled from the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza and ordered to move south at gunpoint by the Israeli army. The forced exodus of thousands out of Jabalia is part of an Israeli offensive on northern Gaza that started on October 5. Its objective is to implement a proposal put forward by a group of senior Israeli generals that aims to empty northern Gaza of its inhabitants through starvation and bombardment, the so-called “Generals’ Plan.”

Survivors from Jabalia like al-Daour report that the Israeli army is using facial recognition technology to screen residents in the ongoing assault, often identifying people from long distances and picking them out from a crowd. 

Witnesses say that the Israeli army has set up security checkpoints throughout northern Gaza where the facial recognition technology is being deployed. The military is also reportedly using this technology when it storms shelters for the displaced. Witnesses report that in these cases Israeli forces will corral people in enclosed places, usually ditches dug by military bulldozers, and process them individually.

Mondoweiss spoke to several survivors from Jabalia, who said that the Israeli army is using quadcopter drones to “identify people immediately from a distance,” and that soldiers are stopping people at checkpoints to conduct “camera scans” that lasts for several minutes. Witnesses say these were particularly unnerving as they stood awaiting an uncertain fate. Witnesses also report that the army picked people out of a crowd at checkpoints using what they described as a “red laser pointer” that was either mounted on a tank or on a soldier’s rifle.

Witnesses told Mondoweiss that after the army scans people’s faces, most people are detained for field interrogations. During these encounters, soldiers use what Ishaaq al-Daour describe as “psychological tactics” to unsettle the people being questioned, claiming that they know everything about their lives and that if they lie in their answers, “they will be killed.”

The questions are typically wide-ranging, al-Daour said. “They ask us about our relatives, our neighbors, the movements of the resistance fighters on the ground, who we know from them, and who they are. They convince us that they already know everything about us by mentioning intimate details about our lives, and then they threaten us with killing if we lie.” 

Israel’s use of facial recognition throughout the war

While Mondoweiss could not independently verify the nature of the “cameras” being described by witnesses, the use of facial scanning and facial recognition technology by the Israeli army has been well documented. 

Facial recognition technology used by Israel pulls from a database of information about Palestinians that has been built up over the years, including on Palestinians in the West Bank. One of those databases is called Wolf Pack, which according to Amnesty International, contains extensive information on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, “including where they live, who their family members are, and whether they are wanted for questioning by Israeli authorities.” 

In the old city of Hebron in the southern West Bank, Israeli surveillance cameras use a facial recognition system called Red Wolf on Palestinians who pass through checkpoints in the city. “Their face is scanned, without their knowledge or consent, and compared with biometric entries in databases which exclusively contain information about Palestinians,” Amnesty described in a May 2023 report.

It is unclear whether the facial recognition technology used throughout the ongoing assault on northern Gaza is the Red Wolf system or the other systems that the Israeli army has been reported to have used throughout the war on Gaza. In March, the New York Times reported that Israel’s cyber-intelligence division Unit 8200 used facial recognition technology developed by Corsight, an Israeli company, in combination with Google Photos. Together, these technologies enabled “Israel to pick faces out of crowds and grainy drone footage,” the Times said. 

Likewise, it’s unclear whether these facial recognition systems are drawing upon data from Wolf Pack or another Israeli database, but media attention has recently focused on how that data is being processed and generated through a number of controversial AI programs to identify potential targets. Programs like “Lavender,” “The Gospel,” and “Where’s Daddy” have pushed Human Rights Watch to warn against their use of “faulty data and inexact approximations to inform military actions.” Several media exposés have also shown how some of these AI systems loosely identify civilians as targets for assassination or alert the Israeli army to target members of Hamas when they are with their families. 

Testimonies gathered by Mondoweiss for this report and in previous reporting confirm that the brutal Israeli invasion in northern Gaza is utilizing these technologies as a means of organizing how it conducts mass arrests, field executions, and ethnic cleansing.

‘It was the most terrifying moment in my life’

Hiba al-Fram is one of the displaced people who passed through the army’s checkpoints during the Jabalia invasion. She says she was subjected to a facial and retinal scan, an experience she described as terrifying. 

“Everyone was standing in the line, men and women, and everyone held up their IDs in their hands. Soldiers were using lasers to check our ID cards from a distance before we reached them,” she told Mondoweiss. Mondoweiss could not confirm what lasers the military was using.

Al-Fram said that the army picked people out of the queue using a “laser” pointer affixed to a tank. She described the army shining the laser on the ID cards and calling on people to advance towards the checkpoint, where the soldiers set up a camera. 

“The soldiers arrested over 100 men in front of my eyes; they arrested them in front of their wives, and they were beating them, cursing them, and threatening to kill them and their families. Many wives saw their husbands in this situation.”

“The soldiers were telling the women: ‘We will kill you by a sniper bullet, we will run over your skulls with tanks, we will stone you to death, we will make you bleed to death,’” al-Fram continued. “The women were terrified and thought they would be killed.”

Then, the soldiers would gather five women at a time and walk them to a security check or a scan of the face or eye. “They arrested two women in front of me from the crowd based on their face scans. People later said they were relatives of people known to be members of armed factions, but they were women. They were carrying children.” 

“The soldiers ordered them to give their children to other women. The mothers started to panic like crazy. They looked around frantically for any woman they knew to give their children to,” al-Fram continued.

“We would walk towards the face-scanning point in utter terror in our hearts, walking between dozens of tanks and soldiers pointing their weapons at us. And we would stand there for 3 or 5 minutes. They were the worst minutes of my life. A person’s fate was decided based on that scan: either arrest, beating and humiliation, or release them and force them to leave towards the south.”

After the soldiers take the face scan, the questions about neighbors and relatives begin. “They asked us where they are, where we can find them, when we last saw them. We did not know anything about these details, so we did not lie when we said we did not know. They would threaten us that if we lied, they would uncover the lie and shoot us immediately.”

Of all the terrifying moments experienced by residents of northern Gaza, many say that they experienced their most terrifying moments when they were stopped at an Israeli checkpoint.

“The most terrifying and frightening moments were the moments when you stand in front of the camera to get your face scanned,” Abdul Karim al-Zuwaidi, a journalist in northern Gaza, told Mondoweiss.

Before al-Zuwaidi reached the facial recognition point on his way toward Gaza City, he saw many young men being arrested by the army. As a Palestinian journalist working in the Gaza Strip, he like many of his colleagues is at particular risk of being targeted.

“The minutes we stand in front of the camera feel like years,” al-Zuwaidi said. “As a journalist conveying our message to the world, I was terrified.”

Al-Zuwaidi said that during their march south, many Jabalia residents would attempt to avoid upcoming checkpoints, often to no avail. “We had heard the stories about the checkpoints and how they were arresting people, so we tried in whatever way possible to avoid passing through them, but there was no way of escaping.”

“When we are examined, and the scan shows that one of us will be arrested, the soldiers start beating and cursing them before they take them away and they disappear. We saw this scene play out in front of us for dozens of young men.” Al-Zuwaidi did not see himself what information was revealed to the soldiers by the scans, but he said the soldiers would repeat aloud what details they were seeing on their screens, including peoples’ personal information, names, relatives, and more. 

While people were waiting for the scan, al-Zuwaidi said that soldiers would curse at and beat the young men. The army severely beat al-Zuwaidi while he was standing and waiting for his turn. “They were dirty in their treatment of us,” he said. “But what can we say in response to a military armed with all these weapons and ready to kill?” 

“They used every humiliating method against ordinary people,” he added.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | civil liberties, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

101 BBC journalists say it is biased against Palestine

Sat 2 Nov 2024, https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/101-bbc-journalists-say-it-is-biased-against-palestine/

JVL Introduction

The BBC has been accused of bias against Israel but here over 230 people, including 101 BBC journalists have argued that there is a strong bias towards Israel and certainly the Israeli narrative.  The letter was sent to the Independent arguing that Broadcaster bias is failing to hold Israel to account.

It is noteworthy that only 72 of the 230 signatories felt able to sign openly and this included none of the BBC journalists.  Distrust of mainstream media is growing but there is a real need for unbiased reporting.  The BBC has previously claimed that the fact it receives complaints from those in support of Israel as well as those in support of Palestine shows its impartiality.  This letter, and many other articles and letters before, show this to be nonsense.

LL

This article was originally published by Digi on Fri 1 Nov 2024. Read the original here.

Hundreds of journalists and personalities accuse BBC of bias in favor of Israel and call for a return to “fairness and impartiality”

More than 230 members of the media industry and personalities, including 101 BBC employees, accuse the British media outlet of providing favourable coverage of Israel and call on the public broadcaster to “recommit to fairness, accuracy and impartiality” in its reporting on the Gaza Strip.

Digi

In a letter sent to Tim Davie, signed by more than 230 members of the media industry, including 101 anonymous BBC employees, the corporation is criticized for failing to enforce its own editorial standards by lacking “fair evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza.”

Seen exclusively by The Independent, the letter, which was also signed by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and actress Juliet Stevenson, calls on the BBC to report “without fear or favour” and “to recommit to the highest editorial standards – with an emphasis on fairness, accuracy and due impartiality.”

The letter also calls on the broadcaster to implement a number of editorial commitments, including “reiterating that Israel does not offer foreign journalists access to Gaza; clarifying when there is insufficient evidence to support Israeli claims; clarifying where Israel is the perpetrator in article titles; including the usual historical context before October 2023; and firmly challenging the Israeli military and government in all interviews.”

The BBC denied these claims, insisting that it “strives to live up to our responsibility to provide the most reliable and impartial news”.

“When we make mistakes or have made changes in the way we report, we are transparent. We are also very clear with our audience about the limitations imposed on our reporting – including the lack of access to Gaza and restricted access to certain parts of Lebanon, as well as our continued efforts to attract reporters to those areas,” a spokesperson said.

Other signatories on the list include historian William Dalrymple, Dr. Catherine Happer, lecturer in sociology and director of media at the University of Glasgow, Rizwana Hamid, director of the Centre for Media Monitoring, and broadcaster John Nicolson.

This is not the first time the BBC has been criticised for bias during the Gaza war. In September, the BBC rejected claims that it had violated its own guidelines more than 1,500 times following a controversial report that claimed some BBC correspondents had excused or downplayed Hamas’ activities. A BBC spokesperson said at the time that it would “carefully consider” the complaint, but denied the allegations of bias.

However, the signatories of the letter insist that the BBC favors Israel. A current staff member who signed the letter told The Independent that some of their colleagues had left the institution because of its cover-up. “I have never witnessed, in my entire career, such low levels of confidence,” they said. “I have colleagues who have left the BBC in recent months because I simply don’t think our reporting on Israel and Palestine is sincere. Many of us feel paralyzed by fear.”

Another said they were “losing faith in the organisation they work for” after seeing a “huge difference” in the BBC’s approach to Israel. They added: “I really care about the future of the BBC and every day I see that we are losing the trust of audiences around the world. People change the channel to find the reality of what’s going on because we just don’t give it to them.”

Examples provided by staff include “dehumanizing and misleading headlines,” including the one given to an article about a six-year-old girl who was shot by the Israeli army in Gaza in January 2024. Speaking about the headline “Hind Rajab, 6, found dead in Gaza days after phone calls for help,” a signatory of the letter said: “This was not an act of God. The perpetrator, Israel, should have been on the front page and it should have been clear that she was killed.”

“Palestinians are always treated as an unreliable source and we consistently prioritise Israel’s version of events, despite the IDF’s well-documented history of lying,” says another BBC employee, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“It seems that we often prefer to drop Israel from the title, if possible, or question who might be to blame for the airstrikes. The level of verification expected for anything related to Gaza far exceeds what is the norm for other countries,” he said.

Other concerns raised by staff include coverage omissions, such as the failure to livestream the plea of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice on January 11, but the choice to livestream Israel’s defense the next day.

Of the 237 signatories, 72 signed publicly, including former British Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi and actress Juliet Stevenson, as well as dozens of academics. The letter, while focusing on the BBC, also highlights the shortcomings of other media outlets, including ITV and Sky.

“This conflict is one of the most polarizing stories that people are reporting on, and we know that people feel very much about how it is presented, not only on the BBC, but in all media. The BBC holds itself to very high standards and we strive to fulfil our responsibility to provide the most reliable and unbiased news – weighing and measuring the words we use, fact-checking and seeking a wide range of interviews and expert opinions,” the BBC said.

While acknowledging that “the BBC does not and cannot reflect any worldview”, a spokesperson insisted that it receives an almost equal measure of complaints alleging bias against Israel. “This does not mean that we assume that we are doing something right and continue to listen to all criticism – from inside and outside the BBC and reflect on what we can do better,” the institution also said.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

The global nuclear industry has no idea how to decommission Fukushima nuclear plant, but hopes that a tiny robot might help


Robot retrieves radioactive fuel sample from Fukushima nuclear reactor site

Plant’s owners hope analysis of tiny sample will help to establish how to safely decommission facility

Kevin Rawlinson and agency, Sun 3 Nov 2024

A piece of the radioactive fuel left from the meltdown of Japan’s tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been retrieved from the site using a remote-controlled robot.

Investigators used the robot’s fishing-rod-like arm to clip and collect a tiny piece of radioactive material from one of the plant’s three damaged reactors – the first time such a feat has been achieved. Should it prove suitable for testing, scientists hope the sample will yield information that will help determine how to decommission the plant.

The plant’s manager, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (Tepco), has said the sample was collected from the surface of a mound of molten debris that sits at the bottom of the Unit 2 reactor’s primary containment vessel.

The “telesco” robot, with its frontal tongs still holding the sample, returned to its enclosed container for safe storage after workers in full hazmat gear pulled it out of the containment vessel on Saturday. But the mission is not over until it is certain the sample’s radioactivity is below a set standard and it is safely contained.

If the radioactivity exceeds the safety limit then the robot must return to find another piece, but Tepco officials have said they expect the sample will prove to be small enough.

The mission started in September and was supposed to last two weeks, but had to be suspended twice.

A procedural mistake held up work for nearly three weeks. Then the robot’s two cameras, designed to transmit views of the target areas for its operators in the remote control room, failed. That required the robot to be pulled out entirely for replacement before the mission resumed on Monday.

Fukushima Daiichi lost its cooling systems during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, causing meltdowns in three of its reactors. An estimated 880 tons of fuel remains in them, and Tepco has carried out several robotic operations.

Tepco said that on Wednesday the robot successfully clipped a piece estimated to weigh about 3 grams from the area underneath the Unit 2 reactor core, from which large amounts of melted fuel fell during the meltdown 13 years ago.

The plant’s chief, Akira Ono, said only the tiny sample can provide crucial data to help plan a decommissioning strategy, develop necessary technology and robots and retroactively establish exactly how the accident had developed.

The Japanese government and Tepco have set a target of between 30 and 40 years for the cleanup, which experts say is optimistic. No specific plan for the full removal of the fuel debris or its final disposal has been decided.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

Launch of papers on UK’s unachievable nuclear programme

Launch of papers on unachievable nuclear programme

Today, Friday 1 November we are launching two papers:

In our view, these papers irrefutably demonstrate why the government’s proposed vast expansion of nuclear power in the UK is unnecessary, unjustifiable but also impossible.

We believe it is imperative that government reviews and reconsiders its nuclear policy and recognises that it cannot proceed.

The longer paper provides our considered and detailed analysis which reveals that nuclear is too costly, takes too long, is technologically challenged and leaves an expensive and unmanageable burden of wastes for future generations. More than that, there are no suitable sites for new power plants and those that are supposedly ‘potentially suitable’ will all be vulnerable to the impending ravages of Climate Change during their lifetimes.

The shorter paper (which is available for publication) presents our arguments concisely, presenting a fundamental challenge to current orthodoxy on the case for nuclear. At a time of pressure on public spending, nuclear does not represent good value for money, nor is it attractive against other more pressing social welfare priorities.

Biographical Notes:

Andrew Blowers, OBE, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences, Open University. Former member of Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) and Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC); author The Legacy of Nuclear Power.

Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy, University of Greenwich. Editor-in-Chief of the journal Energy Policy.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Biden’s Destructive Legacy

by Daniel Larison , ,  https://original.antiwar.com/Daniel_Larison/2024/10/31/bidens-destructive-legacy/

As President Biden’s term approaches its end, the US and several parts of the rest of the world are significantly worse off than they were when he took office. While the president is frequently lauded by members of the foreign policy establishment as a successful foreign policy leader, his tenure has been marked for the most part by deepening US involvement in foreign conflicts that show no signs of ending anytime soon. US policies under Biden have served only to stoke destabilizing conflict, and the president has shown no inclination to bring any of the wars currently backed by Washington to an end. Biden’s presidency showed the world just how extensive the rot in US foreign policy is, and most other nations will not soon forget what restored American “leadership” wrought.

Biden ran on the promise of ending America’s forever wars, but after the withdrawal from Afghanistan he then spent most of his presidency going out of his way to involve US in conflicts where no vital American interests were at stake. The risk of great power conflict has also risen under Biden as he has pursued a China policy of containment and rivalry that the US can ill afford while US-Russian relations have sunk to new lows over Ukraine. In the Middle East, Biden has enabled Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, backed their invasion of Lebanon, and supported their attacks on Iran. He has helped Israel sow chaos across the region, and he committed the US to a new open-ended and illegal war in Yemen. The president’s extreme ideological attachment to Israel led him to pursue an indefensible policy of unconditional support that has fueled the slaughter of civilians and created one of the worst man-made famines in modern times.

The president’s aversion to serious diplomatic engagement meant that the US continued the disastrous economic wars against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea that Trump had been waging. Biden’s refusal to reenter the nuclear deal with Iran ensured that there would be no progress in negotiations with Tehran. The administration’s efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza have been a face-saving exercise so that the US could claim to be doing something to end the war while it continued arming Netanyahu’s government to the teeth. The US hasn’t so much as pretended to be interested in a ceasefire in Ukraine. On almost every front, the Biden administration’s answer has been more militarism.

The Biden administration has brought the US close to direct conflict with Iran thanks to Washington’s backing for Israel. It is still possible that the US and Iran might be at war in the next few months. It would be bad enough to get into an unnecessary war to support a non-ally, but to do it when the client is also massacring and starving civilians is inexcusable. US backing for the wars in Gaza and Lebanon is a strategic and moral debacle, and Biden shouldn’t be let off the hook for putting the US in this position. Even if the US and Iran avoid war again, it is a measure of how dangerous administration policy has been that it was ever this close to happening.

There is never any real accountability in Washington for the outrages and crimes committed by our leaders. It is doubtful that officials in the Biden administration will face legal or personal consequences for their role in these horrors. Regardless, Americans should remember that Biden and his administration were willing accomplices to mass starvation and genocide. Their complicity should never be forgotten, and they deserve all the opprobrium that the world has to offer.

The result of Biden’s decisions is that our already heavily militarized foreign policy has become even worse than it was before. The administration’s limited diplomatic efforts have been consumed by the president’s obsession with giving Saudi Arabia a security guarantee. Biden has done extensive damage to the reputation and interests of the United States, and he will likely be remembered as one of the two worst foreign policy presidents of the last fifty years along with George W. Bush. Biden’s foreign policy legacy is mostly one of fanning the flames of war and the destruction of innocent lives.

Daniel Larison is a columnist for Responsible Statecraft. He is contributing editor at Antiwar.com and former senior editor at The American Conservative magazine. He has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Chicago. Follow him on Twitter @DanielLarison and at his blog, Eunomia, here.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Grazing sheep among solar panels could produce higher quality wool, study finds

Sophie Vorrath, Nov 1, 2024,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/grazing-sheep-among-solar-panels-could-produce-higher-quality-wool-study-finds/

The co-location of solar farming with sheep grazing does not have a negative affect on wool production and could even improve the quality of the wool produced, a new study has found.

The study is based on the results of a second round of wool testing at the Wellington solar farm, south east of Dubbo in New South Wales, which has shared its site with 1,700 merino sheep for the past three years.

Legend has it that the decision to graze sheep at the solar farm came about when an employee of Lightsource bp, the owner of the Wellington project, complained to a local, sixth-generation wool farmer about the hassle and cost of mowing the solar farm six times a year.

According to Tony Inder, who heads up the Allendale Merino Stud, the effect on his sheep has been a lot better than he thought it would be – he says the wool quality they are producing has “increased significantly.”

But Lightsource bp – which is now wholly owned by the oil and gas giant BP, after completing the acquisition of the remaining 50.03% interest – has used the opportunity to gather some formal data.

The study, conducted by EMM Consulting with support from Elders Rural Services, compares two groups of merino sheep – one group grazed in a regular paddock and the other at the Wellington solar farm.

The latest findings show grazing sheep among solar panels does no harm to wool production, even in the case of pre-existing high-quality standards. And it says that some parameters even indicate an improvement in wool quality, although conclusive benefits require further long-term measurement.

Lightsource bp says that while the study at the Wellington solar farm is ongoing, it is another indication that solar farms can exist side-by-side with sheep farming, for the benefit of both enterprises.

“These results are very encouraging and highlight the potential for solar farms to complement agricultural practices,” says Emilien Simonot, Lightsource bp’s head of agrivoltaics.

“By integrating sheep farming with solar energy production, we can achieve dual benefits of sustainable energy together with agricultural output.” . By co-locating grazing with renewable energy, land can remain in agricultural use, offering farmers additional revenue while contributing to cleaner energy for the planet.

“Finding ways for agriculture and clean energy to work together is crucial for a more sustainable future,” says Brendan Clarke, interim head o environmental planning Australia and NZ at Lightsource bp.

“The promising results from this study indicate that we are on the right path, and working closely with farmers to grow our knowledge in this area is paramount.”

As for the sheep, Inder says they “just do really well” when grazing among the Wellington solar farm panels.

“I like to say that panel sheep are happy sheep.”

Sophie Vorrath

Sophie is editor of One Step Off The Grid and deputy editor of its sister site, Renew Economy. She is the co-host of the Solar Insiders Podcast. Sophie has been writing about clean energy for more than a decade.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | New Zealand, renewable | Leave a comment

Why ‘British’ nuclear weapons are really very American

But the idea that this weapon system is “independent” involves just as much magical thinking and is more myth than fact. Unfortunately, such myths are not harmless but deadly dangerous for every one of us and for the future of our planet.

Lakenheath is RAF in name only as it is primarily populated by US personnel and equipment. US sources have revealed that permission has been given once again for Lakenheath to host US nuclear bombs without prior consultation with the population.

By Lynn Jamieson, Scottish CND, The National 3rd Nov 2024

THE approach of a US election is a good time to consider the reality of the so-called British nuclear weapon system – its integration with and dependence on the United States of America.

Since the first test and use of nuclear bombs in 1945, the heads of the UK Government have brushed aside efforts at international agreement to ban nuclear weapons.

After the Second World War, British prime ministers wanted Britain to have nuclear bombs to keep up with America. Now the British nuclear program can only exist because of “sharing” with America.

The UK Government ignores new efforts at banning nuclear weapons. This is despite knowing that any nuclear war will end comfortable liveable life across most of this planet and that the majority of non-nuclear countries in the world disagree with their viewpoint and support the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Deviating from this blinkered commitment to nuclear weapons would rupture the “special relationship” with the USA.

The so-called British nuclear weapon system includes four nuclear-powered submarines each ready to simultaneously launch at least 40 nuclear bombs in clusters, fanning out from eight independently targeted missiles. That is eight regions to be totally obliterated by five bombs each.

This is the system described by this government and governments before it as “Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent”. This name combines the idea that the UK Government alone controls the nuclear weapon system – hence “independent” – and that it will stop any aggressor ever attacking – hence “deterrent”. Both the independent and the deterrent ideas are deeply flawed.

Many things are written about the failures and problems of deterrence, including the possible catastrophic mistakes in games of bluff and counter-bluff, the tendency towards constant escalation in nuclear arms, the target it puts on our back, the absurd costs, and the very real risks created by nurturing mass death machines in your own back yard.

But the idea that this weapon system is “independent” involves just as much magical thinking and is more myth than fact. Unfortunately, such myths are not harmless but deadly dangerous for every one of us and for the future of our planet.

The United States is involved at every level of the so-called British nuclear weapon system, from design and procurement to operation and targeting.

The flow of knowledge, technology, materials and military personnel between the US and the UK is made possible by a number of treaties, most importantly the Mutual Defence Agreement treaty. It was first signed in 1958 and has been extended and expanded multiple times since.

Nuclear bombs assembled in Britain are based on a US design and have components shipped from the USA. The USA also builds, supplies, and maintains the missiles used to “deliver” the bombs to their targets……………………………………………..

Neither the US base nor the subsequent development of the Faslane Royal Navy into a nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered submarine base involved consultation or agreement with Scottish people, a situation that many have resisted ever since………………………………………………………………………………………………

Lakenheath is RAF in name only as it is primarily populated by US personnel and equipment. US sources have revealed that permission has been given once again for Lakenheath to host US nuclear bombs without prior consultation with the population…………………………………………………….. https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24696487.british-nuclear-weapons-really-american/

November 4, 2024 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »