nuclear-news

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

Israel is violating ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon, and Trump is allowing it

Mitchell Plitnick, Mondoweiss, Thu, 27 Nov 2025 

In recent days, Israel has dramatically escalated its violations of the ceasefire in both Gaza and Lebanon, which have been met with utter silence from the United States. Could this mean a return to the full-scale atrocities of the past two years?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “ceasefire” means: “a suspension of active hostilities.” The so-called “kids’ definition” is: “a temporary stopping of warfare.” That all seems clear enough.

But Israel’s definition differs significantly. They understand “ceasefire” to mean: “they cease, we fire.”

This is not news to Palestinians, Lebanese, or any of Israel’s neighbors. Much like how Israel and its supporters like to say that there was “peace” before October 7, 2023, questions of violence are always defined not by whether there is shooting or bombing but by whether Israelis are getting hit with those bullets and bombs.

When the United States imposed or brokered ceasefires between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah, it was well understood by all that Washington would have to keep Israel on a tight leash for the agreements to hold. It was not hard to anticipate that the attention to that task would not be sustainable under Donald Trump.

Recent events have proven that to be true. Israel has never held to either ceasefire, of course. But in recent days, it has dramatically escalated its violations in both Gaza and Lebanon, and these violations have been met with utter silence from the United States.

Are we about to see a return to the full-scale atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon that became so sickeningly familiar these past two years? And why did the U.S. go to the trouble of brokering these ceasefire agreements if they were just going to let Israel destroy them so flagrantly and easily?

Above all, what is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu trying to achieve, as he seems to be calling all the shots, directly or indirectly?

Israel’s aims

Israel’s goals are clear enough: endless war.

After the United Nations Security Council shamefully voted to endorse Donald Trump’s colonialist plan to impose conditions on the Palestinians as the price for stopping Israel’s full-scale genocide in Gaza, Netanyahu reactednot like a leader who had gotten what he wanted, but like a man who just saw a development he needed to prevent.

He said in a series of posts on X:

“Israel extends its hand in peace and prosperity to all of our neighbors” and calls on neighboring countries to “join us in expelling Hamas and its supporters from the region.”

Expulsion of Hamaswas not part ofTrump’s plan or the Security Council’s resolution. Netanyahu obviously added this to prick Hamas, add fuel to his efforts to undermine the Trump plan, and to toss a bone to his right flank.

Israel had never heeded the ceasefire to begin with. More than 340 overwhelmingly non-combatant Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire was put in place, and over 15,000 more structures in Gaza have been destroyed, just as flooding, overflowing sewage, rains, and the cold weather of approaching winter start to hit the already battered population.

In just the past few days, though, Israel has killed more than 60 Palestinians in Gaza, a sign of escalation. It is no coincidence that this uptick comes on the heels of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman’s (MBS) visit to Washington where he once again insisted, much to Trump’s annoyance, that if Donald Trump wanted to see a normalization deal between his kingdom and Israel, there would need to be a clear, committed path to a Palestinian state with a timeline. Whether MBS was sincere about that or not, Netanyahu has no intention of making even the slightest gesture in that direction, and the escalation in Gaza was, at least in part, his response to that part of the Trump-MBS confab.

Israel’s justifications for its attacks on Palestinians are threadbare and reflect how little Washington cares…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.sott.net/article/503226-Israel-is-violating-ceasefires-in-Gaza-and-Lebanon-and-Trump-is-allowing-it

December 1, 2025 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel’s threat of nukes shows us who is running U.S. foreign policy.

And so what Israel is successfully doing is drawing Trump into a war with Iran which will be on a scale which no military expect could even imagine was possible………………..Worse, will be any scenario where the Israelis or the U.S. can justify using nuclear weapons if the conventional attack doesn’t quite go to plan.

Martin Jay, November 27, 2025, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/11/27/israels-threat-of-nukes-shows-us-who-running-us-foreign-policy/

Isn’t it a failure of both U.S. foreign policy and of Israel that a war with Iran is seen as a solution to America’s failing hegemony?

It is a long-debated subject. Whether it is the U.S. which controls Israel or the other way around. In the 70s, under President Nixon, many analysts firmly believed, despite the JFK assassination, that it was still the U.S. who called the shots and used Israel as a useful tool in the Middle East to keep a rowdy group of Arab states in check and subservient to America’s interests. But it is in recent years where we have to see if Israel has done that effectively and meticulously in America’s interests, given that most analysts agree that Israel and the U.S. are both preparing for war with Iran.

Given that Israel’s main task was to keep the region in order to serve America’s hegemony and its energy needs, one has to ask isn’t it a failure of both U.S. foreign policy and of Israel that a war with Iran is seen as a solution to America’s failing hegemony? And doesn’t this tail wagging the dog scenario show itself in the clear light once and for all?

Recently two startling revelations about Israel’s attacks on Iran in June – otherwise known as the ‘twelve-day war’ have surfaced which should worry Americans as it shows just how far this abusive relationship has become, with Israel playing the role of the spoilt child waving daddy’s pistol as its master. Former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou and the formidable U.S. academic John Mearsheimer have both confirmed that it was Israel who basically threatened Trump that if he didn’t send ‘bunker buster’ bombs to Iran in a bid to destroy the country’s underground nuclear facilities that they, Israel, would bomb Iran with nuclear weapons. Trump rolled over of course and complied.

But this extraordinary act by Israel illustrates just how far this Nabokov-esque relationship between Lolita and her foster dad has got. To the point that world wars involving nukes is now on the table for any U.S. president who thinks he can play hardball with Israel. The twist to this story is that the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites was not at all a success as it has become evident that the Iranians knew it was coming and moved out a lot of the nukes days beforehand. And even the bombing itself didn’t have anywhere near the impact that was expected. It was symbolic more than anything in that it sent a message to the Iranians that such an act was possible under the Trump administration.

In many ways the attack was a gift to the Iranians as it focused their minds and made them aware where they needed to improve their defensive capabilities. It was a test run and they learnt from it.

But for the Americans it certainly couldn’t be called a success.

If it were a success, even the laziest two-bit hack in Washington could arrive at the obvious question, when hostilities kick off again, why are we at war with Iran if we’ve taken out their nuclear capability?

The U.S. has been busy in recent weeks sending naval ships and preparing for air-to-air refuelling of Israel’s jets – crucial in any conflict with Iran given the distance between the two countries – which merely confirms two poignant points. Firstly, that Iran’s response the first time round had significant impact on Israel’s military arsenal (many military sites in Israel were taken out completely, barely mentioned by U.S. media); and secondly that even the U.S. had had its own stocks depleted – which is why a pause quickly came about after the twelve-days was. U.S. and Israel needed to rearm but also prepare themselves for the second phase, while Iran itself has improved its own air defences and reached out to Russia and China for rearming.

And so what Israel is successfully doing is drawing Trump into a war with Iran which will be on a scale which no military expect could even imagine was possible, given that this time around Iran is so much better prepared and that the surprise of using Azerbaijani airspace cannot be repeated. The Israelis don’t have any hit-n-run surprise tactics to rely on, which might lead some analysts to believe that a bigger, broader attack is in the making with the U.S. as a key partner rather than chief supplier. Worse, will be any scenario where the Israelis or the U.S. can justify using nuclear weapons if the conventional attack doesn’t quite go to plan. And all this under the watch of Donald Trump whose entire support base was about stopping ‘forever wars’ in the Middle East. How will he explain to his broader support base that he has nothing to do with U.S. troops being sent to their deaths in Iran, that it is Israel who controls such decisions?

December 1, 2025 Posted by | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Star Wars redux: the false promise of space-based missile defense

by Najam Ul Hassan, November 24, 2025, https://spacenews.com/star-wars-redux-the-false-promise-of-space-based-missile-defense/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Opinions%3A%20Is%20space-based%20missile%20defense%20a%20non-starter%3F&utm_campaign=Opinions%20-%202025-11-29

Star Wars is back in vogue with President Trump’s executive order to establish the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. It will feature an ambitious space-based boost-phase interceptor program in addition to terrestrial systems. While admittedly the holy grail of defense against ballistic missiles, the obstacles that plagued its discontinued predecessor, “Brilliant Pebble,” under the Strategic Defense Initiative, remain unaddressed. The technological breakthroughs in launch capacity, decreasing costs of sending mass into space and faster data transfer have led to renewed hope for space-based missile defense, but the fundamental hurdle — physics, not technology — remains to be effectively overcome.

Recurrent interest in space-based missile interceptors (SBI) is driven by the motivation to neutralize the missile in the boost phase, contrary to the other air defense systems that intercept either in the mid-course or the terminal phase. This offers numerous advantages: it is substantially easier to detect and target as the booster has not detached yet, making the target bulkier; the plume from the burn makes it visible; its speed is slower compared to other phases; and the target has not hardened yet, making it more vulnerable. Once the missile enters the midcourse, it deploys decoys with a similar radar cross-section as the actual warhead, which float at similar trajectories, making it exponentially harder to achieve an effective kill. Additionally, the deployment of multiple warheads in case of a Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle or zig-zag moment of hypersonic glide vehicles adds another layer of complexity to successful interception.

However, this lucrative promise is heavily outweighed by the drawback of what could be termed the absenteeism problem in physics. These satellites, carrying kill vehicles, must be stationed in low Earth orbit (LEO) to reach the target in the boost phase, which only lasts from three to five minutes after launch. The fundamental problem is that objects in LEO cannot be parked above one point on Earth; they revolve around Earth, completing a cycle between 90 and 120 minutes. To cover the entire stretch of potential launching points and establish a genuinely global air defense, a constellation of 950 satellites has to be deployed, according to conservative estimates. The estimated cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, is $542 billion as opposed to the $175 billion claim by President Trump.

Not only is the scaling dynamic flawed, but the system is also easy to defeat. The constellation is easily overwhelmed by simultaneous launches. Even if each satellite were to carry more than one interceptor, the system still saturates quickly. Once that happens, instead of a linear increase in required satellites to intercept additional hostile launches, the requirement jumps exponentially, which is untenable. Besides, the enemy can simply punch holes in the chain by employing anti-satellite missiles, as the satellites can be tracked.

Furthermore, attempts to field even a limited number of SBIs for tests could pose a security dilemma for other states. These SBIs can be effective ASAT vehicles as they would require high thrust and maneuverability, allowing them to potentially reach and attack satellites in geosynchronous orbits. This can trigger an arms race of satellite-based weapons as well as counter-space capabilities, resulting in a net effect of added insecurity for all, including the U.S. itself, which depends heavily on its space capabilities. Challenging the effectiveness of an adversary’s deterrent would have profound strategic implications, at least insofar as it would either find qualitative ways to evade the newly developed defense architecture, or increase the number of their missiles to overwhelm the systems, or both. Ultimately, durable security cannot be achieved alone but in concert with others, including the adversary, and perhaps the only way to prevent attacks and ensure long-term stability remains deterrence by punishment.

The proposal for SBIs has also triggered sharp international reactions. China has already fielded its own “Golden Dome” prototype, which is essentially an early warning system with enormous big data computation ability, that uses the present capabilities in a more integrated and efficient manner, rather than seeking new platforms for interceptors. Criticizing the American approach, Beijing has asserted that SBIs would disturb “global strategic balance and stability” and turn “space into a war zone”, while Moscow has called it “very destabilizing.”

The desire to secure the homeland drives this saga, undergirded by the belief that technology could fundamentally alter defense logics. Yet despite significant progress in almost all the technological components needed to improve the cost-benefit equation, the physical — and perhaps insurmountable — barriers remain as formidable as they were three decades ago. The return to space-based interceptors thus reflects a recurring faith in technological solutions to strategic problems that are, at their core, governed by physics and deterrence. Rather than investing in an orbit-based missile shield that risks instability and imposes exorbitant costs, pursuing balanced security arrangements may offer a sustainable path toward long-term stability.

Najam Ul Hassan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies, Lahore.

December 1, 2025 Posted by | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Deeply disappointing’: Experts slam Cop30 for ignoring climate’s impact on food supply

 Food and nature experts have expressed dismay at the outcome of Brazil’s
recently-concluded Cop30 climate conference, after the final text failed to
make any mention of the impact of climate change on food systems. A plan to
address food systems emissions is critical to decarbonisation, with the
sector responsible for around one-third of overall emissions, which
originates from areas including livestock, waste disposal, food processing,
as well as rice paddy fields, which produce large quantities of methane.

 Independent 28th Nov 2025,
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/cop30-brazil-food-amazon-climate-b2871542.html

December 1, 2025 Posted by | Brazil, climate change | Leave a comment

Scottish National Party accuses UK Government of ‘swindle’ over energy bills.

The UK Government has been accused of a ‘shameful swindle’ over the reduction of energy bills after a think tank estimated savings could be significantly lower than pledged.

The SNP has warned the Chancellor’s latest announcement to reduce household energy costs by £150 was “already falling apart”.

The Treasury earmarked the savings by scrapping the
energy company obligation scheme – a home insultation programme. It comes after the Resolution Foundation warned energy bills could continue to rise – and the reduction will be lower than anticipated.

Figures from the think tank suggests the average saving on energy bills could be £60 per household by 2029-30. Analysis by the think tank also estimates savings to be £127 in 2026-27, falling to £115 in 2027-28 before reducing again the following year. But prior to the general election in 2024, Labour committed to reducing energy costs by £300 by 2030. 

Herald 29th Nov 2025, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25658822.snp-accuses-uk-government-swindle-energy-bills/

December 1, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Visiting bombed nuclear sites is dangerous, Iran FM says.

Nov 27, 2025, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202511276616

ran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned on Wednesday that approaching nuclear sites hit in recent strikes is unsafe and said inspections there can only resume under new security arrangements.

“It is now dangerous to approach nuclear installations because of security issues,” Araghchi told France 24 in Paris. “There are unexploded munitions, and there are also concerns regarding radioactivity and chemical contamination.”

He said inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency continue at facilities that were not attacked, but access to damaged sites requires “a new framework and proper modalities.”

Araghchi called last week’s resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors “a political and unilateral decision,” saying it ignored the reality that Iranian nuclear sites had been bombed. “If you do not include the realities on the ground, then you are committing an error,” he said.

The minister said the Cairo agreement reached earlier this year with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi had acknowledged that conditions had changed after the attacks and that a new inspection protocol would be needed.

Further attacks possible

Asked whether more strikes could occur, Araghchi said Israel’s recent record suggested the risk remains. “The Israeli regime over the last two years has attacked seven different countries,” he said. “So it’s clear that another attack is possible.”

His comments came a day after IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said in Manila that the agency wants to “fully reengage with Iran” to restore inspection access and verify enrichment activities. The IAEA’s 35-member Board of Governors last week passed a resolution calling on Tehran to inform it “without delay” about the status of its enriched uranium stock and sites hit in June’s strikes.

Iran condemned the vote as “illegal and unjustified,” saying it undermined the Cairo inspection accord that Grossi reached with Tehran in September through Egyptian mediation. Araghchi accused Western powers of “killing” that agreement, saying it had provided a framework for cooperation before Israel and the United States bombed enrichment facilities during the 12-day conflict in June.

No enrichment after attacks

Earlier this month, Araghchi said Iran was no longer enriching uranium at any site in the country, citing the destruction caused by the attacks. “There is no enrichment right now because our facilities — our enrichment facilities — have been attacked,” he said in response to a question from an Associated Press journalist at a conference in Tehran. “There is no undeclared nuclear enrichment in Iran. All of our facilities are under the safeguards and monitoring” of the IAEA.

Iran had previously enriched uranium up to 60% purity — just short of weapons-grade levels — after the United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018. Tehran says its atomic program is entirely peaceful.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | Iran, safety | Leave a comment

China releases arms control white paper in new era; ‘document injects positive energy, safeguards developing nations’ rights

Global Times By Liu Xuanzun and Guo Yuandan, : Nov 27, 2025

China’s State Council Information Office on Thursday released a white paper titled “China’s Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation in the New Era.” An expert told the Global Times that at a time when the existing international arms control mechanisms are facing challenges, the white paper issued by China injects positive energy into the global arms control and nonproliferation process and fully safeguards the rights of developing countries.

Apart from the preface, conclusion, and annexes, the white paper has five sections: “Grim Realities: International Security and Arms Control,” “Position and Policies: China’s Arms Control in the New Era,” “Playing a Constructive Role in International Arms Control,” “Leading International Security Governance in Emerging Fields,” and “Strengthening International Cooperation on Nonproliferation and Peaceful Uses of Science and Technology.”

The white paper reiterated that China upholds a firm commitment to a policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons and a nuclear strategy of self-defense. It said that China was compelled to make the strategic choice to develop nuclear weapons at a particular point in history to deal with nuclear threats and blackmail, break the existing nuclear monopoly, and prevent nuclear wars. China’s nuclear weapons are not intended to threaten other countries, but for defense and self-protection. China has never used nuclear weapons to threaten other countries nor deployed nuclear weapons outside its own territories, and has never provided a nuclear umbrella for other countries. 

CHINA / MILITARY

China releases arms control white paper in new era; ‘document injects positive energy, safeguards developing nations’ rights’

By 

Liu Xuanzun and Guo YuandanPublished: Nov 27, 2025 10:25 PMlatest news

latest news
China’s State Council Information Office on Thursday released a white paper titled “China’s Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation in the New Era.” An expert told the Global Times that at a time when the existing international arms control mechanisms are facing challenges, the white paper issued by China injects positive energy into the global arms control and nonproliferation process and fully safeguards the rights of developing countries.

Apart from the preface, conclusion, and annexes, the white paper has five sections: “Grim Realities: International Security and Arms Control,” “Position and Policies: China’s Arms Control in the New Era,” “Playing a Constructive Role in International Arms Control,” “Leading International Security Governance in Emerging Fields,” and “Strengthening International Cooperation on Nonproliferation and Peaceful Uses of Science and Technology.”

The white paper reiterated that China upholds a firm commitment to a policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons and a nuclear strategy of self-defense. It said that China was compelled to make the strategic choice to develop nuclear weapons at a particular point in history to deal with nuclear threats and blackmail, break the existing nuclear monopoly, and prevent nuclear wars. China’s nuclear weapons are not intended to threaten other countries, but for defense and self-protection. China has never used nuclear weapons to threaten other countries nor deployed nuclear weapons outside its own territories, and has never provided a nuclear umbrella for other countries. 

Whether confronted with nuclear threats or blackmail during the Cold War, or in a complex international security environment with growing strategic security threats at present, China has always committed to its policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, firmly upheld a nuclear strategy of self-defense, and promoted the modernization of its nuclear forces to safeguard China’s own strategic security and overall global strategic stability, according to the white paper………………………………………

…………….China previously issued white papers on arms control in 1995 and 2005. Pointing out new highlights in the new version, Guo told the Global Times that this white paper, for the first time, puts forward China’s vision for arms control – justice, cooperation, balance and effectiveness – emphasizing the balance of rights and obligations. It explicitly opposes abusing the concept of national security and export control measures, and exerting restrictions on developing countries’ rights to peaceful use of technology, Guo said. 

Second, it is the first time to specifically address international security governance in emerging fields, detailing governance in the areas of outer space, cyberspace, and artificial intelligence, Guo said, noting that China advocates for strengthening the construction of a global governance system that takes into account the positions and interests of developing countries.

Third, the white paper summarizes China’s arms control policies and practices since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, highlighting many new practices and approaches. For example, in the field of nuclear arms control, in 2024, China submitted a working paper to the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the Eleventh Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), calling on the five nuclear-weapon states to conclude a treaty on mutual no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and also maintaining that nuclear-weapon states should undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states, Guo said. ………………..

…………………..The white paper said that China upholds a firm commitment to a policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons and a nuclear strategy of self-defense, stressing that China’s greatest contribution to international nuclear arms control lies in the fact that it has the most stable, consistent and predictable nuclear policy among all nuclear-weapon states. “China’s nuclear weapons policy has remained remarkably consistent since 1964, consistently keeping its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security,” the expert noted………………………………………

…………………… n the chapter “Playing a Constructive Role in International Arms Control,” the white paper urged Japan to thoroughly destroy the chemical weapons it abandoned in China. During World War II, in flagrant violation of international law, invading Japanese troops used chemical weapons on a large scale in China. A total of 1,791 instances of chemical weapon use have been documented with confirmed dates, locations, and casualty records. The resulting casualties exceeded 200,000. After its defeat, Japan abandoned a large quantity of chemical weapons in China to cover up its crimes. Since the end of World War II, these abandoned chemical weapons have resulted in more than 2,000 poisoning casualties, gravely endangered the lives and property of the Chinese people as well as the environment.

“The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) clearly stipulates that a state party which has abandoned chemical weapons on the territory of another state party shall provide all necessary financial, technical, expert, facility as well as other resources for the purpose of destroying these weapons. After the CWC entered into force, the governments of China and Japan signed two memorandums, in 1999 and 2012, on destroying the chemical weapons abandoned by Japan, to advance the destruction process. However, due to insufficient attention and input from the Japanese side, the destruction plan has missed four deadlines. To date, the Japanese side has not yet provided comprehensive, detailed and accurate information on the whereabouts of its abandoned chemical weapons.

…………………………..Introducing the white paper, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said at a regular press conference on Thursday that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN. ……………………………………………………………………… https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202511/1349241.shtml

November 30, 2025 Posted by | China, politics | Leave a comment

Due to legal considerations UK government is now pausing its planned nuclear regulatory reforms.

 Labour is reportedly pausing nuclear-sector reforms despite a sweeping
report urging planning and regulatory changes to cut costs and accelerate
new projects. Legal concerns raised by a government adviser have prompted Reeves to withhold the recommendations from the upcoming Budget, delaying growth-focused measures. ……………………

 The Labour government is set to hold fire on pushing through sweeping reforms to nuclear energy due to a legal adviser’s concerns over the “UK’s
environmental, trade and human rights obligations”……….

ITV News has now reported that the Chancellor will
not include the growth-focused recommendations in her Budget speech on
Wednesday. The broadcaster reported that the Chancellor will make reforms “subject to further work and review” after a government adviser voiced concerns about the legal crossovers in the paper with UK obligations………

 Oil Price 26th Nov 2025, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Britains-Nuclear-Reform-Set-to-Stall-Over-Legal-Concerns.html

November 30, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s new nuclear body urges scrapping nature protections for new projects

24th November 2025, https://www.cpre.org.uk/news/nuclear-body-urges-scrapping-nature-protections-for-new-projects/

In the spring of 2025, the government set up a Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce to make it easier to build new nuclear projects. Their final report has just been published and its recommendations threaten some of the hard-won measures we have to protect our countryside and nature.

The taskforce was made up of figures working for the nuclear industry. They’re proposing two measures in particular that we’re worried about.

First, it proposes that new nuclear as a whole would get an opt-out of both the Habitats Directive and the mitigation hierarchy. This is a mechanism whereby developers first need to seek to avoid harm and then try to minimise the harm. Only when they cannot do this, they should compensate for the harm by improving the natural environment elsewhere.

The report calls for nuclear developments to pay into the new Nature Restoration Fund being set up by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and ‘move directly to off-site nature conservation’ as the default. This sweeps away the first part of the hierarchy, which asks developers to avoid or minimise local harms on landscapes and nature in favour of offsetting the harm somewhere else. This is counter to CPRE’s view which is that protecting and regenerating landscapes at the source must come first.

Secondly, it calls for the scrapping of the duty on public bodies to further the statutory purposes of National Parks and National Landscapes, which came in in 2023. The report says the duty ‘has caused confusion, and will likely delay, and add cost, to nuclear development.’

Two CPRE groups – Kent and Friends of the Lake District – have already challenged decisions using the new protected landscapes duty, but in both cases planning permission was still granted.

Scrapping this duty would undermine the progress made in safeguarding our protected landscapes like the South Downs or the Shropshire Hills and return us to the weak duty that existed previously.

The Chancellor has said she welcomes the report and will set out the government’s response on Wednesday, and we’ll be strongly urging ministers not to dilute nature and landscape protections.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Ministry Of Defence looking at ‘various sites’ for sub dismantling project

COMMENT. Put more simply. the UK government doesn’t really know what to do with the toxic wastes from nuclear submarines.

Governments are obsessed with “defence” against each other. Meanwhile the public thinks ‘jobs, jobs, jobs” even if those jobs are toxic, and part of a useless industry.

By George Allison, November 28, 2025, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-looking-at-various-sites-for-sub-dismantling-project/


A written answer in Parliament has confirmed that the Ministry of Defence is actively considering multiple locations for the UK’s permanent submarine dismantling and disposal capability.

Responding to Graeme Downie MP, defence minister Luke Pollard said the demonstrator vessel Swiftsure continues to be dismantled at Rosyth and remains on track to complete in 2026. He noted that “there are six further legacy submarines in Rosyth awaiting to enter the dismantling process.”

Those boats, alongside the 15 stored at Devonport, form the initial batch being processed under the Submarine Dismantling Project.

Pollard confirmed that the enduring solution will be delivered through a separate effort, the Submarine Disposal Capability Project, which is still in its concept phase. He stated that the department is “assessing options for the capability and its location with various sites under consideration within the UK,” adding that Parliament will be informed once a decision is ready.

This aligns with the practical pressures on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. Rosyth can process only a small number of hulls at a time, while Devonport’s workload is dominated by defuelling, refit work and major safety driven upgrades. Both sites have finite regulatory and environmental headroom.

The broader SDP context helps explain the direction of travel as since 2013 the programme has been tasked with dealing with 27 retired submarines, removing radioactive and conventional waste safely and refining methods as it progresses. Swiftsure’s dismantling has already informed improved procedures, and the MoD reports that later boats will see faster and cheaper waste removal.

The Swiftsure project has proven the process, but the long term question remains open: where should the UK base a facility that will handle future decommissioned submarines on a rolling, multi decade basis. Pollard’s answer confirms that this decision is now in play.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

From WMDs to “Narco-States”: How the US Sells Wars the Intelligence Doesn’t Support

Mintpress News, September 18th, 2025, Alan Macleod

The United States is building up its military assets, sparking fears of another regime change attempt against Venezuela—and this one could be far more deadly than the others. Citing an influx of Venezuelan drugs into the U.S., the Trump administration is rapidly building up its military forces, encircling the South American nation, one which has been in Washington’s crosshairs for over a quarter of a century.

Military Buildup

The Trump administration is once again setting its sights on Venezuela. In recent weeks, President Trump deployed additional naval and air assets to the Caribbean, including seven warships, a submarine, and an amphibious assault ship, designed for maritime invasions. A squadron of advanced F-35 fighter jets has also been relocated to Puerto Rico, bringing them within striking distance of Caracas. In total, around 4,500 personnel (including 2,500 combat-ready Marines) have been repositioned to the area.

In what could be the opening salvo of a major war, the military has already begun to flex its muscles. Earlier this month, it destroyed a small Venezuelan vessel, carrying out multiple attacks on the boat to ensure there were no survivors. Trump celebrated the action in a post on Truth Social, claiming that the boat was carrying illicit drugs to the United States, and that its crew were member of the Tren de Aragua cartel (TDA), a group, he said, is “operating under the control of [Venezuelan president] Nicolás Maduro” himself; one that is “responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Claims vs Evidence

The Trump administration’s extraordinary claims about Maduro and Venezuela have convinced few experts. Professor Julia Buxton of Liverpool John Moores University, a specialist in both global drug policy and Venezuelan politics, told MintPress:

“The claim that Venezuela is a major drugs producer has been an ongoing theme of the U.S. campaign against Venezuela dating back to the early 2000s. This kind of anti-drug messaging is really common in U.S. foreign policy and strategy for at least 100 years. What we have got here is essentially just recycled Ronald Reagan [talking points] … It is unsubstantiated and absurd, and it is really not backed by any official data.”

The data does indeed jar wildly with the administration’s accusations. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s World Drug Report 2025 explains that cocaine—the drug most associated with South America—is primarily produced in Colombia, Peru, or Bolivia, and transported via ports in Ecuador to the United States. Venezuela is not mentioned at all in the 98-page document, which catalogs producers, consumers, suppliers, and supply lines of drugs.

The vast majority of lethal drugs produced in South America travel via the Pacific coastline from Ecuador. In terms of supply routes, a small amount of Colombian cocaine is trafficked through the country’s long and porous rainforest border with Venezuela, and then transported via the Caribbean. But this is minuscule in comparison to that transported via Pacific ships, over the land route through Central America and Mexico, or simply flown directly to the U.S. from the cocaine producing states………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-venezuela-drug-war-claims/290475/

November 30, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump’s Ukraine peace plan D.O.A with neocon Rubio as Secretary of State, National Security Advisor.

top diplomat Rubio doesn’t do peaceful diplomacy, only violent regime change.

Trump wants out of the US proxy war with Russia…but not because he’s man of peace.

Walt Zlotow  West Suburban Peace Coalition  Glen Ellyn IL , 28 Nov 25

Enabling the Israeli genocide in Gaza that has killed over 100,000 Palestinians made no dent on Trump’s degraded conscience. In fact, he’s ecstatic that he can both control and rebuild Gaza as head of the colonial ruling ‘Board of Peace’ which will essentially cement Gaza into Greater Israel.

Trump’s sadism extends to his ghoulish glorying in blasting 20 small unarmed boats to smithereens off Venezuela as prelude to his imminent and violent regime change operation.

But Trump wants out of America’s lost proxy war with Russia destroying Ukraine. He cares not a whit about the death and destruction his predecessor Biden brought Ukraine by promising NATO membership and fueling their war on Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas. He simply knows it’s a lost cause that gobbles up valuable war resources needed for Gaza, Venezuela and eventual confrontation with China.

Why then was he so stupid to appoint virulent neocon Marco Rubio as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor? Rubio is not in sync with Trump’s peace plan. He flew to Geneva to reassure European leaders committed to an impossible Ukrainian victory that ‘all is not lost.’ Rubio’s remarks halted momentum derived from Trump’ 28 point peace plan that Russia President Putin agrees provides a sensible framework for a negotiated peace. Europe is risking self-destruction to prevail over Russia and Rubio is all too willing to assist them.

Trump should fire Rubio from both jobs to regain lost momentum to extricate America from its lost war to weaken, isolate Russia from Europe. With Rubio at State and National Security, Ukraine will simply lose more territory and more cannon fodder every day he continues to gum up the peace process.

One might surmise Rubio would push for peace in Ukraine so he could spend more of his supposed diplomatic portfolio effecting regime change in Venezuela followed by Honduras, Nicaragua, Columbia and his ultimate prize Cuba.

But top diplomat Rubio doesn’t do peaceful diplomacy, only violent regime change. Since Russian regime was part of our 11 year long proxy war against Russia beginning when we KO’d Russian leaning Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych in 2014, Rubio remains all in.

If Trump was serious about withdrawing from Ukraine and indeed all of Europe bankrupting their economies to confront an imaginary Russian bogyman, he’d have put peacemakers at State instead of warmakers. Forget ending the Ukraine war on Day 1. Unless he dumps Rubio and his fellow neocons, Trump will get to Day 1,461, his last, still enmeshed in the Ukraine roach motel.

November 29, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Trump Gaza Plan Condemned as ‘Concentration Camps Within a Mass Concentration Camp’

After previous plans by Israel for the mass expulsion of Palestinians, onlookers fear the proposal to house some displaced Palestinians in “compounds” they may not be allowed to leave.

Stephen Prager, Comon Dreams, Nov 26, 2025

A new Trump administration plan to put Palestinians living in the Israeli-occupied parts of Gaza into “residential compounds” is raising eyebrows among international observers, who fear it could more closely resemble a system of “concentration camps within a mass concentration camp.”

Under the current “ceasefire” agreement—which remains technically intact despite hundreds of alleged violations by Israel that have resulted in the deaths of over 300 Palestinians—Israel still occupies the eastern portion of Gaza, an area greater than 50% of the entire strip. The vast majority of the territory’s nearly 2 million inhabitants are crammed onto the other side of the yellow line into an area of roughly 60 square miles—around the size of St Louis, Missouri, or Akron, Ohio.

As Ramiz Alakbarov, the United Nations’ deputy special coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, explained Monday at a briefing to the UN Security Council: “Two years of fighting has left almost 80% of Gaza’s 250,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. Over 1.7 million people remain displaced, many in overcrowded shelters without adequate access to water, food, or medical care.”

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the new US proposal would seek to resettle some of those Palestinians in what the Trump administration calls “Alternative Safe Communities,”on the Israeli-controlled side of the yellow line.

Based on information from US officials and European diplomats, the Timessaid these “model compounds” are envisioned as a housing option “more permanent than tent villages, but still made up of structures meant to be temporary. Each could provide housing for as many as 20,000 or 25,000 people alongside medical clinics and schools.”

The project is being led by Trump official Aryeh Lightstone, who previously served as an aide to Trump’s first envoy to Jerusalem. According to the Times: “His team includes an eclectic, fluctuating group of American diplomats, Israeli magnates and officials from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—the sweeping Washington cost-cutting effort overseen earlier this year by Elon Musk.”

The source of funding for the project remains unclear, though the cost of just one compound is estimated to run into the tens of millions. Meanwhile, the newspaper noted that even if ten of these compounds were constructed, it would be just a fraction of what is needed to provide safety and shelter to all of Gaza’s displaced people. It’s unlikely that the first structures would be complete for months.

While the Times said that “the plan could offer relief for thousands of Palestinians who have endured two years of war,” it also pointed to criticisms that it “could entrench a de facto partition of Gaza into Israeli- and Hamas-controlled zones.” Others raised concerns about whether the people of Gaza will even want to move from their homes after years or decades of resisting Israel’s occupation.

But digging deeper into the report, critics have noted troubling language. For one thing, Israeli officials have the final say over which Palestinians are allowed to enter the “compounds” and will heavily scrutinize the backgrounds of applicants, likely leading many to be blacklisted.

In one section, titled “Freedom of Movement,” the Times report noted that “some Israeli officials have argued that, for security reasons, Palestinians should only be able to move into the new compounds, not to leave them, according to officials.”

This language harkens back to a proposal earlier this year by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who called for the creation of a massive “humanitarian city” built on the ruins of Rafah that would be used as part of an “emigration plan” for hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians in Gaza.

Under that plan, Palestinians would have been given “security screenings” and once inside would not be allowed to leave. Humanitarian organizations, including those inside Israel, roundly condemned the plan as essentially a “concentration camp.”

Prior to that, Trump called for the people of Gaza—“all of them”—to be permanently expelled and for the US to “take over” the strip, demolish the remaining buildings, and construct what he described as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” That plan was widely described as one of ethnic cleansing.

The new plan to move Palestinians to “compounds” is raising similar concerns.

“What is it called when a military force concentrates an ethnic or religious group into compounds without the ability to leave?” asked Assal Rad, a PhD in Middle Eastern history and a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, DC.

Sana Saeed, a senior producer for AJ+, put it more plainly: “concentration camps within a mass concentration camp.”……………………………………………

……………………………………….. there is a conspicuous lack of any clear plan for what happens to those Palestinians who continue to live outside the safe communities, warning that Israel’s security clearances could serve as a way of marking them as fair targets for even more escalated military attacks.

“Those who remain outside of the alternative communities, in the ‘red zone,’” he said, “risk being labelled ‘Hamas supporters’ and therefore ineligible for protection under Israel’s warped interpretation of international law and subject to ongoing military operations, as already seen in past days.” https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-gaza-compounds

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Fighting for Peace and Fighting for War in Ukraine

More importantly, Kiev also rejected Russia’s key demand, thus maintaining the root, main cause of the war: NATO’s and Kiev’s attempts to have Ukraine become a NATO member

Russian and Eurasian Politics, by Gordonhahn, November 26, 2025, https://gordonhahn.com/2025/11/26/fighting-for-peace-and-fighting-for-war-in-ukraine/

We are witnessing another failed effort by U.S. President Donald Trump to make peace in Ukraine. Europe, perhaps along with the Deep State, has helped Kiev reject yet another Trump diplomatic effort. This leaves in place the threat of a Europe-wide war with Russia. Europe very possibly will spark a larger war with Russia.

The effort for peace spawned by the 28-point plan drafted by Steve Witkoff in consultation with Moscow has failed because Kiev again has refused to accept Russia’s key demands: Ukrainian neutrality, territorial concessions, and demilitarization. Denazification appears to a less key demand for Moscow or at least Kiev is willing to make concessions on this point.

Rather than accepting its imminent defeat the Ukrainians joined with their European allies in once again drafting an alternative, completely countervaling and counter-productive peace proposal, which Moscow immediately rejected, having already accepted the Trump document, as „a basis for a future agreement,“ as Russian President Vladimir Putin put it.

This could have led to the beginning of a three-way give and take, but Kiev rejected abandoning the 20 percent of Donetsk Oblast territory its forces still hold and demands an 800,000-man army. More importantly, it also rejected Russia’s key demand, thus maintaining the root, main cause of the war: NATO’s and Kiev’s attempts to have Ukraine become a NATO member, despite the objective threat this poses to Russian national security and Moscow’s opposition to NATO expansion spanning three decades.

Europe immediately declared its opposition to the plan and raced to draft the alternative, Kievan plan to undercut the Trump plan, repeating an exercise they undertook in summer when another Trump diplomatic effort seemed might make some headway. Furthermore, it appears that the Deep State and/or MI6 have helped to spearhead the Eurpean effort to derail the Trump peace train.

The bugging and leak to Bloomberg of a less than compromising conversation between Steven Witkoff and Russian President’s chief foreign policy advisor Yurii Ushakov has been used as was intended: to discredit the peace plan, which neocon propagandists like Michael Weiss have claimed was a purely Russian creation that Trump and other ‚Putin agents‘ dutifully pushed on tot he agenda, doing the Kremlin’s bidding.

Trump’s only hope of acheiving an agreement is to force one by pulling out all the stops in order to pressure Kiev to accede to Moscow’s demands, which are backed up strongly by Russia’s mounting advance across eastern Ukraine towards the Dnieper River.

Only depriving Kiev of all US assistance has a chance of forcing Ukrainian leader Volodomyr Zelenskiy to agree to a neutrality, a small army, and territorial losses. But Trump does not want to be blamed for helping Russia to achieve its war goals and to be able to claim a military victory over both Ukraine and NATO. Trump cannot abode a semi-credible propaganda campaign tot he effect that it was he is a loser, that he lost the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War, imagined by most in the West as ‚Putin’s full-scale, unprovoked war against Ukraine.‘ This is the stalement – one between Trump’s political needs and personal weaknesses, European and Kievan elites political-survival needs requiring Russia’s defeat, and Russia’s realistic perceptions of its national security’s min imal requirements – there is no stalement on the battlefield.

Only two outcomes are possible immediately – that is, during Trump’s presidency: (1) Russia takes all of Ukraine east of the Dniester or (2) a European-wide war begins when some Europeans deploy forces to western Ukraine and they are attacked by Russia and/or when Ukraine or its Western partners orchestrate some false flag operation to justify an escalation. These two outcomes both can occur sequentially.

The first outcome is already underway prompting panic and desparate steps in global neocon circles from Washington to Stanford to London and Paris. Russian forces are taking Kupyansk in the north on their way to Kharkov. After Kharkov, the road is open to western Kiev. Russian troops are finishing the capture of the important conglomeration and hub of Pokrovsk and Myrnograd, which opens the way to the last significant Ukrainian strong point of Pavlograd, located a mere 15 miles from the major industrial city of Dnipro on the Dnieper.

Further to the south, Russian forces have already entered Guliapole after having finished up sweeping through several small towns in the wake of capturing Vugledar 13 months ago. The southern city of Zaporozhia on the Dnieper also is now in site. Gulaipole is halfway from Vugledar to Zaporozhia, with Russian forces moving twice as fast as they were moving immediately after taking Vugledar. In addition to these forces marching west, other Russian forces are fighting towards the city from the south. That is the Russia will be at the Dnieper in force along a broad front in a matter of months, with Dnipro and Zaporozhia likely to fall in 1-3 months. There is no stopping the Russian army now. Its manpower, weapons superiority, and morale are increasing, while those of Kiev are in persistent decline.

The second outcome, which becomes more possible, as European and Kievan elites scramble to avoid political, professional and even personal disaster for themselves, is a European provocation of a larger European war. The French are making more and more insistent noises about sending troops to Odessa and elsewhere in Ukraine. And the voices calling for the deployment of European troops to Ukraine are becoming increasingly shrill.

Most recently, Gen. Fabien Mandon, French army’s new chief-of-staff, told a congress of mayors that France’s must muster will to fight:

“We have the know-how, and we have the economic and demographic strength to dissuade the regime in Moscow.”

“What we are lacking – and this is where you [the mayors] have a role to play – is the spirit. The spirit which accepts that we will have to suffer if we are to protect what we are.

“If our country wavers because it is not ready to lose its children … or to suffer economically because the priority has to be military production, then we are indeed at risk.

“You must speak of this in your towns and villages” (www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/world/europe/france-voluntary-military-service.html). 

Simultaneously, former NATO Secreytary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared: „Europe must stop waiting for signals from Washington and take the initiative in Ukraine. Paper guarantees mean nothing to Putin. Only concrete commitments matter. That’s why I now call for Europe to deploy up to 20,000 troops behind Ukraine’s front lines, establish an air shield with around 150 combat aircraft, and unlock frozen Russian assets. Europe earns its seat at the table by bringing real capability, not by asking for permission“ (https://x.com/AndersFoghR/status/1993221555166310410?s=20).

Europe’s ruling neocon-neoliberal elite are ‚simulacrats‘; they believe they can create reality on the basis of an the old world long dead and a new world it imagines, attempts to construct, make real by way of propaganda and the fear and hate it can induce. The old war of different glorious national pasts is mixed with the fictional new world of a Europe with perfect, pure democracies, histories, cultures, motives, and policies facing a putrid, barbarian Russia driven by an inexhaustible thirst for domination, power, and violence. Reality can be instantly reconfigured. First, Russia is a weak authoritarian regime with clay feet of oil and terror and an army that captures an uninhabited Ukrainian village or two per month. Then it is capable of conquering Europe, being at your front door virtually any day now.

The choice between war and peace should be an easy one. To be sure, Mr. Putin seems to have chosen war back in February 2022. However, there was good cause, and he softened the blow by conducting not the full-fledged massive invasion of Western mythology but a limited invasion force of some 100,000 troops and using little of Russia’s monumental air power. Moreover, he immediately contacted Kiev for peace talks, seeking an end to NATO expansion in Ukraine and the massive military buildup there equipped and trained by NATO. Mr. Zelenskiy immediately agreed to talk, and the ensuing Istanbul process yielded a treaty initialed by both sides in late March.

But the West chose a more serious war. The Bucha false flag ‘Russian massacre‘ was organized and Washington sent its British minion, then PM Boris Johnson to inform Kiev that the West would not provide the security guarantees, upon which much of Kiev’s agreement to the treaty rested and promised military and other assistance ‘for as long as it takes.‘ Putin’s short war for Russian nationals security became Ukraine’s long war for NATO. Now it is one for the survival of the Maidan regime and perhaps of NATO and the EU.

Some in the West have changed the nature of its assistance, struggling to build an offramp from destruction for Kiev, but others appear ready to offer in full the Ukrainian sacrificial lamb on the altar of NATO expansion ‘for as long as it takes‘ for Trump to leave the Oval Office and a new proponent of war for dying, democratic Ukraine‘ takes his place.

November 29, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Soldiers Must Disobey Unlawful Orders Under Trump — It’s Their Legal Duty.

both the Nuremberg Principles and the Uniform Code of Military Justice established a duty to obey lawful orders but also a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

SCHEERPOST, November 26, 2025,  Marjorie Cohn , Truthout

The courageous action of six Democratic members of Congress has thrust into the national discourse the duty of military and CIA personnel to disobey Donald Trump’s illegal orders. As the Trump administration continues to unlawfully murder people in small vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, deploy the National Guard to U.S. cities, and ignore court orders, the six lawmakers were moved to act.

In a 90-second video organized by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Michigan), two senators and four Congress members, all U.S. military or CIA veterans, take turns reading a statement to active servicemembers, urging them to refuse to follow illegal orders.

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” the lawmakers said in the video. “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”The other lawmakers speaking in the video are Sen. Mark Kelly (Arizona) and Representatives Chris Deluzio (Pennsylvania), Maggie Goodlander (New Hampshire), Chrissy Houlahan (Pennsylvania), and Jason Crow (Colorado).

Trump Threatens Six Lawmakers With Sedition Charges and Hanging

Their words, which constituted a correct statement of the law, elicited unprecedented vitriol from Trump, who wrote on Truth Social: “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.”

In a second post, Trump wrote: “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.” And he added in a third post: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Trump also reposted a statement saying: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”

The six lawmakers responded to Trump’s diatribe in a statement: “What’s most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.”

Now the Department of War is investigating Kelly for “serious allegations of misconduct,” threatening to call him back to active duty and court-martial him. The Department’s “Official Statement” posted on X adds, “All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful.” But they fail to add that servicemembers also have a legal duty to disobey unlawful orders, which is what Kelly and his fellow lawmakers accurately stated in their video.

The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a servicemember can be punished by court-martial for refusing to obey any lawful order or regulation. Although the UCMJ doesn’t define “lawful,” the Manual for Courts-Martial states that an order is lawful “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”

The manual also says that although it may be inferred that an order to perform a military duty or act is lawful, “this inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” The Rules for Courts-Martial say that acting “pursuant to orders” is a legitimate defense “unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.”

Finally, the manual notes, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” Normally, that determination can be made only after a servicemember refuses or disobeys an order, in a court martial or war crimes tribunal. So the refuser takes the risk that a judge will find the order lawful and he or she will be punished for refusing to follow it.

Examples of unlawful orders within the United States include:

  • The use of military forces to deport, remove, or detain immigrants. Removal to countries where there is a substantial likelihood of torture violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the U.S. has ratified.
  • The use of military forces against civilian protesters. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of federal troops to enforce domestic law unless there is an “insurrection.”

Examples of unlawful orders outside the United States include:

  1. Military attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters.
  2. An invasion or attack on Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, etc.
  3. The use of “preemptive” military force against Iran, China, etc.
  4. The use of nuclear weapons against any country.
  5. The torture or cruel treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, or other detainees.
  6. The intentional targeting of civilians.
  7. Attacking Palestinians in Gaza under the guise of “peacekeeping.”

Resistance to Illegal U.S. Wars — From Vietnam to Iraq

In 1968, U.S. Army Lt. William Calley led 100 U.S. troops into the village of My Lai in Vietnam and killed 500 civilian women, children, and elderly men in what came to be known as the My Lai Massacre.

Calley was accused of the premeditated murder of civilians. Charges were filed against 25 people, including two generals. The charges against the generals, 10 other officers, and seven enlisted men were dismissed. Five others, including the company commander, Capt. Ernest Medina, were court-martialed and acquitted.

At his court-martial, Calley claimed that he was just following Medina’s orders to kill all the villagers because everyone in the village was “the enemy.”

Like the Nazi officials at Nuremberg, Calley’s defense that he was just following superior orders was rejected. In 1971, he was convicted of the premeditated murder of “not less than” 22 Vietnamese people and sentenced to life in prison. Ultimately, Calley only served over three years of house arrest and confinement to barracks.

But there is a noble tradition in the United States of servicemembers refusing orders to deploy to illegal wars and/or commit war crimes. Some refusers have been arrested and court-martialed. Many have argued in their defense that they had a legal duty to disobey illegal orders.

Howard Levy

……………………………..Levy disobeyed an order to train Special Forces aidmen to be paramedics. He felt they would use their medical training to gain the trust of the Vietnamese people who would then not oppose U.S. troops carrying out their illegal missions. Levy, who called this the “prostitution of medicine,” thought these Green Berets were committing war crimes…………………….

Ehren Watada

…………………………….“The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war. An order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself……………………………………………………………………

Pablo Paredes.

………………………refused orders to board an amphibious assault ship that would transport 3,000 Marines to Iraq because he thought he would be complicit as a war criminal…………………………………………………………………………………………………….  the Iraq War violated the UN Charter, and that Paredes had a reasonable belief that by transporting Marines to Iraq, he would place them in the position of committing war crimes………..U.S. forces were torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, which constituted war crimes…………both the Nuremberg Principles and the Uniform Code of Military Justice established a duty to obey lawful orders but also a duty to disobey unlawful orders……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………..After the six members of Congress released their bold video, Veterans For Peace said in a statement:

We call on all veterans to stand with these members of Congress and amplify their message so that Airmen, Marines, Seamen, and Army troops know that if they ever face the difficult challenge of refusing an illegal order, they are carrying out their oath to defend the Constitution by following the law.

There are groups, including the GI Rights Hotline, the Center on Conscience and War, and the Military Law Task Force, that work with servicemembers to help them recognize when they have received an unlawful order and figure out their next steps. https://scheerpost.com/2025/11/26/soldiers-must-disobey-unlawful-orders-under-trump-its-their-legal-duty/

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »