nuclear-news

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

Government could still replace Fujitsu in key nuclear contract

Fujitsu’s first government contract of the year could be just a stay of execution as department says that all replacement options are still being considered.

Karl Flinders, Chief reporter and senior editor EME, 12 Apr 24  https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366580657/Government-could-still-replace-Fujitsu-in-key-nuclear-contract

Fujitsu’s controversial contract with the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) was renewed because there were no other suppliers that could meet the regulatory duties required, but the service could be taken in-house next year.

Following the announcement of Fujitsu’s first government contract of the year and a subsequent public backlash, the government has been quick to stress that all options to replace the supplier’s £155,000 software support contract with the NNL, including moving the service in-house, are being considered.

Reacting to criticism for awarding the contract to Fujitsu, which is under intense scrutiny over its role in the Post Office scandal, the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero outlined the reason for Fujitsu’s new deal. “NNL requires bespoke software to ensure its work remains compliant with operationally critical regulations. There are currently no other suitable suppliers and without re-awarding this contract, the NNL would be unable to fulfil its regulatory duties,” said a spokesperson.

But the department added that, “The NNL will consider all options once the contract comes to an end in March 2025, including exploring in-house solutions.

Fujitsu’s huge UK government business is under pressure following public anger at the IT giant’s role as supplier of the Horizon system at the heart of the Post Office scandal. The company has already seen a reduction in public sector contracts this year.

By April 2023, Fujitsu had signed a £25m deal with Bristol City Council, a £16m contract with the Post Office, a deal worth £13m with Northern Ireland Water, an £8m deal with the Ministry of Defence, two deals with the Department for Education totalling £3m, and a contract with Leeds City Council worth up to £100,000. This year the NNL is its sole government contract announced so far.

In another sign of possible reputational damage, earlier this month the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ended Fujitsu’s role in providing a flood warning system for the UK, two months after signing an extension of up to 12 months. 

Read more about Fujitsu’s ‘hollow’ bidding pause

Fujitsu’s head of Europe, Paul Patterson, promised to pause bidding for government work until after the completion of the statutory public inquiry into the Post Office scandal, following the broadcast of the ITV drama, Mr Bates vs the Post Office, at the beginning of the year. 

During questioning by MPs at a business and trade select committee hearing in January, Patterson acknowledged Fujitsu’s part in the scandal, telling MPs and victims: “We were involved from the start; we did have bugs and errors in the system, and we did help the Post Office in their prosecutions of subpostmasters. For that, we are truly sorry.”

But the bidding pause, described as “hollow” by MP Kevan Jones, does not include deals with existing customers in the public sector, of which there are many. Last month, Computer Weekly revealed leaked internal communications that showed Fujitsu is still targeting about £1.3bn worth of UK government contracts over the next 12 months. Further leaked documents revealed that Fujitsu created a spreadsheet instructing staff how to get around its self-imposed ban.

Internal communications seen by Computer Weekly also revealed that Fujitsu is spending heavily on managing the current scandal fallout. It has sought external support in a project known as Holly, where it has engaged PR, ethical business experts and lawyers, at a cost of £27m so far.

The Post Office scandal was first exposed by Computer Weekly in 2009, revealing the stories of seven subpostmasters and the problems they suffered due to the accounting software (see timeline of Computer Weekly articles about the scandal below).

April 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Fresh blow for UK nuclear as the City snubs Sizewell C

By FRANCESCA WASHTELL , 14 April 20 24, https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13304269/Fresh-blow-UK-nuclear-City-snubs-Sizewell-C.html

Britain’s flagship nuclear plant could face greater dependence on foreign cash after a string of big-name City firms snubbed a chance to fund the project.

Phoenix, Abrdn and Aviva had said they would consider supporting new nuclear plants and were thought to be in the running to back Sizewell C in Suffolk.

But all have now said they are not in negotiations to take an equity stake in the power station, according to emails sent to campaign group Stop Sizewell C and seen by The Mail on Sunday.

This is a bitter blow for Ministers, who spent years changing the funding model for giant infrastructure works to entice City investors such as Phoenix and Aviva. The model, known as the regulated asset base, enables investors to receive dividends on projects still being built.

Sizewell C has been dogged by delays for years, and the Government has still to finally decide whether it will go ahead. 

A series of pension funds, including BT, NatWest, and Nest, have ruled out backing the plant, which will cost at least £20billion. 

Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said: ‘The Government has spent years planning and legislating to allow the funding model for Sizewell C, with the objective of attracting UK pension funds. The strategy has not succeeded, which is hardly a surprise considering the many uncertainties, including what the project will actually cost.’

In January, the Government committed a further £1.3billion of funding to Sizewell C, which will go on early building work.

Six groups are in talks with the Government over funding the project, with at least one understood to be from the Emirates.

British Gas owner Centrica is also thought to be in the frame.

Pressure is mounting after EDF this year began pressing the Government to help fund cost overruns on Hinkley Point C in Somerset. The French utility group said the price tag for that plant – which is the same type planned for Sizewell C – could hit £46billion from an initial estimate of £18billion. The Suffolk plant could power six million homes for 60 years, but would take nine to 12 years to build.

Ministers have also backed programmes to set up small nuclear reactors, especially a Rolls-Royce-led firm designing these easy-to-assemble plants.

Industry sources say these are likely to be more attractive to investors as they are quicker and cheaper to build.

April 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

US Declines Israel’s Invitation To Start WW3 (For Now)

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, APR 14, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/us-declines-israels-invitation-to?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=143571202&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Iran has carried out its long-promised retaliation for Israel’s attack on its consulate building in Damascus, launching a massive barrage of drones and missiles which it claims hit and destroyed Israeli military targets, while Israel says they dealt only superficial damage with a few injuries. The US and its allies reportedly helped shoot down a number of the Iranian projectiles. 

Just as we discussed in the lead-up to the strike, the western political-media class are acting as though this was a completely unprovoked attack launched against the innocent, Bambi-eyed victim Israel. Comments from western officials and pundits and headlines from the mass media are omitting the fact that Israel instigated these hostilities with its extreme act of aggression in Syria as much as possible. Here in Australia the Sydney Morning Herald write-up about the strike didn’t get around to informing its readers about the attack on the Iranian consulate until the tenth paragraph of the article, and said only that Iran had “accused” Israel of launching the attack because Israel has never officially confirmed it.

In any case, Iran says the attack is now over. Given that we’re not seeing any signs of massive damage, Iran’s reported claim that its retaliation would be calibrated to avoid escalation into a full-scale regional war seems to have been accurate, as does Washington’s reported claim that it didn’t expect the strike to be large enough to draw the US into war.

A new report from Axios says Biden has personally told Netanyahu that the US will not be supporting any Israeli military response to the Iranian strike. An anonymous senior White House official told Axios that Biden said to Netanyahu, “You got a win. Take the win,” in reference to the number of Iranian weapons that were taken out of the sky by the international coalition in Israel’s defense. Apparently helping to mitigate the damage from the Iranian attack is all the military commitment the White House is willing to make against Iran at this time.

And thank all that is holy for that. A war between the US alliance and Iran and its allies would be the stuff of nightmares, making the horrors we’ve been seeing in Gaza these last six months look like an episode of Peppa Pig.

But Washington merely declining to get involved is nowhere near enough. As the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi quipped on Twitter, “Biden needs to PREVENT further escalation, not just declare his desire to stay out of it.”

Indeed, Israel has already made it clear that it is going to be moving forward with an escalation against Iran. Israel’s Channel 12 cites an unnamed senior official saying the Iranian counter strike is going to receive an “unprecedented response”.

“Israel has already informed the Americans and governments in the region that its response is inevitable,” The Economist reports. “Its military options include launching drones at Iran, and long-range airstrikes on Iran, possibly on military bases or nuclear installations.”

It’s unclear at this time how much the latest message from the Biden administration will affect the calculations of this position, but the mass media are reporting that White House officials are worried Israel is getting ready to do something extremely reckless that could draw the US into a war it would rather avoid. 

NBC News reports the following:

“Some top U.S. officials are concerned Israel could do something quickly in response to Iran’s attacks without thinking through potential fallout afterward, according to a senior administration official and a senior defense official.

“Those concerns stem in part from the administration’s views of the approach Israel has taken to its war against Hamas, as well as the attack in Damascus.

“President Joe Biden has privately expressed concern that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to drag the U.S. more deeply into a broader conflict, according to three people familiar with his comments.”

People have been raising this concern for some time now. Earlier this month Responsible Statecraft’s Paul Pillar wrote up a solid argument that Netanyahu stands a lot to gain personally from drawing the US into a war with Iran to help him with his legal and political troubles and take the focus off of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

Whether that’s the case or not it’s pretty absurd for the Biden administration to just sit around passively hoping this doesn’t happen as though it wouldn’t have a say in the matter, and as though there’s nothing it can do to prevent such an occurrence right now. Biden has had the ability to end this insane cycle of escalation in the middle east since it started six months ago by demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and demanding that Israel rein in its murder machine, just as US presidents have done successfully in the past.

Biden could end all this with one phone call. The fact that he doesn’t means he’s a monster, and no amount of mass media reports about how “concerned” and “frustrated” he is regarding Israel’s actions will ever change that.

April 16, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant: The ‘Sum Of All Fears’

Eurasia Review,  , By IDN, By Leonam dos Santos Guimarães

Drone attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, whether carried out by Ukraine or Russia, introduce a new and dangerous dimension to the conflict between the two largest former Soviet Socialist Republics, with possible far-reaching ramifications, not just for the region immediately surrounding the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, but also for all European Union countries and, more broadly, for the international community.

The biggest concern is the potential risk of a severe nuclear accident, which could have dire effects not only on Ukraine and Russia, but also on neighboring countries. The release of radioactive material knows no borders, and a contaminated cloud could spread across multiple nations depending on weather conditions, putting public health and the environment at risk on a significant scale.

The consequences of attacks on nuclear facilities are potentially severe and vast. A nuclear accident can result in the contamination of large areas, affecting land, water and wildlife, with lasting consequences for the environment and human health. It could also force mass evacuations of affected areas, creating humanitarian and refugee crises. In addition to the direct costs of cleanup and containment, a nuclear disaster can have a substantial economic impact on agriculture, land use, and public health.

Containing a leak at a nuclear power plant is a highly complex and challenging operation, depending on several factors. These include the type of damage to the reactor or other critical parts of the facility, as well as the amount and type of radioactive material released.

A plant’s ability to contain a leak depends on its design, existing safety systems, and how well those systems can handle the specific type of accident. The effectiveness of the immediate response, including confining the area, evacuating personnel, and implementing decontamination measures, is crucial to minimizing the impacts of a spill. The availability of technical, human, and financial resources to manage the situation is essential. This also includes international support, as seen after the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima disaster.

Several factors

The scope of a nuclear accident in Europe will depend on several factors, including the direction and speed of the wind, which determine the dispersion of radioactive particles in the atmosphere, the amount of material released, which the greater the amount, the larger the area potentially affected, and the effectiveness of containment and decontamination measures, which can significantly limit the scope of contamination………………………………………………………….

The possibility that such attacks could trigger a third world war is a serious and plausible concern. An intricate web of military alliances, geopolitical interests and containment strategies influences the dynamics of the current conflict. Attacks against nuclear facilities are perceived as significant escalations of conflict. If considered acts of war, they may justify severe retaliation. The nature and extent of such retaliations would depend on many factors, including the international perception of the incident and the strategic decisions of major world powers.

The risk of a third world war

The involvement of NATO members providing support to Ukraine further complicates the situation. While NATO has been careful in its approach to avoid direct escalation with Russia, the line between support and direct involvement is fine and delicate. Preventing an escalation into a broader conflict will likely depend on intense diplomatic efforts and attempts at de-escalation by all parties involved………………………………………………..  https://www.eurasiareview.com/14042024-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-the-sum-of-all-fears-oped/

April 16, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Ukraine: Briefing on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

On Monday afternoon (15 April), the Security Council will convene for an
open briefing under the “Threats to international peace and security”
agenda item. Slovenia and the US—the co-penholders on political issues in
Ukraine—supported by France, requested the meeting, which will focus on
the safety and security of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) in
the city of Enerhodar.

It appears that Russia expressed approval for
holding the meeting, noting the alarming nature of the situation at the
nuclear power plant. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director
General Rafael Mariano Grossi is the anticipated briefer. Ukraine is
expected to participate under rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of
procedure.

Security Council Report 12th April 2024

Ukraine: Briefing on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

April 16, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Sizewell C Nuclear : too destructive, too costly, too late

The Article, by IAN LINDEN, 14 Apr 24

Joan Girling grew up near the Suffolk coast, with its little terns, barn owls, harebells, ladies bedstraw, sedums, blue butterflies and acid grassland. There was no nuclear power station.   “It was perfect, a nature lover’s paradise,” she told me.

In 1959, Joan’s father, faced with compulsory purchase, was forced to sell off a corner of their front garden, with its large pond full of water lilies and wildlife.  It was to make way for workers’ traffic to the site of Sizewell A, a nuclear power station. Sizewell A is today a great, ugly, Stalinist-looking excrescence looming above the seashore.  Her grandmother, who lived next door, watched as they filled in the pond.  “The worst part was to hear my Grandma crying.  I remember it as if it was yesterday.”

In the late 1980s it all happened again: Sizewell B.  This time Joan moved house with her family to escape construction traffic.  From 1993-2005 she served on Suffolk County Council.  Fifteen years ago, Joan Girling became a founding and deeply dedicated member of Community against Nuclear Expansion, later renamed Together Against Sizewell C (TASC).

The human and environmental costs ought not be underestimated. The disruption and destruction accompanying years of building accounts for the level and persistence of local protest.   Stop Sizewell C, originally a parish of Theberton and Eastbridge action group, alongside the local Friends of the Earth, joined TASC in a long-running legal campaign. Crowdfunding helped finance three rounds of court action seeking judicial review of the Sizewell C project.   The last one challenged the Business Secretary (then Kwasi Kwarteng) over his 2022 Development Consent Order giving the green light to start construction. Kwateng rejected the Planning Inspectorate’s conclusion (part of the process required by the 2008 Planning Act) that in the absence of an assessed, permanent, potable water supply for the project, “the case for the grant of development consent is not yet made”.  Sizewell C will be forced to use a desalination plant during construction.  The Court of Appeal found for the Government in December 2023.

The construction of Sizewell C means heavy truck traffic.  New roads, a large park and ride facility, as well as a railway branch line, will have a major impact over a large area. Much of it is designated by Natural England — sponsored, incidentally, by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) — as a Suffolk Coast and Heaths National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).  A small bite comes out of reed beds and marsh land, designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest.  The new reactors will lie right next to Minsmere, a popular RSPB reserve where the drain-pipe boom of the bittern can be heard. Building Sizewell C will blight tourism for two decades, though it will boost other aspects of the local economy.  But before dismissing protest as Nimbyism, it is as well to evaluate what lies in the backyard………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.thearticle.com/sizewell-c-too-destructive-too-costly-too-late

April 16, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Stop Pretending Biden Is Some Passive Witness To Israel’s Warmongering

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, APR 15, 2024,  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/stop-pretending-biden-is-some-passive?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=143599351&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The more I think about it the more obnoxious I find the Biden administration’s “Gee whiz, I sure hope Israel doesn’t drag us into a giant war in the middle east” posturing and the imperial media’s facilitation of it.

CNN has a new article out titled “As Iran attacks Israel, Biden confronts an escalating Middle East crisis he had hoped to avoid,” which is a genre of story that has been coming out in slightly different iterations again and again for the past six months. Every time Israel does something that makes things more dangerous in the middle east with the assistance of the United States, the American press fall all over themselves to inform the world that the president really doesn’t want this to happen and that his feelings are very upset about it.

“For President Joe Biden, an attack on Israel launched from Iranian soil amounts to a scenario he’d greatly sought to avoid since the start of the current Middle East conflict,” writes CNN, saying the strikes “heighten the risk of a wider regional conflict that could directly draw in the United States, along with other countries.”

“Israel will respond to Iran’s attack, but the scope of that response has yet to be determined,” CNN reports, citing an anonymous Israeli official.

And it’s just such an obscene insult to our intelligence to suggest that the Biden administration is some kind of passive witness to all this, sitting around wringing its hands hoping Israel doesn’t do something so horrible that the United States will have no choice but to leap into World War Three in defense of its dear ally. It’s insulting in that it asks us to believe the US would have no choice but to enter into a war of unimaginable horror if Israel acts belligerently enough, and it’s insulting in that it asks us to ignore the fact that Biden could have ended this insane cycle of escalation with one phone call to Israel at any time over the last six months.

Being asked to accept that the Biden administration is just standing there hoping Israel doesn’t ignite the worst war in middle eastern history is like seeing a dog owner letting their rottweiler run around biting people all over the neighborhood and saying “Yeah he just does what he likes, I just hope he doesn’t kill anybody.”

It’s like, no. Stop that. You’re not just crossing your fingers and hoping Israel doesn’t do something monstrous, you’re letting them do whatever they want because that’s what you’re choosing to do. Israel’s entire existence is as dependent on US support as a scuba diver is on their oxygen tank, and as such the White House has essentially limitless leverage it can use to make Israel do as it pleases — and it has done so in the past. Hell it’s done so during this very Gaza assault, successfully commanding Israel to stop cutting off Gazan telecommunications and to start letting more aid trucks in to the enclave.

If Biden truly didn’t want Israel to be turning the middle east into a hurricane of death and fire, he would stop it. He would put the damn dog on a leash.

The western press have a well-established track record of consistently framing US wars as these traps that Washington just clumsily stumbles its way into, like there’s some giant Macaulay Culkin-like deity sneaking around laying tripwires to force the Pentagon to regime change Libya or whatever. After a certain number of wars you have to figure that a regime is starting a bunch of wars because it’s just a warmongering regime, though — and the US has been involved in a whole, whole lot of wars. Nobody’s that clumsy or that unlucky; it’s like believing your husband when he tells you he keeps slipping and falling with his man parts inside the lady parts of various coworkers.

The most powerful empire that has ever existed is not just passively sitting there praying that big bad Israel doesn’t force it to go to war with Iran. That is not happening. All the violence and chaos that’s happening in the middle east right now is happening because the US empire wants it to happen, and because the people who steer that empire are psychopathic ghouls. And don’t let the crooked manipulators of the western mass media tell you otherwise.

April 16, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Sizewell C Fiasco Part 4. Much more expensive than renewables- Unknown cost or period for Investors

Sizewell C Fiasco Part 4 Much more expensive than renewables- Unknown cost or period for Investors

Sizewell C was given the go ahead against the advice of the Planning
Inspectorate by politicians who have since mainly been discredited. They do
not have the finance in place yet – a staggering £30 billion plus?

Yet the Government have been chucking hard pressed taxpayers’ money at the project
and Sizewell C Project have started massive pre-construction works. If they
can cause this much Eco/ Landscape devastation even now, what will they do
if they get the go ahead on construction?

Sizewell C would be a disaster
for the Environment and the Landscape. Taxpayers and Investors will be
financing a bottomless pit. Locked in for decades to paying much more than
the cost of wind or solar energy. Even if finished on time – which is very
unlikely – it would be far too late for any energy crisis. Which would be
caused by the current bad or lack of – planning and management for energy
production and a hopeless so-called National Grid (run for shareholders not
UK Taxpayers).

If built Sizewell C would be too late to contribute to net
zero and its construction would produce vast amounts of carbon and other
pollution for well over a decade at least. Not to mention the much more
radioactive waste from this unproven EPR type of reactor which is too hot
to move until the next century – so has to be stored on site on an eroding
coastline! The whole thing is bonkers!
Stop Sizewell C 8th April 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ICw23iYY0

April 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Civil and military nuclear mutuality

‘The UK government is pursuing an uneconomic nuclear programme in large part so as to maintain & renew military nuclear capabilities’.

Rishi Sunak backs both civil and military nuclear: ‘Safeguarding the future of our nuclear deterrent and nuclear energy industry is a critical national endeavour’. French president Emmanuel Macron is even more upfront about it all: ‘Without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear.’ With the USA, China and Russia also evidently locked into similar paths, the global future doesn’t look too good. 

‘The UK government is pursuing an uneconomic nuclear programme in large part so as to maintain & renew military nuclear capabilities’.

backs both civil and military nuclear: ‘Safeguarding the future of our nuclear deterrent and nuclear energy industry is a critical national endeavour’. French president Emmanuel Macron is even more upfront about it all: ‘Without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear.’ With the USA, China and Russia also evidently locked into similar paths, the global future doesn’t look too good. 

Renew Extra Weekly, 13 Apr 24

Until recently, the UK government has always said that civil and military nuclear technologies were separate things, for example in response to claims that expansion of civil nuclear power capacity could lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons making capacity. But, as researchers at the University of Sussex have relentlessly catalogued, there seems to have been a change of view underway, culminating formally in March in a new policy document from No. 10 Downing Street. Entitled ‘Building the Nuclear Workforce of Tomorrow’ it claims that ‘domestic [civil] nuclear capability is vital to our national defence and energy security, underpinning our nuclear deterrent and securing cheaper, more reliable energy for UK consumers’.  So they are intertwined and mutually beneficial- we need both!

UK Prime Minister Sunak says that ‘in a more dangerous and contested world, the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is more vital than ever’ and that civil nuclear power is the ‘perfect antidote to the energy challenges facing Britain- it’s green, cheaper in the long term and will ensure the UK’s energy security for the long term’.

There are many issues raised by these claims. Leaving aside all the major moral and political issues associated with nuclear weapons, it is not at all clear that new nuclear reactors will be as costs effective as renewables. Indeed, the cost of renewables has fallen dramatically in recent years while the cost of nuclear projects has continued to escalate. It could be that, recognising this imbalance in cost, what we are now seeing is the government trying to provide a compensating justification for new civil nuclear- it will aid defence. Even if, arguably, it makes little economic sense as Business Green argued: ‘The UK government is pursuing an uneconomic nuclear programme in large part so as to maintain & renew military nuclear capabilities’.

Basically, as the Sussex University researchers have argued, it does seem that the government is just responding to military pressures. More specifically though, it’s a matter of rapidly expanding skill requirements- and shortages. Matthew Lay, Head of EDF Nuclear Skills Alliance, says that ‘the UK Government’s commitment to nuclear power must be seen in the context of a steady increase of nuclear capacity worldwide as well as growth in defence expenditure,’ and especially the growth in the ‘defence industry’s demand for nuclear skills, to deliver established and new nuclear submarine programmes’. So it’s about expanding nuclear skills for building nuclear sub power plants and civil reactors, including possibly Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which have some similarities. Presumably also about making fuels for them both too. 

Some may be happy about civil-military skill sharing, but it’s a long way from the old rhetoric about ‘atoms for peace’. In 1953 President Eisenhower called for nuclear bomb technology to be turned to peaceful ends around the world, with US help e.g. in transferring  nuclear plant technology to developing countries. That had floundered due, in part, to the high cost of nuclear plants. According to a review by Drogan, a State Department Intelligence Report, circulated in January 1954, ‘Economic Implications of Nuclear Power in Foreign Countries’, noted that ‘nuclear power plants may cost twice as much to operate and as much as 50 percent more to build and equip than conventional thermal plants’. So it warned that the introduction of nuclear power would ‘not usher in a new era of plenty and rapid economic development as is commonly believed’. You could say that we are still waiting! 

There were also potential conflicts between the ‘atoms for peace’ idea and proliferation issues. Indeed that is now even more of a problem, with some newly developing countries, following the UAE’s lead, looking to have nuclear plants, which, in theory, could give them the ability to make bombs. And (the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty apart!) why not, if nuclear weapons states like the UK are seen as no longer maintaining a clear separation between civil and military nuclear technology? Except of course the high cost of civil nuclear may make renewables a much better deal- especially solar, of which many countries (in the Middle East and Africa for example) have plenty. ……………………………………………………………………………..

Clearly UK Prime Minister Sunak doesn’t see it this way- he backs both civil and military nuclear: ‘Safeguarding the future of our nuclear deterrent and nuclear energy industry is a critical national endeavour’. French president Emmanuel Macron is even more upfront about it all: ‘Without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear.’ With the USA, China and Russia also evidently locked into similar paths, the global future doesn’t look too good. 

Do we really have to continue with all this? In 1995, Sir Michael Atiyah, then retiring as President of the Royal Society, said ‘I believe history will show that insistence on a UK nuclear capability [weapons and energy] was fundamentally misguided, a total waste of resources and a significant factor in our relative economic decline over the past 50 years’. He may have been right.  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/04/civil-and-military-nuclear-mutuality.html

April 15, 2024 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Not enough war on the ground, the US is taking it to space

The military industrial complex is suiting up for a new arms race, far beyond the stratosphere

STAVROULA PABST, APR 05, 2024,  https://responsiblestatecraft.org/u-s-space-race/

Elon Musk’s space company SpaceX recently secured a classified contract to build an extensive network of “spy satellites” for an undisclosed U.S. intelligence agency, with one source telling Reuters that “no one can hide” under the prospective network’s reach.

While the deal suggests the space company, which currently operates over half the active satellites orbiting Earth, has warmed to U.S. national security agencies, it’s not the first Washington investment in conflict-forward space machinery. Rather, the U.S. is funding or otherwise supporting a range of defense contractors and startups working to create a new generation of space-bound weapons, surveillance systems, and adjacent technologies.

In other words, America is hell-bent on a new arms race — in space.

Space arms, then and now

Attempts to regulate weapons’ presence and use in space span decades. Responding to an intense, Cold War-era arms race between the U.S. and Soviet Union, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty established that space, while free for all countries to explore and use, was limited to peaceful endeavors. Almost 60 years later, the Outer Space Treaty’s vague language regarding military limitations in space, as space policy experts Michelle L.D. Hanlon and Greg Autry highlight, “leave more than enough room for interpretation to result in conflict.”

Stonewalling subsequent international efforts to limit the militarization of space (though the U.S. is participating in a new U.N. working group on the subject), Washington’s interest in space exploration and adjacent weapons technologies also goes back decades. Many may recall President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which was established to develop land-, air-, and space-based missile defense systems to deter missile or nuclear weapons attacks against the U.S. Cynically referred to by critics as the “Star Wars” program, many SDI initiatives were ultimately canned due to prohibitive costs and technological limitations.

And while the Pentagon established Space Command in 1985, the Space Force, an entirely new branch of the military “focused solely on pursuing superiority in the space domain,” was launched in 2019, signaling renewed emphasis on space militarization as U.S. policy.

Weapons contractors cash in 

Long-term American interest in space war tech now manifests in ambitious projects, where defense companies and startups are lining up for military contracts to create a new generation of space weaponry and adjacent tech, including space vehicles, hypersonic rockets, and extensive surveillance and communications projects.

For starters, Space Force’s Space Development Agency recently granted defense contractors L3Harris and Lockheed Martin and space company Sierra Space contracts worth $2.5 billion to build satellites for the U.S. military’s Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA), a constellation of hundreds of satellites, built out on tranches, that provide various warfighting capabilities, including the collection and transmission of critical wartime communications, into low-Earth orbit.

The PWSA will serve as the backbone of the Pentagon’s Joint All-Domain Command and Control project, an effort to bolster warfighting capacities and decision-making processes by facilitating “information advantage at the speed of relevance.”

Other efforts are just as sci-fi-esque. Zoning in on hypersonic weapons systems and parts, for example, RTX (formerly Raytheon) and Northrop Grumman have collaborated to secure a DARPA contract for a Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapons Concept, where scramjet-powered missiles can travel at hypersonic speeds (Mach 5 or faster) for offensive purposes.

And Aerospace startup True Anomaly, which was founded by military officers and has received funding from the U.S. Space Force to the tune of over $17 million, is developing space weapons and adjacent conflict-forward tools. An example is True Anomaly’s Jackal Autonomous Orbital Vehicle, an imaging satellite able to take on, according to True Anomaly CEO Even Rogers, “rendezvous and proximity operations missions” with “uncooperative” targets.

As True Anomaly finds fiscal success, accruing over $100 million in a December 2023 series B fundraising round from venture capitalists including Eclipse Ventures and ACME Capital, other aerospace start-ups are flooding the market with the assistance of the U.S. government, both in funding and other critical partnerships.

Take how Firehawk Aerospace — which wants to “create the rocket system of the future” to “enab[le] the next generation of aerospace and defense systems” — partnered with NASA in 2021 to test rocket engines at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. It recently secured Army Applications Laboratory and U.S. Air Force Small Business Innovation Research Awards to advance developments in its rocket motors and engines.

And data and satellite-focused American space tech company Capella Space, a contractor for federal agencies including the Air and Space Forces, specializes in reconnaissance and powerful surveillance tools, including geospatial intelligence and Synthetic Aperture Radar monitoring that help national security officials identify myriad security risks. In early 2023, Capella Space even formed a subsidiary, Capella Federal, to provide federal clients with additional access to Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery services.

We need diplomacy, not space superiority

The funding of expensive, futuristic space surveillance and weapons projects indicates the U.S.’s eagerness to maintain superiority, where military personnel posit such advancements are critical within the context of both a “space race” and an increasingly tumultuous geopolitical climate, if not the possibility of war in space outright.

As Space Force General Chance Saltzman declared at the recent Mitchell Institute Spacepower Security Forum: “if we do not have space, we lose.” Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in late February, U.S. Space Force General Stephen N. Whiting explained that the U.S. Space Command must bolster its military capacities through increased personnel training and investments in relevant technologies so that the U.S. is “ready if deterrence fails.”

While upping its own military capacities, however, Washington is simultaneously pushing against other countries’ anti-satellite weapons testing, a capability the U.S. already has.

In any case, such pointing fingers, when coupled with ongoing space deterrence and weapons proliferation efforts, does little to advance genuine diplomacy, where states could instead discuss, on equal terms, how space should be used and shared amongst nations.

Ultimately, weapons and aerospace companies’ efforts have launched a new generation of weaponry and adjacent tech — buoyed by consistent support from a “deterrence”-focused U.S. As a result, the military industrial complex has further expanded into the domain of space, where defense companies have new opportunities to score lucrative weapons contracts and theoretically even push for more conflict.

April 15, 2024 Posted by | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

  Will Biden’s zero sum game approach to foreign conflict bumble US into regional/nuclear war in Europe and Middle East?

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 14 Apr 24,  https://heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com/

President Biden continues on his astonishing and disheartening path to regional/nuclear war in both Europe and the Middle East.

In Europe, he plows ahead with his foolish demand to squandering another $61 billion in weapons for the lost cause in Ukraine. Any weapons manufactured will not reach Ukraine before their impending collapse, turning Ukraine into a rump state of abject poverty requiring endless US/NATO assistance.

Biden views the Russo Ukraine war as a zero sum game: US must win, Russia must lose. That requires endless US efforts to reclaim all Russian held Ukraine territory and bring Ukraine into NATO. Biden’s approach? Assisting Ukraine attacks on Russian territory.

Ukraine President Zelensky’s only hope is to widen the war to obtain direct US intervention. He almost provoked that 2 years ago when he claimed an errant Ukraine missile that killed 2 Poles in neighboring NATO Poland, was a Russian strike requiring immediate NATO response. Every day this 26 month long war continues represents another chance for US belligerence to make that happen. But Biden pushes on to possible all out war with his refusal to pivot from military provocation to diplomacy. That would require Biden dropping his zero sum game. Not likely.

The Middle East is more precarious still. The US has been Israel’s go to weapons and diplomatic supporter in their grotesque genocidal ethnic cleansing of 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza. That has turned both Israel and America in pariah states worldwide.

Besides the genocide, the possibility of all out regional war between Israel and its Arab neighbors looms daily. Biden remained silent when Israel launched its dastardly bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria, killing 7. But when Iran signaled its intent to reply militarily, Biden invoked his standard zero sum game view that Israel can do no wrong. Iran? They can do no right. That’s a recipe for all out war.

President Biden only learned one thing from his six decades of political leadership: America is 100% right in foreign affairs; our imagined enemies 100% wrong. History is filled with empires that disappeared from that zero sum game.

Will Biden’s America be next?

April 15, 2024 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Longer it Takes the West to Accept that Ukraine is Losing, the Worse Things Will Get for Ukraine

Our leaders keep warning us that Putin will roll his tanks into the Baltic States and maybe even Poland should the Russians be successful in beating the Ukrainians. France’s President Macron is even telling us that we may have to send NATO troops to fight in Ukraine. Everyone seems to automatically assume that Putin’s ambition is still to conquer all of Ukraine and incorporate it in the Russian Federation. This is despite the fact that he said that it was to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to safeguard the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine from Ukrainian nationalist militias.

Well, we do seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle in Ukraine. How we get out of it is not immediately obvious.

Like many wars, this one seems to have started due to catastrophic blunders by the ruling elites on both sides. To simplify a rather complex situation, I believe that there were two massive blunders.

The West’s blunder – for several years Putin has warned NATO “not one inch further” – that he would not accept further NATO expansion eastwards and would not allow countries like Ukraine and Georgia, both with long borders with Russia, to join NATO. In 2008, Putin even attended a NATO summit during which he gave a speech warning NATO that Russia would not accept Ukraine’s and Georgia’s admission to NATO. To me that seems reasonable. After all, the U.S. would hardly accept Russia doing a deal with, say, Mexico which would allow Russia to establish bases close to the U.S.-Mexico border (although it’s also understandable that Ukraine and Georgia wanted to join NATO, given Putin’s sabre-rattling). And, of course, there was the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the USA was not too pleased about Russian missiles being situated close to the American mainland. Probably due to stupidity, hubris or a belief that Putin was bluffing, NATO delivered a diplomatic note to the Kremlin reiterating NATO’s view that countries like Ukraine and Georgia could join the Alliance if they wished. The result – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Putin’s blunder – Putin seems to have believed that it would only take a couple of weeks for the Russian army to get to Kiev, overthrow and murder the Zelensky Government and install a Russian-friendly regime. He got that one wrong and several hundred thousand Russians have been wounded or killed as a result. Moreover, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted Sweden and Finland to join NATO – another consequence Putin seems to have failed to foresee.

The war seemed to have started well for Ukraine. The Ukrainian army surprised the Russians and the world by fighting off the initial Russian invasion. Then the success of the summer 2022 Ukrainian offensive appeared to suggest that Ukraine might even be able to push the Russians out of Eastern Ukraine, retake Crimea and, by humiliating Putin, maybe even cause a coup in Russia which could overthrow Putin and his mafia cronies.

But after the 2022 Ukraine summer offensive, the Russians built formidable defensive lines protected by miles of minefields, dragon’s teeth and trench systems. So, when the 2023 Ukrainian combined operations offensive was launched, the Ukrainians were caught in a death trap and suffered huge losses of personnel and equipment while making little progress

We are now in a third phase of the war – the war of attrition – in which Russia is gaining the upper hand. Russia can massively out-produce Ukraine (and the quivering West) in terms of munitions, tanks, planes, missiles, artillery systems, drones and numbers of soldiers. Moreover, Russia has also received military material from North Korea, Iran, Syria and probably China. Meanwhile, Ukraine is running out of ammunition and troops. Some sources have suggested that the average age of Ukrainian forces is a worrying 43. And Ukraine doesn’t have time to mobilise, equip and train the numbers necessary to stem the Russian advance. In a war of attrition, the side with the greatest resources usually wins by grinding down its opponent. And that’s what we’re seeing now with small but continual Russian advances and Ukrainian retreats.

Our leaders keep warning us that Putin will roll his tanks into the Baltic States and maybe even Poland should the Russians be successful in beating the Ukrainians. France’s President Macron is even telling us that we may have to send NATO troops to fight in Ukraine. Everyone seems to automatically assume that Putin’s ambition is still to conquer all of Ukraine and incorporate it in the Russian Federation. This is despite the fact that he said that it was to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to safeguard the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine from Ukrainian nationalist militias.

By the end of the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, Putin’s forces could have walked into the Georgian capital Tbilisi. Instead, they withdrew and merely stayed on to guard the Russian-speaking enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia – the equivalent of the similar enclaves in Ukraine.

Putin has the habit of doing exactly what he says he’s going to do. This is a concept which contemporary Western politicians find so alien to their natures, of course, that they’re totally unable to grasp it (although their distrust of Putin is understandable).

Moreover, if we look at military budgets, you might wonder who is actually threatening whom. The USA’s military budget is around $877 billion. The total NATO military budget in 2023 (including the USA) a cool $1.3 trillion. The Russian Federation military budget prior to the Ukraine invasion? Just $86 billion a year.

Our rulers have repeatedly told us that we must “do whatever it takes” to stop Putin and that the West will support Ukraine for “however long is necessary”. But it seems to be becoming clear to everyone except our rulers that Ukraine is losing and can now never win if winning means expelling all Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.

The best Ukraine can now hope for is an untidy truce which involves a loss of the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine – at least 20% of Ukrainian territory. Though the longer this war goes on, the more territory Ukraine will lose.

So, what will our rulers choose – humiliation or annihilation?

Will our rulers accept total humiliation by pushing Ukraine to do a deal with Russia in which Ukraine will have to hand over at least 20% of its land area to the Russian Federation and agree that what little is left of Ukraine will be a neutral country and never join NATO? And how will our rulers explain this defeat to us, their electorates? Moreover, what will the West’s defeat do to the global balance of power? It will, of course, embolden those in the anti-Western bloc – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – who wish to do us harm. Moreover, it will convince many non-aligned countries that their future lies in alliances with the resurgent and increasingly powerful autocratic anti-Western bloc rather than with the declining, defeated, war-weary, supposedly democratic West.

Or will our rulers decide to try and save face and their own careers by ‘upping the ante’ – getting us more involved in helping Ukraine? Thanks to the incompetence of the head of the German air force, whose unsecured phone conference was recorded by Russian spies, we now know that British troops are apparently in Ukraine already, possibly helping with the loading and targeting of Storm Shadow missiles. It’s a pity our politicians ‘forgot’ to tell us that British troops are actually operating in Ukraine. Moreover, the New York Times recently revealed that the CIA has between 12 and 14 bases in Ukraine where it trains Ukrainian soldiers. If our rulers do get Western troops directly involved in killing Russians, as France’s President Macron has repeatedly proposed, we would risk the possibility of a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

I’m no military strategist. But it seems obvious to me that our rulers have blundered into a situation without any plan for how to extricate us in the event of things not turning out as they planned, thus forgetting the most basic rule of war – that no plan survives contact with the enemy. Or, as boxer Mike Tyson explained, “Everybody has a plan till they get punched in the face.”

It will be interesting to see whether our rulers choose humiliation by accepting Ukraine’s and, by extension, NATO’s defeat, or instead go for escalation which could lead to nuclear annihilation.

April 15, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ballooning costs and secret projects at Canada’s federal nuclear labs

by Ole Hendrickson, March 5, 2024, https://rabble.ca/columnists/ballooning-costs-and-secret-projects-at-canadas-federal-nuclear-labs/—

What does Canada get from its nuclear power corporation for its $1.54 billion budget?

Canada’s national nuclear power corporation – Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) – has no functioning nuclear reactors, unlike similar state-owned bodies in China, Russia, France, Korea, and the United Arab Emirates, and despite a $1.54 billion annual budget.

AECL’s three “prototype” CANDU reactors haven’t produced electricity for 37 years. Its three main research reactors are also shut down. Yet they must be maintained to protect nearby water bodies.

Section 9 of Canada’s 2023 Public Accounts indicates that AECL’s liability will require ongoing public expenditures for the next 162 years. It records “decommissioning of nuclear facilities” as a $9.3 billion “asset retirement obligation.”

In 2011, the Harper government sold AECL’s flagship CANDU division to SNC-Lavalin for a piddling $15 million. Then, in 2015 it contracted a multinational consortium to reduce AECL’s nuclear liabilities more quickly.

Under a “Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) model, the public retains ownership of AECL’s federal lands, including the shut-down reactors and other radioactive waste. AECL funnels ever-increasing amounts of tax dollars to the “Canadian National Energy Alliance,” currently made up of Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs, and SNC-Lavalin (now rebranded as “AtkinsRéalis”).

The 2023-24 Main Estimates give AECL $1,541,555,307, with $1,140,509,721 earmarked for “Nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management.” For comparison, the current Parliamentary appropriation for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is $1,287,169,435.

Despite billion-dollar annual cash outlays, AECL’s liabilities grew from $6.5 billion in 2015 to the current $9.3 billion figure.

AECL seems more interested in adding liabilities than reducing them. Its former Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) subsidiary – now owned by the consortium – is building new “Class 1” nuclear facilities at the Chalk River Laboratories, 150 km west of Ottawa. AECL boasts that these laboratories are “Canada’s largest science and technology complex.”

One Chalk River facility (the ANMRC) would enable research on “advanced” reactor fuels, including those made by extracting plutonium from high-level waste fuel rods. Another (the MCECE) would extract tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen that builds up in the heavy water of CANDU reactors.

Despite concerns about costs and liabilities, both facilities are proceeding without Parliamentary or regulatory oversight.  In 2018, Canada’s complacent nuclear “regulator”, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, issued a licence authorizing CNL to “prepare a site for, construct, operate, modify, decommission or abandon” any nuclear facility on the Chalk River site. This effectively bypasses the normal licensing processes and regulations that govern Class 1 facilities.

Production of plutonium, tritium, and “clean” heavy water raises serious national security concerns. All are used in making nuclear weapons. Fluor and Jacobs are heavily involved in the weapons industry. They were prominent sponsors of the recent 16th Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington DC – a “Global Warfare Summit.” As pillars of the military-industrial complex, they promote a new nuclear arms race. Canada has become an unwitting partner in this. Chalk River is an ideal location for training a new generation of weapons scientists, given its origins as a Cold War weapons plutonium production facility.

The only way for the public to find out and comment on what’s happening at Chalk River is through the Impact Assessment Act. AECL is a “federal authority” under sections 81 to 91 of the Act, it must determine that a project on federal lands “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.” But AECL lets CNL post uninformative project descriptions on the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry and make its own determinations after a perfunctory 30-day comment period.

In the case of the MCECE project, CNL began site preparation without an AECL determination. The billion-dollar ANMRC project, which started before the Impact Assessment Act came into force, was never even posted as a project, even though section 67 of the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 also required an AECL determination.

These questionable processes may be coming to an end. Section 84 of the Impact Assessment Act requires the federal authority to consider “any adverse impact that the project may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

Kebaowek First Nation recently held a joint press conference with the Bloc Quebecois to oppose a massive radioactive waste dump on unceded Algonquin territory at Chalk River. It is also intervening in the MCECE project, aided by a report from Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility that concludes “there is no justification for the proposed facility.”

There has been far too much secrecy surrounding the goings on at AECL and Canada’s nuclear laboratories under the GoCo model. Parliament should scrutinize the $1.5 billion annual outlay to AECL, and determine who is benefiting – Canadians, or unregulated multinational corporations.

April 15, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

J.D. Vance – New York Times: The Math on Ukraine Doesn’t Add Up

The notion that we should prolong a bloody and gruesome war because it’s been good for American business is grotesque. 

Mr. Zelensky’s stated goal for the war — a return to 1991 boundaries — is fantastical.


J.D.Vance, The New York Times, Fri, 12 Apr 2024 , https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html

President Biden wants the world to believe that the biggest obstacle facing Ukraine is Republicans and our lack of commitment to the global community. This is wrong.

Ukraine’s challenge is not the G.O.P.; it’s math. Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide. This reality must inform any future Ukraine policy, from further congressional aid to the diplomatic course set by the president.

The Biden administration has applied increasing pressure on Republicans to pass a supplemental aid package of more than $60 billion to Ukraine. I voted against this package in the Senate and remain opposed to virtually any proposal for the United States to continue funding this war. Mr. Biden has failed to articulate even basic facts about what Ukraine needs and how this aid will change the reality on the ground.

The most fundamental question: How much does Ukraine need and how much can we actually provide? Mr. Biden suggests that a $60 billion supplemental means the difference between victory and defeat in a major war between Russia and Ukraine. That is also wrong. This $60 billion is a fraction of what it would take to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor. But this is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.

Consider our ability to produce 155-millimeter artillery shells. Last year, Ukraine’s defense minister estimated that the country’s base-line requirement for these shells was over four million per year but that it could fire up to seven million if that many were available. Since the start of the conflict, the United States has gone to great lengths to ramp up production of 155-millimeter shells. We’ve roughly doubled our capacity and can now produce 360,000 per year — less than a tenth of what Ukraine says it needs. The administration’s goal is to get this to 1.2 million — 30 percent of what’s needed — by the end of 2025. This would cost the American taxpayers dearly while yielding an unpleasantly familiar result: failure abroad.

Just this week, the top American military commander in Europe argued that absent further security assistance, Russia could soon have a 10-to-1 artillery advantage over Ukraine. What didn’t gather as many headlines is that Russia’s current advantage is at least 5 to 1, even after all the money we have poured into the conflict. Neither of these ratios plausibly leads to Ukrainian victory.

Proponents of American aid to Ukraine have argued that our approach has been a boon to our own economy, creating jobs here in the factories that manufacture weapons. But our national security interests can be — and often are — separate from our economic interests.The notion that we should prolong a bloody and gruesome war because it’s been good for American business is grotesque. We can and should rebuild our industrial base without shipping its products to a foreign conflict.

The story is the same when we look at other munitions. Take the Patriot missile system — our premier air defense weapon. It’s of such importance in this war that Ukraine’s foreign minister has specifically demanded them. That’s because in March alone, Russia reportedly launched over 3,000 guided aerial bombs, 600 drones and 400 missiles at Ukraine. To fend off these attacks, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and others have indicated they need thousands of Patriot interceptors per year. The problem is this: The United States only manufactures 550 every year. If we pass the supplemental aid package currently being considered in Congress, we could potentially increase annual production to 650, but that’s still less than a third of what Ukraine requires.

These weapons are not only needed by Ukraine. If China were to set its sights on Taiwan, the Patriot missile system would be critical to its defense. In fact, the United States has promised to send Taiwan nearly $900 million worth of Patriot missiles, but delivery of those weapons and other essential resources has been severely delayed, partly because of shortages caused by the war in Ukraine.

If that sounds bad, Ukraine’s manpower situation is even worse. Here are the basics:Russia has nearly four times the population of Ukraine. Ukraine needs upward of half a million new recruits, but hundreds of thousands of fighting-age men have already fled the country. The average Ukrainian soldier is roughly 43 years old, and many soldiers have already served two years at the front with few, if any, opportunities to stop fighting. After two years of conflict, there are some villages with almost no men left. The Ukrainian military has resorted to coercing men into service, and women have staged protests to demand the return of their husbands and fathers after long years of service at the front. This newspaper reported one instance in which the Ukrainian military attempted to conscript a man with a diagnosed mental disability.

Many in Washington seem to think that hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians have gone to war with a song in their heart and are happy to label any thought to the contrary Russian propaganda. But major newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic are reporting that the situation on the ground in Ukraine is grim.

These basic mathematical realities were true, but contestable, at the outset of the war. They were obvious and incontestable a year ago, when American leadership worked closely with Mr. Zelensky to undertake a disastrous counteroffensive. The bad news is that accepting brute reality would have been most useful last spring, before the Ukrainians launched that extremely costly and unsuccessful military campaign. The good news is that even now, a defensive strategy can work. Digging in with old-fashioned ditches, cement and land mines are what enabled Russia to weather Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. Our allies in Europe could better support such a strategy, as well. While some European countries have provided considerable resources, the burden of military support has thus far fallen heaviest on the United States.

By committing to a defensive strategy, Ukraine can preserve its precious military manpower, stop the bleeding and provide time for negotiations to commence. But this would require both the American and Ukrainian leadership to accept that Mr. Zelensky’s stated goal for the war — a return to 1991 boundaries — is fantastical.

The White House has said time and again that it can’t negotiate with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. This is absurd. The Biden administration has no viable plan for the Ukrainians to win this war. The sooner Americans confront this truth, the sooner we can fix this mess and broker for peace.

April 15, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Scottish National Party support signing an international treaty banning nuclear weapons, post independence

THE SNP support signing an international treaty banning nuclear weapons
after independence – despite External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson
refusing to say as much, The Sunday National understands. The news comes
after Robertson repeatedly declined to commit an independent Scotland to
signing the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) at the
launch of a government white paper on Scotland’s place in the world in
March. The SNP have been clear that the UK’s nuclear weaponry, which is
based on the River Clyde, would have to leave the country after a Yes vote.
Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon had said in 2021 that an independent
Scotland “would be a keen signatory” to the TPNW.

The National 14th April 2024

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24250138.snp-back-signing-tpnw-nuclear-ban-treaty-post-independence

April 15, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »